As a Kings fan I gotta take issue lol. Having the Pacers at 7 and Kings at 12 strikes me as highly results oriented. One team has a 0.0 net rating and plays in the Minor Leagues, the other has a +3.0 and is surging without its second best player. Somewhere around 9-10 would be more appropriate for both teams imo.
Also, if this factors in long-term potential at all, why are the Mavs so low? They're 22-17 (net rating +4.0) while missing 10+ games from their two best players. If they take an injury-related hit in the rankings, why not the Pistons too?
Those are my only disagreements, great list otherwise. And thank you for ranking the Lakers accurately ;-)
As a Kings fan I gotta take issue lol. Having the Pacers at 7 and Kings at 12 strikes me as highly results oriented. One team has a 0.0 net rating and plays in the Minor Leagues, the other has a +3.0 and is surging without its second best player. Somewhere around 9-10 would be more appropriate for both teams imo.
Also, if this factors in long-term potential at all, why are the Mavs so low? They're 22-17 (net rating +4.0) while missing 10+ games from their two best players. If they take an injury-related hit in the rankings, why not the Pistons too?
Those are my only disagreements, great list otherwise. And thank you for ranking the Lakers accurately ;-)