2012-2013 NBA Predictions

Eastern Playoff Teams:

1. Miami

2. Indiana

3. Boston

4. Philadelphia

5. Atlanta

6. Chicago

7. Brooklyn

8. New York

Eastern Playoffs:

Miami over New York; Indiana over Brooklyn; Boston over Chicago; Philadelphia over Atlanta

Miami over Philadelphia; Boston over Indiana

Miami over Boston

Eastern Notes:

If Miami keeps all three of their top guys healthy (which is a big if), they have a relatively easy path to the Finals. Every other team has significant weaknesses. Boston's the stronger possible foe, but they need Sullinger and Melo to step up. The team that might catch Miami napping is the 76ers, but barring injury, the Heat are the team everyone has to deal with.

　

　

　

Western Playoff Teams:

1. Los Angeles Lakers

2. OKC

3. San Antonio

4. Denver

5. Los Angeles Clippers

6. Houston

7. Dallas

8. Utah

Western Playoffs:

Lakers over Utah; OKC over Dallas; Houston over San Antonio; Denver over Clippers

Denver over Lakers; OKC over Houston

OKC over Denver

Western Notes:

I'm taking a reach here. But I think Denver's run and gun can shock the Lakers. The Lakers, like the Heat, are a top-heavy talented team with a weak bench. But unlike the Heat, half of the Laker's core are past their prime.

Unfortunately for Denver, OKC can also run and gun. Trading Harden hurts them, but they have a full year to (a) see how martin and Lamb work out and (b) make a trade for any final pieces for their puzzle.

Finals:

OKC over Heat, 4-3

OKC learned a lot in the Finals. I suspect that, in a rematch, they'll be able to handle things better. Both teams should be exhausted after having their stars play in the Olympics and playing in the Finals last year- but I think the younger OKC team will have a little more in the tank.

　

Other predictions:

Top three in the lottery: 1) Golden State 2) Orlando 3) Charlotte

Team that gets blown up at the trading deadline: Memphis

My beloved Cavs? 30 wins, tied for 9th in the East. Zeller turns into a good player, and Irving is an all-star, possibly this year. but the team will rise and fall with the inconsistent play of Dion Waiters and Tristan Thompson

Harden to Houston

Oklahoma City traded James Harden to the Houston Rockets.

I understand this deal the reasoning behind this deal.  OKC decided they couldn't afford Harden, after signing Durant and Westbrook. Harden would be a restricted free agent after this year, and someone would make him an offer that OKC wouldn't match.  Instead of letting the situation fester (see Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony), why not trade him now, get some useful players that have a full year to learn OKC's system, and move on?

But Harden was one of the key players to the team that made it to the Finals, and were the favorite to return to the Finals this year.  I would have rolled the dice, kept him for this year to win the title, then risk losing him in the offseason.   

In addition, I liked the players OKC got from Houston.  Martin is serviceable, but Lamb shows a lot of potential, and three draft picks will give OKC some talent to fill in any holes.  I think OKC did much better than Orlando did trading away Dwight Howard.








Is Harden worth a max contract?  I've heard different people argue on that.  I don't know if he's one of the best 30 players in the NBA, but I think a reasonable case can be made.

OKC has always been aggressive and smart.  They may have bungled this move, but given their track record, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  

As for Houston, they've been trying to trade for a franchise player for a while now.  In Harden, they think they have him.  They may be right.

To sum up- I wouldn't have done it, but I can see why they did it, and I won't rake them over the coals for it. 

My rant about baseball

The MLB playoffs started today, and I don't really care at all.

It wasn't like this.  I grew up a Cub's fan, and was in my first fantasy league in 1986 at the age of 14.  I can still give you the starting lineup of the '84 Cubs.  Between being a Cubs and Indians fan, I can think of four absolutely heartbreaking endings (1984/1997/2003/2007) that I suffered through.

And maybe that's my problem- get beaten down enough, and you stop caring.  Lord knows I've earned the scars.  

But baseball itself has some serious problems- and regardless of the status of my teams, the sport needs to be fixed.  Here's what I see as the problems and the solutions.

Problem:  Baseball is too imbalanced between the high-payroll teams and the low-payroll teams.

OK, here's where I get the soapbox and rant about how the Yankees pay $200 million and most teams don't pay half of that.  Go ahead and take a look.  Players are always going to favor certain markets.  But only in baseball have they given up trying to balance things between the large market teams and the small market teams.  

And hey- baseball claims they're making money.  The small market teams make a profit, the large market teams get the glory and the higher ticket prices.  Maybe everyone wins- unless you're a fan of the small-market teams.  In which case there are three choices:

1)  Accept It
2)  Stop watching altogether
3)  Embrace it and become a fan of a Large-Market team

Solution:  If they do want to fix it, besides a salary cap and floor, they need revenue sharing.  Now, for tickets at the ballpark they already have revenue sharing.  But where the large-market teams make their fortune are in the cable deals- which are not shared with the other teams.  

But again- maybe baseball has calculated that they do better with six superteams and 24 jobber teams.  And if that's what they want, enjoy.  I'm just not participating anymore.


Problem:  Too many playoffs

People were celebrating how 'exciting' the end of the season was.  Basically, they were watching a race between the fifth and sixth best teams.  Oooh.   Ahhh.

Now, if we went back to the pre-1969 days of no divisions, every game would count, and it would have come down to the last day of the season to see who'd go into the World Series.  Even the two-division days would have been exciting.

The rule of thumb:  The more playoffs there are, the less exciting the regular season is.  By adding so many teams to the playoffs, you've made the regular season less and less relevant.  

Solution:  On this one, I'm ideally a purist- get rid of the divisions.  Two leagues, no interleague play, winners face in the World Series.  I doubt I'll get my wish, but if we could go back to two divisions, I'd be happy.



Problem:  Moneyball.

The problem with the 'Moneyball' philosophy is not that it failed.  It's that the philosophy (get players with hig On-Base Percentage and Power to generate the greatest number of runs) succeeded.  29 teams in baseball now try to emulate this style of baseball.  Seattle is the only exception, and sadly they don't do well enough to challenge the model.

The problem is, the Moneyball style, while being the most efficient style to win games, is also... what's the word I'm trying to say...  boring.  Hitters wait and try to draw walks and wear down pitchers, leading to long, slow boring innings.  Less contact, more walks and strikeouts, very few stolen bases.

I don't blame the teams- they are trying to win.  The problem is, the way baseball is set up, the best way to win is also the most monotonous.

I grew up in the 80's.  You had teams that won with power (86 Mets).  That won with speed (85/87 Cardinals).  That won with Pitching (85 Royals).   George Brett could hit .390 one year, then another year Rickey Henderson would steal 130 stolen bases.   Different styles could succeed- and that made the game better.


Solution: Expand the strike zone, encourage more parks that favor pitchers and discourage home runs... if necessary, deaden the ball.  I don't want to go back to the pitching-dominated 60's... just to the sweet spot that we had in the 80's.



Maybe if we did these things I'd go back and proudly call myself a fan again.  Sadly, at this moment in my life, I'm not.  And I'm not sure if I'll be going back anytime soon.