Future Power Rankings: ESPN Insider

[OddEnormous]

They did?

No they didn't

HTH

 

[Mediocre Man]

Fail.

Not at this point it's not a fail.



Durant over Oden probably makes our team a bit better, but Durant over a non playing Oden makes our team a lot better.

It would be interesting to see if Durant would have had the same impact playing under Nate however.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The love affair with this OKC team by is ESPN is almost as ridiculous as the one by some so-called Blazer fans on this board. Even people in OKC aren't as excited about the Thunder as Mixum - judging by their attendance.

Irritating though it may be, it's not without merit. They have the 2nd leading scorer in the game. They have the #7 assist man in the league. They're on a 50-win pace. At this point, they've won 12 of their past 14 games, including wins over Denver, Atlanta, and Dallas. Their losses in that span are a two-point loss to Phoenix (where they led by 10 late), and a loss to the Spurs the next night (road B2B), so even those are respectable. There's a lot to love about the Thunder right now.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Irritating though it may be, it's not without merit. They have the 2nd leading scorer in the game. They have the #7 assist man in the league. They're on a 50-win pace. At this point, they've won 12 of their past 14 games, including wins over Denver, Atlanta, and Dallas. Their losses in that span are a two-point loss to Phoenix (where they led by 10 late), and a loss to the Spurs the next night (road B2B), so even those are respectable. There's a lot to love about the Thunder right now.

Reminds me of the Blazers, when they won 13 in a row.

I guess I really do want the "Thunder" to fail, not just because they have a shitty owner who stole a team, but also because of the whole Durant love-fest. Oh, and also because I'm fed up of hearing about Presti (I guess that's how other people used to feel about Pritchard - how soon until Adrian Wojowhatsit turns on Presti?), and it beats me how they keep winning. Watching them, I think it's because they've got a very good defense (although it would be pretty much useless against quality big men) and an offense that consists of opportunistic fast-breaking and Durant.

The player I find the most perplexing, though, is Westbrook. He seems to be defying the odds and turning from pure potential tweener into a top-flight PG. Basically only Chauncey Billups has done that before, so that's pretty amazing. He's still not much of a shooter and relies a lot on athleticism, though, so it'll be interesting to see how he does in the playoffs. In fact, I predict the whole Thunder team will struggle, because they seem to be too reliant on a couple of players.

Bear in mind, also, that the "Thunder" has been far-and-away the healthiest team in the league. None of their important players has missed a single game, I think. They also have a dominant record against sub .500 teams, and a below-average record against good teams:

The Thunder has feasted on teams under .500, getting 21 of their 36 wins (58 percent) against that competition. They are 21-2 in such games. But in games against teams above .500, OKC is just 15-21. Against the Western Conference they are 18-17 and are 7-10 against teams in the West’s top eight.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Jesus bloody Christ.
We have a PREVIOUS ranking in this? This isn't a one time thing?
This is the stupidest bit of sports writing I've ever heard of.

Although that would be very hard to do, this does have to come close. It's a bit like national rankings of first-grade basketball prospects. It's also inviting schadenfreude, much as critics of Jerry Krause post-Jordan experienced, and critics of the Blazers are trying to experience now. It's also odd to see the Lakers in there. I guess it is true that they've played very well without Bryant, who is just on the verge of starting to break down, but Odom and Gasol aren't exactly striplings.

And what are we supposed to take out of this? Predictions for championships? Who, the season before, predicted that Boston would win? Or, the season before the Gasol trade, that the Lakers would win? And besides which, "assets" seems to be totally subjective - practically nobody would've said the Lakers had the assets to trade for Gasol. So yes, this whole idea is stupid. And so is discussing it.

 

[BlazerBeav]

Irritating though it may be, it's not without merit. They have the 2nd leading scorer in the game. They have the #7 assist man in the league. They're on a 50-win pace. At this point, they've won 12 of their past 14 games, including wins over Denver, Atlanta, and Dallas. Their losses in that span are a two-point loss to Phoenix (where they led by 10 late), and a loss to the Spurs the next night (road B2B), so even those are respectable. There's a lot to love about the Thunder right now.

