Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Cavaliers @ Bulls 8 PM

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Cavaliers @ Bulls 8 PM
wes_mantooth's avatar

wes_mantooth

Tomfoolery & shenanigans

17,977 posts
Apr 9, 2010 3:15 PM
No way this team wins 50 without Lebron.....I doubt they would be .500
Apr 9, 2010 3:15pm
jpake1's avatar

jpake1

Senior Member

2,389 posts
Apr 9, 2010 3:42 PM
I think this is a .500+ team without LBJ. Mo/Jamison/Andy.. a decent trio, along with some other good pieces like Delonte/Z/Shaq/Parker, etc.
Apr 9, 2010 3:42pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Apr 9, 2010 3:45 PM
Yeah, their .500+ without Bron but not 50 wins.

Probably battling 5-6 spot at around 45-46 wins.
Apr 9, 2010 3:45pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 3:54 PM
devil1197 wrote: Cleveland wasn't missing 4 starters.

Jamison, Mo, JJ, and Parker all started the game last night and everyone but JJ played big minutes along with AV playing 35.

Cleveland was without LeBron (starter) and Shaq (starter) along with West who splits time with Parker at the SG spot. JJ only played 15 minutes but he isn't a starter when Cleveland is fully healthy.

Not sure how you get 4?
Oh, excuse me. DWest would be a starter if LeBron was gone. And whereby Gibson is not a starter, he was in the past.
Apr 9, 2010 3:54pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Apr 9, 2010 3:56 PM
Yeah, I think it'd be in the 42-46 range.

2 years ago this team didn't have Mo, Antawn, Shaq, etc..

Of course, non of those guys would be here if LeBron wasn't, unless we're talking injury?

Either way, I hope to never find out :D
Apr 9, 2010 3:56pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:04 PM
Benny The Jet wrote: Just sayin man...you throw out that they're 1-2 without Lebron this year, so clearly that proves we'd win 50 without him?!?! Fuzzy math. Only 2 years ago, even with Lebron, this team won only 47 games.
I said "kind of prove" not proves. But whatever. Obviously I can't "prove" anything. It's speculation only.

The close loss at Milwaukee was whenever the Bucks were the hottest team in basketball. The Bucks have a better record since the All Star break than virtually anyone.

The Cavs beat another red hot team in the Spurs. Last night, the Bulls had an absolute must win game, and they won by one point at home.

Perhaps 50 wins is a stretch, but anyone that thinks this team would hover around 500 are delusional.

Basketball is not a one man team sport. Just look at Jordan's teames in the late 80's early 90's
Apr 9, 2010 4:04pm
Benny The Jet's avatar

Benny The Jet

Senior Member

2,987 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:12 PM
Footwedge wrote:
Benny The Jet wrote: Just sayin man...you throw out that they're 1-2 without Lebron this year, so clearly that proves we'd win 50 without him?!?! Fuzzy math. Only 2 years ago, even with Lebron, this team won only 47 games.
I said "kind of prove" not proves. But whatever. Obviously I can't "prove" anything. It's speculation only.

The close loss at Milwaukee was whenever the Bucks were the hottest team in basketball. The Bucks have a better record since the All Star break than virtually anyone.

The Cavs beat another red hot team in the Spurs. Last night, the Bulls had an absolute must win game, and they won by one point at home.

Perhaps 50 wins is a stretch, but anyone that thinks this team would hover around 500 are delusional.

Basketball is not a one man team sport. Just look at Jordan's teames in the late 80's early 90's
I really don't have anything against you Wedge (minus your whole PoonTawn thing), I just like arguing with you. So I'll say this...of the 3 major sports, basketball by far can be most affected by 1 great player on a team. Yes you have to have a full team to win the whole thing, but 1 man can greatly change your team in bball. Check the Cavs pre-2003 draft. Again, this is all fictional because there's no stats to prove it, but take Lebron out of this team this season, and look at how many games he pretty much single handily won, or dropped a 40/8/10 game...there's a good number of them. Would they still be a low seed in the Eastern playoffs? Probably. 50 wins? Not at all
Apr 9, 2010 4:12pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:34 PM
Benny The Jet wrote:
Footwedge wrote:
Benny The Jet wrote: Just sayin man...you throw out that they're 1-2 without Lebron this year, so clearly that proves we'd win 50 without him?!?! Fuzzy math. Only 2 years ago, even with Lebron, this team won only 47 games.
I said "kind of prove" not proves. But whatever. Obviously I can't "prove" anything. It's speculation only.

