APBRmetrics

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/82734 ... -standings
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/82738 ... -standings

Early reactions?

Seems reasonable I'd say. But I haven't kept up with all free agent movements

I'd like to see more regression to the mean. MIA/BOS/CHI seem a tad high (at a very quick glance).
TOR a tad low. WAS should be way closer to 0.5. DET/ORL/CHA all higher

OKC/LAL/LAC/DEN lower. GSW lower (possible injuries, and even if not, I don't like their SG/SF/(PF) enough for .463 in the West)
NOH higher

...we surveyed 100 of ESPN's best basketball minds, including contributors from ESPN.com, the TrueHoop Network, TrueHoop TV, Daily Dime Live, ESPN TV, ESPN Radio, ESPN Deportes, espnW, ESPN The Magazine, ESPN Insider, ESPN Fantasy, ESPN Games, ESPN Dallas, ESPN Los Angeles, ESPN Boston, ESPN Chicago, ESPN New York, ESPN Stats & Information, ESPN Topics and ESPN Analytics.

And here's what they've predicted: Biggest gainers and losers, according to that survey:Why are the Nets supposed to suddenly go from doormats to contention?
Is Derrick Rose expected to show up late this season?

All the biggest expected losers were at least .500 teams last year; of the big gainers, only the Lakers were good last year.

The East won just .422 of games vs the West last season (.479 overall); these guys expect a worse disparity this year (.476 total).

Mike G wrote:Why are the Nets supposed to suddenly go from doormats to contention?

Gerald Wallace played 16 games for them last year, Brook Lopez played 5; I think both are expected to play close to 70 this season. Joe Johnson wasn't there and Anthony Morrow played in his place. I'm OK with the bump

Is Derrick Rose expected to show up late this season?

I think so, yes. January is what I heard, I think. They also lost Watson and Asik

J.E. wrote: GSW lower (possible injuries, and even if not, I don't like their SG/SF/(PF) enough for .463 in the West)

GSW won 36 two years ago with less talent than they have now. I'll take Klay over Ellis. Rush over Dorell Wright. And Bogut >>>>>> Biedrins. Sure, injuries can derail any team. But barring significant injuries I can't see a team with Andrew Bogut and Stephen Curry winning fewer than 38 games.

J.E. wrote: Gerald Wallace played 16 games for them last year, Brook Lopez played 5; I think both are expected to play close to 70 this season. Joe Johnson wasn't there and Anthony Morrow played in his place.

Wallace will be 30 and has been just about an average player his last couple of years.
Since he got out of Sacto, he's averaged 67 games.
I'd expect average performance and 3/4 availability.

Which Lopez may show up? His shot attempts have risen, and his rebounds have fallen sharply, each year.

DWilliams has also missed 13 games per year for 4 years. Last year's TS% and WS/48 were lowest since his rookie season.
Joe Johnson is coming off a good year, and he'll be 31. Just 6 players in history have more minutes through age 30.

Kris Humphries rounds out the starting lineup. Not a bad first 5. Are these really their backups? --
Reggie Evans, Mirza Teletovic, Tornike Shengelia, MarShon Brooks, CJ Watson ?

EvanZ wrote:

J.E. wrote: GSW lower (possible injuries, and even if not, I don't like their SG/SF/(PF) enough for .463 in the West)

GSW won 36 two years ago with less talent than they have now. I'll take Klay over Ellis. Rush over Dorell Wright. And Bogut >>>>>> Biedrins. Sure, injuries can derail any team. But barring significant injuries I can't see a team with Andrew Bogut and Stephen Curry winning fewer than 38 games.

Injuries can derail any team, but you have to admit that this team is a) more (than average) likely to suffer injuries to their two key players, and b) has a huge skill gap between #2 player and #3, so if #1 or #2 get injured, it hits them hard.
Eliis wasn't great, but I don't really see why Thompson is a significant improvement. Same with Wright/Rush (ESPN has Barnes starting at SF btw). That team in '11 had Udoh and Radmanovic. This year's team has a horrible bench

Wallace will be 30 and has been just about an average player his last couple of years.

RAPM has him in the top 50. Last season, no player that played significant minutes with similar lineups had a better impact on team defense ( http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/pm/111.html )
That bench might be a good reason to rate them lower, but then again, it's the east

J.E. wrote: That team in '11 had Udoh and Radmanovic. This year's team has a horrible bench

It's funny, everyone hated that bench (except for Udoh), and everyone loves this bench. We'll see. I'm hoping Jack and Landry are better than their RAPM suggests. Rush had a great year relative to what his RAPM would have predicted. I'm biased obviously, but I like this bench better than recent years.

