What's new
By:

How many games did the injuries cost the Jazz?

If the Jazz had had a regular amount of injuries last season, how many games would they have won?

  • 51 (no change)

    Votes: 1 3.8%

  • 52

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 53

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 54

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 55

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • 56

    Votes: 8 30.8%

  • 57

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • 58

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 59

    Votes: 2 7.7%

  • 60+

    Votes: 7 26.9%
  • Total voters
    26
colton

colton

All Around Nice Guy
Contributor
Or, in other words, if the Jazz had had a regular amount of injuries last season, how many games would they have won? Note that I'm not saying "no injuries", I'm saying, "a regular amount of injuries".

edit: I'm talking about regular season only, not the playoffs
 
Basically I'm trying to wrap my head around how good the current Jazz team actually is. Are they a 51 win team? 55 win team? 60 win team? Other?
 
57
 
colton said:
Or, in other words, if the Jazz had had a regular amount of injuries last season, how many games would they have won? Note that I'm not saying "no injuries", I'm saying, "a regular amount of injuries".
Click to expand...

Tough question... we can sustain injuries to Burks because of depth but the Hill injuries cost us more imo... Also need to factor in that Hood and Favors couldn't get into a rythymn because of nagging injuries.

I'll say 5ish.

I do think we need to move away from a couple more injury prone guys... cant't have Hill, Favors, Burks, and Hood all with somewhat significant concerns going into next year. The first ability a player needs to be successful is availability. Can have one or two of those guys but can't roll forward with that many roster spots on guys who have trouble staying on the court.
 
colton said:
Or, in other words, if the Jazz had had a regular amount of injuries last season, how many games would they have won? Note that I'm not saying "no injuries", I'm saying, "a regular amount of injuries".

edit: I'm talking about regular season only, not the playoffs
Click to expand...

After watching Houston I think we are firmly the third best team in our conference with a shot at SA next year.
 
There are stats that attempt o calculate this and I believe the Jazz were estimated to be at 9 games lost due to injury. That places the Jazz at 60 wins.
 
colton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
colton said:
Or, in other words, if the Jazz had had a regular amount of injuries last season, how many games would they have won? Note that I'm not saying "no injuries", I'm saying, "a regular amount of injuries".

edit: I'm talking about regular season only, not the playoffs
Click to expand...

Is this just missed games? Or is this like having a 100% healthy Favors for most the season?

I think Favors being full health makes a huge difference but I am not sure he will ever get back to what he was athletically before some of his injuries. But if we had 2015 Favors this whole season, no toe problem Hill and Hood missing games but not having lingering issues when he comes back I think we could have won 60 games.

If it is just less games missed and more of a league average of starters games missed we win 5 more games or so.
 
I said 60+ just because there was a ceiling effect but I don't believe it's much above 60. I'd say 60. Next year I say 62 if we retain. Maybe more if we have backup big men who can rebound.
 
9 or 10 pretty easily.

People forget what Favors was before being chronically injured. That's a borderline all-star to replace a lot of minutes played by Lyles and Diaw.

And George Hill by himself would have given us a bunch of wins. Imagine that run we were on early this season continuing.


Those two players alone put us around 60 wins, not even counting Hayward missing the first month, or any of the other injuries.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Is this just missed games? Or is this like having a 100% healthy Favors for most the season?

I think Favors being full health makes a huge difference but I am not sure he will ever get back to what he was athletically before some of his injuries. But if we had 2015 Favors this whole season, no toe problem Hill and Hood missing games but not having lingering issues when he comes back I think we could have won 60 games.

If it is just less games missed and more of a league average of starters games missed we win 5 more games or so.
Click to expand...

Definitely talking about overall health not just missed games. So if the Jazz were to have had a "reasonably healthy" Derek or Hill, etc. Or maybe one player having serious issues (or whatever you think is typical) but not multiple players. That type of thing.
 
I'm legitimately shocked at how many people are voting for 60+, considering that the two Stockton/Malone finals years were 64 and 62 wins, respectively. Those were the only two times the franchise has won 60 or more. (Edit: oops, there was a third time in 1994-5.) The best the Deron Williams/Boozer/AK47/Okur team ever did was 54. 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.

But that's why I asked the question, I guess, to see what people think.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
colton said:
I'm legitimately shocked at how many people are voting for 60+, considering that the two Stockton/Malone finals years were 64 and 62 wins, respectively. Those were the only two times the franchise has won 60 or more. The best the Deron Williams/Boozer/AK47/Okur team ever did was 54. 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.

But that's why I asked the question, I guess, to see what people think.
Click to expand...

Didn't see this before I posted. We also won 60 in 1994-1995. We'll hit 60 next year (health permitting) if we bring back our top three free agents, lose Mack, Burks, Lyles (at least), and have a real back-up big man (by real I just mean somebody who knows what rebounding is).
 
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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top