If Brook Lopez were out for 2016-17, how many games do the Nets win?

[LarBrd33]

16-18, Scola could hold down the fort and if they simply thing with that Kid McCullough he could be a bouncy 5 who can get out and run.

They'll actually have guards this year too.

They might not win that WITH Lopez.

please explain to me how that team got 5 games worse this offseason. Delusional.

Lol. Still confident after nobody in this entire thread agrees with you? Ill put money down that the Nets don't win 18 games, and I don't care who gets hurt. Put your money where your mouth is, pal.

The difference of course being that they're enormously biased, and I'm not. They won 21 last year with the worst coach not named Byron Scott, nothing at PG and their only wing defender injured.

If we are all "enormously biased" because we're Celtics fans, then why aren't you biased? If you're not a Celtics fan, then get out of this forum and head on over to a Nets one.

On this point, is Vegas somehow enormously biased too?

Has Vegas even set over-unders for W/L? The offseason isn't even over, so I don't think they're biased. I think they're insane if they're predicting records for rosters that aren't finalized yet.

yes they have the nets are at 17.5

Which prices in injury possibility...

So talent wise 20-25 if healthy, which I agree with.

Prices in injury?
Your last line sounds like something Larbrd would say when he's been proven wrong repeatedly but is too crazy to let his imaginary level of self declared expertise concede that he is actually way off...ala the Nets thread last year (or any LarBrd33 thread where he ignores every reasonable argument/counterpoint and repeats himself acting as if people aren't reading his writing properly because he simply can't come up with a reply).
That's not you, and i apppreciate you're acknowledging the debate, but on this one you're simply overrating their chances at a possible 25 wins when the rest of the world says they'll stink even more than last year.
God help them if Lopez goes down.

Changed my mind.  36 wins.

But only if Lopez misses the entire season.

[chambers]

16-18, Scola could hold down the fort and if they simply thing with that Kid McCullough he could be a bouncy 5 who can get out and run.

They'll actually have guards this year too.

They might not win that WITH Lopez.

please explain to me how that team got 5 games worse this offseason. Delusional.

Lol. Still confident after nobody in this entire thread agrees with you? Ill put money down that the Nets don't win 18 games, and I don't care who gets hurt. Put your money where your mouth is, pal.

The difference of course being that they're enormously biased, and I'm not. They won 21 last year with the worst coach not named Byron Scott, nothing at PG and their only wing defender injured.

If we are all "enormously biased" because we're Celtics fans, then why aren't you biased? If you're not a Celtics fan, then get out of this forum and head on over to a Nets one.

On this point, is Vegas somehow enormously biased too?

Has Vegas even set over-unders for W/L? The offseason isn't even over, so I don't think they're biased. I think they're insane if they're predicting records for rosters that aren't finalized yet.

yes they have the nets are at 17.5

Which prices in injury possibility...

So talent wise 20-25 if healthy, which I agree with.

Prices in injury?
Your last line sounds like something Larbrd would say when he's been proven wrong repeatedly but is too crazy to let his imaginary level of self declared expertise concede that he is actually way off...ala the Nets thread last year (or any LarBrd33 thread where he ignores every reasonable argument/counterpoint and repeats himself acting as if people aren't reading his writing properly because he simply can't come up with a reply).
That's not you, and i apppreciate you're acknowledging the debate, but on this one you're simply overrating their chances at a possible 25 wins when the rest of the world says they'll stink even more than last year.
God help them if Lopez goes down.

Changed my mind.  36 wins.

But only if Lopez misses the entire season.

Same prediction as last year?

[LarBrd33]

16-18, Scola could hold down the fort and if they simply thing with that Kid McCullough he could be a bouncy 5 who can get out and run.

They'll actually have guards this year too.

They might not win that WITH Lopez.

please explain to me how that team got 5 games worse this offseason. Delusional.

Lol. Still confident after nobody in this entire thread agrees with you? Ill put money down that the Nets don't win 18 games, and I don't care who gets hurt. Put your money where your mouth is, pal.

The difference of course being that they're enormously biased, and I'm not. They won 21 last year with the worst coach not named Byron Scott, nothing at PG and their only wing defender injured.

If we are all "enormously biased" because we're Celtics fans, then why aren't you biased? If you're not a Celtics fan, then get out of this forum and head on over to a Nets one.

On this point, is Vegas somehow enormously biased too?

Has Vegas even set over-unders for W/L? The offseason isn't even over, so I don't think they're biased. I think they're insane if they're predicting records for rosters that aren't finalized yet.

yes they have the nets are at 17.5

Which prices in injury possibility...