And clearly, if Bogut or Curry go down, they're toast. I'm the first one to admit that.

Brooklyn seems 5-8 wins too high to me at first look. Minnesota the same. I don't think Orlando will be that bad unless they purposely tank.

I don't think Boston wins more than last season. I think it more likely to be 5+ games less than last season than more than last season. Will the long-time declining to horrible offense get better? Probably not much, if any. The defense might slip too. Injuries as also a factor.

If the Heat play their two-wing (+ Big 3) lineup more, that point differential can justify even more wins.

I expect the team to deal with injuries and take games off though.

Crow wrote:http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/82734 ... -standings
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/82738 ... -standings

Early reactions?

On the East...
I see the gap between the best team (Heat) and everyone else (Celtics? Bulls? Anyone else?) being wider than 10 games. Obviously a lot can happen - the Heat could sustain an injury, chose to rest players, run bad as far as point differential - and a #2 team COULD emerge (supreme health, midseason acquisition, rookie breakout, etc.) but I would take Miami -10 wins > #2 seed in the East, and rest very easy.

On this note, they list the Cs 2nd. I think there is a lot of positive forecasting, mainly because the Celtics "almost made the finals". Of course, that should come with the asterisk that they barely beat the Horford-less Hawks (and then benefited immensely when he did come back due to a totally bizarre call which likely won them the series), struggled against an 8th seeded Sixers team (that only advanced due to two key injuries in Rose and Noah), and only played the Heat tight while they were without Bawsh.

I see them much differently. I see them as a team on a major downswing. The Cs would project to win 48 w/ their PD over an 82 game last year, and yet were fairly healthy despite major age and injury question marks. This is yet another year (PP and KG will eventually decay); they will be without their starting SG (Bradley) for a portion of the season (and who knows when his shoulder will fall off again); losing Ray for JET is a downgrade, by almost every metric; and my hate for Jeff Green knows no bounds. (He's worth like negative 10 wins just by being associated with the Celtics) I'd be kinda surprised if they passed 45 wins, especially if they take "resting" to a whole different level. (Which is very possible)

The Pacers are billed as a "young team on the rise", but they barely missed any action from their primary starting 5. (Replacing Collison for Hill was a positive move, so the small injury actually served quasi-beneficial purposes) They also really aren't that young; only Paul George could be seen as on the rise, and that's countered by an old David West who still has faulty ACLs. I'm not impressed with either their small signings or their recent drafts, and that will show itself over the course of the year. If they hit 50 wins, it will be a larger indictment on the weakness of the East.

They rank the Nets 5th and Sixers 6th... The Nets are not a healthy team, and I just think Brook Lopez is borderline horrible. If he was ever going to turn my opinion around, this will be the year. I also don't believe in Avery Johnson, and he'll probably get the (somewhat deserved, somewhat not) axe when they fall well short of expectations. The Sixers, despite adding ONE player who is arguably better than anyone on their roster from last year, lost their THREE most important players, and are expecting to fill that with downright terrible players (hello Nick Young!). If they cross .500, I'll eat my words, since I see them winning 30 games, not 46.

Im much higher on the Hawks than ESPN is. The past few years "we" have known JJ is a bit overrated, (he's the best example of the classic "bad max", where they probably needed to max him since losing him for nothing was out of the question, but it's a -EV contract) and I really love the additions of Korver (unbelievably underrated role player) and Lou Williams (a much better incarnation of all previous 6th men they've had). Horford will be healthy for the full year, and last I checked, they still have JSmoove. Teague expects to improve marginally. Remember: They had the point differential of a 50+ win team over 82 games last season. I would argue they had a positive offseason. This team is my pick to finish 2nd in the East.

Toronto @ 11 doesn't suit me at all. Lowry and Landry are huge additions, they may make a move to unload Calderon for ANYTHING, and they actually have a surprisingly deep frontcourt. Say what you want about Bargnani, but he missed half the season last year. Those minutes were filled by replacement level production. I'm very high on Jonas Valanciunas (my pick to finish 2nd to AD for ROY), and Ed Davis/Amir are one of the better 2nd units you could put together. I firmly believe the Raptors will playoff.

The Pistons, Magic, and Bobcats are pretty much the "dreck" of the league. They are really awful basketball teams. ESPN projects them to combine to win 70. I would take the under in a heartbeat.

Crow wrote:http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/82734 ... -standings
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/82738 ... -standings

Early reactions?

On the West...

