Debunking the Nets Injury myth

[celticsclay]

We always said that an injury to Lopez or Young would prove to be their real downfall and both of those guys have gone strong all season.

It's a shallow team.  Hollis Jefferson was arguably their best 2-way player through the first 18 games.

Michael Jordan didn't finish above .500 for the first 3 seasons of his career.  I don't care how good your top guys are... If there's no depth there and you lose half your starting lineup, you're going to struggle.   And losing 2 of your 4 best players on a shallow team can absolutely be the difference between a team that wins 30+ and picks outside the top 10... and a team that picks in the top 5.

I get that we're counting chickens with 30 games left in the season...  But also, as unthinkable as it might be, if the Nets make a couple short-sighted moves at the deadline and go roughly .500 over the remaining season (where tankers tank and contenders rest), the Nets could still do enough damage that the pick they owe us will fall outside the top 5.

RHJ was playing 22 minutes a game and averaging 5 points and 6 boards a game. He had the 6th best PER on their team, but was somehow their best two way player and you led this into some weird discussion of Michael Jordan? You had a few beers today?

[Vox_Populi]

Celticsclay, look at who is taking the time to disagree with you and remember who expected the Nets to win 30-ish games. You said it yourself:

For some reason (perhaps tied to preseason predictions and cognitive dissonance) it has become common to see the argument that the Nets are terrible because of injuries.

[jambr380]

We always said that an injury to Lopez or Young would prove to be their real downfall and both of those guys have gone strong all season.

It's a shallow team.  Hollis Jefferson was arguably their best 2-way player through the first 18 games.

Michael Jordan didn't finish above .500 for the first 3 seasons of his career.  I don't care how good your top guys are... If there's no depth there and you lose half your starting lineup, you're going to struggle.   And losing 2 of your 4 best players on a shallow team can absolutely be the difference between a team that wins 30+ and picks outside the top 10... and a team that picks in the top 5.

I get that we're counting chickens with 30 games left in the season...  But also, as unthinkable as it might be, if the Nets make a couple short-sighted moves at the deadline and go roughly .500 over the remaining season (where tankers tank and contenders rest), the Nets could still do enough damage that the pick they owe us will fall outside the top 5.

RHJ was playing 22 minutes a game and averaging 5 points and 6 boards a game. He had the 6th best PER on their team, but was somehow their best two way player and you led this into some weird discussion of Michael Jordan? You had a few beers today?

Thanks for pointing out those stats. I love RHJ and all and wanted him on the Cs, but he was hardly the difference between a quality season and a losing one. They may not have much depth, but outside of Lopez and Young they don't have much quality at all.

[Eddie20]

Reposted here...


You too said that the Nets would make the playoffs unless they traded Lopez or Johnson.

Go back to the Nets thread and read the things you guys wrote. It was all about Lopez, Young, and Johnson. No mention of Jack or Hollis-Jefferson whatsoever. Now you pretend they're indespencible. If those guys are what you're banking playoff hopes on then that's a pretty good sign they suck.

The fact is you guys were wrong. Vegas, experts, and the majority of Cs blog was right. It's time to admit it.

[PhoSita]

But expecting them to not lose any players for any part of the season is the whole issue (and a ludicrous proposition). Every single team loses rotation players or a starting player for parts of the whole season (the facts show they have actually been really lucky with respect to injuries).

You're right that you've got to factor injuries into any win prediction for a team.

I think two things are relevant and true here:

(1) Jarrett Jack was disproportionately important for that team because you need something approaching average point guard play to avoid being horrible in today's league, and he was the only guy on the roster who could give them that for 30+ minutes a night.

(2) Jarrett Jack was one of the healthiest guys in the NBA over the last 3-4 years.  He barely ever misses time.  So it's unlikely that many were predicting him to miss much time, let alone the last 2/3 of the season.


Most of the talk all along that I saw was aimed at Lopez's ankles / foot.  He's just gotta go down!  He'll definitely miss time!  That hasn't happened, and he's been the main reason they've been competitive in a number of games this season.  Lopez is a beast when healthy, and he's been healthy.


You can go both ways with this.  I appreciate your humorous point about your aunt having balls, but predicting that a team will be bad because you're "sure" that they'll lose certain key guys to injuries for large portions of the season approaches magical thinking / faith beyond a certain point, too. 

They could have lost, say, Andrea Bargnani and Wayne Ellington to season ending injuries instead, and it might not have affected their win total that much.  Injuries are to a large extent random, so placing too much emphasis on that when you're trying to predict what will happen with a team doesn't make much sense to me. 

My tack has always been to err on the conservative side, which in this case meant assuming the Nets would enjoy relatively good health for their main guys, because, well, when was the last time the Celts had good luck with this sort of thing?

[celticsclay]

But expecting them to not lose any players for any part of the season is the whole issue (and a ludicrous proposition). Every single team loses rotation players or a starting player for parts of the whole season (the facts show they have actually been really lucky with respect to injuries).

You're right that you've got to factor injuries into any win prediction for a team.

I think two things are relevant and true here:

(1) Jarrett Jack was disproportionately important for that team because you need something approaching average point guard play to avoid being horrible in today's league, and he was the only guy on the roster who could give them that for 30+ minutes a night.

(2) Jarrett Jack was one of the healthiest guys in the NBA over the last 3-4 years.  He barely ever misses time.  So it's unlikely that many were predicting him to miss much time, let alone the last 2/3 of the season.


Most of the talk all along that I saw was aimed at Lopez's ankles / foot.  He's just gotta go down!  He'll definitely miss time!  That hasn't happened, and he's been the main reason they've been competitive in a number of games this season.  Lopez is a beast when healthy, and he's been healthy.


You can go both ways with this.  I appreciate your humorous point about your aunt having balls, but predicting that a team will be bad because you're "sure" that they'll lose certain key guys to injuries for large portions of the season approaches magical thinking / faith beyond a certain point, too. 

They could have lost, say, Andrea Bargnani and Wayne Ellington to season ending injuries instead, and it might not have affected their win total that much.  Injuries are to a large extent random, so placing too much emphasis on that when you're trying to predict what will happen with a team doesn't make much sense to me. 

My tack has always been to err on the conservative side, which in this case meant assuming the Nets would enjoy relatively good health for their main guys, because, well, when was the last time the Celts had good luck with this sort of thing?

If it is a bit unlucky that Jack got injured because he has been relatively healthy, I would argue it is extremely luck that Johnson (a 35 year old), Lopez and Thad have not missed a single game combined. I also don't really accept the premise that losing Jack hurt them all that much. They have really had a similar winning percentage throughout the season no matter how you break it up. They were crappy early, crappy middle and crappy since. It is a win or two perhaps, but not the difference between winning 25% of their games and .500 ball as some like larbrd have (perhaps drunkenly) posited.

[LarBrd33]

Reposted here...


You too said that the Nets would make the playoffs unless they traded Lopez or Johnson.

Go back to the Nets thread and read the things you guys wrote. It was all about Lopez, Young, and Johnson. No mention of Jack or Hollis-Jefferson whatsoever. Now you pretend they're indespencible. If those guys are what you're banking playoff hopes on then that's a pretty good sign they suck.

The fact is you guys were wrong. Vegas, experts, and the majority of Cs blog was right. It's time to admit it.

nah