The close loss at Milwaukee was whenever the Bucks were the hottest team in basketball. The Bucks have a better record since the All Star break than virtually anyone.

The Cavs beat another red hot team in the Spurs. Last night, the Bulls had an absolute must win game, and they won by one point at home.

Perhaps 50 wins is a stretch, but anyone that thinks this team would hover around 500 are delusional.

Basketball is not a one man team sport. Just look at Jordan's teames in the late 80's early 90's
I really don't have anything against you Wedge (minus your whole PoonTawn thing), I just like arguing with you. So I'll say this...of the 3 major sports, basketball by far can be most affected by 1 great player on a team. Yes you have to have a full team to win the whole thing, but 1 man can greatly change your team in bball. Check the Cavs pre-2003 draft. Again, this is all fictional because there's no stats to prove it, but take Lebron out of this team this season, and look at how many games he pretty much single handily won, or dropped a 40/8/10 game...there's a good number of them. Would they still be a low seed in the Eastern playoffs? Probably. 50 wins? Not at all
I've already conceded that my 50 win statement was a reach. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on this, and since it is all hypothetical, nobody knows for sure.

I called you out for being a dick because you extrapolated a 1-2 record out to being a 27 win team.

But back to the subject at hand. If the Cavs got rid of LBJ and PT Jamison, they would defintely win 50 games. ;)
Apr 9, 2010 4:34pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:36 PM
Cleveland is overall 10-12 without Bron correct?
Apr 9, 2010 4:36pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:37 PM
devil1197 wrote: Cleveland is overall 10-12 without Bron correct?
Something like that...since he came to the team.
Apr 9, 2010 4:37pm
hoops23's avatar

hoops23

Senior Member

15,696 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:38 PM
10-13
Apr 9, 2010 4:38pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:44 PM
LTrain23 wrote: 10-13
I still think that both last year's team and this years's team are far better than previous teams from a supporting cast perspective. LeBron leads the NBA in overall plus/minus. After all, he is the GOAT.

Last night's game would have been a victory had the team played hard nosed defense. My belief is that the Cavs are playing soft defensively right now as a group, in order to stay off the injured list.
Apr 9, 2010 4:44pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:51 PM
WHAT? You don't think our current rosters are better than what we had seasons ago?

PG- Mo Williams or Eric Snow
SG- Parker or Hughes (I'd put West in there too for recent years)
PF- Jamison or Gooden
C- Shaq or Z

Plus our bench is way more deeper.
Apr 9, 2010 4:51pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:55 PM
devil1197 wrote: WHAT? You don't think our current rosters are better than what we had seasons ago?

PG- Mo Williams or Eric Snow
SG- Parker or Hughes
PF- Jamison or Gooden
C- Shaq or Z

Plus our bench is way more deeper.
Exactly....and for the record Devil, now that your GF has stratightened out your ass, you are no longer a member of the official Footwedge "dickopedia". :cool:
Apr 9, 2010 4:55pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Apr 9, 2010 4:57 PM
So let me get this straight.

Mo Williams equals Eric Snow?
Jamison equals Gooden?
Shaq equals Z?

I'll give you Parker and Hughes, but that is because I feel bad for you lol. Parker is a ton better on defensive and actually knows his role.

I won't even compare benches because Cleveland can go 10+ and I sure as hell know that the previous years teams couldn't.
Apr 9, 2010 4:57pm
SQ_Crazies's avatar

SQ_Crazies

The Godfather

7,977 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:03 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=VORPe&action=login&appRedirect=http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics%3fsort%3dVORPe

LeBron's Estimated Wins Added is 30, 7 better than any other player in the league. I mean, it's a formula so if you don't put any faith in it then don't believe it. In this case, I think Hollinger is pretty close. LeBron does a ton for this team.

Take him off and they're Mo, Jamison and who? Who is the 3rd guy to step up? We saw Arenas, Butler and Jamison fail miserably. I think this team would be near .500, no way they'd win 50 games.
Apr 9, 2010 5:03pm
2quik4u's avatar

2quik4u

Senior Member

4,388 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:07 PM
SQ_Crazies wrote: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=VORPe&action=login&appRedirect=http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics%3fsort%3dVORPe

LeBron's Estimated Wins Added is 30, 7 better than any other player in the league. I mean, it's a formula so if you don't put any faith in it then don't believe it. In this case, I think Hollinger is pretty close. LeBron does a ton for this team.

