Me & my buddy had a discussion yesterday on how much better the Nets would be with a healthy Lopez. I believe they had played exactly 10 games at the time. I said they would be much better & he said they would be a little better, but not much. Then he said they would've probably won another game or two w/ Lopez. He may have been right, but in the world of the NBA I believe that is a significant difference.
First off, you probably won't agree with the rest of this post if you don't believe the Nets would've won at least another game with Lopez in the lineup. I mentioned the Nets had played 10 games because in this example it's a nice number to use. Let's say for every 10 games the Nets play w/o Lopez, they would win another game(within that 10) if they had him.
Once again to use a nice round number, let's say the NBA schedule is 80 games.(I know it's usually 82 & 66 this year) Over the course of the year that is an 8 game difference. Is that a big difference over 82 games? I think it's a HUGE difference! The Bucks, Bobcats & Pistons all missed the playoffs last year. Had they each won another 8 games they would've respectively finished with the 6th, 7th & 8th seeds in the East. The Rockets would've went from 9th seed & missing the playoffs to getting the 5th seed in the West with another 8 games.
So in the end I proved to my friend that Brook probably makes a significant difference. At least based on his statement. Now because a normal season is 82 games, this would mean that Brook wouldn't even have to make the team 1 win better per 10 games, the number would actually be slightly less than 1 win better per 10 games.
I came up with this on the fly & I'm sure there are many flaws but it's still something to think about. Also another 8 wins for a team THIS bad won't make a difference, but 8 games is still a big deal. That means Brook would make a huge difference for this team...which was my initial point. What do you guys think?