I bet KCP will wait until after Wizards officially match Porter so the Nets will have a shot at him anyway. I mean unless the Lakers or Hawks make some crazy offer for him in the next couple days.
2017 NBA offseason thread
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Thanks for posting. You should get a cut of everyone who's going to be gambling with your final projections.
Two-part question please. How does your projections handle rookies - and more specifically Simmons? Are their value taken off of their college stats or done by draft slot or some other method?
Understand if you don't want to go into detail but the PHI projections seem low to me but I understand they are an extremely special case.
Isn't 35 wins fairly positive for the Sixers? A low playoff seed in the East if things break right, given their decent role players, and some downside scenarios where Fultz and Simmons take their rookie lumps and Embiid isn't healthy or able to play a ton?
Yes, things playing out in an interesting way for KCP.
Lakers seem unlikely to commit a lot to him, unless he wants a one-year deal. Nets still may be in the KCP race, which would make their decision on Carroll look good (or at least for me). Sixers likely to keep powder dry as well, especially given commitment to Redick.
Rookies right now are given a replacement level (-2) projection across the board. I've done a decent amount of work on projecting rookie performance using summer league stats however, so once summer league ends, I will swap in updated projections which account for draft slot, and summer league stats. I don't do any NCAA projections, although it would probably help as well.
Alan Wiliams back to the Suns. Dude can rebound. http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246843/Alan-Williams-Agrees-To-Three-Year-$17M-Deal-With-Suns
Anyone have any idea what Mason Plumlee is going to get this off season? I still think Crowder makes a lot of sense there since Denver has lots of bigs. Granted the only other shot blocking presence behind Plumlee is rookie Tyler Lydon but the only SF behind Chandler is their 49th pick this year in Cancar unless Burton plays there.
Despite Plumlee's lack of range and terrible FT shooting, I think he'd be a really good fit with his rebounding, passing and blocking ability. I guess he's kinda redundant with Baynes minus the passing, just the superior version. He probably gets $12mil+ so the Celtics won't be able to really match contracts anyway.
Despite Plumlee's lack of range and terrible FT shooting, I think he'd be a really good fit with his rebounding, passing and blocking ability. I guess he's kinda redundant with Baynes minus the passing, just the superior version. He probably gets $12mil+ so the Celtics won't be able to really match contracts anyway.
I actually like Lydon and think that he's going to be an effective pace & space 4. I wouldn't mind a Crowder/Lydon trade next summer.
So KD apparently helped sell PG on OKC? Further evidence that Durant is a total mensch, but I hope it doesn't come back to bite the Warriors in the ass!
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19960768/paul-george-gets-high-praise-oklahoma-city-thunder-former-star-kevin-durant
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/19960768/paul-george-gets-high-praise-oklahoma-city-thunder-former-star-kevin-durant
Someone had mentioned Joffrey Lauvergne in one of these threads. He went to the (of course) Spurs for a two-year deal. According to this website and Bing translate, deal is for $3.1MM.
Sorry if I missed it but Grizzlies signed Tyreke Evans.
Sorry if I missed it but Grizzlies signed Tyreke Evans.
They had 28 with embiid playing only 31 games and now adding Simmons, fultz, redick, bayless, korkmaz and the starting unit may be entirely the bench unit this. I don't think that's crazy at all but I would imagine the margin of error for the sixers is as high as any team.
Yeah, I'm totally fascinated to see how this works out. None of those guys (meaning the FEDS) has won more games than he's lost in at least a season, if not three or four years. Does losing build bad habits? Can a "blank slate" team learn to win together?
I know the Redick acquisition is supposed to address some of those concerns, but the fact is that the guys who should play the most are all accustomed to losing - either in their brief college careers, or as part of The Process. Can a team just "flip the switch" and start winning because TALENT? I'm sorta dubious - I think "winning" is a habit and comes from doing the right things at the right times - and we have no clue if any of these guys is a "winner" - but it is gonna be fascinating to watch.
76ers were 13-18 when Embiid played - actually 13-13 after five losses to start the season and were 10-5 in the month of January.
As London notes, they are adding a good deal of talent.
If they stay healthy, I think they will win more than 41 games but I agree with London that's a huge "if."
Whatever "habits" that go into winning, their impact on winning is dwarfed by Talent. Remember, the 76ers were 10-5 in January and there was some talk (okay maybe by me) that they might squeak into the playoffs before Embiid went down again. Did that run mean that the 76ers had developed "winning habits"?
