Hollinger/Broussard Team Rankings: Bucks 13th

[Wise1]

i don't get why you and others are getting so bent out of shape by this ranking?

2009'10 NBA Standings.

Milwaukee Bucks 46-36

Chicago Bulls 41-41

Perfect. The only stat that matters along with the 3-1 head to head matchup when discussing the Bulls.

At this point, Bulls fans and Bucks skeptics along with all of their statistical analysis are just talking it but not living it. We have the trump card. If the Bulls are going to be better than the Bucks against the league or head to head, they'll have to prove it. Right now, the Bucks have proven to be better.

[Wise1]

It's not 2009/10 though, this is a completely new season coming up.

But yet and still, the burden of proof is on the Bulls. The Bucks have the same core pieces in place and in my opinion are still a better team than the Bulls despite thier changes.

In fact, the Cavaliers are still the division champs until someone takes the title from them. That's just the way it works in sports. There are no shortcuts. You have to play the games and prove your mettle.

[emunney]

So are you saying it's premature to project or predict that the Cavs will not win the Central?

Obviously none of these things are going to be known for sure until after they happen, but we can have opinions and we can wait. Demanding proof on future outcomes is just being impossible.

I agree, though, that we have no reason to be insecure in discussions about the Bulls or with Bulls fans. We were better last year and we both made changes. It's anybody's guess as to what happens in the next year.

[Wise1]

So are you saying it's premature to project or predict that the Cavs will not win the Central?

No. I think the Bucks will win the central division but I can't claim this as a matter of fact until the Bucks actually win it.

Obviously none of these things are going to be known for sure until after they happen, but we can have opinions and we can wait. Demanding proof on future outcomes is just being impossible.

I agree, though, that we have no reason to be insecure in discussions about the Bulls or with Bulls fans. We were better last year and we both made changes. It's anybody's guess as to what happens in the next year.

But you see, if some fan base or individual holds that the Bulls are better than the Bucks as a statement of fact, then it is not unreasonable to demand proof. I can actually prove that the Bucks are the better team to date by pulling last season's results.

Now everyone can obviously have an opinion regarding what will transpire next season. But if you tell me the Bulls are better than the Bucks right now as a statement of fact, I'll ask you to prove it and you wouldn't be able to. Debate over until such a point in time that you actually have some factual basis for your assertion.

[emunney]

You can't prove that the Bulls or Bucks are better than the other right now. You can only prove that the Bucks won more games last season, when both teams had different rosters. It's always unreasonable to demand proof when there's no possible source for it -- you can't draw blood from a stone, so why try? -- and that extends to your claim that the Bucks are better now, which you certainly can't prove, and which last year's record does not prove, just as it holds for the Bulls' fans assumptions that the Bulls are or will be better. Not to mention the nebulousness of the term 'better.'

Why assume that they're errant in statement of fact rather than assuming that they're stating an opinion? It's an opinion even if they call it a fact.

[Wise1]

You can't prove that the Bulls or Bucks are better than the other right now. You can only prove that the Bucks won more games last season.

I can indeed prove that the Bucks are better than the Bulls right now. The Bucks finished the season with a better record against the league and also beat the Bulls 3 games to one head to head. Not only did they Bucks win more games than the Bulls against the league, they also won 75% of the head to head matchups. So until proven otherwise, the Bucks own all factual data that supports one team being better than the other.

Are the Lakers not the champions because rosters have changed across the league?

[turbo2k]

Why the f does everyone keep talking about the Bulls? Seriously. And using last years performance as an indicator for how this year's standings will end up is in no way valid. Both teams had rather large roster turnover. And by your theory the Cavs will again be central division champs based on last years record. The Lakers are the champions, but that alone does not make them the best team in the league this year (although they probably are because they only got stronger), they will probably be the best team in the league because they still have the most well rounded roster talent (Miami may have the most total talent though)

[midranger]

This is an insane discussion.

