Author Topic: 2016-17 Win Totals  (Read 5366 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2016, 05:23:46 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
I'm just saying that on paper, that team should be ashamed of themselves if they lose a single game.  Unprecedented collection of talent.  If they fail to win the championship they should all be forced to retire.


Are you more confident with this latest prediction than you were about Brooklyn winning 40 games in 15-16, Boston winning 35 games in 15-16, or Philly making the playoffs this season?

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2016, 05:41:41 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I'm just saying that on paper, that team should be ashamed of themselves if they lose a single game.  Unprecedented collection of talent.  If they fail to win the championship they should all be forced to retire.


Are you more confident with this latest prediction than you were about Brooklyn winning 40 games in 15-16, Boston winning 35 games in 15-16, or Philly making the playoffs this season?
Neither was a prediction.  The only think I'm confident in is that you'll continue to fangirl over every post I make.

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2016, 05:47:44 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
I'm just saying that on paper, that team should be ashamed of themselves if they lose a single game.  Unprecedented collection of talent.  If they fail to win the championship they should all be forced to retire.


Are you more confident with this latest prediction than you were about Brooklyn winning 40 games in 15-16, Boston winning 35 games in 15-16, or Philly making the playoffs this season?
Neither was a prediction.  The only think I'm confident in is that you'll continue to fangirl over every post I make.

You're practically in every thread, evidenced by your ridiculously large post output, so it's really hard to find a thread that you have NOT chimed in on. To make matters worse you're usually wrong, so it's really easy to quote you for your unparalleled .... brilliance.

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2016, 05:51:09 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
Golden State is top heavy. You read it here first.

Uh ... no, I've seen that opinion put out there in many different places before this.

I don't buy it.  Livingston, Iguodala, West is already the makings of a very solid bench.

Do you think their bench/depth is better or worse than last year?    Do you think they'll bust their butts as hard this regular season as they did this past season?

I think they probably have worse depth this year, and I don't think they'll try so hard to win games at the end of the season, as they did last year.


With that said, I see no reason why they can't have at least 2 of their top 4 guys on the floor at all times that the game is within 15 points.  I also think they've got some serviceable young guys at the back end of their roster, which ought to make it easier for them at least play fast and hard when the stars are sitting.  It's not like those Heat teams that had James Jones, Chris Andersen, et. al. moldering at the end of the bench.

We saw in the playoffs that they were very tough to beat even when it was just Klay and Dray leading the way.  It's just hard to see them losing very many games other than when they rest 3 or more of their top guys.

I think they're clearly the favorite to win the title.  I just don't think we'll see them go gangbusters this regular like we did last year.  You have to be very good to win 67+ games but you also have to be very fortunate too from a health standpoint.  Btw the integration of Durant, the changes to their depth, & the always possible injury bug, I think its certain that we'll see a regression from this Golden State team in the regular season.  Even to the point of 7-10 less wins.


The thing is, I think that although they won't go as hard as they did last season to win close games, they will be significantly harder to defend than last year -- as crazy as that might be given how good they were -- so they won't be in as many close games as they were last year.

67-70 wins sounds about right to me. 
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2016, 06:13:33 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
I'm just saying that on paper, that team should be ashamed of themselves if they lose a single game.  Unprecedented collection of talent.  If they fail to win the championship they should all be forced to retire.


Are you more confident with this latest prediction than you were about Brooklyn winning 40 games in 15-16, Boston winning 35 games in 15-16, or Philly making the playoffs this season?
Neither was a prediction.  The only think I'm confident in is that you'll continue to fangirl over every post I make.

