Please critique my commentary

[jazzfan1971]

#3 - Indiana Pacers

PG - George Hill, CJ Watson
SG - Danny Granger, Lance Stephenson
SF - Paul George, Solomon Hill
PF - David West, Luis Scola
C - Roy Hibbert, Ian Mahinmi
D - Chris Copeland, Orlando Johnson, ?

PG - X, CJ Watson
SG - Danny Granger, Lance Stephenson
SF - Paul George, Lance Stephenson
PF - X, Luis Scola
C - Roy Hibbert, X

What is that you ask? That's the positions in the depth chart that I see trending upwards over last year. That's 7 of 10 slots I see trending upwards. Backup PG is improved with Watson replacing DJ augustin. Starting SG is improved with Danny Granger replacing Lance Stephenson. Backup 2 and 3 is improved by replacing Gerald Green and Solomon Hill with Lance Stephenson (I see Granger, George, and Stephenson taking about all the minutes at the 2 and 3). I expect Paul George to come back a better player this season. Backup PF is better with Luis Scola replacing Psycho T. And lastly I expect Roy Hibbert to be a little better as well.

All those improvements to a team that was 49-33 last year. But, not only did they win 49 games, but, they forced the Heat to 7 games in the Eastern conference finals. This was a very good team that got better in a multitude of ways.

Of all the ways they got better though, the only one that moves the needle much is the addition of Danny Granger. It's been a while since we've seen a healthy Danny Granger, and I think with so long off the radar folks have forgotten how good he was for the Pacers. He was their star. The face of their franchise. A guy that averaged close to 18-5-2-1-1 for his career. He's only 30 years old, so there is a decent chance he can come back and give you those kind of numbers this season. If he does, look out, the Pacers will be right there with the cream of the NBA. Even if he doesn't, the Pacers will still have a punchers chance at a title. It's going to be a fun season, a fun 2 seasons, for the Pacers this year.

Projected record: 59/23

[Wizop]

you need to swap Granger and George. Danny is not an SG and Paul can be either an SG or an SF. if they are on the floor together Paul will be the guard in name and on defense although the positions are interchangeable on offense.

the ? is Donald Sloan the 13th man and the third point guard.

I don't understand what you intend by the letter D.

[jazzfan1971]

D = Depth

[Jake0890]

Yeah, the one thing (as mentioned above) is that if Danny and Paul George are on the court at the same time, George is going to play SG.

It would really suck to get so close to the 60 win mark to fall one game short though.

[Solid]

We are quickly getting to the point that both of our extremely talanted small forwards look just wrong chasing two guard around screens.
Neither does it quite as well as the more suitably sized Lance.
Either of those...(read Danny Granger) would be much better utilized as the scoring wing on the 2nd unit.

[Durins Baynes]

I've been very tough on Pacers fans being overly optimistic... but I don't think even biggest Pacer fans out there with blue and yellow goggles on would have made a prediction as absurdly generous as you have done. The Pacers were the 8th best team last year, with the 9th best SRS, and the 8th best differential, despite playing in a grossly weaker conference (that has since gotten stronger). And you have then ahead of teams like the Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies and Spurs, who on every metric were better teams last year. That summarises what I think of your projections.

[Moooose]

Personally, I would like to see a continuity of last year's starting lineup with Stephenson at the 2 spot. I am expecting a better Lance Stephenson this season. Last year as they say, whenever he plays well, Indiana wins. He just needs to be consistent. He kinda fits what the Pacers wings are lacking - penetration and persistence.

Danny on the other hand, can come in from the bench to substitute either Paul George or Stephenson. If he comes in for Stephenson, Paul George slides to the 2 spot making the backcourt tall and long. I think we can use the same super sub situation here like West and Scola. That actually makes a better 2nd unit, having Granger and Scola in it. The shooting guard spot will most likely be filled up by Lance and Paul George, with Orlando Johnson getting more minutes than what he had last year and rookie Solomon Hill who can also play 3. I actually think Solomon Hill can overtake Orlando Johnson in the rotation as Solomon Hill is a better playmaker and defender than Johnson. He is also bigger and can play both wing positions.

