How many games did the injuries cost the Jazz?

[fishonjazz]

Also like to mention that in our franchise's 42 year history, we've broken the 60 game threshold three times, two of those times going to the finals. I believe we hit 60 next year and when you consider that historical fact, it's interesting that people are wanting to trade that in for the equivalent of scratching lotto tickets. Keep this team together. The idea of "go big or go home" is funny as a counter argument -- this is how you go big.

Yep

 

[fishonjazz]

51.
They are bogus statistics, too many incalculable parameters (starters fatigue, calendar, injured players of the opposing team, motivation...). The Spurs have just demonstrated this clearly.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

We would win the exact same amount of games if we were healthier. Lolok

 

[ncoloradojazz]

Lmao at the op. Someone please tell him every team deals with injuries and if Clippers hadnt been missing its star Utah would of lost in round one. Even without it's star they took Utah to 7 games .. Utah is just not a title caliber type of team. Team isn't built to win in playoffs

 

[Piso]

We would win the exact same amount of games if we were healthier. Lolok

Why lol ? This year, Jazz beat the Warriors sans Hayward, Hood and Favors.
If you make the season again without injured players, you are not 100% sure to have more wins

 

[LogGrad98]

[TWEET]4[/TWEET]
9.4.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mangameslostnba?lang=en

That's if no injuries, right? What's the average number of games lost to injury, league-wide? You'd then have to subtract that from 9.4.

Yes.

I don't know but I think it's fair to say we lost about 3-4 wins due to injuries. That would put as at 54-55 wins. Assuming we trend back to normal health and grow organically some, I think we should at worst be a 54 win team next year. Gun to my head, I say we win 57 games and take another year to hit 60.

That was my guess as well. About 57 wins.

 

[LogGrad98]

Lmao at the op. Someone please tell him every team deals with injuries and if Clippers hadnt been missing its star Utah would of lost in round one. Even without it's star they took Utah to 7 games .. Utah is just not a title caliber type of team. Team isn't built to win in playoffs

This has nothing to do with the question in the OP. Please reading comprehension more.

 

[MVP]

At least 5 games. So yeah, we are not 60 win team yet.

 

[gomretat]

Lmao at the op. Someone please tell him every team deals with injuries and if Clippers hadnt been missing its star Utah would of lost in round one. Even without it's star they took Utah to 7 games .. Utah is just not a title caliber type of team. Team isn't built to win in playoffs

The team with Deron, Booz, and Memo was not built to win a title. This team is to young to tell but it has a very good chance. And if you want to play the injury card about Blake G you have to play it both ways. Both teams being healthy I still like our chances. That includes Favs and Hood.

 

[Miggs]

Lmao at the op. Someone please tell him every team deals with injuries and if Clippers hadnt been missing its star Utah would of lost in round one. Even without it's star they took Utah to 7 games .. Utah is just not a title caliber type of team. Team isn't built to win in playoffs

We just won a series in the playoffs, Douchenozzle.

 

[fishonjazz]

Why lol ? This year, Jazz beat the Warriors sans Hayward, Hood and Favors.
If you make the season again without injured players, you are not 100% sure to have more wins

Notice how every single post in here and in the poll is saying we would win more games if we have better health?

Maybe you are wrong?

 

[infection]

Lmao at the op. Someone please tell him every team deals with injuries and if Clippers hadnt been missing its star Utah would of lost in round one. Even without it's star they took Utah to 7 games .. Utah is just not a title caliber type of team. Team isn't built to win in playoffs

And what was it you said about the team prior to the season? Didn't you have Denver much better than us? Maybe you could reconcile that.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

I think many of you are vastly underestimating how hard it is to improve in terms of games won once you start getting to the mid to high 50's.

I consider both Hayward and Gobert to be all-star level players, despite Rudy getting the snub. George Hill started out the season playing at an all-star level, and although he would have surely leveled back out a bit, I would consider both he and a healthy Favors to be borderline all-star players. Add to that Hood with our bench and there's no doubt in my mind we could have been the 2nd best team in the west, right there with the Spurs.

Maybe we only win 59, but anyone who thinks we wouldn't be close to a 60 win team is underestimating this Jazz squad.

It would be interesting to go back through the season, game by game to get an idea of which games we probably win with just Hill and Favors.

 

[franklin]

I have the amount of should-have-won L's last season at around 14.

Also considering those two end of season freebies. No way a 60 win Jazz team is winning against a playing dead, resting GSW and SAS on the last two of the season. They're coming at the Jazz, learning from their offense and defense, and making a statement.

A healthy Jazz caliber team adds maybe 3 wins last season. 5 come from the 14 should-have-won but didn't that all teams of their caliber tend to blow a decent % of. Minus two for the last two games that didn't matter.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

Notice how every single post in here and in the poll is saying we would win more games if we have better health?

Maybe you are wrong?

Anyone who thinks we would have the exact same record, either didn't watch the games this year, or is simply a troll. Either way, credibility just flew out the window.

 

[franklin]

51.
They are bogus statistics, too many incalculable parameters (starters fatigue, calendar, injured players of the opposing team, motivation...). The Spurs have just demonstrated this clearly.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

We would win the exact same amount of games if we were healthier. Lolok

Actually, there is a strong case for that. The Jazz were a deep team after all, and looked better at times with backup Diaw, Ingles improvement, etc. It's possible that injuries improved the team, but I'm still going with 55 since Hill was better than replacement by far.

 

[Thee Jazz Fan]

Actually, there is a strong case for that. The Jazz were a deep team after all, and looked better at times with backup Diaw, Ingles improvement, etc. It's possible that injuries improved the team, but I'm still going with 55 since Hill was better than replacement by far.

The glaring hole in your argument is Hill and Favors

Favors was no where near last years level before injury set in. Also we were much worse with Hill out all those games, and come to think about it, Burks was one of the best 6th men before he got injured. Had he stayed healthy the year prior I think it's safe to say he would've been one of the leagues best scorers had he started the year healthy.

Imagine putting last year's healthy Berks on the second unit with Ingles and JJ spacing the floor giving Burks room to drive, he also shot 38%+ from three before he was injured as well. Burks was one of if not our most clutch player in fourth quarters before the injury last year

 

[franklin]

The other thing being missed here is the value of the wins as you climb the ladder. It's like the playoffs. The deeper you go the harder it gets.

Say Jazz get 5 extra wins. You're talking a ten percent improvement. That's huge in the NBA. You're talking about a team looking up just one single rung to the San Antonio Spurs. At that point, there's potential that internal development by Exum, Hayward, Gobert, Hood, Burks, and Lyles gets you standing eye to eye with a 61 win squad.

I don't think this team is that dominant yet.

 

[Piso]

Notice how every single post in here and in the poll is saying we would win more games if we have better health?

Maybe you are wrong?

I'm not wrong. I just prefer the real number of wins and look to the future rather than giving a random number on a past season.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm not wrong. I just prefer the real number of wins and look to the future rather than giving a random number on a past season.

You are wrong.

Do you think you would be better at playing basketball with only one hand or would you be worse?

 

[416Klawzz]

I don't like to make excuses but ... a few

Sent from my ASUS_Z01BDC using JazzFanz mobile app