Debunking the Nets Injury myth

[celticsclay]

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. This is fairly annoying because of it's inaccuracy, but also is of interest cause we are tied to Brooklyn's quality of players for the next two years. So how untrue is this? We all know they have lost RHJ about 25 games into the season and Jack at around 35 games. How do these losses compare to other teams?

Well there is a great site that tells us https://www.mangameslost.com/nba-games-missed-due-to-injury-february-9-2016/

If you look at this at the most crude levels, the Nets have missed a lot of games. However, this site does a great job of accounting for how good the players lost to injuries are. So they do a ranking called VORP (Injury impact to team). In this ranking the Nets have had the 3rd smallest impact to their team by injuries (ahead of LAL and Philly). The pictures are too big for me to upload at the moment, but if someone wants to play around with this be my guest. By comparison the Celtics are 15th in the league in injury impact to team and the Clippers are leading it (mainly due to injury to Blake Griffin for a very extended period).

They have a second ranking called lost value over replacement player, which is another metric for taking into account the quality of the player lost to injuries. Again in this ranking the Nets are 22nd. (Teams like the Jazz, Clippers, Suns and Cleveland are at the top because they have lost all-star level talent for extended periods of time). 

I recommend people go play around with this if they are bored,  but a pretty easy take away message from this is that Nets have actually been one of the healthiest teams in the league. If they are this bad this year with really good health, imagine how bad they will be next season if they strike out in free agency? Good times in deed.

[Moranis]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

[PhoSita]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

Agreed in full.

The Nets were going to be at least mediocre regardless, but losing RHJ and Jack was the difference between competing for 25-30 wins and finishing much closer to 18-20 wins.

[celticsclay]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

This just means they were a crappy team without many good players. If you want to say that, I totally agree. Your numbers are pretty fun, you said they were 10-23 before jack went down and 4-16 since to drop from a .300% to a .200%. You realize if they won more game in this tiny sample size you have provided since Jack went down they would be up to .250? They are essentially the same team. Jack is crappy, RHJ, for the moment, is a crappy starting SF. If you want to use an objective measure they have been really healthy. I don't know what else to say.

[celticsclay]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

Agreed in full.

The Nets were going to be at least mediocre regardless, but losing RHJ and Jack was the difference between competing for 25-30 wins and finishing much closer to 18-20 wins.

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). The counter arguments to this are  approaching the expression  " if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle."

[chambers]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

This just means they were a crappy team without many good players. If you want to say that, I totally agree. Your numbers are pretty fun, you said they were 10-23 before jack went down and 4-16 since to drop from a .300% to a .200%. You realize if they won more game in this tiny sample size you have provided since Jack went down they would be up to .250? They are essentially the same team. Jack is crappy, RHJ, for the moment, is a crappy starting SF. If you want to use an objective measure they have been really healthy. I don't know what else to say.

exactly, TP

[Quetzalcoatl]

Jack going down was big because their coach got fired at the same time.  If your starting PG and Head Coach go out at once, your offense is going to have a bad time.

[Moranis]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

This just means they were a crappy team without many good players. If you want to say that, I totally agree. Your numbers are pretty fun, you said they were 10-23 before jack went down and 4-16 since to drop from a .300% to a .200%. You realize if they won more game in this tiny sample size you have provided since Jack went down they would be up to .250? They are essentially the same team. Jack is crappy, RHJ, for the moment, is a crappy starting SF. If you want to use an objective measure they have been really healthy. I don't know what else to say.

Sure and if they would have lost their last game they'd be at 15%. 

The Nets aren't deep, they can't afford injuries.  Let's also not forget that their own 1st round pick McCullough hasn't played a game this year either.  RHJ was a huge loss because he was a darn good defender and was immediately.  He was getting better every week as a rookie should. 

And of course teams expect to miss guys, but you don't expect 40% of your starters to miss the entire season.