The proof is in the pudding - they're taking care of business against the bad teams thanks to a healthy roster, but are a below .500 team against potential playoff competition. Whereas we've been able to beat all of the Western Conference contenders (other than cursed Jerry Sloan's group).

 

[OddEnormous]

Although that would be very hard to do, this does have to come close. It's a bit like national rankings of first-grade basketball prospects. It's also inviting schadenfreude, much as critics of Jerry Krause post-Jordan experienced, and critics of the Blazers are trying to experience now. It's also odd to see the Lakers in there. I guess it is true that they've played very well without Bryant, who is just on the verge of starting to break down, but Odom and Gasol aren't exactly striplings.

And what are we supposed to take out of this? Predictions for championships? Who, the season before, predicted that Boston would win? Or, the season before the Gasol trade, that the Lakers would win? And besides which, "assets" seems to be totally subjective - practically nobody would've said the Lakers had the assets to trade for Gasol. So yes, this whole idea is stupid. And so is discussing it.

Excellent post. Exactly.

Enjoy some wrepped!

 

[Ed O]

This doesn't seem like a stupid concept to me at all.

It looks at the net present value of all the teams' rosters and rights to players and projects, all other things being equal, how they will do.

It's not a prophecy, and it's not even a prediction. It's a straightforward forecast.

It's done every day with financial instruments and with students/standardized tests and with potential employees. Why shouldn't it be done with NBA teams, too?

Ed O.

 

[blazerboy30]

This doesn't seem like a stupid concept to me at all.

It looks at the net present value of all the teams' rosters and rights to players and projects, all other things being equal, how they will do.

It's not a prophecy, and it's not even a prediction. It's a straightforward forecast.

It's done every day with financial instruments and with students/standardized tests and with potential employees. Why shouldn't it be done with NBA teams, too?

Ed O.

It isn't a "straightforward forecast" unless there is a "straightforward" way to estimate future injuries, as that factor appears to be the biggest factor for determining how successful we will be.

I'm curious how they attempt to account for injuries. If they ignore them or don't try to account for them in the future, I don't see how they can rank OKC above the Blazers.

Last year, with the Blazers effective average age being younger than this year's OKC, the Blazers were a 54-win team, with the point-differential indicating we were ready to start crushing teams.

IMO, there is no way the current OKC team beats last year's Blazer team, and chances are that without all of the injuries, this year's Blazer team is better than last year's.

Even with all of our injuries, OKC is 2 games ahead of the Blazers.

 

[OddEnormous]

It's done every day with financial instruments and with students/standardized tests and with potential employees. Why shouldn't it be done with NBA teams, too?

Ed O.

Right, standardized testing is exactly like ESPN NBA power rankings.

Well done.

 

[andalusian]

It isn't a "straightforward forecast" unless there is a "straightforward" way to estimate future injuries, as that factor appears to be the biggest factor for determining how successful we will be.

All future estimates have to use statistics and forecast models to try and estimate these, so it's not like there is no way to do it - but, to be honest - I really do not think this "future ranking" is worth the paper it is written on - it is nothing more than a couple of douche-bags with no real statistical / analysis background doing it.

The idea, generally has merit. It's just this specific "ranking" which is putrid. There is no way in hell that Portland has gone from 1st to 6th to 5th in a 3 months period if the "study" had any real legs behind it. At this point it is nothing more than a couple of "bloggers" with ESPN credentials pontificating. Fun to read, maybe - but pretty absurd, overall.

This is "Bleacher Report" grade piece of work, only backed by "ESPN".

 

[blazerboy30]

All future estimates have to use statistics and forecast models to try and estimate these, so it's not like there is no way to do it - but, to be honest - I really do not think this "future ranking" is worth the paper it is written on - it is nothing more than a couple of douche-bags with no real statistical / analysis background doing it.

Agreed. But my point was that there didn't seem to be any mention of a statistical model for injuries or future injuries. If they don't want to factor that in, that is their choice. But to then move OKC above the Blazers, when ignoring injuries or future injuries, is pretty silly.

 

[Ed O]

Right, standardized testing is exactly like ESPN NBA power rankings.

Well done.

