2011 NBA Preview

td4life
October 24th, 2010 at 6:01 pm

They’ll be a tough team to guard, especially if their shooters have a good year (Miller, House, Jones), but their lack of a low-post threat is a drawback. Miller’s absence will not help them during the 1st two months. We already know that Wade & James are extremely tough covers, and Bosh is no day in the park either. I’m not a coach, so I won’t bother to draw up a game plan for you on how to defend them, but it can be done well enough that this team should lose at least 17 games. But my points on this thread have nothing to do with the relative potency of the offensive fire-power of the Heat. In fact I’ve acknowledged they could very well win 60+ games their first year together. Nonetheless, I do feel that LA, Boston, & Orlando match up very well with them from both an offensive & defensive perspective, and they each have crucial advantages in intangibles over Miami, particularly when it comes to a late playoff/championship run. My whole point has been that I don’t believe the Heat are equipped to win 69+ games this year (an extreme win total that just two teams have ever done). I think that’s entirely unrealistic for all the reasons I’ve enumerated ad nauseum on this thread.

Bankshot21
October 25th, 2010 at 6:44 am

“Jim,

A team with arguably less talent won 72 games. What don’t you get?”

But that is one of my main points!! Titles and extremely HIGH win totals are as much about “intangibles” (coaching, experience playing together, leadership, character, chemistry, luck, etc……..) as they are about talent! As a result, some teams don’t win as much as expected with high talent, other teams win more than expected considering their talent. Often times it comes down to all the intangibles, which in many respects Miami is relatively weak in.

“Rodman was new to the team so the team chemistry thing isn’t too great of an argument.”

But he was a “perfect” fit as a player to compliment the superior leadership of the Bull’s dynamic duo, which had played 6 years together, and three championships under their belt. Miami does not compare to that situation one bit.

“If Garnett, Pierce, and Allen can win 66 their 1st year together I don’t see it as an impossible feat for the better trio of Wade, James, and Bosh to win 3 more games in their 1st year.”

First of all, there’s a big difference between winning 66 and 69 games: more than ten teams have done the former, just two have done the latter. Second, nobody is saying that it’s “impossible” for Miami to win 69+, just HIGHLY unlikely. What Boston did in 2008 was extremely unique, but they had some things on their side: (1) a much more experienced and accomplished coach; (2) three star players that were more mature in their leadership skills; (3) two pieces of budding young talent (Rondo, Perkins) at two key positions (PG, Center); (4) a stronger inside presence in the low post; and (5), the big three worked together for several hours a day for the whole month of September (which included 5×5 drills), played a full preseason together, and stayed healthy the whole year (Miami already has Miller out for 2+ months).

Bankshot21
October 26th, 2010 at 6:30 am

This is what I said about Rodman joining the Bulls in 1995:

“But he was a “perfect” fit as a player to compliment the superior leadership of the Bull’s dynamic duo….”

It’s pretty obvious why Rodman was the “perfect” fit as a player going into that 1995-96 season: “he didn’t need or want the ball.” He was a perfect compliment because all he wanted to do was rebound & defend. You do realize there’s only ONE ball, right? Wade, James, & Bosh all need the ball to be most effective. That’s been their history. Now, can they make the necessary, significant adjustment to their games to mesh well enough to win an ungodly amount of games? I suppose that’s still an open question, but from a “team” basketball perspective they are far from a “perfect” fit going in to their first season together.

“Spoelstra is the coach but I think its painfully obvious that Riley is at the helm of the ship and his experience and accomplishments far exceed those of Ainge, and Doc combined.”

But it matters who THE COACH is! He’s the one that is managing the players and the games on a daily basis, not the GM. Would you rather have a coach with 2 years experience & R.C. Buford, or would you rather have Pop? Would you rather have Mitch Kupchak & a two-year coach, or would you prefer Phil Jackson?

“Yes the aforemention 66 wins only occured 10 times but are you aware 3 of those 10 have come in the past 5 years? It’s obviously more achievable now than it was over the 1st 50+ years of the NBA’s existence.”

No, you can’t with make that assertion. You can’t just look at a recent snapshot of NBA history, and compare it against the history as a whole and draw any firm conclusions. For example, three different teams won 66+ in three straight years between 1970 and 1973: Bucks 66 wins in 1970-71; Lakers 69 wins in 1971-72; and the Celtics 68 wins in 1972-73. Thus, it’s just as likely that we’ve just passed through a high-win total phase, and probably won’t see a 66+ win season for another few years at least because teams have gotten better at the bottom of the pack. They’ll be more “upsets” this year of the top teams.

“We can look at the league as a 60+ year league but that’s not an accurate way of assessing the more recent feats. We have had rule changes that will definitely alter results when factoring in seasons of yesteryear.”

Sure, it’s obvious that the league is dynamic and constantly evolving, but that doesn’t mean that it’s history is not instructive when evaluating its present or future. One obvious change that one should take into account when making present-day evaluations is that while the league has expanded considerably, so has its overall talent pool. And the rules make it so that the bottom teams rarely stay down for long (e.g., draft lottery) except sometimes for teams with poor management/ownership, as top young talent continues to replenish those in the bottom half of the standings. And the fact is teams near the bottom improving will have a dampening effect on extreme win-totals at the top.