2007-2008 NBA Blog Previews: Atlantic Division

by Atma Brother ONE on Oct 9, 2007 7:56 AM PDT in NBA

We're less than a month away from the start of the 2007-2008 NBA Season and that means it's time for the 2nd annual NBA Blog Previews organized by Jeff Clark of CelticsBlog fame. Last year's previews were a ton of fun and I'm really looking forward to this year's set. I remember about this time a year ago when I wrote the preview for the Warriors, I laughed, I cried- actually I cried a whole lot. 2006-2007 looked extremely bleak for the Warriors even with the return of Nellie. Thank god We Believe happened.

Last year hoops junkies worldwide jokingly referred to the Atlantic Division as the NBA's "Titantic Division", but thanks to some collusion from some old Celtics' buddies, the Knicks getting a 20-10 big man- actually make that an extremely large big man- for free, the Nets getting back Nenad Krstic, and the Raptors not being such Craptors anymore, this looks like it'll actually be a good season for the NBA's Northeast. Oh and the 76ers? They are now on the clock for the 1st pick in the 2008 NBA Draft.

Will this old sinking ship sail in finer waters this season?

Make sure to check out these previews of the Atlantic Division by some of the Northeast's finest bloggers. It's always good to hear from folks who actually know their team inside out:

Celtics
Celtics Blog
LOY's Place
Celtics 17
Red's Army
Celtics 24/7
Green Bandwagon

Nets
Hooplah Nation
NetsDaily

Knicks
Straight Bangin'
Posting and Toasting

Sixers
Passion and Pride

Raptors
HoopsAddict/RaptorsHQ
HoopsAddict

I see the Atlantic Division playing out like this:

Boston Celtics- They might cheat like crazy in Boston, but at least they win.
New York Knicks- Eddy Curry, Zach Randolph, and Jerome James might be the most obese trio of big men to ever "grace" an NBA roster. Still, 2 of these guys have some serious skills.
New Jersey Nets- Jason Kidd and Vince Carter are still the league's best backcourt duo.
Toronto Raptors- Well at least they snuck in one non-Craptor year.
Philadelphia 76ers- Last year's late season padded win total was a fluke. This team is awful.

What's your prediction for the Atlantic Division?

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Philly?

How exactly did Philly pad their win total last year? How does one pad their wins? I agree that they aren't going to be particularly good, but their record seemed more or less in line with their personnel.

by jae on Oct 9, 2007 9:58 AM PDT reply actions

Good point

You're right "padded" probably isn't the right word. I just think that the run the Sixers went on post-AI trade that everyone was "oooh-ing" and "aaah-ing" over was a fluke. I give that franchise more credit that the Celts who blatantly tanked it last season though.

They won 35 games last year and with that run they had at the end it would indicate that they're within striking distance of the Leastern Conference playoffs. It's misleading. They benefitted from being in a terrible division and conference- they're a bad team. I'd be surprised if they hit the 25-28 win mark this season.

I'd love to see them sweep the Celts' this year though.

by Atma Brother ONE on Oct 9, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions

hype

It seemed to me that what Philly did was more or less in line with their personnel. I think that what happened post Iverson trade both in Philly and in Denver indicates that Iverson was an over-hyped superscorer, but wasn't anywhere close to as valuable to his team in terms of the most critical ability--winning games--as many perceived him to be. Philly improved considerably because they got back valuable talent and really didn't lose that much. Denver didn't improve much because they got a high volume, low efficiency scorer. People who thought Iverson was more valuable than he really is expected the opposite, but it was not only predictable, some actually predicted it.

I don't think they're in danger of making a run for anything but since most of their team is back, I don't see why they can't reproduce what they did last year. They don't have the hyped superstar that seems to attract people to teams (and overestimate a team's chances of winning) but they've got several solid, well above average contributors.

by jae on Oct 9, 2007 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions

Interesting take

As always great to hear your thoughts and analysis. I'll admit I'm a HUGE AI fan, so I'm incredibly biased, but I don't think Iverson is really that high volume scorer that can't win which you're pointing to. The Nuggets were red hot at the end of last season when Melo returned and I think they'll be a top 4 team in the West and possibly be in the elite team discussion with the Snores, Mavs, and Suns.

I'd venture to say that if the Nuggets didn't face the Spurs in their bracket they would've reached the 2nd round and possibly even the conference finals.

by Atma Brother ONE on Oct 9, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Iverson

Iverson is incredibly entertaining to watch. He can do things on the court that no one else can. He's electric. I'd pay to watch him. (In part because his particular skills mean you may see a guy go off for 50 points in a losing cause--best case scenario for seeing an exciting player come to town.) But he's also erratic and doesn't seem to know when to take shots and when not to.

It's not that Iverson can't win (he can and has), it's that his contributions to wins aren't as great as many think. People point to his finals appearance as an indication that he can carry a team without anyone else on it, but that team was loaded. It just wasn't loaded with offensive players. It was loaded with defenders and rebounders which is what you need if you've got a high vol. low percentage shooter doing most of your scoring. You need to keep the score down and you need to grab rebounds to negate the many, many misses. Once these guys weren't around, Iverson continued to do the same thing, but the team didn't win nearly as often.