You're practically in every thread, evidenced by your ridiculously large post output, so it's really hard to find a thread that you have NOT chimed in on. To make matters worse you're usually wrong, so it's really easy to quote you for your unparalleled .... brilliance.
I'm actually literally never wrong.  Everything I say is 100% accurate.  In fact, I don't think there's every been a time in my entire life I've said something that proved to be "wrong".   Now, it goes without saying that often stuff is lost in translation as I suspect based on your total lack of sense of humor English isn't your first language, but you have a tendency to take "quotes" of mine out of context and mislabel them as "predictions".   Take your current fangirl signature where you are quoting me saying:

Quote
"If Brooklyn remains healthy, I think there's a chance they can make the playoffs next season.  Obviously that depends on how they fill out their roster. Here's hoping they are riddled with injuries again and we get another top 3 pick."

  ....  I made made that entirely accurate and 100% perfect statement prior to free agency. It's undeniable that they have "a chance"... everyone always has "a chance".   But I was clear that it was entirely dependent on whether or not they filled out their roster with impact players (guys like Kevin Durant).  They didn't.  It's unlikely they make the playoffs.   You quoting it is entirely irrelevant. 

Me saying that "on paper" the Warriors should win every game is not a "prediction" they will go 82-0.  How a team looks "on paper" is irrelevant to how they'll play every single day.  Also, if you familiarize yourself a bit with American humor you'll start to understand that sometimes people say obviously exaggerated things that aren't intended to be taken seriously.  Nobody would actually "predict" the Warriors will go 82-0.  Only a complete idiot would genuinely "predict" that.

Similar to the comment I made last year that you fangirled into your forum signature where I expressed worry that Brooklyn would make the playoffs again if they stayed healthy.  They didn't.  Another irrelevant comment you trumpeted for a full year.  Part of me took delight in it, as seeing Brooklyn fail miserably was the highlight of Boston's season.

Also, Eddie, for someone who's lone mission on this forum to convince people I'm a troll, you seem to solely exist on here to transparently troll me.  Several people have pointed this out.  Multiple people other than myself have told you to stop claiming I'm a 76ers fan.   Honestly, you're the most transparent troll on this entire forum.  Clearly not just publicly as you've spent a lot of energy sending me PM's commenting on how you assume my life is terrible, telling me I have no friends, pointing out that this forum hates me, suggesting I take medication, etc.  As you know, I typically laugh that off.  It's nice that you feign concern for my wellbeing.  I fake appreciate it.  Being real, though, I do find it entertaining someone could get so livid about my comments on a Celtic forum that they fell compelled to send me thinly veiled hate mail.   At some point, it's gotta end, though.   Take some of your own advice.  Ignore my posts here if they are that much of a trigger for you.  Otherwise, accept that my word is oak and everything I write is on a par with the best of Nostradamus.   It's uncanny how right I constantly am.  It's a gift. 

All that said, I predict the Warriors will win 82 games if Curry misses the entire season to injury.  That's a LarBrd33 Guarantee.  Lock it in.


« Last Edit: September 21, 2016, 06:31:00 PM by LarBrd33 »

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2016, 06:33:30 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Seriously though I think 51.5 games might be low.  We won 48 last year.  Horford should make a huge impact.  I think 55+ is in reach if everything meshes well. 

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2016, 07:39:42 PM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47760
  • Tommy Points: 2904
Seriously though I think 51.5 games might be low.  We won 48 last year.  Horford should make a huge impact.  I think 55+ is in reach if everything meshes well.

Yeah, I don't understand how adding a 4-time All-Star in his prime, who is the absolute perfect fit for our system, only gets us a couple of extra wins. Even on here, I think people are really underestimating Horford's impact on our team, and/or overestimating the effect of losing Turner and Sully.

As long as there's not significant injuries, I fully expect a 55+ win season with us really challenging to win the East outright.

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2016, 08:00:12 PM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30887
  • Tommy Points: 3765
  • Yup
There's no shame in a 65 win season is all I'm saying.  Some historically awesome teams have won fewer than 66.5.
Yup

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2016, 08:00:28 PM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Seriously though I think 51.5 games might be low.  We won 48 last year.  Horford should make a huge impact.  I think 55+ is in reach if everything meshes well.