[libermaniac]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

This just means they were a crappy team without many good players. If you want to say that, I totally agree. Your numbers are pretty fun, you said they were 10-23 before jack went down and 4-16 since to drop from a .300% to a .200%. You realize if they won more game in this tiny sample size you have provided since Jack went down they would be up to .250? They are essentially the same team. Jack is crappy, RHJ, for the moment, is a crappy starting SF. If you want to use an objective measure they have been really healthy. I don't know what else to say.

I think you are both kind of right.  The Nets have not really been hit that hard by significant injuries to good players, BUT their margin for error was so low before the injuries - they were already losing lots of close games.  Now, although their efficiency as a team is probably not THAT much worse since the injuries, their ability to win might be affected more than other teams with this kind of drop in the metrics you posted.  Does that make sense?

[celticsclay]

Nets had won 30% of their games when Jack got injured.  Nets have won 20% of their games since Jack got injured.  Jack was probably the worst starting PG in the league, yet the Nets got that much worse without him because it meant Donald Sloan was now the Nets starting PG. 

Total games lost aren't as important as who misses the games and what the rest of the team looks like.  The Nets lost their starting PG and starting SF less than half way through the season.  A team that already isn't very deep and that already has the worst starting PG in the league, can't lose 40% of its starting 5 without a significant effect.

This just means they were a crappy team without many good players. If you want to say that, I totally agree. Your numbers are pretty fun, you said they were 10-23 before jack went down and 4-16 since to drop from a .300% to a .200%. You realize if they won more game in this tiny sample size you have provided since Jack went down they would be up to .250? They are essentially the same team. Jack is crappy, RHJ, for the moment, is a crappy starting SF. If you want to use an objective measure they have been really healthy. I don't know what else to say.

I think you are both kind of right.  The Nets have not really been hit that hard by significant injuries to good players, BUT their margin for error was so low before the injuries - they were already losing lots of close games.  Now, although their efficiency as a team is probably not THAT much worse since the injuries, their ability to win might be affected more than other teams with this kind of drop in the metrics you posted.  Does that make sense?

Yes. I don't disagree with that their injuries hurt them more than if a different team had them. If the Celtics had and lost Jack (if he could even crack our rotation) we wouldn't miss a beat. The fact that the Nets lost him and may be even a little bit worse just undescores how crappy a team they were to begin with.

 If I am 80 miles away from my destination, it is possible I could get to the place in an hour if everything breaks absolutely right for me. However, the odds are much higher that I would not and I would fall well short because I could get a speeding ticket, into an accident driving so fast, or run into traffic. If one of these things happened I would come off kind of like an idiot to lament that i ran into 4 minutes of traffic and "screwed me over" cause i was already running late.

It seems like the people saying the Celtics "got lucky" with the Nets injuries, when they in fact have had just about everything break right and have been far above average NBA health, are complaining about 2 minutes of traffic on a 2 hour drive.

[LarBrd33]

There's nothing to debunk.  They started the season 5-13... exact same pace as the 2014 Nets team that rallied, finished the season with 44 wins, and made the second round of the playoffs.

Also, our own Celtics dug from 18 games under .500 to make the playoffs last year.

There's no telling what a healthy Nets team could have done.  Could they have rallied like the 2014 Nets and 2015 Celtics?  Possibly.   But your own link seems to suggest that the Nets would have been significantly better off had they not lost their best two-way player (2nd in offensive rating amongst starters and 1st in defensive rating amongst starters) a mere 18 games into his rookie season.   

As I said in the other thread... what's interesting about the link you shared is that it backs up how much the Hollis-Jefferson injury has impacted them:

In the "lost value over replacement player" category, the Hollis-Jefferson injury is 5th in the entire league.  That's a bigger impact than games missed by Kyrie Irving (6th), games missed by Derrick Favors (7th) and games missed by Kevin Durant (8th).   Shows you how losing two of their top 4 players can impact such a shallow team.  If Hollis-Jefferson had continued to improve, your own site seems to suggest that the Nets would have been significantly better off.   

Even negating the possibility that Hollis-Jefferson continued to improve, the team started to mesh, and they followed the 2014 path where they rallied and finished above .500.... Had they simply remained 8 games under .500 they'd have a record around 23-31... same amount of wins as the Wizards and flirting with a pick in the expected 12-17 range. 