Your 2011 Central Division Champions by 20 games, The Cleveland Cavaliers!

[emunney]

You can't prove that the Bulls or Bucks are better than the other right now. You can only prove that the Bucks won more games last season.

I can indeed prove that the Bucks are better than the Bulls right now. The Bucks finished the season with a better record against the league and also beat the Bulls 3 games to one head to head. Not only did they Bucks win more games than the Bulls against the league, they also won 75% of the head to head matchups. So until proven otherwise, the Bucks own all factual data that supports one team being better than the other.

Are the Lakers not the champions because rosters have changed across the league?

The past is not the present. Neither team is the same now as it was then. You're using obsolete data.

The Lakers won the championship in 09-10. It's 10-11 now. They are not the champions of the current season. The NBA is not a monarchy.

[Wise1]

Why the f does everyone keep talking about the Bulls? Seriously. And using last years performance as an indicator for how this year's standings will end up is in no way valid. Both teams had rather large roster turnover. And by your theory the Cavs will again be central division champs based on last years record. The Lakers are the champions, but that alone does not make them the best team in the league this year (although they probably are because they only got stronger), they will probably be the best team in the league because they still have the most well rounded roster talent (Miami may have the most total talent though)

Last year's performance indicates only who has proven to be the better team to date. No one has suggested that last year's performance will determine who will be better next season.

By my theory, the Cavs are still the central division champs until someone takes that title away from them. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll continue to say that the Bucks to date have proven to be a better team than the Bulls. I won't change that point until the Bulls prove to be better than the Bucks next season.

[Wise1]

The past is not the present. Neither team is the same now as it was then. You're using obsolete data.

The Lakers won the championship in 09-10. It's 10-11 now. They are not the champions of the current season. The NBA is not a monarchy.

Until the champions of the 10-11 season is crowned...the Lakers will still be the reigning champions. There's no disputing that. You can state that the Lakers aren't the champions of the 10-11 season, but they will still be the reigning champs of the NBA until some other team takes that title away.

Last year's data is not obsolete. It stands to prove what I've been saying. The Bucks proved that they were the better team last season and the Bulls will have to prove that they are better this year for me to conceed that they are indeed a better team.

[Indy2thaWindy]

The Pacers are always ranked 26-28 in the preseason yet we always finish in the 18-21 area. Hopefully with the additions of Collison and not having Murphy, both are positives, we can make a playoff push tis season.

[El Duderino]

Why the f does everyone keep talking about the Bulls? Seriously. And using last years performance as an indicator for how this year's standings will end up is in no way valid. Both teams had rather large roster turnover. And by your theory the Cavs will again be central division champs based on last years record. The Lakers are the champions, but that alone does not make them the best team in the league this year (although they probably are because they only got stronger), they will probably be the best team in the league because they still have the most well rounded roster talent (Miami may have the most total talent though)

Last year's performance indicates only who has proven to be the better team to date. No one has suggested that last year's performance will determine who will be better next season.

By my theory, the Cavs are still the central division champs until someone takes that title away from them. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll continue to say that the Bucks to date have proven to be a better team than the Bulls. I won't change that point until the Bulls prove to be better than the Bucks next season.

What about that theory makes much sense though?

Who cares that the Cavs won the division last year when talking about this year? They won that division almost entirely because LeBron James was on the roster. If Jones had broken his leg in the first game last year and missed the whole season, they'd have been lucky to win 30-35 games, much less the 61 games they won. He's gone now. Nobody will have to take that division title from them this year, their now vastly inferior James-less roster will give it away because they now lack the talent to compete with the Bucks and Bulls. It would be like saying a boxer has to "take the title away" from the champion who recently lost his eyesight in an accident.

