Home > Analysis > Are the Nets Better than the Wolves? And Should they Be?

Are the Nets Better than the Wolves? And Should they Be?

Nts TimberwolvesSo, a team wins its 10th game and steers clear of all-time infamy, and now all of a sudden they’re talking like world beaters. Well, not exactly, but if you followed the dialogue coming out of Monday’s surprise win against the San Antonio Spurs, there’s reason to believe the Nets have the 14-win Minnesota Timberwolves in their sights.

In Fred Kerber’s write-up in the New York Post, Brook Lopez said, “The way we’re playing, I think there’s a chance we can catch Minnesota.”  Meanwhile, in a breakdown for Fanhouse, Tom Ziller opines on the Nets chances of catching the Wolves:

Probably not: for the Nets to bottle this energy and win many more games on the way out would be surprising, and while most of the opponents over the Wolves’ last nine games aren’t cupcakes, six of the contest will be fought at the Target Center. But Minnesota has lost 16 straight, and the Nets are (dare we say?) hot. That it could happen is a huge indictment of the Wolves, who really weren’t supposed to be this bad.

For a vast majority of the season, the Nets have justifiably been tabbed the worst team in the league, despite the fact that many pundits and fans seemed perplexed as to how things got so bad in New Jersey. Yes, the Nets were clearly not a playoff team as currently constructed, but with Devin Harris and Brook Lopez playing like borderline all-stars, there was no reason for this team to resemble one of the worst in NBA history. With that said, statistically speaking, the Nets have played like a bottom feeder, and even comparing their numbers head-to-head with the Timberwolves, it’s difficult for me not to give the edge to Minnesota.

In terms of average point differential, Minnesota holds the edge there, -9.5 points per game vs. the Nets -9.7 points per game. At least both teams are under the double-digit negative point differential threshold, a stigma I worried would still potentially be attached to the Nets even if they got to 10 wins. Looking at the team’s Pythagorean records, according to basketball-reference, the Wolves have played like a 16-58 team, while the Nets are stuck at 15-59. In terms of offensive and defensive efficiency, the Nets are ranked 30th in offense and 26th in defense, while the Wolves are ranked 29th and 28th respectively.

Don’t get me wrong: the Nets and the Wolves are numerically close to each other in many key categories, but in nearly every case, Minnesota is in fact better. And with 9 games left and 4 games in the standings between them, it’s doubtful that the Nets will be able to catch them.

In their final 8 games, the Nets play 4 of them on the road, and 5 of them against potential playoff teams, if you count the Chicago Bulls, who currently reside in the 9th spot in the Eastern Conference.  The Wolves play 3 more games on the road and 4 of them against playoff teams, including one game at home against the Lakers. So even in terms of remaining schedule, I’m inclined to give the Wolves the edge without even considering a way for the Nets to get four games ahead of them in these final two weeks.

And the last thing to consider is should Nets fans even be rooting for the team to pull even with the Wolves. If both teams are tied with the worst record in the NBA come season’s end, a coin flip will determine who gets the most ping pong balls in the John Wall/Evan Turner draft lottery and if things break wrong for the Nets – and they certainly could – they could end up with the #5 pick in the draft this year, which would be a gut-wrenching development for this franchise. While I commend the players for getting excited about having the 9-win monkey off their backs, there also needs to be some acceptance that the Nets have been the worst team in the NBA this season, and a mini-run at the end of the season, should do little to change that fact.

Categories: Analysis
Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

They've avoded infamy that good enough for me. Sure I'd like them to win as many game more as they can but not at the extent of losing the chance at the best draft pick possible after this seaosn we at least deserve the most balls.

Agreed...Tolliver and Reggie Williams are better then many current rotation players in the NBA. Especially Williams, that guy might even be a legit starter on a playoff team.

I don't think you understand what a sunk cost it. A sunk cost is that- sunk. In other words, the team is already eating it. There is no difference if the team releases him or not, it is already paid for. This is a fundamental problem that causes irrational behavior. It is like how when people go to a buffet, they feel the need to eat as much as possible. But when you think about it, considering you have already paid your set price for your buffet, why wouldn't you just eat the optimal amount and not overstuff yourself?

And in the case of the Nets, these contracts are being paid for already. So why not cut these players lose and actually do something to improve the team?

I know a businessman like Bruce Ratner understands that. Now if you are saying that Ratner is unwilling to pay out a 10 day contract... I find that EXTREMELY hard to believe, as cheap as he may be. The cost of that is so miniscule I doubt he would stop Rod Thorn from doing that. And I'm sure if the Thorn and the Nets really, really, wanted to, they could also do some handshake deals with Prokhorov covering the literally thousands of dollars this would cost.

I want the nets to go out and try to win every game but, if in the unlikely event that we have the oppurtunity to tie or go ahead of the twolves best believe that tanking is the way to go.

Because the Nets are losing too much money to eat that sunk cost and release a guy. This is a philosophy that will not change as long as Ratner is writing the checks.

Why wouldn't they release him? What good is he doing to this team on the bench? I understand waiting til the all-star break as they are worthy trade chips, but after that if they won't agree to buyout just release them and get some players in for 10 day contracts. There is a concept called a sunk cost, and the Nets need to learn it.
This would not cost the Nets almost no additional money unless they found a player worth keeping for their future (and then the extra cost would be completely justified). And don't tell me these guys are offering veteran leadership. As this 10 win season has shown, they can't be helping out these young guys too much

I wouldn't call it unreal, Jon. Indefensible? Maybe, but if the FO was able to successfully buy out Simmons, Battie et al earlier this season, I believe they would have signed some D-Leguers, but since the vets didn't want the buy out, the Nets weren't going to outright release them. If Bobby Simmons is perfeclty happy being paid to sit on the bench in a suit, what can the Nets do about that?

off topic, but this says a lot about the Nets front office:

The Warriors have been ravaged by injuries this season, which has lead them to sign players like Chris Hunter, Anthony Tolliver and most recently Reggie Williams from the D-League. All three have played well and some think the Warriors are the best at identifying talent from there.

"The Warriors are by far the best team at getting talent out of the D-League," Phoenix head coach Alvin Gentry told The Oakland Tribune. "They should be commended for that as an organization."
So why are the Warriors so successful at identifying the good players?

"I don't think there's any secret," said general manager Larry Riley. "We study them a lot."

So why are the Nets not doing this?? Oh yea, we give roster spots to players like Trenton Hassel, Chris Quinn, Tony Battie, Bobby Simmons, etc. Unbelievable that the Nets have not signed one D-leaguer all season. Just unreal

div#middle div.inside #livefyre { display:none !important;}