Teams That Improved

Whose contract do you think is worse Ben, Joe Johnson's or Rudy Gay's? Gay's younger, and making less, but at least JJ is useful for what the Hawks are trying to do.

Johnson. Easily.

No doubt.

Overpaying somebody who's just entering his prime really isn't a bad idea for teams like MEM imo, otherwise he'd have gone to another team easily. Gay already averaging 20ppg 6rpg with all around skills on both ends of the court. Might be a gamble but at least will be a lot easier to trade than JJ if anything goes wrong.

Ehhh, its never a good idea to pay someone three times their worth, no matter their age or your market size. One of the worst things about the extension was that it was higher than the max possible offer sheet another team can sign him to.

That wasn't what I meant for criteria. You wanted me to list 15 better players. Even though I think that's a silly way to determine a players actual value, it's better than what you just did

Yeah, what's good? Silly way or not, you stated he was below average but you burden me with providing proof of the contrary. You obviously have a way figured out, otherwise you can't honestly claim he's below average because you can't examine it, right?

So really I don't see how Haywood is clearly better, if that's what you're implying. It's probably a little bit offense-defense with them, Gasol better offensively and Haywood better defensively.

Haywood is the superior fit in the Mavericks system, as Chandler is, because what they do on the court is exactly what their role demands. And they do it well.

Except when they dry up offensively. Gasol is better offensively and can take some of the load of, can pass, etc. At times in the playoffs they had to depend on Beaubois to put up points, and Haywood was riding the pine most of the series because he couldn't guard Duncan.

but the Blazers haven't proven anything but winning a couple of 50 win season with 1st round exit

Doesn't matter. The Lakers went three years never getting past 45 wins and the first round and now have three straight finals and an average of 60 wins over the last three. A healthy Blazers team has too much depth and too much quality to not be a possible contender. It's been a 60 win contender for the last two years with shitty luck regarding health, especially of their best player.

The Spurs history is irrelevant.

Nobody is saying the second-tier teams don't have an outside chance based on how things break, but they start with far far lower odds than the Big Five. The same Big Five as when we started last season.[/quote]
Are you a Blazers fan by any chance?

Blazers are just as much an outsider as Mavs, Spurs, Jazz even maybe.

Taking Oden and Roy's injuries into account is fine, but how about Parker, Ginobili, Yao, Kirilenko, Okur...

doesn't make sense. It's the first time I ever heard of this Big Five'. Ever. You say they're clearly the top 5 so I'm assuming this must be consensus, even last year, so who is agreeing with you?

I clicked the first few links on google searching on Power Rankings October 2009, Blazers are in the top 5 in none of them.

http://www.midwestsportsfans.com/2009/1 ... preseason/
http://with-malice.com/200910271069/art ... ngs-1.html
http://with-malice.com/200910271069/art ... ngs-1.html

the most recent one on nba.com ranks them at 9:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/powerranki ... index.html

So I'm not alone in not seeing this clear inclusion of them in any Big Five.

I don't know why you would go looking to the sports media to find any analysis of sports. (Especially a site as poorly written as the malice one, or one that puts the Wizards into the top ten and Pistons in top fifteen. And the Bucks 28th!)

Silly way or not, you stated he was below average but you burden me with providing proof of the contrary.

No, I asked you for the criteria to rank the players.

Taking Oden and Roy's injuries into account is fine, but how about Parker, Ginobili, Yao, Kirilenko, Okur...

I have. Oden playing 65+ games and the playoffs puts the Blazers over the hump into true championship contention. Those other players being healthy just put their teams into the second-tier.

Of note, they started the season 12-5 and finished it 18-6. They went 19-17 during the stretch after Oden got injured and before they acquired Camby. Winning 55-60 games should not have been out of the question. If they had won 60% of the games during that crap stretch they would have hit 55.

I don't know why you would go looking to the sports media to find any analysis of sports. (Especially a site as poorly written as the malice one, or one that puts the Wizards into the top ten and Pistons in top fifteen. And the Bucks 28th!)

Silly way or not, you stated he was below average but you burden me with providing proof of the contrary.

No, I asked you for the criteria to rank the players.

Taking Oden and Roy's injuries into account is fine, but how about Parker, Ginobili, Yao, Kirilenko, Okur...

I have. Oden playing 65+ games and the playoffs puts the Blazers over the hump into true championship contention. Those other players being healthy just put their teams into the second-tier.

Unfiltered, just the first links.

You say it's clear. I agree that analists generally suck but if the media has never spoken about a Big Five then there is no such thing. That's just your opinion then, nothing more.

On Gay, you said it, so basicly that was on your standards right? So, I suppose those standards. You claimed it, so you must have had standards.

So what is that based upon? also advanced stats in your generator (?) like in the other thread?
I bet it doesn't factor in intangibles btw. Like experience. Foul trouble?

And in my subjective opinion, Oden's health is a question mark. I wouldn't bet on him playing 65+ games I suppose.

but if the media has never spoken about a Big Five then there is no such thing

This is an incredibly stupid idea.

That's just your opinion then, nothing more.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

On Gay, you said it, so basicly that was on your standards right? So, I suppose those standards. You claimed it, so you must have had standards.

You asked me to name 15 superior players. That's not a good enough criteria. Nor is "at his position" as that does not address players like Rashard Lewis or Vince Carter. So on and so forth.

So what is that based upon?

My original claim was based on "what is an average player? Does Gay or Mayo surpass these standards? No, they are average or below average then." Pretty simple stuff.

I bet it doesn't factor in intangibles btw. Like experience. Foul trouble?

Prove those things can be shown to have a causal relationship to winning.

It is based on well accepted findings on relationships between aspects of the game and winning. That's why it spit out an essentially perfect top ten for the East last year despite the clear flaws in that version of the model.

But Rudy Gay can do a 360 on the break!!!!

Contenders:
1. CLE
2. ORL
3. BOS
First/Second Round Fodder:
4. ATL
5. CHA
6. MIA
One and Done:
7. MIL
8. CHI
9. TOR
10. IND

Pretty impressive.

Cleveland for obvious reasons

i think the Bux made some good moves

The Knicks improved enough to make the playoffs

I think the Thunder had the best draft by selecting Aldrich to shore up the only weak link on the team, the center position. imho it looks even better now with the whole kristic brawl.

Cleveland for obvious reasons

i think the Bux made some good moves

The Knicks improved enough to make the playoffs

I think Cleveland is just as good without LeBron.

as to the knicks, I sort of agree and I sort of dont. now if they could get ty lawson they would a decent team!

I think Cleveland is just as good without LeBron.

You ever seen a game of basketball, by the way?

Nothing puttincomputers says makes sense. You'll get used to it.