You don't need great habits if games aren't close.
The 76ers number seems fine to me if you weigh the various injury and rookie PT situations. The current number on online sportsbooks is 40.5, but juiced heavily on the under to -130. That juice is worth about 2.5 wins, so the effective line is 38. I'm still under that, but it's not an especially big gap.
They're probably the highest variance team in the NBA however. I'd have them 3rd in the East in odds to make the finals.
They're probably the highest variance team in the NBA however. I'd have them 3rd in the East in odds to make the finals.
I dunno, that's what makes it fascinating. Though I will say I'm dubious that a small sample (10-5) is indicative of anything more generally.
I do think that sustained winning (i.e. more than the month of January) requires winning habits (and the associated "doing the right things at the right times"). It will be interesting to see how a bunch of chronic losers who've done nothing but lose and/or be "the man!" in their small ponds develop the cohesiveness that is required for sustained winning.
41 wins? I wouldn't bet against it. 50 wins? That I would bet against, even if every one of the FEDS is exactly as good as advertised.
Well, sure. But him going to Cleveland or Boston makes either of those teams a more credible threat than OKC will ever be
Yeah - I don't think they're the highest upside (that's still, like, the Warriors). The variance is very high however, both on an injury and talent POV. Simmons, Fultz, and Embiid are all hurt, or coming back from injury. Simmons and Fultz could both be very good immediately, or they could be among the worst regulars in the NBA (cause most rookies, especially guards, tend to be).
What did you mean when you said you would have them third in odds to make the finals?
Well what does that mean ? I take it to mean the tails are skewed so their probability of hitting a significant number of wins above their mean isn't as outlandish as it would be for other teams who have a higher peaked distribution.
How is that different than saying upside in layman terms.
I'm guessing that he puts the Cavs and Cs at 1 and 2, and then is thinking/modeling that none of the other Eastern Conference teams have enough variance in their projections to beat the Cavs or Cs in most scenarios.
Basically if lots of things go right for the Raptors or Bucks, they're still the Raptors or Bucks. If lots of things go right for the Sixers, they have one of the most dominant players in the game surrounded by a strong core.
Ok, that's what I thought. I take the best incarnation of the Freak with his supporting cast over the Sixers.
Because variance isn't upside?
He's saying that he could see the Sixers winning anywhere from (as an example) 22 to 52 games depending on what happens. The Cavs probably clock in at something like 45 to 65 games.
Cavs have higher upside (65 wins) but Sixers have more variance (30 win difference).
Dude, what the fuck? I know that upside and variance are not the same thing. He said the Sixers have the highest variance and he would give them the highest odds to finish third in the East. That is a fat tailed Bell curve. I said I thought the Bucks had a better shot at third in the east. This is because even though the Buck's variance is lower they start from a higher mean than the Sixers (I mean, you are making the same fucking argument in your example using the Cavs).
When do you release these numbers for each of the teams? They have been extremely accurate and I always look forward to seeing them.
Yes, KD is a classy guy. Thankfully, the Thunder organization has recognized that even if many of the fans haven't. But, even with Paul George, I doubt whether the Thunder will challenge the Warriors this year. Let's see if Russ accepts a super max contract this summer (he doesn't have to -- could score lots of money as a 10 year veteran). Then, OKC can think about the future.
I misunderstood - apologies. I thought you were taking issue with the "highest variance" point. I think they have higher upside than the Bucks, yes, in spite of starting at a lower mean projection. We don't have much sample on Embiid, or any sample on Simmons or Fultz, so good outcomes can swing things pretty high. Simmons in particular - I don't have a good sense about how to handle guys who missed a full season from a projection standpoint.
I do iterations over time. My final numbers incorporate preseason data, so I don't release those until right before the season starts. I'll have the next iteration up in a week or two, once I build in summer league data.
The claim wasn't that the Sixers have the best odds to finish third. That would be a crazy claim. It was that they have the third best odds to make the Finals.
In other words, the claim is that the Sixers, are the most likely team to be better than the Celtics and Cavs out of the field. It's not quite the same as upside, although it is similar. I would also suspect that quibbling about having them ahead of the Bucks is not worthwhile because my guess is they both will have really low odds. There is a non trivial gap between the Celtics and the Bucks/Wizards/Raptors.
Ok, that is a valid distinction. I don't gamble enough to know, but are finals odd really that far away from tracking over/unders? I'm just assuming that the over/under would track to mean predicted wins. What I think you're saying is the Sixers over under will be well below 4 or 5 East teams but their odds to make the finals will be the same as those teams. That's interesting.
