Will Nets set record for NBA futility?

[LooseCannon]

The math that says that the Nets could win 25 games is the same math that says that the Celtics could win 50.

[PhoSita]

but let's not get it construed that you're intellectual beings bringing some insightful thoughts into the discussion.

Yep, clearly the insightful thoughts and intelligent construing is all your doing, buddy.

Okay...You clearly didn't see that Joe Johnson was aging and that an older Jarrett Jack was their starting PG in an era where they threes are more valuable than two point shots. They don't have a bench, and Lionel Hollins isn't a game changing coach. Not to mention the fact that the players have no motivation to win since the roster stinks. Is that enough detail for you? I'm sorry I don't write detail posts, but it's just a waste of time when I know time will only tell that I'm right.

[celticsclay]

I was not trying to really make this personal about you. A "I probably got a little hard headed on some of these points" post from you isn't going to make or break my day or week. However, if you do look back at the 4 points I have made here, they were made repeatedly by some very astute posters in much greater detail than I made them. I think those posters deserve some credit for that and conversely it would be cool if people that were on the far end of it could acknowledge it.

I think I've been fairly consistent in basing my expectations for the Nets this season on the fact that the Eastern Conference stinks, and has stunk for awhile, and that in a league with plenty of teams happy to tank the second half of the year away, it's hard to end up with a bottom record if you have no such incentive.

In other words, intangible stuff.

I appreciate that the statistics, looking-at-them-on-paper approach justified a gloomier outlook for the team.  So far, that's been borne out in how the season has begun.  I truly, deeply, hope that continues.  I really, really want to be wrong.

As I posted in a different thread, though, if you look at teams that have started out 0-7 or worse over the last 10-15 years, some of them have ended up well below 20 wins, and a good number have finished with 25-29 wins.  A couple even made it to 40+.  So it's still early.

You're right that the Nets won a lot of close games last season.  Part of that is luck, and expecting a regression makes sense (though, funny, nobody seems to apply that to the Celts when predicting 45-50 wins). 

At the same time, the Nets are a boring, grind-it-out half-court team, as befits their most talented player and their coach.  That lends itself to close wins.  It also lends itself to beating up on younger teams that tend to fall apart when the going gets tough late in a close game.

I still think the Nets will ultimately benefit from that.


But, there are two caveats.  One that I've consistently allowed for, and one that I admit, I did not consider until recently.

First, Lopez might suffer another foot injury after playing a lot of minutes last year and at the start of this season.  If he's out for a while, the Nets will take a dive.  To be honest, I think the vast majority of posts I read about how the Nets were going to stink were premised on that idea, first and foremost, not so much the in-depth, detailed, astute analysis you're talking about.


Second, if the Nets go through an admittedly tough opening stretch to the season and end up losing all or almost all of their first 20-25 games, the negativity of that losing spiral could sink the team and prevent them from ever righting the ship enough to put together a month or two of .500 or better basketball.  That's the thing I didn't consider until recently.  That definitely seems in play right now.


By the way, I like Mason Plumlee, and I'm aware he's doing well for the Blazers.  I'm glad to see it.  I never really understood why the Nets gave him up like they did.  I guess it was a cost-saving measure.

I thought that the Celtics record in close games was pretty average. Whereas the Nets was completely out of whack I believe the Nets were something like 9 games over .500 whereas the Celtics record was in line with their overall win percentage. Is this not true?

[crimson_stallion]

Haha. There is that, or the alternative of slowly moving the goal posts until the season is over. I've never done a way back bump before because I think the board would be a disaster if everyone did that, but the Nets threads from over the summer may warrant that. The things the advanced stats people were writing look absolutely prophetic right now.

I'm glad it's looking like the Nets will be much worse than the 30 or so wins I thought they'd end up with.

Part of that, all along, was setting expectations low.  Do you know how excited I'll be if the Celts end up with a top pick from the Nets?  As excited as anyone.  The Celts desperately need some luck in the draft to get this rebuild turned around.  But I don't want to let myself believe that will definitely happen until the Nets have already put 30 losses or so in the bank.  That said, if they come close to repeating the 0-18 start they had in 2009, maybe I'll start thinking about what type of champagne I want to buy for lottery night.

Still, I've never quite understood how incredulous people were to the idea that the Nets might actually not be horrible this season.  After all, they started poorly the last two seasons and ultimately made the playoffs.  They were the boring half-court team that somehow kept making it to 40 wins or so and doing better in the playoffs than you'd expect.

Sure, they got rid of Deron Williams, but it's not like Deron was very good for them last year.  Mirza Teletovic?  That guy wasn't doing much to win them games, either, especially since he missed a lot of last season.