Starters:
PG: George Hill
SG: Lance Stephenson
SF: Paul George
PF: David West
C: Roy Hibbert

Bench:
PG: CJ Watson / Donald Sloan
SG: Solomon Hill / Orlando Johnson
SF: Danny Granger / Solomon Hill / Chris Copeland
PF: Luis Scola / Chris Copeland / Danny Granger
C: Ian Mahinmi

We just need a 5th big man and I think the Pacers are all set.

[jazzfan1971]

I've been very tough on Pacers fans being overly optimistic... but I don't think even biggest Pacer fans out there with blue and yellow goggles on would have made a prediction as absurdly generous as you have done. The Pacers were the 8th best team last year, with the 9th best SRS, and the 8th best differential, despite playing in a grossly weaker conference (that has since gotten stronger). And you have then ahead of teams like the Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies and Spurs, who on every metric were better teams last year. That summarises what I think of your projections.

And they may be better teams again this year. Doesn't mean they'll win more games though.

And I call em like I see em. I really like the improvements Indy made this offseason. Thunder are dealing with the loss of Martin and a major injury to Westbrook. Clippers are paper thin at the 4/5. Grizzlies and Spurs are both just another year older.

Indy is rock solid. If Granger is healthy I see no reason they don't finish with the 3rd best record in the league.

[Durins Baynes]

The Thunder lose K-Mart, and add R.Jax who looked great in the playoffs as a back-up guard. Westbrook's injury isn't serious, it was just badly timed. And the Thunder were miles ahead of the Pacers last year, to the point it's not even close to compare them. The Clippers balanced their roster in he offseason more, and are a year more experienced. They were also miles better than the Pacers last year. The Grizz were better than the Pacers and if anything got better over the offseason, not worse. The Spurs won 58 games and posted an awesome SRS in a bad conference in spite of their 4 best players missing a combined 75 games. To say "Duncan is a year older" doesn't make much sense, since the two previous seasons (when Duncan wasn't playing as well as last year) the Spurs still won 60+ games, and their team is mostly young or not too old.

Granger's health on the other hand is a huge question mark. He basically missed the whole season, and looked terrible when he did play. It's not his first injury, and if his knees are gone he's going to struggle to play anywhere near as good. Scola is a guy who has been dumped by 2 successive teams. He's solid, but nothing above an average big off the bench. The quantum leap you propose Indy will undergo is really credibility stretching, especially in contrast to the other (better teams) who fall for no explicable reason (especially since you've got the Nets ranked as what, #2!? A team even older than the Spurs, and less proven with less chemistry).

[jazzfan1971]

No, I have the Nets predicted as winning hte most games in the regular season.

Tell you what, why don't you make your own rankings, post them in my thread, and when the regular season is over we can see who was closer.

Sound fair? (just remember to rank them by # of wins)

[Wizop]

The shooting guard spot will most likely be filled up by Lance and Paul George, with Orlando Johnson getting more minutes than what he had last year and rookie Solomon Hill who can also play 3.

Hill is a 3. he was mostly a 4 in college although he has trimmed down anticipating being a pro 3. that's what he played in summer league. I don't remember him getting any time at 2 in Orlando although he showed 3 point range. I think it would be fairer to say he is a 3 who might also be able to play some 2.

[Durins Baynes]

I'll do it here.

East:
Heat- 64 wins
Nets- 59 wins
Bulls- 54 wins
Pacers- 51 wins
Knicks- 50 wins
Hawks- 44 wins
Detroit- 42 wins
Wizards- 39 wins
----------
Cavs- 36 wins
Bucks- 31 wins
Bobcats- 29 wins
Magic- 28 wins
Raptors- 26 wins (tank job)
Celtics- 25 wins (they'll tank for better odds)
76ers- 15 wins

West:
Thunder- 63 wins
Spurs- 60 wins
LAC- 57 wins
Houston- 55 wins
Memphis- 54 wins
GSW- 48 wins
Mavs- 47 wins
Pelicans- 44 wins
------------
Wolves- 40 wins
Denver- 37 wins
Blazers- 35 wins
Lakers - 34 wins (some soft tanking as the season goes off the rails will probably help contribute to this)
Jazz- 27 wins
Kings- 24 wins
Suns- 20 wins

[jazzfan1971]

Nice. You need to shave 8 wins off there somewhere, but, nicely done.