Take him off and they're Mo, Jamison and who? Who is the 3rd guy to step up? We saw Arenas, Butler and Jamison fail miserably. I think this team would be near .500, no way they'd win 50 games.
still have the best bench in the game which the wiz didnt have
Apr 9, 2010 5:07pm
SQ_Crazies's avatar

SQ_Crazies

The Godfather

7,977 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:13 PM
Arenas>Mo, Jamison is a little better without LeBron because he's more of a focal point and no one else on the Cavs is as good as Butler. Starting 5 is better. Andy and JJ aren't nearly as good without LeBron. Delonte would still be good, for sure. I don't know, I don't think they'd be much better than the former Wizards--though I agree, they would have a better bench.
Apr 9, 2010 5:13pm
SQ_Crazies's avatar

SQ_Crazies

The Godfather

7,977 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:14 PM
Not that it matters...they have LeBron as of now, and if he leaves this team is going to be demolished and started from scratch IMO.
Apr 9, 2010 5:14pm
2quik4u's avatar

2quik4u

Senior Member

4,388 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:23 PM
SQ_Crazies wrote: Not that it matters...they have LeBron as of now, and if he leaves this team is going to be demolished and started from scratch IMO.
i dont see why they would if lebron left, shaq would be done and most likely big z, they would have a decent amount of money to go out and get some good players
Apr 9, 2010 5:23pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:26 PM
SQ_Crazies wrote: Not that it matters...they have LeBron as of now, and if he leaves this team is going to be demolished and started from scratch IMO.
That is a separate argument and not relevant to the debate. With that said, I have no idea why you think this team would be demolished if Bron left.

It's been pretty clear that both Ferry, and more importantly, Gilbert, have proven their desire to win. Furthermore, if the Cavs lost LBJ, Gilbert would tell Ferry to get Bosh or Wade or whoever, to keep the team in the championship mix.
Apr 9, 2010 5:26pm
D

devil1197

Senior Member

6,220 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:26 PM
SQ_Crazies wrote: Not that it matters...they have LeBron as of now, and if he leaves this team is going to be demolished and started from scratch IMO.
Ehh, they'll have money to sign a max guy and they have some young players including West, Williams, JJ, AV, Gibson etc along with good vets of Jamison, Parker, and Moon.

They could bring in a couple guys and still be a EC contender. No need to start from nothing if you have the money to sign a big name.
Apr 9, 2010 5:26pm
SQ_Crazies's avatar

SQ_Crazies

The Godfather

7,977 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:27 PM
I think they'd drop Jamison. Try to built with Mo, Delonte, Hickson and Andy--but that's a pretty poor core group. They won't get one of the big FA's this offseason unless they pull off getting one of them to come play WITH LeBron. They're definitely going to be starting over if LeBron leaves.
Apr 9, 2010 5:27pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:32 PM
SQ_Crazies wrote: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?sort=VORPe&action=login&appRedirect=http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics%3fsort%3dVORPe

LeBron's Estimated Wins Added is 30, 7 better than any other player in the league. I mean, it's a formula so if you don't put any faith in it then don't believe it. In this case, I think Hollinger is pretty close. LeBron does a ton for this team.

Take him off and they're Mo, Jamison and who? Who is the 3rd guy to step up? We saw Arenas, Butler and Jamison fail miserably. I think this team would be near .500, no way they'd win 50 games.
This dude is a speculator with some gobbedegook numbers added. Nothing more than that.

Another hypothetical question for you. Let's say LeBron tears his achilles tendon tonight.

Who would be favored in the opening series? The Cavs or the Bulls? Guaging by last night's performance, I think the Cavs would still smoke them in 4 maybe 5 games.

I also think that they would beat the Celtics in a 7 game series.

And the Bulls are a 500 team.
Apr 9, 2010 5:32pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Apr 9, 2010 5:33 PM
SQ_Crazies wrote: I think they'd drop Jamison. Try to built with Mo, Delonte, Hickson and Andy--but that's a pretty poor core group. They won't get one of the big FA's this offseason unless they pull off getting one of them to come play WITH LeBron. They're definitely going to be starting over if LeBron leaves.
Wow.
Apr 9, 2010 5:33pm