But hey, look at how good the Trailblazers are doing, defying expectations.

It must be Mason Plumlee!  He's the key in all of this.

There are a number of reasons.

First of all, the Nets made the playoffs last year - but you could argue they shouldn't have.  Their point differential wasn't befitting of a playoff team, which indicates they were a lot worse than their record suggested.  Blown out in many losses, barely scraping by in a lot of wins. 

Next is to look at advnaced stats.

Last year Deron Williams was the Nets Real-Plus-Minus leader at +1.91, and they traded him away from a draft pick that is not looking like he's going to produce much this year.  The guy who replaced Deron at PG is Jarrett Jack, who was -3.65 last year (ranking him 398/474 among all NBA players).

That's a -5.56 swing, which is absolutely massive.  That trade on it's own was enough to drop the Nets a LOT of wins and immediatley knock them out of the playoff race.

Then there is Joe Johnson.   For a 6 season stretch (between 06-07 to 11-12) he averaged at least around 19 points, 4 rebounds and 5 assists Per 36 Minutes.  Last season, despite being on one of the worst teams he's been on in years, he put up the lowest scoring numbers in 11 seasons (14.9 Points Per 36) and was barely holding his one in terms of Real Plus Minus (+0.87).  This season, at age 34, it was only natural to expect that his game was going to drop off hard, and he was never going to be able to hold it down as the #2 scoring option. 

Theddeus Young is a nice player, but he never has been (and never will be) good enough to be a top 3 player on a good team - he's just not that type of player.  He's a legitimate starter (and a pretty good one at that) but he isn't a great scorer, rebounder or shooter and he can't be your #2 option on offense. 

Brook Lopez had a slightly negative RPM last year of -0.6 which is by no means bad enough to hurt the team when he's out there, but also is nowhere near great enough to indicate that he has as much positive impact as his scoring numbers would like to suggest.  That stats indicate that he's actually holding his own on defense (+0.16) but he's hurting the team a little on offense (-0.76).  One way or the other he's clearly not a difference maker, and while his stats on paper might look flashy, he's not good enough to hold this team up.  Add to this the very obvious injury history (and the huge risk of him missing significant time) and Lopez is pretty much a non factor.

So out of your starters, you basically have Young as the only guy who is likely to actually genuinely help you win games, with the rest of the starting lineup holding their own at best.

Then when the starters (who struggle just to hold their own) sit down, you have what is quite probably THE WORST bench in the entire NBA coming in.  Even if the starters manage to hold a lead (which will happen 50% of the time, at best) the starters are going to blow it really quickly.

So for the Nets to have any hope of winning a decent amount of games, they would pretty much need to have their starters playing fresh for 48 minutes a game, which is completely impossible.

At the end of the day it all comes down to lack of depth.  The Nets have two good NBA players, and two passable NBA players, and everybody else is pretty much D-League caliber.  There is no possible way in any stretch of the imagination that a team like that can hope to compete for a playoff spot - to believe such a thing goes against all common logic.   Boston finished bottom 6 in 2013/14, and we had FAR more depth and overall talent than this Nets team does.  Plus that Celtics team always played really hard, they just lacked the talent. 

They have a crappy coach, so they don't evne have the resources to make the most of the talent they DON'T have.

Then on top of that they have no cap flexibility, so they cannot sign free agents for help, and they have limited trade flexibility.

They are stuck in a concrete bunker with a floor made of quicksand and no way out.

There are only three teams in the NBA right now who have not won a game - the Nets, the Pelicans and the 76ers.

One of those teams has Anthony Davis as their best weapon - arguably a top 5 player in the NBA, and one of the highest upside players in the league.  They also at least 5 other quality NBA players in Asik, Tyreke, Holiday, Gordon and Anderson, 

One of the teams has two very young and extremely talented big men as their best weapon - a duo that has the potential to form one of the most dominant front courts in the league a couple of years from now.

The third has Brook Lopez as their best weapon and their only bright spot.

I'm not going to tell you which of those three teams is looking the most bleak right now.

I mean really, the best change the Nets have of getting any talent on that roster is to gamble on a couple of D-League players and hope they strike gold.  When your only hope is the D-League, you're bad.  Real bad.

[crimson_stallion]

As I posted in a different thread, though, if you look at teams that have started out 0-7 or worse over the last 10-15 years, some of them have ended up well below 20 wins, and a good number have finished with 25-29 wins.  A couple even made it to 40+.  So it's still early.

I would love to know which teams they were, in order to further analyse what position they were in at the time.

