http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/sto...otals-standings-every-nba-team-2016-17-season WEST 1-Warriors 66 2-Spurs 54 3-Jazz 47 4- Clips 46 5-Rockets 45 6-OKC 45 7-Portland 44 8-Denver 40 9-Memphis 39 10-Sac 37 11-Minny 37 12-Nola 37 13-Dallas 34 14-Phoenix 29 15-Lakers 24 Discuss........
Sounds about wrong. I don't see Utah in the top 4. And I don't agree with the win projections. Opening night is against Utah I believe. Might set the tone for two of the up and comers n the conference and how their confidence measures out at.
Hey nobody said putting together really good highlight packages required actual BBIQ. Next time I see you I'm going to yell hey 23! 23!
Stats just don't incorporate the Lillard factor very well. These guys are predicting mediocrity. Dame's predicting a parade. Far be it from me to question Lillard's judgment.
47 wins will get you 3rd in the West? When has that EVER happened? I know advance analytics and formulas are all the rage, but this is getting out of hand. Also, fuck all this Utah Jazz hype. Again, you won't win games scoring less than 90 a night and they don't have a go-to scorer over the course of 82 games.
Not only do they not have a go to scorer, they also have the worst backcourt in the Jessie in terms of creating shots for others (Hill and Hood combine for 6.7 ast COMBINED per 36 minutes). Basically their whole entire offense is dependent upon Hayward for scoring and shot creation. Yet he isn't even an all star.
How in the fuck could ESPN even remotely think the Rockets, Jazz, and Thunder will be better than us? ESPECIALLY the Rockets Whatever RPM is.. IS BULLSHIT
The mistake is translating point differential into wins. A high point differential for an average record means you win a lot by 10+ and lose a lot of close games. They lose a lot of close games because they don't have a good go-to player to get them buckets down the stretch. Based on that, you can't use point differential to justify them having a good record.