Author Topic: With a weaker Eastern Conference, could the Celtics win 60+ games this season??  (Read 2091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tstorey_97

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 429
  • Tommy Points: 59
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Offline nickagneta

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30484
  • Tommy Points: 5113
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Jay King reported 2 weeks ago that Thomas would not need surgery and would be ready for the 2017-18 NBA season.

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7557
  • Tommy Points: 875
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Is this just a random collection of teams we struggled against some? OKC was like the 7th seed and the Wizards had a very solid record. Why OKC and not Washington or Clippers or Jazz?

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Is this just a random collection of teams we struggled against some? OKC was like the 7th seed and the Wizards had a very solid record. Why OKC and not Washington or Clippers or Jazz?
OKC has won 55 and 47 games the last two seasons.  The Clippers have won more than that, however the Clippers aren't going to be very good this year (and neither are the Jazz), while the Thunder should be better than 47 with the addition of George. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7557
  • Tommy Points: 875
I'm not sure the East is really that much weaker.  I mean it isn't like Butler, George, and Millsap were on good teams.  Toronto should still be pretty good.  Washington should still be pretty good.  I expect Milwaukee to take a pretty decent jump into that group (i.e. high 40's, low 50's in wins).  Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Detroit should all be better and will basically replace Atlanta, Chicago, and Indiana in the standings.  Miami was on a 60 win pace for half the season and return their team (with the addition of KO).   

Boston is still pretty clearly the second best team in the East (though may again end up as the 1 seed), but I think this notion that the East got a lot worse is a stretch.  Some teams will move around, but I expect a pretty similar level of play from the East on the whole.
No sorry, that is pretty easy to disprove.  Just list out all the player movements so far in this off-season.  The vast majority of GOOD players who changed conferences went East to West with Hayward being a notable exception, followed distantly by JJ Reddick and Jeff Green.
Good players on bad teams, doesn't alter the conference that much is the point I'm making.  Atlanta won 43 games.  Indiana won 42 games.  Chicago won 41 games.  Those teams were average teams.  Obviously the players that moved make Minnesota, Oklahoma City, and Denver better teams than they were and make those 3 mediocre teams in the East worse, but I think those mediocre teams are easily replaced by other mediocre teams in the East who got better.  Charlotte added Dwight Howard.  He makes them better.  Detroit got Bradley, he makes them better.  Miami added Olynyk to a team that closed on a 60 win pace for half the season.  They will be better.  Giannis will continue to get better and the Bucks should make another jump in wins.  The Jazz and Clippers were both 51 win teams and both will almost certainly be a lot worse next year (replaced in the standings by the Thunder and Wolves most likely). 

This notion that the East got worse and the West got better from top to bottom, I just don't buy.  The West had 3 great teams and 2 very good teams last year.  The West still has 3 great teams (Houston got even better) and might have 3 very good teams this year (or it might just be 2 very good teams like last year).  The bottom of the West is still going to be very bad though.  LA, Sacto, and Phoenix will rival Brooklyn, Atlanta, and Orlando as the worst teams in the league.   Dallas isn't going to be very good either.  Memphis is declining and lost some key vets (and still hasn't re-signed Green).  They will be mediocre at best.

Kind of weird to argue the east isn't significantly weaker. Milsap is still a legit all-star. Butler and George are probably top 15 players in the game. They all went to East to West (which also led their teams to get rid of solid veteran players like Teague and Rondo) Indiana, Chicago and Atlanta completely gutted their teams. They went from teams that were tough to go in an win on their home court to teams that are expected to win 25 games. Last year you would think the Celtics might go 8-4 or 7-5 against. This year it would be pretty bad if the Celtics don't go 10-2 in their 12 games against those rebuilding teams.

Minnesota has gone from a lottery team to a team that is expected to win 48 games. OKC is now an upper echelon team..   

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7557
  • Tommy Points: 875
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Is this just a random collection of teams we struggled against some? OKC was like the 7th seed and the Wizards had a very solid record. Why OKC and not Washington or Clippers or Jazz?
OKC has won 55 and 47 games the last two seasons.  The Clippers have won more than that, however the Clippers aren't going to be very good this year (and neither are the Jazz), while the Thunder should be better than 47 with the addition of George.

That doesn't really the answer of why he chose these teams at all...