Good job keeping up with logic.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

It isn't a "straightforward forecast" unless there is a "straightforward" way to estimate future injuries, as that factor appears to be the biggest factor for determining how successful we will be.

I'm curious how they attempt to account for injuries. If they ignore them or don't try to account for them in the future, I don't see how they can rank OKC above the Blazers.

Last year, with the Blazers effective average age being younger than this year's OKC, the Blazers were a 54-win team, with the point-differential indicating we were ready to start crushing teams.

IMO, there is no way the current OKC team beats last year's Blazer team, and chances are that without all of the injuries, this year's Blazer team is better than last year's.

Even with all of our injuries, OKC is 2 games ahead of the Blazers.

I was commenting on the concept. Not the execution.

Companies do crappy job interviews that let them hire total morons pretty systematically, but that doesn't change the fact that job interviews TEND to help a company make better decisions on whom to hire.

Ed O.

 

[OddEnormous]

Good job keeping up with logic.

I would have been able to had there been some.

 

[Ed O]

I would have been able too had there been some.

Check again. It's not my fault that you aren't seeing it, dude. Distorting what I said to restate it as "standardized testing is exactly like ESPN NBA power rankings" is not at all consistent with what I wrote or what my logic was.

Ed O.

 

[OddEnormous]

I was commenting on the concept. Not the execution.

Companies do crappy job interviews that let them hire total morons pretty systematically, but that doesn't change the fact that job interviews TEND to help a company make better decisions on whom to hire.

Ed O.

So you're saying that ESPN's future power ranking are just like going through the Police Academy.

Or playing a round of golf?

 

[OddEnormous]

Distorting what I said to restate it as "standardized testing is exactly like ESPN NBA power rankings" is not at all consistent with what I wrote or what my logic was.

It is what you said. then you compared ESPN's Future Power Rankings to hiring someone at a company.

I agree with you. I'm having a tough time keeping up with this logic.

 

[Ed O]

It is what you said. then you compared ESPN's Future Power Rankings to hiring someone at a company.

I agree with you. I'm having a tough time keeping up with this logic.

You're not speaking English very well. Or you're intentionally attempting to confuse me. Or you're high.

Maybe all three.

I did NOT say anything was "exactly like" anything. I did not say that this version of the ESPN Power poll was like anything else.

Please re-read (and pay attention to) what I actually wrote if you're interested in making a useful comment about it. If you're confused by what I mean by "net present value", you can ask me or you can Google it...

Ed O.

 

[OddEnormous]

You're not speaking English very well. Or you're intentionally attempting to confuse me. Or you're high.

Maybe all three.

I did NOT say anything was "exactly like" anything. I did not say that this version of the ESPN Power poll was like anything else.

Please re-read (and pay attention to) what I actually wrote if you're interested in making a useful comment about it. If you're confused by what I mean by "net present value", you can ask me or you can Google it...

Ed O.

So you're going with the message board classic "You're too stupid to get this!" when someone disagrees with you.

I like it.

It shifts the focus off of you.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Ed likes it because
(a) He loves "potential", and
(b) he thinks absolutely everything is quantifiable.

How is this different from saying "the Thunder are good and they're young"? That's fine, but then how do you talk about teams like NY who have just cleared enormous cap room just before a big free agent summer? Surely they've got UNLIMITED potential!

And it's a bit disingenuous to say that the concept is good, just that this particular realisation of it is bad unless you suggest ways that the obvious difficulties can be fixed. How do you compare teams like NY with teams like OKC? What do you say about teams like the Suns where it's been rumored for ages that they would trade Stoudemire? Did they have more potential when it looked like they had a great trade set up with Golden State?

Face it, it just isn't quantifiable. Stick to saying the Thunder have good young players, the Knicks have a lot of caproom and a big ad market, etc., etc., and stop pretending that you can compare them.

 

[hasoos]

Miami they've got Wade and little else of note besides cap room

what is this list supposed to be measuring again? Next year? The next 5 years???

STOMP

My guess is that they only have Wade for this year. Chicago has cleared space for one max free agent. They have a much better team than Miami, and Chicago is Wade's home town. So Miami better enjoy it for now. It's over after this year.

 

[Ed O]

Ed likes it because
(a) He loves "potential", and
(b) he thinks absolutely everything is quantifiable.