OKC falling just shy of 60 wins is probably fair. Whether or not they win the West is a different question, but they were a ~57 win team last year with almost the entirely same personnel. (Maynor back healthy and no D-Fish is a positive move, and it's possible they get something from Perry Jones) This sorta ties into LA though; as far as I'm concerned, the Lakers have a higher ceiling (I wrote "much" at first, but it's hard to have a much higher ceiling than a 60 win+ team). But if everyone is healthy (huge if), this LA team should be impressive to the max... I figure them for ~3rd in both Ortg/Drtg. There's always the Mike Brown factor as well: Playing his core guys way too many minutes, which will result in a few more regular season wins, at the expense of post season wins.

SA is just such a special organization... I don't see how they wont win 50 wins for like the 72nd year in a row. Unfortunately for them I also see a much lower ceiling: The teams that are better than they are, are clearly better. I'm predicting a bittersweet year for them.

Here is where I start to disagree though: The Nuggets are listed as a 50 win team. They had a profile of a 48+ win team last year, despite being in constant flux last year. They gave a lot of minutes to young guys who are CLEARLY on the rise, while at the same time upgrading their roster (which everyone can agree, AI2>>AAA). George Karl manages the regular season well, and they are pretty deep to sustain injuries... Which happened last year anyway! I could see them as high as 3rd, with the possibility of having one of those bizarre seasons where they just win tons and tons of regular season games. (Building false confidence for the playoffs)

I also think there will be more 50 win teams. The West is not that far removed from having something silly like 8 50+ win teams, and the East/West disparity is such that it could *easily* happen again. The Timberwolves in particular: AK has always been pretty undervalued, especially since he's going to replace such rotten minutes. (Beasley!) I am very high on Schved, and their core (Pek, Love, Rubio) are all young enough where they actually may make individual strides.

Having said all that, I draw the line around Houston, Phoenix, and Sacramento. These are very bad clubs. Houston has basically blown it all up, without having a clear good plan. Lin could perform well, maybe they get something for Kevin Martin, but they are devoid of any good players. Their best player is probably Chandler Parsons, which is scary. (Maybe Omer Asik?) Phoenix now has Michael Beasley and no Steve Nash, and they weren't much of a team last year either. I'm just low on the Kings because it's the Kings... Like their players, dont have any confidence in them to do anything with it.

EvanZ wrote:

J.E. wrote: GSW lower (possible injuries, and even if not, I don't like their SG/SF/(PF) enough for .463 in the West)

GSW won 36 two years ago with less talent than they have now. I'll take Klay over Ellis. Rush over Dorell Wright. And Bogut >>>>>> Biedrins. Sure, injuries can derail any team. But barring significant injuries I can't see a team with Andrew Bogut and Stephen Curry winning fewer than 38 games.

Problem here is they are incredibly shallow. And you say "barring significant injuries," but this roster is filled to the brim of guys who happen to get injured constantly.

Bobbofitos wrote:Bawsh.

who?

I also don't believe in Avery Johnson

I don't think anyone could have done much with last year's roster. Do you not like him from his Dallas days? Postseason success was his problem there, not regular season success.

The Sixers, despite adding ONE player who is arguably better than anyone on their roster from last year, lost their THREE most important players, and are expecting to fill that with downright terrible players (hello Nick Young!).

Since when is Andrew Bynum downright terrible? They still have Doug Collins, who I think plays a big role in their success

The Pistons, Magic, and Bobcats are pretty much the "dreck" of the league. They are really awful basketball teams. ESPN projects them to combine to win 70. I would take the under in a heartbeat.

If the Magic still had VanGundy I'd pick them to win 40 games. I don't see why Nelson/Turkoglu/Afflalo/Harrington/Ayon should win 21 (which is reeeaally low) or less in the east.
Detroit is pretty young, already won .38 last year and didn't change much. And then there's regression to the mean.
The Bobcats added Haywood and Sessions, two ~average players. BG is also better compared to what they had last year. 25 wins are possible

Nuggets 50+

The one thing I don't like about the Nuggets is their center position, especially McGee.

TWolves

We don't know yet if Rubio will come back as good as he was before. The rest of the guards are garbage (I don't really expect Shved to be a positive, especially right of the bat, do you?), and so are their centers. It's the Timberwolves, and they're in the west. (did you say they might win 50?) I'd take under 41

Gerald Wallace's RAPM fell from about +4 to +2 the previous season to last season but he has had 4 straight years of about +2 or better. That sounds pretty good. Does his hustle and team play rub off positively on others? That might be interesting to check.