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Kyrie Irving
  • Posts: 880
  • Tommy Points: 122
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Is this just a random collection of teams we struggled against some? OKC was like the 7th seed and the Wizards had a very solid record. Why OKC and not Washington or Clippers or Jazz?

I don't think it is random at all. They are now the best teams in the league, so it is fair to separate the measure into:
-Teams worse than us.
-Teams even or better than us.

I think it's a very interesting stat.

Offline bdm860

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3886
  • Tommy Points: 1737
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Is this just a random collection of teams we struggled against some? OKC was like the 7th seed and the Wizards had a very solid record. Why OKC and not Washington or Clippers or Jazz?

I don't think it is random at all. They are now the best teams in the league, so it is fair to separate the measure into:
-Teams worse than us.
-Teams even or better than us.

I think it's a very interesting stat.

What would the C's record against an 8th seeded Houston team in 2016 or the 7th seeded OKC team last year have to do with their 2018 outlook?

The combined group of teams listed here doesn't represent the best teams in '16 or '17 (more like the 5 best + 1 random).

Also the W/L's are off too, C's were 5-10 against those teams in '16 and 4-12 in '17 (probably just put total games in the loss column by mistake).

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7557
  • Tommy Points: 875
In the last two seasons the Celtics are 8-32 (4-16 each season) against the Cavs, Spurs, GSW, Rox, OKC, Toronto. I may have missed by a game or two, but, this is about right.

Last season 53-29 overall
against top teams 4-16
Thus 49-13 against the weaker teams.

Seems like 7 more wins is doable, but, are all of the lesser teams going to remain flat? To hit 60 Celtics will need to be legit better and I think they are, but, where will the 7 new wins come from?

2018 season 60-22 overall
against top teams 6-14(?)
Thus 54-8 against the weaker teams.

Being good and being dominant are two different things...54-8 against "everybody else" is tough.

My guess is 54 -28 ...far from shabby.

Finally, the record is reliant on Thomas' health. Zero word on his status as of today except, he is not on the court.

Be interesting to see which PG's might be invited to camp this year. Can't wait for October 17th or whenever the season starts.

Is this just a random collection of teams we struggled against some? OKC was like the 7th seed and the Wizards had a very solid record. Why OKC and not Washington or Clippers or Jazz?

I don't think it is random at all. They are now the best teams in the league, so it is fair to separate the measure into:
-Teams worse than us.
-Teams even or better than us.

I think it's a very interesting stat.

What would the C's record against an 8th seeded Houston team in 2016 or the 7th seeded OKC team last year have to do with their 2018 outlook?

The combined group of teams listed here doesn't represent the best teams in '16 or '17 (more like the 5 best + 1 random).

Also the W/L's are off too, C's were 5-10 against those teams in '16 and 4-12 in '17 (probably just put total games in the loss column by mistake).

Yes this is 100% my point...

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
I'm not sure the East is really that much weaker.  I mean it isn't like Butler, George, and Millsap were on good teams.  Toronto should still be pretty good.  Washington should still be pretty good.  I expect Milwaukee to take a pretty decent jump into that group (i.e. high 40's, low 50's in wins).  Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Detroit should all be better and will basically replace Atlanta, Chicago, and Indiana in the standings.  Miami was on a 60 win pace for half the season and return their team (with the addition of KO).   

Boston is still pretty clearly the second best team in the East (though may again end up as the 1 seed), but I think this notion that the East got a lot worse is a stretch.  Some teams will move around, but I expect a pretty similar level of play from the East on the whole.
No sorry, that is pretty easy to disprove.  Just list out all the player movements so far in this off-season.  The vast majority of GOOD players who changed conferences went East to West with Hayward being a notable exception, followed distantly by JJ Reddick and Jeff Green.
Good players on bad teams, doesn't alter the conference that much is the point I'm making.  Atlanta won 43 games.  Indiana won 42 games.  Chicago won 41 games.  Those teams were average teams.  Obviously the players that moved make Minnesota, Oklahoma City, and Denver better teams than they were and make those 3 mediocre teams in the East worse, but I think those mediocre teams are easily replaced by other mediocre teams in the East who got better.  Charlotte added Dwight Howard.  He makes them better.  Detroit got Bradley, he makes them better.  Miami added Olynyk to a team that closed on a 60 win pace for half the season.  They will be better.  Giannis will continue to get better and the Bucks should make another jump in wins.  The Jazz and Clippers were both 51 win teams and both will almost certainly be a lot worse next year (replaced in the standings by the Thunder and Wolves most likely). 