[mikepacernation]

I'll do it here.

East:
Heat- 64 wins
Nets- 59 wins
Bulls- 54 wins
Pacers- 51 wins
Knicks- 50 wins
Hawks- 44 wins
Detroit- 42 wins
Wizards- 39 wins
----------
Cavs- 36 wins
Bucks- 31 wins
Bobcats- 29 wins
Magic- 28 wins
Raptors- 26 wins (tank job)
Celtics- 25 wins (they'll tank for better odds)
76ers- 15 wins

West:
Thunder- 63 wins
Spurs- 60 wins
LAC- 57 wins
Houston- 55 wins
Memphis- 54 wins
GSW- 48 wins
Mavs- 47 wins
Pelicans- 44 wins
------------
Wolves- 40 wins
Denver- 37 wins
Blazers- 35 wins
Lakers - 34 wins (some soft tanking as the season goes off the rails will probably help contribute to this)
Jazz- 27 wins
Kings- 24 wins
Suns- 20 wins

My opinion is I feel Detroit will win a little bit more then the hawks. And the cavs as a 36 win team if bynum isn't healthy then yea but I kinda think that if bynum is healthy they will win around like 42-44

[Moooose]

The shooting guard spot will most likely be filled up by Lance and Paul George, with Orlando Johnson getting more minutes than what he had last year and rookie Solomon Hill who can also play 3.

Hill is a 3. he was mostly a 4 in college although he has trimmed down anticipating being a pro 3. that's what he played in summer league. I don't remember him getting any time at 2 in Orlando although he showed 3 point range. I think it would be fairer to say he is a 3 who might also be able to play some 2.

Couldn't agree more. I envision him taking Gerald Green and/or Sam Young's role in the rotation.

[Wizop]

don't forget that Granger and Copeland will be experienced additions to the wing rotation from last year. Hill could easily have only Plumlee's role available this year ... my old position: left out. he looks ready to contribute though and if he can something unexpected might happen. he could certain push Copeland to the four but we don't really need a four now that we have Scola. we might play small ball with the second unit pushing Mahinmi to the bench, or we might listen to offers for Copeland feeling that the Scola deal made him unnecessary. we're just long a wing and short a developmental center but maybe that's just insurance for next year when Granger and Lance will be unrestricted free agents.

[Durins Baynes]

Nice. You need to shave 8 wins off there somewhere, but, nicely done.

That might be true mathematically, but at a glance this is what standings tend to look like. In contrast, you have no fewer than 8 teams between 35 and 43 wins, something that I don't think has ever happened or even been close to happening in the modern NBA. Last year there were 4 such teams, and when there are a lot of them, it is in years when the East is horrible and all of them are from that Conference (but made the playoffs), yet you've got 3 of them as teams who aren't even able to make the Eastern playoffs (on 39, 38 and 35 wins respectively), and a further 4 out West (Mavs 45, Lakers 43, Pelicans 42, Portland 41), just a totally unrealistic spread. And then look at your 50 win teams. You have 11 of them. 11! Something that also virtually never happens. Last year there were 7 of them. What all of this tells me is that you are doing the same thing those ESPN style projections do- hedging. In fear of being called wrong next season, the commentators fudge their numbers so the volatile teams aren't too far up or down, so the margin of error is less. That's what you're doing- providing a wholly unrealistic set of numbers, to minimise risk. That way if the Pelicans win 48 and make the playoffs you can say "I had them within 6 wins of that", and if they miss the playoffs you can say "yeh, I only put them 11th this year". It's a blatantly dishonest way of ranking teams.

It also undoubtedly fails on the math too, because you forget that teams within each Conference play each other twice as much... the wins don't just come from the same place. Which makes your breakdown even more ridiculous, because there are virtually no wins to be had in the West with so many teams 500 or over (12 of them, unheard of). Your projections just look off, not only because of bad rankings.

[jazzfan1971]

This is all true, I'll be revising my win predictions after I do my last team. I've got to trim about 60 wins.