So talent wise 20-25 if healthy, which I agree with.

Prices in injury?
Your last line sounds like something Larbrd would say when he's been proven wrong repeatedly but is too crazy to let his imaginary level of self declared expertise concede that he is actually way off...ala the Nets thread last year (or any LarBrd33 thread where he ignores every reasonable argument/counterpoint and repeats himself acting as if people aren't reading his writing properly because he simply can't come up with a reply).
That's not you, and i apppreciate you're acknowledging the debate, but on this one you're simply overrating their chances at a possible 25 wins when the rest of the world says they'll stink even more than last year.
God help them if Lopez goes down.

Changed my mind.  36 wins.

But only if Lopez misses the entire season.

Same prediction as last year?

What's this?

Gentlemen, prep your forum signatures...


Is that what I think I think I see?...

It is!!...

It's a LARBRD33 GUARANTEE!!!



Nets win 36.3 games if Brook misses the entire season to injury.  Lock it in. 

#Prokafor #EwingTheory #LBGT #Multiverse

[jpotter33]

35

I would ask if you're serious, but after your similar projection last year I know that you aren't kidding.  After you were so wrong last year, what makes you think that the Nets, and not your accuracy, were the cause of the variance? 

To the OP, if Lopez went out I think the Nets would win 16 games.  With Lopez probably 21.

But seriously, we should all know by now that this is how he gets himself attention on here. My toddler acts the same way. You just have to ignore it; otherwise, you're encouraging this type of behavior to continue.

[LarBrd33]

35

I would ask if you're serious, but after your similar projection last year I know that you aren't kidding.  After you were so wrong last year, what makes you think that the Nets, and not your accuracy, were the cause of the variance? 

To the OP, if Lopez went out I think the Nets would win 16 games.  With Lopez probably 21.

But seriously, we should all know by now that this is how he gets himself attention on here. My toddler acts the same way. You just have to ignore it; otherwise, you're encouraging this type of behavior to continue.

Ewing Theory 101:  http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1193711

It's not my fault if you can't comprehend the wonders of the multiverse.  I stand by my belief that the Nets will win 36 games if Lopez misses the entire season to injury. 

Let's call that universe "Earth 3".  Only question remains... how do they spell "Berenstein Bears" on Earth 3?  Because I've recently noticed I somehow got stuck on Earth 2 where they spell it "Berenstain Bears", Donald Trump is close to becoming President, and the Golden State Warriors somehow added Kevin Durant to a 73 win team. 

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

16-18, Scola could hold down the fort and if they simply thing with that Kid McCullough he could be a bouncy 5 who can get out and run.

They'll actually have guards this year too.

They might not win that WITH Lopez.

please explain to me how that team got 5 games worse this offseason. Delusional.

Lol. Still confident after nobody in this entire thread agrees with you? Ill put money down that the Nets don't win 18 games, and I don't care who gets hurt. Put your money where your mouth is, pal.

The difference of course being that they're enormously biased, and I'm not. They won 21 last year with the worst coach not named Byron Scott, nothing at PG and their only wing defender injured.

If we are all "enormously biased" because we're Celtics fans, then why aren't you biased? If you're not a Celtics fan, then get out of this forum and head on over to a Nets one.

On this point, is Vegas somehow enormously biased too?

Has Vegas even set over-unders for W/L? The offseason isn't even over, so I don't think they're biased. I think they're insane if they're predicting records for rosters that aren't finalized yet.

yes they have the nets are at 17.5

Which prices in injury possibility...

So talent wise 20-25 if healthy, which I agree with.

Prices in injury?

That's not you, and i apppreciate you're acknowledging the debate, but on this one you're simply overrating their chances at a possible 25 wins when the rest of the world says they'll stink even more than last year.

Yes... If you guaranteed all of their players would stay healthy all year do you think that would not go up? It's not that hard to figure out buddy.

As far as overrating their chances when the "rest of the world" which apparently encapsulates biased Celtics fans thinks there is no chance, let's take a look at last year:

Celtics: +5.5 from O/U
Golden State: +12.5
Denver: +6.5

Heck, Vegas thought Portland was going to win 26.5 games last year.

But yeah, those are totally set in stone.