Luckily, the Nets have been mutilated with devastating injuries that have ravaged that desolate lineup and lay waste to their playoff hopes.  Here's hoping they continue to stink and the pick stays projected in the top 5.  There's still half a season left to play... here's hoping the Nets don't make some significant moves and start clawing out of the lotto.

Also, there's nothing to debunk since the "Nets injury myth" doesn't actually exist.   There's nobody here that genuinely thinks the Nets were a Hollis-Jefferson away from making the playoffs.  If anything, there's a tiny (perhaps singular) collection of fans(fan) who are half-heartedly clinging to the "Nets could still turn this around" stance so not to jinx our good fortune. 

[libermaniac]

Yes. I don't disagree with that their injuries hurt them more than if a different team had them. If the Celtics had and lost Jack (if he could even crack our rotation) we wouldn't miss a beat. The fact that the Nets lost him and may be even a little bit worse just undescores how crappy a team they were to begin with.

 If I am 80 miles away from my destination, it is possible I could get to the place in an hour if everything breaks absolutely right for me. However, the odds are much higher that I would not and I would fall well short because I could get a speeding ticket, into an accident driving so fast, or run into traffic. If one of these things happened I would come off kind of like an idiot to lament that i ran into 4 minutes of traffic and "screwed me over" cause i was already running late.

It seems like the people saying the Celtics "got lucky" with the Nets injuries, when they in fact have had just about everything break right and have been far above average NBA health, are complaining about 2 minutes of traffic on a 2 hour drive.

I'm with you ... I've been amazed how few games, IF ANY, Joe Johnson, Thad Young and Brook Lopez have missed. 

[celticsclay]

There's nothing to debunk.  They started the season 5-13... exact same pace as the 2014 Nets team that rallied, finished the season with 44 wins, and made the second round of the playoffs.

Also, our own Celtics dug from 18 games under .500 to make the playoffs last year.

There's no telling what a healthy Nets team could have done.  Could they have rallied like the 2014 Nets and 2015 Celtics?  Possibly.   But your own link seems to suggest that the Nets would have been significantly better off had they not lost their best two-way player (2nd in offensive rating amongst starters and 1st in defensive rating amongst starters) a mere 18 games into his rookie season.   

As I said in the other thread... what's interesting about the link you shared is that it backs up how much the Hollis-Jefferson injury has impacted them:

In the "lost value over replacement player" category, the Hollis-Jefferson injury is 5th in the entire league.  That's a bigger impact than games missed by Kyrie Irving (6th), games missed by Derrick Favors (7th) and games missed by Kevin Durant (8th).   Shows you how losing two of their top 4 players can impact such a shallow team.  If Hollis-Jefferson had continued to improve, your own site seems to suggest that the Nets would have been significantly better off.   

Even negating the possibility that Hollis-Jefferson continued to improve, the team started to mesh, and they followed the 2014 path where they rallied and finished above .500.... Had they simply remained 8 games under .500 they'd have a record around 23-31... same amount of wins as the Wizards and flirting with a pick in the expected 12-17 range. 

Luckily, the Nets have been mutilated with devastating injuries that have ravaged that desolate lineup and lay waste to their playoff hopes.  Here's hoping they continue to stink and the pick stays projected in the top 5. 

Also, there's nothing to debunk since the "Nets injury myth" doesn't actually exist.   There's nobody here that genuinely thinks the Nets were a Hollis-Jefferson away from making the playoffs.  If anything, there's a tiny (perhaps singular) collection of fans(fan) who are half-heartedly clinging to the "Nets could still turn this around" stance so not to jinx our good fortune.

unsubscribe

[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. Losing one of the worst starting PGs and SFs in the league to injury was never going to hurt that much since the guys behind them couldn't really be that much worse and I believe that has basically proven to be the case. They are not good no matter how you slice it which is why the worst teams in the league appear to be the least affected by injuries according to the stats provided by the OP.

[LarBrd33]

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.