Power Ranking

[Rccanes2311]

I can understand wanting us to win, but winning is the worst thing for this franchise. It's just going to be another decade of mediocrity. The goal was rise above that. We should've fielded a damn D-league squad and guaranteed a top 5 pick this year.

[OrlDave]

Just a quick bump. I have added the Monday releases for this week on the first page. We are ranked 21st to 23rd in the various rankings.

[Reverse_Angle]

Just a quick bump. I have added the Monday releases for this week on the first page. We are ranked 21st to 23rd in the various rankings.

it is a good idea to combine all such information in a single thread, though i feel the first post might get crowded after a while. maybe posting them both in the first page AND as a separate post --instead of just writing "bump for new info--" for every update would be helpful.

nevertheless, really good idea, keep up the good work.

[OrlDave]

Just a quick bump. I have added the Monday releases for this week on the first page. We are ranked 21st to 23rd in the various rankings.

it is a good idea to combine all such information in a single thread, though i feel the first post might get crowded after a while. maybe posting them both in the first page AND as a separate post --instead of just writing "bump for new info--" for every update would be helpful.

nevertheless, really good idea, keep up the good work.

Alright. Can do. I'm not planning on maintaining multiple weeks on the first page (as a note). Once all of this week's are in I plan to delete the previous week, otherwise it could become a very long first post. Your idea is good though, then the previous weeks get immortalized within the thread.

[magicmamma]

I'd like it better if you just put the new rankings at the end of the thread. It won't be hard to find and makes it easier for people to respond. You could make a note on the first post that said "New Ratings (date) (thread page)."

[drsd]

.... winning is the worst thing for this franchise.

These comments make my stomach turn. Bad teams stay bad for more than a decade. The new CBA will cause an intrinsic change on how to build a roster; none of us fans understand that fully. We must have heart in GM Hennigan's vision.

..

[KingRobb02]

.... winning is the worst thing for this franchise.

These comments make my stomach turn. Bad teams stay bad for more than a decade. The new CBA will cause an intrinsic change on how to build a roster; none of us fans understand that fully. We must have heart in GM Hennigan's vision.

..

Bad teams that continue to make bad decisions stay bad for a decade. Besides this isn't really true. Which team hasn't made the playoffs in the past 10 years? I would even say that most teams have been in the playoffs since 2006. The only one I can think of is the Wolves, and that's mostly because they handles the KG situation so poorly.

Not saying we should bottom out, just tired of people who think the bad teams are the same every year. The NBA's socialist system of rewarding teams for being horrible makes sure that the Lebrons and Kyries of the world end up in Cleveland. Teams like Charlotte flame out quickly because they trade Tyson Chandler for for Matt Carroll, Erick Dampier, Eduardo Najera. They trade Gerald Wallace for Dante Cunningham, Sean Marks, Joel Przybilla. This is why they are bad. Their draft picks aren't to blame.

[BadMofoPimp]

The odds are more in favor in bottom feeding teams staying at the bottom than becoming elite. We see Memphis and OKC, but also watched Charlotte, Wolves and Clippers blow for a decade before getting lucky. And, Memphis didn't just draft their players, but made effective trades and signings. So, the Draft isn't the sole reason teams become winners. Efficient roster management is. This Magic team has good youth plus a few extra draft picks then mad Free Agent money in two years.

Thus, the Magic could actually be a solid deep playoff team in 3-4 years without even being in the lottery.

[KingRobb02]

The odds are more in favor in bottom feeding teams staying at the bottom than becoming elite. We see Memphis and OKC, but also watched Charlotte, Wolves and Clippers blow for a decade before getting lucky. And, Memphis didn't just draft their players, but made effective trades and signings. So, the Draft isn't the sole reason teams become winners. Efficient roster management is. This Magic team has good youth plus a few extra draft picks then mad Free Agent money in two years.

Thus, the Magic could actually be a solid deep playoff team in 3-4 years without even being in the lottery.

The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.

You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.

[OrlDave]

(See my notes at the bottom, and a bonus crappy Bleacher Report Report Card)

Power Rankings for 12/3-12/10 (12/4-12/11)

Monday Releases:

ESPN: Stein (Magic Rank 21, previously 20)

http://espn.go.com/nba/powerrankings/_/year/2013/week/6

NBA.com: Schuhmann (Magic Rank 21, previous 23)

http://www.nba.com/powerrankings/?ls=iref:nbahpt6b

NBCsports/Probasketballtalk: Helin: (Magic Rank 22, Previous 25)

www.probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com

Bleacher Report: Strauss (Magic Rank 23, Previous 23)

www.bleacherreport.com

SBNation.com: Rosenthal (Magic Rank 21, Previous 23)

www.sbnation.com


Tuesday Releases:

Foxsports: Amico (Magic Rank 22, Previous 25)

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/powerRankings

Cbssports.com: Moore (Magic Rank 24, Previous Rank 23)

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/powerrankings

Sports.Yahoo.com: Spears (Magic Rank 22, Previous 22)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-power- ... 18152.html

Highest Weekly Rank in Bold, Lowest in Italics.