This notion that the East got worse and the West got better from top to bottom, I just don't buy.  The West had 3 great teams and 2 very good teams last year.  The West still has 3 great teams (Houston got even better) and might have 3 very good teams this year (or it might just be 2 very good teams like last year).  The bottom of the West is still going to be very bad though.  LA, Sacto, and Phoenix will rival Brooklyn, Atlanta, and Orlando as the worst teams in the league.   Dallas isn't going to be very good either.  Memphis is declining and lost some key vets (and still hasn't re-signed Green).  They will be mediocre at best.

Kind of weird to argue the east isn't significantly weaker. Milsap is still a legit all-star. Butler and George are probably top 15 players in the game. They all went to East to West (which also led their teams to get rid of solid veteran players like Teague and Rondo) Indiana, Chicago and Atlanta completely gutted their teams. They went from teams that were tough to go in an win on their home court to teams that are expected to win 25 games. Last year you would think the Celtics might go 8-4 or 7-5 against. This year it would be pretty bad if the Celtics don't go 10-2 in their 12 games against those rebuilding teams.

Minnesota has gone from a lottery team to a team that is expected to win 48 games. OKC is now an upper echelon team..
Boston should be better.  The Cavs, Raptors, and Wizards should all be about that the same.  That is the top 4 teams from last year.  I expect Milwaukee to also be in the upper 40's or lower 50's in the wins (that seems like a natural progression for them).  If Milwaukee makes that jump and the other 4 teams remain the same, that means the top 5 in the East will be better this year than last year. 

I would expect 3 of these 4 teams to all make the playoffs in the low to mid 40's wins - Charlotte, Detroit, Miami, and Philadelphia.  Last year 5-9 all ended with 41 to 43 wins.  I expect that to happen with those 4 teams taking up 6-9 in that same general win range as the teams in those slots did last year. 

Assuming the Knicks keep Anthony, I would expect them to be a mid 30's win team (I wouldn't be totally surprised to see them get into the 40's either, though don't think it happens).  Orlando should take a jump into the mid 30's as well.  I don't think Indiana drops off the map and should be a mid to low 30's win team.  Yes losing George and Teague hurts, but they did add Oladipo, Bogdanovic, Joseph, Sabonis, and the 2 rookies (Leaf and Anigbou), add them to Turner, Young, Allen, Jefferson, etc. and that team isn't a dreg.  They shouldn't get to 42, but under 30 would surprise me. 

Chicago looks like a bad team, especially if they let Wade go and Lavine misses a good chunk of the season, but I don't think they are a historically bad type team.  They are probably a mid to low 20's win team. 

Brooklyn is probably a 20ish win team again.  They've added some talent and losing Lopez might actually help their team on the whole as he was really really bad defensively.

Atlanta looks like the clear dreg and depending on how they fill out their roster (I think they have like 9 players under contract) they might be a historically bad team.   

So I believe the top 5 in the East this year, will actually be stronger than the top 5 in the East were last year.  I think the rest of the Eastern playoff teams (and the 9th team) will generally be the same level of team as last year.  I think there will still be some teams winning in the 30's and some teams winning in the 20's.  To me the fact that Atlanta will now be terrible (and the worst team in either season), doesn't really alter the conference on the whole. 

I just don't see this precipitous drop off in the East on the whole.  3 average teams are now bad and 3 bad teams are now average.  That just doesn't move the needle. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7557
  • Tommy Points: 875
I'm not sure the East is really that much weaker.  I mean it isn't like Butler, George, and Millsap were on good teams.  Toronto should still be pretty good.  Washington should still be pretty good.  I expect Milwaukee to take a pretty decent jump into that group (i.e. high 40's, low 50's in wins).  Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Detroit should all be better and will basically replace Atlanta, Chicago, and Indiana in the standings.  Miami was on a 60 win pace for half the season and return their team (with the addition of KO).   

