I'm as eager as anybody for the Nets to be horrible and hand us a top pick, and there have been plenty of legitimate reasons since before the season to believe that will happen. There have also been plenty of reasons to think they'll stick around in a lot of games and threaten to stay above the bottom 5. This game is an example of that. That is all I'm saying.
If we use a one game sample, then them losing the Lakers is also example why they're one of the league's 3 worst teams. Like I said, they've played 13 games and have lost 11.
Ultimately, it comes down to this, I don't care about whether they win 18 or 28 games. Can you name 5 teams worse than Brooklyn?
By the end of the season? Sixers, Lakers, Nuggets for sure. Blazers, Bucks, Magic all possible. Then you have teams like the Knicks and Pelicans that are one significant injury to their main guy away from finishing bottom 5. The Nets obviously fit in that category, too, with Lopez.
Well, I disagree with all except the Sixers and Lakers and the advanced predictive metrics say the same. But I don't think we'll get anywhere with this.
This isn't just a one game thing, by the way. Nets beat the Rockets in Houston and nearly beat the Warriors in Oakland. This isn't just one game where they've looked not-terrible. Their starting lineup has one of the best differentials in the NBA.
Like I said, they've played 13 games...2 wins and one near win don't mean anything. Flashes of good play, literally mean nothing.
By the way, I'm not sure you understand this, but if you're starting lineup has a good differential, but the other 10 guys have a tragic one, that's not some secret indication of quality. More often then not, that's a red herring. Especially for contenders. Pacers, Clippers, Blazers, Thunder - all elite starting lineups, all have fallen short. It's even worse for bad teams.
Topic: Celtics (7-5) at Nets (2-11) Game #13 11/22/15 (Read 56148 times)