Everything is. It's just a matter of how confident you can be in putting a number to something.

How is this different from saying "the Thunder are good and they're young"? That's fine, but then how do you talk about teams like NY who have just cleared enormous cap room just before a big free agent summer? Surely they've got UNLIMITED potential!

Not at all. The Knicks can only add certain players, even under the best of circumstances. They have a chance at getting LeBron or Wade or Bosh as a UFA, but the percentage chance is what matters.

The Knicks are certainly better off with the cap space than a team with their same roster which will have no cap space... right? So why not rank the real Knicks ahead of the hypothetical no-space Knicks?

And it's a bit disingenuous to say that the concept is good, just that this particular realisation of it is bad unless you suggest ways that the obvious difficulties can be fixed.

That's not disingenuous in the least. There's simply no reason to throw out the baby (the idea) with the bathwater (the execution) any more than there is to throw out the content of a book based on the typeface that's used.

How do you compare teams like NY with teams like OKC? What do you say about teams like the Suns where it's been rumored for ages that they would trade Stoudemire? Did they have more potential when it looked like they had a great trade set up with Golden State?

The rankings are, as I see them, a snapshot at any given point. OKC is 100% set with a player the likes of which the Knicks only have, say, a 10% chance of getting. If/when the Knicks sign LeBron, then that ranking would change. It doesn't make the current rankings worthless or the idea a bad one.

Face it, it just isn't quantifiable. Stick to saying the Thunder have good young players, the Knicks have a lot of caproom and a big ad market, etc., etc., and stop pretending that you can compare them.

You can stick to that, because you seem to discount the notion of probabilities, but I find it entirely reasonable to compare futures of different teams based on past and present situations, even as I admit that not all future permutations and occurrences can be accounted for.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

So you're going with the message board classic "You're too stupid to get this!" when someone disagrees with you.

You were either lazy, ignorant, or stupid. I'm not sure which.

But you're not tracking with a comparison not equaling "exactly the same as", and you're not understanding that I'm distinguishing a concept from an execution of the concept. Are you saying that it's my fault that you can't read so good?

It shifts the focus off of you.

It's not about me. It's about what I posted and how horrifically you mangled it.

Ed O.

 

[OddEnormous]

You were either lazy, ignorant, or stupid. I'm not sure which.

But you're not tracking with a comparison not equaling "exactly the same as", and you're not understanding that I'm distinguishing a concept from an execution of the concept. Are you saying that it's my fault that you can't read so good?



It's not about me. It's about what I posted and how horrifically you mangled it.

Ed O.

Like I said. "YOU'RE STUPID!!!!!!"

Something is either a good comparison or it's not. Correct?

If it's not exactly like standardized testing (which you are now saying) why make the comparison?

If you're using that as an example (a measurement of skill) ESPN's power rankings are like the company picnic sack race no?

 

[e_blazer]

This board needs some trolls from other teams' fans to spar with so we don't have to have so much infighting for entertainment.

 

[jlprk]

You're not speaking English very well.

Ornery speaks Stomp-Your-Face, a transnational language. I like what the study is attempting, but it won't get credibility until it spells out its method for all to see. Then people can debate the method (how much to weigh each factor), instead of just whether it's worth doing at all.

 

[Ed O]

Like I said. "YOU'RE STUPID!!!!!!"

Something is either a good comparison or it's not. Correct?

A plane flies like an eagle. But it doesn't flap its wings.

A person eats like a pig but it's capable of sweating when it does.

Things can be a good comparison without being EXACTLY alike.

If it's not exactly like standardized testing (which you are now saying) why make the comparison?

Standardized testing is a good concept to forecast a student's ability to think and learn in another educational environment. A "future power poll" is a good concept to rank the net present value of winning of each team.

BUT... standardized tests can be flawed. Even a "flawless" test can misevaluate a person (for the better or worse for that person). Similarly, future power polls can be altogether wrong or poorly thought out...

But it doesn't mean that a future power poll is a bad idea.

If you're using that as an example (a measurement of skill) ESPN's power rankings are like the company picnic sack race no?

I don't understand this question. I'm sorry.

Ed O.