2 Quick Reasons to Wait and See With This Year's Bobcats

This year's Bobcats are off to a 6-6 start, which is certainly better than expected for a team that was rated one step up from "intentionally tanking" by most people who follow the NBA. While there are any number of potential reasons for this start (Steve Clifford running a better defense, a year of maturation for a young core, injury luck), the real question is... should fans get excited about the Bobcats' season, and maybe hope for a playoff berth? At this point, probably not.

1. THE 2013 BOBCATS DON'T LOOK LIKE A PLAYOFF TEAM BASED ON POINT DIFFERENTIAL.

Over the last 12 seasons, there's a pretty strong relationship between a team's point differential per game (net points per game) and the number of regular season games they win. Just to prove this makes sense, the dot hanging around by itself in the lower left corner is the 2011-2012 Bobcats. So where do the 2013-2014 Bobcats stack up? Well, based on a -3.8 differential through 12 games, they'd project to about 31 wins over an 82 game season. 

Of course, there's nothing that says the Bobcats would simply stay at their current level of play all season. Which is a very stilted transition to...

2. LAST YEAR'S BOBCATS ACTUALLY LOOKED BETTER THROUGH 12 GAMES.

Most people know that the Bobcats started 7-5 last year. Most people also remember how they finished. The thing that gets forgotten? People liked the Mike Dunlap hire, and thought the team's start validated that hire. Through twelve games, his system and player development was showing through. The scary part? Through 12 games last year, the Bobcats point differential was actually better than this year's. In fact, last year's team looked like a 35 win team through 12 games. What happened over the last 70 games of that season? Frankly, a lot of things happened, and few of them were good.

LET'S JUST WAIT AND SEE.

There are so many variables to play out over the next several months, the truth is we haven't learned anything definitive yet. At the beginning of the season, most people would have pegged the Bobcats win total somewhere around 25, and the team is basically tracking somewhere in that neighborhood. Let's see how Al Jefferson integrates into the offense and defense on a full time basis. Let's see if Henderson can break out of his mini-slump. Let's see if Walker can continue to play through any nagging injury imaginable. We've got plenty of time to make bold proclamations we can't take back.

Preseason View of the 2014 Draft Class

2012 Edition
2013 Edition

With the college basketball season already underway, it's a good time to identify what prospects NBA teams will be paying attention to as the season progresses. DraftExpress and NBADraft.net are my sources for the mock draft data, because they're as good as anyone doing it. Now, this is never an exact science, especially at this point in the year; only 12 of the 30 players in each site's 1st round mock a year ago ended up drafted in the 1st round (14 out of 30 in the 2012 draft). But it can at least provide some insight into what random college basketball game you'll use to fight insomnia in January. Without further ado...

TIER 1: LOTTERY PICKS

At this point in the season, there's not a lot of debate about the top of the draft. Aside from the significant divide on Aaron Gordon, four of the top five are set. In what feels like a broken record, Kentucky has a lot of players on this list. As does Kansas. While I think this makes several draftees harder to evaluate, that's the scouts' problem. Interesting note: based on the last two years, roughly half of these players won't be lottery picks this year. For every Cody Zeller, there's a Tony Mitchell; for every Anthony Davis, there's a Perry Jones. If I had to pick a fall risk, I'd look at Marcus Smart, if only because he's experiencing a Cody Zeller-like jump in expectations as a college sophomore, and without a perceived leap in production, I could see a freshman prospect like Harrison over-taking him.

TIER 2: 1ST ROUND CONSIDERATION

As is typical, the bottom of the first round is an ever-changing mix of guys who surprisingly went back to school (read: Poythress), role players that could step into larger roles (read: Harrell, McGary), and more polished underclassmen who are more likely pitching to fill a specific role at the next level (read: McDermott, Payne, Reddic).

As always, it'll be interesting the players who skyrocket from "not on the board" to "lottery pick" come June. In 2012, it was Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Dion Waiters, and Damian Lillard. In 2013, it was Anthony Bennett, Victor Oladipo, and Kelly Olynyk. Can't wait to see, and argue about, who those guys are this year.

History Doesn't Look Kindly on the Heat's Three-Peat Chances

As the NBA season is about to get underway, there are several interesting story-lines to follow that will shape the playoffs. What will Derrick Rose look like as he returns to action? When will Russell Westbrook come back, and how will he look? What can the Houston Rockets do with arguably the two best players at their respective positions? However, the primary story-line that everyone will likely turn to, particularly in late April, is the Miami Heat's quest for a third consecutive title. Can Lebron create a three-peat, when only three NBA franchises have accomplished this in the history of the league?

While there are countless variables that will factor into the answer come June, there is one under-reported facet to this story. In order to win three straight titles, the Miami Heat will have to make their fourth consecutive NBA Finals, and win it. Why does this matter? Well, since the legendary Russell Celtics, there have been nine teams to go to three straight NBA Finals in 46 years. How did those teams do in their respective quests for an NBA championship?

NOT APPLICABLE (1994 Chicago Bulls, 1999 Chicago Bulls)

Questioning the credentials of Michael Jordan as the undisputed greatest player of all time is a fun way to waste hours of your life, and likely get in a fistfight, but in this case, it's not warranted. Despite the three championships prior to both seasons, there's no rational way to say these teams mounted legitimate title contenders while losing his Airness... twice.

LOST IN CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS (1990 Lakers, 2003 Lakers, 2011 Lakers)

For the 1990 Lakers, replacing Kareem Abdul-Jabbar may have proved too tall an order, although they did return to the Finals in 1991. In the case of the '03 and '11 Lakers, in both cases the core rotations were intact, but both fell to eventual champions in the Spurs and Mavericks, respectively.

LOST IN CONFERENCE FINALS (1971 Lakers, 1991 Pistons)

Someone significantly older than me can sit down and tell all of us what happened to the '71 Lakers. However, the story of MJ overcoming the Jordan rules, and finally defeating his nemesis Pistons on the way to becoming basketball royalty, is the stuff of legend to a somewhat younger generation. (If I'm a Pistons fan, 1991 doesn't bother me as much as the 1988 NBA Finals, particularly the end of this (go to the 1:40 mark): what Finals game gets decided with fans on the court in the last three seconds?)

LOST IN NBA FINALS (1987 Celtics)

It's hard to believe, but in the 80's, the Celtics and Lakers only played against each other in the NBA Finals three times. The Lakers would make it back to the Finals three more times after 1987 (winning once), but the Celtics never did. This also gave Los Angeles the head-to-head title for the decade (2-1).

WHAT IT MEANS

Take a look at the list above, and two things should jump out. One, out of the six teams that tried to make the Finals four consecutive times, it only happened once. Second, of the six teams that tried to win a championship, it has never happened. These teams were led by all-time greats in the sport, and didn't face the randomness of a one-and-done postseason tournament. Yet, none of the six teams could do it.

I'm not brave enough to predict that the Heat won't win it all this year. They have the best player on the planet, and an experienced roster. But they've also played three seven game series in the last two playoffs, and came early fan-exodus close to losing. Plus, last year proved that every team is one starter's injury away from being mediocre. If I were a betting man, and I could have Miami or the field, I think I'd grudgingly take the field.

Regardless, it should be fun to watch.