Notes: 1) After some suggestions I have decided to post these within the thread and just make an annotation on the first page. Many of these links are same link week to week and the previous ranking is just wiped, whereas a few have a new link for each week. In either case, you'll be able to at least see my Magic Rank number for each successive week.
2) Hollinger (the daily computer style ranking) is down again. Not sure what is up.
3) If you get a chance read the SBnation ranking and explain his comment. 0-0 with Jameer? Maybe he's making a joke I don't get.
4) CBS has us the lowest, but I think their comment is pretty funny.

As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

[KingRobb02]

Hollinger was down for a few while they shored up the 2012-13 NBA Playoff Odds.

Hollinger's NBA Playoff Odds are based on the Hollinger Power Rankings, designed by ESPN.com's John Hollinger.

The Hollinger Power Rankings are a measure of each team's performance in the season so far.

Based on those rankings, each day the computer plays out the remainder of the season 5,000 times to see the potential range of projected outcomes. The results reveal the most likely win-loss record for each team -- and what the odds are for each team to make the NBA playoffs, win the NBA title, win the lottery, and so on.

For more on how the system works and what it means, see Hollinger's explanation.

Hollinger's NBA Playoff Odds are updated automatically each night.

We are 21st in the Hollinger daily rankings after dismantling the mighty Suns.
Rating: 96.875 (We would lose to an average team on a neutral court by 3.1.5 points)
Record: 8-12
Margin: -3.40
SOS: .469

Rec (L10): 5-5
Mar (L10): -.80
SOS (L10): .472

Prev Rk: 20

Playoff Odds
Average Record: 36-46
Best Record: 54-28
Worst Record: 19-63

Make Playoffs: 32.6%
Win Division: 0.8%
Top Seed: 0.0%
Make NBA Finals: 0.5%
NBA Champion: 0.0%
Win Lottery: 2.1%

[KingRobb02]

As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

You're being a bit harsh on the bleacherreport review. Basically he is saying that our offense is not enjoyable because A. We shoot tons of long jumpers and miss most of them and B. Big Baby is leading our team in usage which leads directly to A. There is no denying that we have a bottom 3 offense. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to watch.

[OrlDave]

As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

You're being a bit harsh on the bleacherreport review. Basically he is saying that our offense is not enjoyable because A. We shoot tons of long jumpers and miss most of them and B. Big Baby is leading our team in usage which leads directly to A. There is no denying that we have a bottom 3 offense. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to watch.

I don't think I was harsh at all. He combines his "I don't like watching" with a D+. That to me says "they are horrible". Maybe that's my own inference, but it's out there and if he didn't mean it then he needs to be clearer.

[KingRobb02]

As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

You're being a bit harsh on the bleacherreport review. Basically he is saying that our offense is not enjoyable because A. We shoot tons of long jumpers and miss most of them and B. Big Baby is leading our team in usage which leads directly to A. There is no denying that we have a bottom 3 offense. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to watch.

I don't think I was harsh at all. He combines his "I don't like watching" with a D+. That to me says "they are horrible". Maybe that's my own inference, but it's out there and if he didn't mean it then he needs to be clearer.

Not saying you have to like what he says, but don't misquote him just because you don't like what he says. He gave the Celtics a D+ and the Lakers an F. The Lakers have a better record than us, and have been missing their top 2 PGs for most of the year while the Celtics have a winning record. If nothing else, this guys seems to have had different expectations than everyone else and he has been disappointed by our play. An accurate quote would be "If there was one team I could chose not to watch again this season, it would be the Orlando Magic. They are among the league leaders in mid-range jumpers taken per game despite the fact that they make just 36.9 percent of them." You can't use quotes and then say "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." That doesn't even make sense

[Malik Starks]

The odds are more in favor in bottom feeding teams staying at the bottom than becoming elite. We see Memphis and OKC, but also watched Charlotte, Wolves and Clippers blow for a decade before getting lucky. And, Memphis didn't just draft their players, but made effective trades and signings. So, the Draft isn't the sole reason teams become winners. Efficient roster management is. This Magic team has good youth plus a few extra draft picks then mad Free Agent money in two years.

Thus, the Magic could actually be a solid deep playoff team in 3-4 years without even being in the lottery.

The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.

You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.

The Clippers didn't suck for a decade, they sucked for two (or more depending how far you wanna go back) during the 80's and the 90's the Clippers posted some of the worst records in the history of the league. They had a brief respite when Larry Brown was head coach in the early 90's but when back to sucking after that.