I appreciate your insight on the 76ers and think you are usually level headed (even about them), but your verging on just embarassing yourself here. Are Vegas lines always correct? Obviously not or there wouldn't be billions of dollars spent every year trying to beat it. However, there are very smart people setting these lines so it does take something unusual for them to beat. Now if last year you said I think the Blazers  bought low on plumlee and he is a starting caliber NBA center, I think McCollum is actually a star, aminu is an excellent 3 point shooter that will exceed his past production and collectively I think this means they are undervalued by about 15 wins, well then I would respect your viewpoint and probably make bets on what you said this year. That being said, it does take something being undervalued for one of these teams wildly exceeding their projection. What makes you think the Nets will? Obviously Lin and Lopez are far enougb along in their careers that they don't really have a chance of wildly exceeding projections. So who does... Obviously not randy foye, Trevor booker or Louis Scolla. Maybe rhj? I mean it's a real tough argument to come up with

I'm literally predicting the Nets to win between 20-25 games. ESPN predicted 20... I don't think they're going to exceed projections.

As far as why the Vegas line is low? Because this is a historically screwed franchise long term, and I think that is driving short term betting down. In addition, this is the one team that has no real incentive to rest guys the way the Knicks did w/ Melo, or the Warriors did to get Harrison Barnes.

Lastly, people tend to ignore that they had a rotation with 4-5 guys who aren't in the NBA any more last year. Their replacements aren't great, but they are by and large solid NBA role players replacing D-Leaguers. They'll be bad, but they'll be running a better offensive system, and can't get worse defensively.

Again...20-25 wins makes them a bottom 3-4 team... We're shouting at each other over what? 5 games? That's easily within the margin of error generated by injury luck alone.

[SHAQATTACK]

Brooke slips on banana peel .....he is sloppy house keeper..... ..p

Nets attendance down to 12 people and the beer boy.

[Granath]

I'm literally predicting the Nets to win between 20-25 games. ESPN predicted 20... I don't think they're going to exceed projections.

As far as why the Vegas line is low? Because this is a historically screwed franchise long term, and I think that is driving short term betting down. In addition, this is the one team that has no real incentive to rest guys the way the Knicks did w/ Melo, or the Warriors did to get Harrison Barnes.

Lastly, people tend to ignore that they had a rotation with 4-5 guys who aren't in the NBA any more last year. Their replacements aren't great, but they are by and large solid NBA role players replacing D-Leaguers. They'll be bad, but they'll be running a better offensive system, and can't get worse defensively.

Again...20-25 wins makes them a bottom 3-4 team... We're shouting at each other over what? 5 games? That's easily within the margin of error generated by injury luck alone.

Literally? Rather than figuratively? 

20 to 25 games is certainly achievable. They could win as many as 30 if every single thing went in their favor. It's not hard to imagine a 5 or 10 game swing either way. Sometimes teams simply get lucky. For instance, Chicago last year won 42 games with a -1.5 point differential. That's 7 more games than Orlando won (-1.6). Utah was +1.8 and won only 40 games. While there are many factors at play, some of that is simply due to luck - good and bad.

I think the Vegas line is so low because the team has so little proven talent. There's Lopez and that's really it. Lin's on his 6th team in as many years for a reason. The rest of the guys are unproven, coming off injury, has-beens or never-weres. They lost their 2nd best player and a steadying influence. As far as them having no incentive to bench anyone, the same thing was said last year yet Lopez sat the last 10 games. If anything the Nets have great reason to trade Lopez mid-year. His contract is up after 2018 and if the Nets are going to get top value, they need to deal him before he's a 1 year expiring guy. The Nets are going to want picks and young players for Lopez. So I believe that Vegas is anticipating Lopez to be gone by the 50th game of this year, leaving behind easily the worst roster in the NBA and perhaps the worst roster assembled in the NBA in the last 20 years.

I agree the team's pieces fit better this year. As far as their improvement, we'll find out. I see their gains offset by the loss of Young. I see them trading Lopez in early 2017 (either due to their decision or him outright demanding one). It's a bad team and one that is going to give us yet another great draft pick next year.

[nickagneta]

I would have Brooklyn winning about 20-23 games next year but if you go by the premise that Lopez is out for the season I think that has to be lowered. How much? I don't think more than 4 games. Lopez is a scorer and sometimes rebounder but isn't good defensively and generally doesn't add to much to the overall win total for this team. So with Lopez out, probably between 16-19 games.

Now I now the Nets improved with some additions of NBA role players but what they did is comparable to upgrading sludge to sewer water. Slight improvement but not by it still stinks. Also, Brooklyn was one of the overall healthier teams last year, besides Lopez if they lose games because on injury that is on a larger scale than last year, all these total games won could go even lower.