What Iverson can do in a full year in Denver remains to be seen. He did shoot better when he dropped his overall attempts and had someone else doing a bunch of scoring. 'Melo rebounded better (and was consequently much more valuable) when he didn't focus almost entirely on scoring. And the team still has Camby, who if healthy is an exceptionally valuable and often overlooked player. They can and will win many games, but by the superstar factor, they should be challenging for the title as many people predicted would happen when they acquired Iverson and I simply don't see that happening. Their record with both of them healthy and starting was 20-15. That projects to a 47 win season if they play that way for 82 games. It's not quite as good a winning percentage as they started the season with before 'Melo was suspended.

Yes, DEN went on a relative tear (15 wins in 22 games with both in the lineup) at the end of the season, but teams go on tears from time to time. If they did this for an entire year, it would have projected to a 56 win season I don't think this implies that the whole of next year will resemble that end more than it will resemble their season as a whole. That requires that the end wasn't a result of a small sample size, that both players can remain healthy for the entire year (something that's unlikely given that it's been several years since Iverson played a full campaign. His style is exciting, but as he gets older, the pounding he takes is unlikely to leave him ready to suit up 82 times a year.

My guess is that they're somewhere between 44 and 48 wins next year, somewhere between the 4th and 6th playoff seed.

by jae on Oct 9, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll add

Just from watching his play his impact on the defensive end really seems to have dropped off. This guy used to be a real ball hawk on the perimeter. One thing that's steadily (and expectedly) declined over the past few years is his steals per game. Still, I think the Nuggets can overcome his declining D with all those big Monstars down low- Camby, Nene, and KMart particularly. I actually think they goofed big time by moving Earl Boykins to save some dollars, but that's a another story for another time.

44-48 wins for the Nuggets seems reasonable. I'm thinking more along the lines of 47-51, but we'll see.

by Atma Brother ONE on Oct 9, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Andre Miller

As the converse of Iverson being overrated; Andre Miller seems annually underrated. He's a quality, experienced distributor that put the others in position to make plays.

So removing a guy that needs the ball alot to score inefficiently and installing a guy thats excellent at spreading it around, surround him with some athletes (Carney, AI2) and shooters (Korver) and you have a minimal dropoff in production.

Questions? Complaints?

(AIM: JetForze; email: Jon.d.ma@gmail.com)

by OptionZero @ Golden State Of Mind on Oct 9, 2007 7:25 PM PDT up reply actions

I wouldn't go that far

Iverson has some flaws, but I wouldn't say you can sub in Andre Miller and get equivalent output overall from your team.

Not that assist numbers mean everything but AI and Miller averaged virtually that same number of assists last season playing on the 76ers. AI had 7.2 and Miller had 7.3, although AI played far less games. I'll take AI with slightly more thefts and a nightly threat to drop 30 any night over Miller any day. There was more to that trade than basketball though- bridges were burned.

I thought Andre Miller was on the verge of breaking out after that one year with the Cavs when he dropped 10.9 dimes a game, but that was a fluke. Miller's very solid, but not much more than that.

by Atma Brother ONE on Oct 9, 2007 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Miller

Empirical evidence suggests that you can sub Andre Miller in and get equivalent (or better) team production. It goes against the conventional wisdom that a 30ppg scorer will be more valuable than a 14ppg scorer, but Miller doesn't demand a huge number of shots and the team got better with him. Most people would take the higher scorer most of the time. That doesn't mean it's going to be better for the team to do so. The notion that no one else on the 6ers could score (hence Iverson took all the shots) appears to have been false.

Miller does several things that correlate better with winning than raw point totals. He shoots the ball very well for a point guard and he rebounds the ball very well.

The subjective ratings don't make Miller look as valuable as he has been for almost every team he's ever played for (the exception being his year in LA, when he stunk, the team stunk, BAU for the Clippers).

by jae on Oct 10, 2007 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions

76ers could be underestimated

I see what some of you are saying but what I see in the sixers is a great backcourt (if Iguodala is SG again). AMiller is underrated and is still a great playmaker. He always gets it done and his only weakness is lack of an outside shot. Iguodala may well be an allstar this season as he showed he was an amazing player the last few months last season. It all depends on what their frontline can do. If Dalembert gets healthy and fit, he could be a very good Center. He gets the rebounds and blocks at least and those are weaknesses for the sixers. They are not that bad.

Celtics have the huge three but what else do they have? I like Perkins and think he will be very valuable as he rebound and blocks shots real well but he has no real backup and if he gets injured the Celts are in some trouble. Rondo is a two bit player. That guy has holes in his game and is not starting PG material. Surprised they didn't go after Brevin Knight as he would have fit nicely. They have a pretty thin team and will need some guys to step up. Tony Allen could well be the player that rises and gives them a 4th good player and that might be enough for them to win the East. It is no sure thing as Pistons are still gret and Heat could get healthy

by migya on Oct 10, 2007 1:33 AM PDT reply actions

Wait a sec...

NY #2, Toronto #4?

Are we talking about the same NY and Toronto? The perpetually terrible Knicks, led by fat Curry with his bum shoulder, Z-Bo the Ballhog, and old/bad/crazy Starbury, versus the defending division champ, a tough, balanced team, with a young, improving core?

Ah well, at least you put the Celtics #1. Slowly letting go of some of your Boston hate? What next -- admitting that the Cursed Red Sox and Cheating Patriots do not, in fact, suck?

You're getting there, grasshopper... :-)