As for this year with the Bucks and Bulls, this years Bucks team hasn't proven anything in regard to being better than this years Bulls team, just as this years Bulls team hasn't proven anything in regards to being better than this years Bucks team. Both teams didn't have just minor tweaks to their roster to where you might be able to say, this year with reasonable health, there is a somewhat decent chance that similar results could happen again. That's not what happened though. Both teams made significant changes in their rosters. The Bulls also have a new head coach. They are very different teams than the ones who finished last season.

All that's been proven is that last years Bucks roster of players was better than last years Bulls roster of players under a coach that was replaced. The same very well could happen this season given the Bucks on paper look to be a pretty talented team that with reasonable health could win 50 games or more. The Bulls though also added more talent to their roster, they certainly will win more games this season vs last year so long as they don't get crippled by injuries. I give the Bucks the slight edge. If we do finish will more wins though, it'll have nothing to do with the fact that the Bucks were better last season. It'll be because the many new additions blended well with what's left from last seasons team and they bought into Skiles demands because about a dozen new players between both teams look like they'll be apart of playing time rotations that weren't in those rotations last year.

[Wise1]

All that's been proven is that last years Bucks roster of players was better than last years Bulls roster of players under a coach that was replaced.

Sooo to date, which has been my point all along, the Bucks have proven to be better than the Bulls. In my opinion, the Bulls will have to PROVE that they are better than the Bucks rather than me accepting this as a matter of fact. We don't know how next season will play out. We DO know that the most recent factual data supports the Bucks being better than the Bulls. Why that's hard for you to swallow I don't understand.

[LUKE23]

The Bucks will have to prove they are better than the Cavs as well then, by that logic.

[El Duderino]

All that's been proven is that last years Bucks roster of players was better than last years Bulls roster of players under a coach that was replaced.

Sooo to date, which has been my point all along, the Bucks have proven to be better than the Bulls. In my opinion, the Bulls will have to PROVE that they are better than the Bucks rather than me accepting this as a matter of fact. We don't know how next season will play out. We DO know that the most recent factual data supports the Bucks being better than the Bulls. Why that's hard for you to swallow I don't understand.

Well yea, everyone already knows that the Bucks finished with a better record last season, even a crack head on a 10 day bender should be able to understand that. It's pointing out the incredibly obvious. Plus, who has said that it's already a fact that the Bulls will be better this year?

What i and others in this thread don't get what you're trying to convey is why last years record for both teams is all that relevant as to how this season will play out given the huge amount of roster turnover on both teams along with the Bulls hiring a new head coach? It would be like saying that when fans or sportswriters who make predictions for this upcoming season were comparing say Miami with Atlanta, they should first look at the most recent factual data from last year which says Atlanta is better, even though Miami last year didn't have James or Bosh. What sense would that make?

The vast vast majority of fans, sportswriters, or NBA analysts wouldn't do that though because they'd realize that what happened last year in regards to those two teams is now basically irrelevant given Miami's roster last year is nothing like their roster this year. Same thing with the Bucks and Bulls. Any fans or analysts that are projecting win totals for both teams, they are making their projections based on the rosters each team now has. Obviously you and anyone else is free to think both that the Bulls are being overrated/Bucks underrated and in some cases i'd agree, but i just don't see why anyone should first take into account that the Bucks won five more games last year given neither team will closely resemble at all the teams they were last year?

[ChrisTheFuturePaul]

Hornets are better than Bucks :*(

[blkout]

The Hornets are the best lottery team I've seen this week.

[LUKE23]

I actually think the Hornets COULD win more games than the Bucks if everything fell right. Paul/Thornton/Ariza/West/Okafor if they can keep them healthy is pretty solid. Really poor depth, but Paul is still a top 5 player.

[WRau1]

I'm also a big fan of the NOH. Ariza was a prefect compliment to Paul/Thorton. Paul does what he does, Thorton can stretch the D, Ariza slashing, West being able to hit the jumper or go inside and Okafor just rebounding and finishing. They also have Peja's contract to try and get a few bench pieces. Really like that starting 5 but they need some depth pretty badly.