Yeah, I don't understand how adding a 4-time All-Star in his prime, who is the absolute perfect fit for our system, only gets us a couple of extra wins. Even on here, I think people are really underestimating Horford's impact on our team, and/or overestimating the effect of losing Turner and Sully.

As long as there's not significant injuries, I fully expect a 55+ win season with us really challenging to win the East outright.
Horford isn't a sexy player who puts up big stats so people are underestimating him a little bit.  He should be our best player.  For a similar reason reason I joke Golden State should win every game (adding a perfect fit top 3 player to a 73 win team), you should expect Boston to be greatly improved (adding a perfect fit top 20 player to a 48 win team).


Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2016, 09:03:52 PM »

Offline Vox_Populi

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4468
  • Tommy Points: 346
I'm glad it's widely accepted that Brooklyn will probably the worst team in the NBA next season. Hopefully after another sub-25 win season they finally bite the bullet and trade Brook.

Vegas Over Under 51.5 Regular Season Wins for Celtics
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2016, 01:54:27 AM »

Offline Bucketgetter

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1227
  • Tommy Points: 11
Vegas just posted their regular season win total odds, and ours are 51.5. I don't know but that seems really low to me. A young overall team that just won 48 games last year that battled through injuries and just added Al Horford only projects for 3 more wins? Thinking of putting some serious bread on the over. Any thoughts to talk me out of it or to amp my head into doing it would be appreciated.
CB Mock Deadline - Minnesota Timberwolves
Kemba Walker / Tyus Jones / Aaron Brooks
Jimmy Butler / Jamal Crawford / Treveon Graham
Rodney Hood / Nic Batum / Marcus Georges Hunt
Taj Gibson / Nemanja Bjelica / Jonas Jerebko
KAT / Derrick Favors / Cole Aldrich
Picks - 2018 CHA 1st (Lotto protected), none out

Re: Vegas Over Under 51.5 Regular Season Wins for Celtics
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2016, 02:53:03 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
seems low to me too

Re: Vegas Over Under 51.5 Regular Season Wins for Celtics
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2016, 03:18:13 AM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8635
  • Tommy Points: 1136

 Take the over Buck. Show some faith in the Leprechaun. No more than 1stack though.

Re: 2016-17 Win Totals
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2016, 08:36:48 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33432
  • Tommy Points: 1532
Seriously though I think 51.5 games might be low.  We won 48 last year.  Horford should make a huge impact.  I think 55+ is in reach if everything meshes well.

Yeah, I don't understand how adding a 4-time All-Star in his prime, who is the absolute perfect fit for our system, only gets us a couple of extra wins. Even on here, I think people are really underestimating Horford's impact on our team, and/or overestimating the effect of losing Turner and Sully.

As long as there's not significant injuries, I fully expect a 55+ win season with us really challenging to win the East outright.
I think that is fair because while Horford is very good, he doesn't really solve any of the glaring weaknesses the team had last year and actually is a net loss rebounding compared to Sullinger.  Horford is a quality all around offensive player and a very strong defender, but Boston was already a very strong defensive team and already had a number of quality offensive players.  The problem is Boston has no truly elite offensive player, especially at the wing.  Boston doesn't have any great rim protectors (Horford certainly helps there, but he isn't a shot blocking machine).  Boston is now an even worse rebounding team with the loss of Sullinger.  The bench still lacks balance and in fact loses the play making ability of Turner, which will have to be replaced by someone like Rozier or Brown (which isn't likely to happen).

So, yes, Horford is a great player and will probably be Boston's best player, but his strengths were not weaknesses on last years team, and thus I don't expect him to do much for the win total.  I think 51.5 seems about right.  If everything comes together 55+ wins is certainly possible, but I think it is also possible that there are chemistry issues and that the weaknesses become more pronounced, there are more or longer injuries (Boston was relatively healthy last year), etc. and 45 wins is thus certainly possible.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip