2007-8 Eastern Conference

[Vyse]

Uh, based off what? I'd have taken money all day errday that the Bulls would've beat the Cavs in the playoffs last year, and if they meet next year I'll probably do the same.

[Droogie]

Wow Vyse... let me guess, you are a Bulls fan?

What I meant is that no team is arguably the best in the East, it's gonna be really close. And while the Bulls have a nice mix of talent depthwise I think there are multiple teams that have (a) player(s) that are better than even the best player of the Bulls (which is Deng) even though they might lack the depth of the Bulls. And I find the Bulls frontcourt seriously underwhelming, however if they give TT 25+ mins/game than I could see him develop into a force but if they will restrict his time to 15 mins than meh...

[Vyse]

Not in the slightest.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
haha nice, assani is gonna be pissed

[/ QUOTE ]

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mainly because Washington's really not that good.

I bet I can guess that without even looking at Washington's schedule (because you know his argument will be that their record was X and X when XXX were healthy) that their schedule was pretty soft until that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on Washington. This is a team that barely made the playoffs last year, and did absolutely nothing to improve this offseason, while everyone around them got a lot better. I could see the Bucks and Knicks hopping over them too.

I think a lot of people are sleeping on New Jersey too. Remember they're getting Krstic back, and added Magloire and Williams to the frontcourt. And they still have Kidd, Carter, and Jefferson. Probable starting 5 of Kidd, Carter, Jefferson, Collins/Williams/Magloire, Krstic with Marcus Williams, Wright, Nachbar, Collins/Williams/Magloire off the bench.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody watches WAS, we watch Arenas gun. Horrible team, and probably only make the playoffs because the East has been so poor. C's clearly improved, but so have the Raptors and Magic.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
eh.. you guys are right about WAS. Just looked at some team stats on bball reference. One of the worst defensive and rebounding teams. They've got a potent offense though. Standing pat is a killer, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
9. Washington

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
8. Washington

[/ QUOTE ]


Where oh where do I begin?

Lets start with the fact that the Wizards were 27-17 on January 30th of this year before anyone got hurt(on January 31st Jamison didn't play due to injury, so I'm not just arbitrarily picking a day). Thats a 61.3% winning percentage, which for the record would be 2nd in the East behind only the Pistons.

After January 30th, Arenas missed 12 games(and only played 1:30 of another game), Butler missed 23 games(and played 5 or 6 games in which he was hurt and really should've just stayed out), and Jamison missed 12 games.


"I bet I can guess that without even looking at Washington's schedule (because you know his argument will be that their record was X and X when XXX were healthy) that their schedule was pretty soft until that point."

Vyse, this is bad even for you. First off, you admit that you never even looked and are just throwing a guess out there....wtf kind of argument is that? Secondly, are you really arguing that they had a soft schedule FOR FOURTY FOUR GAMES??!!!

I really think that I'm going to regret even entertaining this complete crap, but here was their schedule over that stretch:

@Cle
Bos
@Orl
IND
MIL
NJ
@NY
@Det
Cle
@Dal
@Hou
@Mem
Det
Atl
Cha
@Chi
Dal
@NY
@Phi
Hou
Den
Mia
@LaL
@Den
@Sac
@Pho
Mem
@Cha
Orl
@Mil
Mil
LAC
@Tor
Chi
@NO
@SA
Uta
NY
@ORl
Bos
Pho
@Det
@Bos
Det
@Tor

By my quick count thats 26 games out of 44 against teams that went on to make the playoffs including 16 games against teams that I would consider elite(Cle, Det, Dal, Hous, Chi, SA, Pho, Utah).






Yes they fell completely apart once injuries hit them. But do you really blame them? They're a 3 man team. And if those 3 guys all have injury problems then they're going to struggle. I really fail to see how that different than nearly every other team in the league. Unless you guys are predicting them to have injury problems again, then saying they'll be the 8th or 9th seed is just silly imo.

Suppose that Lebron and Big Z were out for their playoff series with the Wizards and the Wizards swept the Cavs...would you guys really be picking the Cavs to only be the 8th or 9th seed this year then? Can you not see what horrible logic that is? The only possible thing I can think of is that you guys are aware of some lingering injuries that I'm not and you don't expect them to stay healthy next year.

As long as we could put a stipulation in there about the big 3 not missing more than 30 combined games, I would bet anyone that they'll be the 7th seed or higher for as much money as you'd like.



Edited to add: I went back and read the game recap from the jan 30th game, and actually think that the Wizards were the #1 team in the East before the injury bug hit them. The article says:

"Gilbert Arenas had 36 points, 11 assists and seven rebounds in Tuesday night's 104-99 victory that kept the Wizards atop the Eastern Conference."
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/recap?gid=2007013027

So just to recap our facts here:

1. After Jan 30th last season, the Wizards were the #1 seed in the East

2. Jamison got injured on the 30th, and Butler and Arenas soon got injured as well. This caused them to drop all the way to the 7th seed and get swept in the playoffs.

3. It appears as if all 3 of them should be back at full health next season.

4. You guys are picking them to be the 8th or 9th seed this year.

[Vyse]

That's 20/44 games v winning teams by my count. 17/38 after your date. Like I said, it was a guess I wasn't even taking half-seriously just to see you massively overreact and waste your time. Good job.

Most people don't think one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA is very good, especially when said team did not get better in the slightest while most of the Eastern Conference (i.e. their opponents) did, maybe of which got significantly better.

Can other teams get that same stipulation (11+ games hurt for every other team's best 2-3 players)? Since nearly every other team in the NBA is the same, you know.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, it was a guess I wasn't even taking half-seriously just to see you massively overreact and waste your time. Good job.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh...now I remember why I had you on ignore in the first place. Why do you even post in this forum when so many of your posts are just to troll? Back on ignore you go....

[Vyse]

Yeah, I'm sure you had me on ignore. Such willpower you have.

I pretty much only troll you nowadays. Too bad you disappeared. It's always been fun.

Also quite convenient for you to ignore the arguments exposing your flawed team. That's why we call them homers, after all.

Another point I forgot the mention: if the team fails so spectacularly when even one of its three key players is hurt, it's not a contender.

[Droogie]

[ QUOTE ]
Another point I forgot the mention: if the team fails so spectacularly when even one of its three key players is hurt, it's not a contender.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic the Spurs are not a contender because they'd struggle mightily without Duncan.

[Vyse]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another point I forgot the mention: if the team fails so spectacularly when even one of its three key players is hurt, it's not a contender.

[/ QUOTE ]

By that logic the Spurs are not a contender because they'd struggle mightily without Duncan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it funny that whenever someone says "by that logic," it's never by the original logic?

My post was implying any one of three key players, genius. The Spurs can make the playoffs with Parker or Ginobili injured for a substantial period of time.