Bowiac actually has them below 8 teams in his initial projection. That might shift a bit as the projection is refined, but in their case, it feels about right.
The way I read it, there are small but actual chances that Embiid is healthy and great, Simmons is healthy and great, and Fultz is great, and that we see one of those rare teams that is suddenly a contender, and it's therefore more likely this all happens and Philly makes The Finals than, say, Miami. Miami has absolutely no path to The Finals. But what probably happens is the Sixers aren't great and Miami is better than them. So Miami is more likely to win 40 games but Philly is more likely to win 62, even if the Sixers only have like a 1% chance of winning 62.
(Numbers are product of my imagination).
NO would be interesting if this happened, anyway. http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/246869/Pelicans-Pistons-Discuss-Reggie-Jackson-Trade
Cousins, Davis, Jrue, Jackson, and I guess Solomon Hill. Crowder/Morris would look good on that team too but outside of their pick the only interesting guy is Diallo.
Cousins, Davis, Jrue, Jackson, and I guess Solomon Hill. Crowder/Morris would look good on that team too but outside of their pick the only interesting guy is Diallo.
I tried, but I haven't been able to parse this post. Are you saying that KC-P isn't above average? Or that they gave him the 18M instead of what available alternative?
I think he is saying KCP sucks. I don't agree with the comment but I think that's the meaning of it.
Brook, Ball, KCP, Ingram that's too good for comfort.
The Lakers really believe Lebron is signing with them next year...
If Lebron wanted more championships, he'd sign with the Celtics Spurs or Wolves. But if he doesn't sign with the Celtics, the Celtics will win 5-10 eastern conference championships in a row. Eventually we'll get lucky in the finals and win one of them.
Especially if the cap actually went up, instead of going down except for Golden State? Their salary cap is like 170m... everyone else's is around 100m. I understand the cap and the "Bird" rule, but it's complete bullshit. If you want a cap, make it like the NHL. NHL is the only sport with a real salary cap.
If Lebron wanted more championships, he'd sign with the Celtics Spurs or Wolves. But if he doesn't sign with the Celtics, the Celtics will win 5-10 eastern conference championships in a row. Eventually we'll get lucky in the finals and win one of them.
Especially if the cap actually went up, instead of going down except for Golden State? Their salary cap is like 170m... everyone else's is around 100m. I understand the cap and the "Bird" rule, but it's complete bullshit. If you want a cap, make it like the NHL. NHL is the only sport with a real salary cap.
Better them than the Nets.
Plus KCP isn't moving the needle much in the murderous west. 2-5 pick seems very doable.
Still a big quality gap between LA and most of the West. Can't believe Brooklyn didn't jump in on a one year commitment like this.
Just in case you didn't know (and for others here), you got a shot out from a UT blogger. https://www.slcdunk.com/2017/7/11/15949300/2017-nba-summer-league-utah-jazz-nba-rudy-gobert-donovan-mitchell-ricky-rubio-the-downbeat
But that's not all. Apparently, the Lakers have their sights set on . . . .
Wait for it . . . .
Rajan Rondo with the mid-level exception.
I would pay a fairly substantial amount of money if they put RR and Lavar Ball in a steel cage sometime around the All-Star break.
BTW, same article notes (via Woj) that Dewayne Dedmon is going to Hawks on a two-year, $14 million deal (second year is player option and Turkish small forward Cedi Osman signed a three year, $8.5 million guaranteed deal with the Cleveland Cavaliers.
There's also huge question marks involved with everyone there other than KCP really. Can Brook stay healthy, are the other two any good being so young, etc. If things go south with the personalities involved, it's pretty easy to imagine them turning into a dumpster fire.
I don't think KCP sucks, but I don't think he's much of a game changer, and we want the Lakers, really, to finish 3rd-6th worse so there's not too much chance of a jump to number 1 with the ping pong balls.
However, I'm guessing KCP will put up some nice looking numbers, he can be a chucker, and he'll have plenty of opportunity for chucking. The Lakers may end up worse on defense than they were last year though.
However, I'm guessing KCP will put up some nice looking numbers, he can be a chucker, and he'll have plenty of opportunity for chucking. The Lakers may end up worse on defense than they were last year though.
Yeah, KCP has been a 40% shooter for his career and low 30s from downtown. He did finally get to 35% last season. Don't think this moves the needle much and I'd rather he go to LA than the Nets.