For example:

1) Were they suffering from injuries to key players

2) Had they gone through major roster changes going into the season, and needed time to build chemistry

3) Were they teams with talented young prospects who broke out later in the year, causing the team to improve dramatically as the season went on?

4) Were they major changes made to the team mid-season, such as trades, free agent signings or coaching changes?

The reason I ask all of this is because:

1) The Nets have no real injuries this year, and are right now completely healthy
2) The Nets have made no major roster shuffles since last year, and should have ok chemistry
3) The Nets have no prospects show any signs of 'break out' potential
4) The Nets don't have the cap space to make any key free agent signings
5) The Nets don't have the assets to swing any worthwhile trades

Those past teams in history who went from terrible to almost respectable obviously did so for a reason, and I would imagine that some of the above factors probably came into play.  There is really no potential for such factors to come into play for the Nets - hence why I see no possible way for them to turn their fortunes around.

They have nothing to work with - no hidden gems waiting to leap out from the shadows.  They have nowhere to go - not even down, since they are already as low as they can go.  They have already lost to the Lakers and Bucks - two of the worst teams in the league.  They stink. 

Also, I just don't see how trying to trade Lopez and Young for whatever they can get (i.e. not very much) would really help them collect assets, aside from opening up more playing time for whatever D-League / 2nd round / undrafted FA types they might try out over the next few years.

Basically, it seems like people in this thread are saying the Nets should go into Sixers mode without having the incentive of a high draft pick each season.  As a Celtics fan, I'd love that, but I don't know why the Nets would do it unless it's to sell the franchise.

Because right now:

1) They don't have any hope of winning games in the next 2 years
2) They don't have any draft picks for about the next 4 years
3) They don't have any prospects (bar maybe RHJ) with a legit shot at being good
4) They have no cap space

Their 'present' is completely hopeless, no matter how you look at it.  If they trade Lopez and Young for cap space / picks / prospects then they at least have some hope of salvaging some of  their future.

Would rather be a garbage team with no future, or a garbage team with some future? If I had to choose, I would select the latter.

[crimson_stallion]

You're right that the Nets won a lot of close games last season.  Part of that is luck, and expecting a regression makes sense (though, funny, nobody seems to apply that to the Celts when predicting 45-50 wins). 

Because the Celtics are absolutely nothing like the Nets.

1) The Nets biggest problem is lack of depth - the Celtics are arguably the deepest team in the league
2) The Nets have no young prospects with potential upside - team is full of such players
3) The Nets have a relatively old roster - the Celtics have one of the youngest in the league
4) The Nets have no real trade assets or cap flexibility - the Celtics do
5) The Nets have poor management and a bad coach - the Celtics have among the best coaches and GM's in the league

Comparing the Celtics to the Nets is like Comparing the Hawks to the Pelicans - it makes absolutely no sense. The two teams have nothing at all in common. 

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

I honestly think this thread is going to have some legs as I forsee the Nets challenging the 76ers record for futility for 9 wins in a season. They are losing every game pretty easily at full strength and with the exception of RHJ there is little reason to believe any players will get better as the season progresses. They are also running their best players into the ground which can not continue given their age and health concerns. Ultimately I think they avoid the record by playing intentional tank teams very late in the season, however, this could be pretty close.

Honestly , the Sixers don't look that bad this season. Okafor and Noel have been a tough tandem down low, and they have managed to hang in most nights against good teams. When they get Wroten and Marshsall back as semi actual point guards, they will win a few games here and there

We've been competitive/leading in just about every first half. We have no depth, mostly because we are still in the rebuild but partially because we currently have 3/5 starters injured including our 2 best players. As a result we get worn out/killed in the 2nd half. Particularly in the 3rd quarter...

It'll get better once Noel, Covington, and Marshall get back.

[colincb]

The expected wins per BBref for 2014-15 was 41 for BOS (vs 40 actual) and 33 for BKN (vs 38 actual). IIRC, Nets were one of the most extreme teams in this regard.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2015.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BRK/2015.html

IIRC wins are projected based off a formula derived from comparing historical level of wins to a team's average margin of victory.

Take DWill away as a vet PG who was a top 5 PG at one time and seeing JJ suddenly sliding down the slippery slope of a declining career and getting below that 33 win number isn't too tough to do. I figured the loss of DWill would hurt, but the rapid decline of JJ I didn't account for. They're screwed. As for us this year? Too early to tell (how much are we dedicated to developing the rookies for example), but we're better protected against injuries than the vast majority of teams, so I doubt as a floor that we're going to see anything like the fall-off the Nets seem likely to endure.

[LooseCannon]

Bbref uses Pythagorean wins for expected W-L.