NBA Mid Season Grades

[0BobLobLaw0]

How the Bucks got higher than a D- I will never know.


[url]
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7797 ... &GT1=10937[/url]

You can link to the article but it is copyrighted, you can't post the whole thing here.

[WEFFPIM]

I don't see how there's improvement at all. Same record at this time last season, better team this season, healthier team this season.

[ClassicJack]

How do we have to many scorers when we suck at scoring? We have 2 legit scorers and a couple other guys who can score sometimes but you can't really rely on them. The rest of the team is boo boo.

[ReasonablySober]

I'd give this team a C-, but here's how you could justify a C+.

You didn't think this team was any good to begin with.

ESPN asked their 10 NBA experts to predict the Bucks record this season. Seven thought they'd take 4th in the Central. The other three thought they'd be last.

Their average conference rank among the 10 writers was 11.4. Right now they're 12th. So they're basically right in line with where the public thought they'd be. No better, no less.

This appears to be how the writer graded his teams. He also gave the league's 2nd worst team, the T-Wolves, a C+ grade. Is there anyone who didn't think they were going to be so bad? They've got a few nice players, nobody is looking like a real disappointment, they're doing what's expected. Give them a C or a C+ if you see some improvement in the young kids.

If I'm a writer and I thought the Bucks were a last place team back in October, probably due to a lack of talent and inexperienced head coaching, I can't really give them an F for doing what's expected. But I could bump them just a bit for Yi turning out to be a semi-decent contributor, Mo Williams turning into an excellent scorer, and Bogut for showing his All-Star potential for a month.

[0BobLobLaw0]

I'd give this team a C-, but here's how you could justify a C+.

You didn't think this team was any good to begin with.

ESPN asked their 10 NBA experts to predict the Bucks record this season. Seven thought they'd take 4th in the Central. The other three thought they'd be last.

Their average conference rank among the 10 writers was 11.4. Right now they're 12th. So they're basically right in line with where the public thought they'd be. No better, no less.

This appears to be how the writer graded his teams. He also gave the league's 2nd worst team, the T-Wolves, a C+ grade. Is there anyone who didn't think they were going to be so bad? They've got a few nice players, nobody is looking like a real disappointment, they're doing what's expected. Give them a C or a C+ if you see some improvement in the young kids.

If I'm a writer and I thought the Bucks were a last place team back in October, probably due to a lack of talent and inexperienced head coaching, I can't really give them an F for doing what's expected. But I could bump them just a bit for Yi turning out to be a semi-decent contributor, Mo Williams turning into an excellent scorer, and Bogut for showing his All-Star potential for a month.

I can see your point, but if a teacher knows a kid is dumb, and that kid hands in a math test answering 4+4=Animal Crackers. They will still get a bad grade, even if much wasnt expected from him/her.

[ReasonablySober]

-= original quote snipped =-




I can see your point, but if a teacher knows a kid is dumb, and that kid hands in a math test answering 4+4=Animal Crackers. They will still get a bad grade, even if much wasnt expected from him/her.

That's different. A teacher isn't grading his or her kids with expectations in mind, like this writer is doing.

For example, nobody is going to bat an eye with the Blazers getting an A+, even though right now they're currently 10th in the West. It's all about how they're doing based upon what people thought they would be prior to the season.

[InsideOut]

I realize not many thought the Bucks would be a great team. However, they have the same record as last season yet this season they are healthy and last season they were just killed by injuries. I just can't see giving a team a C+ when their play is the same but they no longer have the injuries. My logic tells me they can't get higher than a C-.

[Kablooie]

How do we have to many scorers when we suck at scoring? We have 2 legit scorers and a couple other guys who can score sometimes but you can't really rely on them. The rest of the team is boo boo.

That's exactly what I've been wondering. Someone please tell me who our amazing front court scorers are. I think there wouldn't be so much worry about our back court hogging shots if the front court could be relied on to score on a consistent basis.

[Epicurus]

My God, it is so easy to be a national sports writer. Just through out some stuff, almost at random, and know that most will not be able to refute it.

What improvement? 29th last season in defensive efficiency; 29th at the Allstar break this season in offensive efficiency. 14th last season in offensive efficiency; right now 20th in offensive efficiency. Same record at same point of time. And as others have said, no where near the same level of health problems, with starters and top benchers being on court more. If this is improvement, I wonder what the guy calls sameness or regression. F- for article as related to the Bucks.

[trwi7]

C+? Is this guy high? I believe the letter "F" isn't used quite enough when it comes to the Bucks.

[ClassicJack]

C+? Is this guy high? I believe the letter "F" isn't used quite enough when it comes to the Bucks.

I use the letter F plenty when it comes to the Bucks. It's usually followed by a U, a C and a K. But that's just me.