Boston is still pretty clearly the second best team in the East (though may again end up as the 1 seed), but I think this notion that the East got a lot worse is a stretch.  Some teams will move around, but I expect a pretty similar level of play from the East on the whole.
No sorry, that is pretty easy to disprove.  Just list out all the player movements so far in this off-season.  The vast majority of GOOD players who changed conferences went East to West with Hayward being a notable exception, followed distantly by JJ Reddick and Jeff Green.
Good players on bad teams, doesn't alter the conference that much is the point I'm making.  Atlanta won 43 games.  Indiana won 42 games.  Chicago won 41 games.  Those teams were average teams.  Obviously the players that moved make Minnesota, Oklahoma City, and Denver better teams than they were and make those 3 mediocre teams in the East worse, but I think those mediocre teams are easily replaced by other mediocre teams in the East who got better.  Charlotte added Dwight Howard.  He makes them better.  Detroit got Bradley, he makes them better.  Miami added Olynyk to a team that closed on a 60 win pace for half the season.  They will be better.  Giannis will continue to get better and the Bucks should make another jump in wins.  The Jazz and Clippers were both 51 win teams and both will almost certainly be a lot worse next year (replaced in the standings by the Thunder and Wolves most likely). 

This notion that the East got worse and the West got better from top to bottom, I just don't buy.  The West had 3 great teams and 2 very good teams last year.  The West still has 3 great teams (Houston got even better) and might have 3 very good teams this year (or it might just be 2 very good teams like last year).  The bottom of the West is still going to be very bad though.  LA, Sacto, and Phoenix will rival Brooklyn, Atlanta, and Orlando as the worst teams in the league.   Dallas isn't going to be very good either.  Memphis is declining and lost some key vets (and still hasn't re-signed Green).  They will be mediocre at best.

Kind of weird to argue the east isn't significantly weaker. Milsap is still a legit all-star. Butler and George are probably top 15 players in the game. They all went to East to West (which also led their teams to get rid of solid veteran players like Teague and Rondo) Indiana, Chicago and Atlanta completely gutted their teams. They went from teams that were tough to go in an win on their home court to teams that are expected to win 25 games. Last year you would think the Celtics might go 8-4 or 7-5 against. This year it would be pretty bad if the Celtics don't go 10-2 in their 12 games against those rebuilding teams.

Minnesota has gone from a lottery team to a team that is expected to win 48 games. OKC is now an upper echelon team..
Boston should be better.  The Cavs, Raptors, and Wizards should all be about that the same.  That is the top 4 teams from last year.  I expect Milwaukee to also be in the upper 40's or lower 50's in the wins (that seems like a natural progression for them).  If Milwaukee makes that jump and the other 4 teams remain the same, that means the top 5 in the East will be better this year than last year. 

I would expect 3 of these 4 teams to all make the playoffs in the low to mid 40's wins - Charlotte, Detroit, Miami, and Philadelphia.  Last year 5-9 all ended with 41 to 43 wins.  I expect that to happen with those 4 teams taking up 6-9 in that same general win range as the teams in those slots did last year. 

Assuming the Knicks keep Anthony, I would expect them to be a mid 30's win team (I wouldn't be totally surprised to see them get into the 40's either, though don't think it happens).  Orlando should take a jump into the mid 30's as well.  I don't think Indiana drops off the map and should be a mid to low 30's win team.  Yes losing George and Teague hurts, but they did add Oladipo, Bogdanovic, Joseph, Sabonis, and the 2 rookies (Leaf and Anigbou), add them to Turner, Young, Allen, Jefferson, etc. and that team isn't a dreg.  They shouldn't get to 42, but under 30 would surprise me. 

Chicago looks like a bad team, especially if they let Wade go and Lavine misses a good chunk of the season, but I don't think they are a historically bad type team.  They are probably a mid to low 20's win team. 

Brooklyn is probably a 20ish win team again.  They've added some talent and losing Lopez might actually help their team on the whole as he was really really bad defensively.

Atlanta looks like the clear dreg and depending on how they fill out their roster (I think they have like 9 players under contract) they might be a historically bad team.   

So I believe the top 5 in the East this year, will actually be stronger than the top 5 in the East were last year.  I think the rest of the Eastern playoff teams (and the 9th team) will generally be the same level of team as last year.  I think there will still be some teams winning in the 30's and some teams winning in the 20's.  To me the fact that Atlanta will now be terrible (and the worst team in either season), doesn't really alter the conference on the whole. 