[BadMofoPimp]

Make Playoffs: 32.6%

WOOT!!!! Those are better odds than playing Craps. Hell Yeah, going to the ship!!!

[KingRobb02]

The odds are more in favor in bottom feeding teams staying at the bottom than becoming elite. We see Memphis and OKC, but also watched Charlotte, Wolves and Clippers blow for a decade before getting lucky. And, Memphis didn't just draft their players, but made effective trades and signings. So, the Draft isn't the sole reason teams become winners. Efficient roster management is. This Magic team has good youth plus a few extra draft picks then mad Free Agent money in two years.

Thus, the Magic could actually be a solid deep playoff team in 3-4 years without even being in the lottery.

The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.

You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.

The Clippers didn't suck for a decade, they sucked for two (or more depending how far you wanna go back) during the 80's and the 90's the Clippers posted some of the worst records in the history of the league. They had a brief respite when Larry Brown was head coach in the early 90's but when back to sucking after that.

Since the lottery began, the longest the Clippers have gone without a playoff berth is 8 seasons. In that span there were another couple times when they won in the high 30s and were in playoff contention at the end. Yes they have had some horrible teams, but wouldn't that have to do with drafting Michael Olowakandi over Carter, Pierce, and Dirk? Or maybe it was taking Lamond Murray over Jalen Rose and Eddie Jones. How about Lorenzen Wright over Kobe, Nash, and Jermaine O'Neal? Teams rise and fall, but no team stays down for too long. Their owner being cheap (and allegedly racist) and letting talent walk away also has a lot to do with it.

[Malik Starks]

As to the Clippers poor draft picks, it is neither here nor there. It's very easy to cherry pick a teams draft choices a decade later. The consesus at the time were that they were solid picks or had a high ceiling. The point I think mofopimp (he can speak for himself) and I would agree with is that these draft picks devoid of any veteran leadership and a winning culture are not in a position to succeed and therefore winning as many games as REASONABLY possible is the better approach.

To your larger point regarding using draft picks as leverage, I think it's a fairly good point, and can be used in limited circumstances (which I believe the Magic are currently doing anyway). However the examples you site have a lot more to do with the those teams being in large markets than them having stockpiled young prospects.

Chris Paul wanted to go to a larger market and had a list of teams he was going to
go to (I don't recall the exact teams right now) but this was well established.

For Deron Williams, he didn't have a list of teams and hadn't specifically asked for trade, but it was understood that he had his eyes on a bigger market than Salt Lake. Brooklyn looked to acquire him because they knew their market was big enough to keep him.

Ditto for Dwight Howard..no need to rehash that.

And everyone knew that Carmello was going to New York one way or another, the only question was whether he would go in Free-Agency-and take a significant pay cut, or be traded and re-sign. Dolan got nervous and gave away the store to get him but the consensus was he would have signed with them anyway.

[OrlDave]

Not saying you have to like what he says, but don't misquote him just because you don't like what he says. He gave the Celtics a D+ and the Lakers an F. The Lakers have a better record than us, and have been missing their top 2 PGs for most of the year while the Celtics have a winning record. If nothing else, this guys seems to have had different expectations than everyone else and he has been disappointed by our play. An accurate quote would be "If there was one team I could chose not to watch again this season, it would be the Orlando Magic. They are among the league leaders in mid-range jumpers taken per game despite the fact that they make just 36.9 percent of them." You can't use quotes and then say "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." That doesn't even make sense

Of course he gave the Lakers an F. They deserve an F. They are a title contending team. So are the Celtics. I didn't misquote him, I said it was a paraphrase, not a quote (go back and look).The fact that he's given us a D+ when we are clearly outperforming expectations, yet when he gave teams like Detroit (B) and Charlotte (A-).. teams with worse records and similar expectations vastly better grades tells you something about what he thinks of our team.

[BadMofoPimp]

The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.

You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.

Eric Gordon drafted 8th position in draft.
Gallinari was 6th pick in draft.
Neither were even top 5 picks.

I am just saying that there is a huge chance being stuck as the Bobcats or Wolves or Clippers for a decade if you let your team wallow in a losing mentality. Heck, Harkless or Nicholson could explode in a year or two and help the Magic trade for the next Melo or Dwight. You never know. But, all I am saying is a good GM doesn't need to tank to win in the end. A team doesn't need a top 5 pick to generate success or a championship team.

The Pistons had only Tayshaun Prince drafted with the 23rd pick in the draft while Billups, Rip, Sheed and Ben were all traded for. I would rather have a solidly built team than pray for winning the lottery year after year after year . . . and end up with a greater possibility of the next Darko or Kwame than any superstar you can name. There are no guarantee's with tanking. But, a good GM can guarantee a solidly built team. Most fans want to watch teams that fight to win, not teams that tank to lose.