I just don't see this precipitous drop off in the East on the whole.  3 average teams are now bad and 3 bad teams are now average.  That just doesn't move the needle.

I really am pretty baffled you think that the Pacers are going to be a .500 team. Al Jefferson is not at basketball at anymore. Lavoy Allen never was. Thad Young has made a career playing for really bad basketball teams. Sabonis and rookies are not going to make an impact on anything.
Their best player is Myles Turner and their second best player is Oladipo.

Cleveland and Toronto didn't completely nose dive, but they are getting worse. Cleveland has been unable to add any badly needed youth to their bench and Lebron is definitely not getting better at 32 years old. Toronto lost a number of rotation players (Tucker, Patterson, Joseph) and seem to have only gotten Miles back for them and whatever improvements they may get from Powell or other young players probably is offset by Lowry continuing to age and get more banged up.

I don't really know how you think the Knicks could win 40 games either. They won 31 last year and have an odd collection of declining vets (Noah, Carmello), as of now it is unclear who plays point guard and most people don't feel like Hardaway Jr. is going to move any needles. Is this all predicated on KP making a big leap?

Offline Moranis

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16503
  • Tommy Points: 783
I said Indiana would be a mid to low 30's win team.  That doesn't make them .500.

The Knicks won 31 games last year.  They will likely lose Rose, but I would expect Noah to play more than 46, think KP will not only improve but play more than 65 games, think the Anthony distraction will be gone (if they keep him), they will stop trying to play the stupid triangle offense, Hernangomez, Kuzminskas, and O'Quinn should all be better and with more consistent playing time, Hardaway may be overpaid but he is an upgrade at SG (and pushes Lee to the bench), and who knows what happens with Ntilikina.  The Knicks only have 11 players under contract for next year, so they will still make some moves.  Obviously if they trade Anthony, I think they will go into full bore rebuilding, but if not I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see them bring Rose back for another year or make other moves of that nature. 

Toronto only had Ibaka for 23 games last year.  A full season with him should help the overall quality of the team.  I think Siacam, Poetzl, and Nogueira are more than capable bench bigs.  Powell should have no issues as the starting SF.  They didn't really replace Joseph, Tucker, or Carroll, though they do have still have some open roster spots to fill in the bench.  They should still be a 50+ win team. 

The Cavs are built on their big 4, who are all in their prime (though James is obviously on the tail end of his).  Unless James has a month or more long injury for the first time in his career, they will still be a 50+ win team.  They won't push for the 1 seed because they have no reason to.  Vegas has them as a pretty large favorite to win the East for a reason (even though Vegas predicts the C's to have as many or more wins than the Cavs). 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Offline celticsclay

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7557
  • Tommy Points: 875
I said Indiana would be a mid to low 30's win team.  That doesn't make them .500.

The Knicks won 31 games last year.  They will likely lose Rose, but I would expect Noah to play more than 46, think KP will not only improve but play more than 65 games, think the Anthony distraction will be gone (if they keep him), they will stop trying to play the stupid triangle offense, Hernangomez, Kuzminskas, and O'Quinn should all be better and with more consistent playing time, Hardaway may be overpaid but he is an upgrade at SG (and pushes Lee to the bench), and who knows what happens with Ntilikina.  The Knicks only have 11 players under contract for next year, so they will still make some moves.  Obviously if they trade Anthony, I think they will go into full bore rebuilding, but if not I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see them bring Rose back for another year or make other moves of that nature. 

Toronto only had Ibaka for 23 games last year.  A full season with him should help the overall quality of the team.  I think Siacam, Poetzl, and Nogueira are more than capable bench bigs.  Powell should have no issues as the starting SF.  They didn't really replace Joseph, Tucker, or Carroll, though they do have still have some open roster spots to fill in the bench.  They should still be a 50+ win team. 

The Cavs are built on their big 4, who are all in their prime (though James is obviously on the tail end of his).  Unless James has a month or more long injury for the first time in his career, they will still be a 50+ win team.  They won't push for the 1 seed because they have no reason to.  Vegas has them as a pretty large favorite to win the East for a reason (even though Vegas predicts the C's to have as many or more wins than the Cavs).

Well, that's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are all above average