Uh oh, fellow Sixers fans: We got problems.

[Derek Bodner]

That translates to a 37-45 record with Brand out there for all 82.

Thank god basketball seasons are more than 29 games.

[RickyPryor]

Thank god basketball seasons are more than 29 games.

True.  Because without alot more games, we'd never go 37-16 in the REST of our games to get to those 50 wins Rick thinks we'd go with a healthy Brand.

Man...that would have been some run.  Sorry we never had a chance to see it.

 

[Derek Bodner]

True.  Because without alot more games, we'd never go 37-16 in the REST of our games to get to those 50 wins Rick thinks we'd go with a healthy Brand.

And here I thought we were talking about next year.

[RickyPryor]

And here I thought we were talking about next year.

Why will next year - with a healthy Brand - be so different from what this year coulda been - with a healthy Brand.

Whatever.  I still maintain our current roster is not capable of winning 50 games.  In fact, I think the argument is laughable.

If not ONE of our players would even get (relative-to-position) significant minutes if added to Boston's roster...we'd be delusional to think otherwise.

[Derek Bodner]

Why will next year - with a healthy Brand - be so different from what this year coulda been - with a healthy Brand.

Right.  Because 29 games is a large enough sample size to form a definitive evaluation of how the team will play in the next 82 games together.

We have to go 47-35 next year.  Not 37-16.

I don't have time to re-type the argument on why I don't think Brand was the cause of our early season struggles, which I think have much more to do with the slow starts of Iguodala, Williams and Miller.

41-41 team even with Brand out for 50+ game and the horrible starts of the Andre's and Lou.  With Thad's continued development and Brand back, I don't think 47 wins is "laughable".

I also don't think it's the goal.

[RickyPryor]

We have to go 47-35 next year.  Not 37-16.

Two different things.  I'm speaking to RICK's argument that we can get to 50 wins (at one point he even mentioned fifty FIVE) with a healthy Brand.  I'm saying if he'd have been healthy THIS year we'd have to have gone 37-16 to have achieved that record with a healthy Brand.

And THAT sample size is more telling than a hypothetical one for next year, based on ZERO data.

It's all I have to go on.  (Unless we include Brand's season from LAST year.  Oh wait...)

With Thad's continued development and Brand back, I don't think 47 wins is "laughable".

Nor do I.  50 (or was it 55) is, however.

[tk76-]

And if Lou Williams is the teams starting PG (as we have started to hear bantered about?)

If Miller walks they will have the MLE or a sign and trade.  They can use that for a PG who can shoot or a SG who can shoot.  They will try and make it a PG, but if one is not available, then they will add a shooter and start Lou.

Scary thought.

[DuckyNinja]

Or we would have had to gotten off to a better start.  The sample size from this year with Brand tells us nothing about next year.  If you think it does, then you think the standings from each season has an actual effect on the standings of other seasons.  Do you believe that?

[RickyPryor]

Or we would have had to gotten off to a better start.  

Yeah.  Except we DIDN'T.  Why?  We're a .500 is why.  And that's hard to argue, given the fact we're .500 over our last 164 games.

The sample size from this year with Brand tells us nothing about next year.  

Tells us more than if you DON'T use it.

In other words...what do YOU think we'll go with him being healthy next year, and then what data can you use to support that prediction?

[DuckyNinja]

Once again, you're using past seasons to predict the future.  Maybe we had bad coaching (we were 5 games over .500 with DiLeo even with the April loss streak that occurred when Thad was injured), maybe we happened to have a slumping team (Iguodala is a consistently slow starter, for example), and there are a ton of other possible reasons why we didn't get off to a better start.

All the sample size from this year with Brand tells us about next year is that if we bring Miller and Mo Cheeks back and we slump in November, we're not going to do well in November.

I don't think we can predict how we're going to do next year until after the draft and FA when we actually know who is on our roster.

[RickyPryor]

Once again, you're using past seasons to predict the future.  Maybe we had bad coaching (we were 5 games over .500 with DiLeo even with the April loss streak that occurred when Thad was injured), maybe we happened to have a slumping team (Iguodala is a consistently slow starter, for example), and there are a ton of other possible reasons why we didn't get off to a better start.

All the sample size from this year with Brand tells us about next year is that if we bring Miller and Mo Cheeks back and we slump in November, we're not going to do well in November.

But to argue with me suggests you think we can do better next year than we did this year.

I'm asking what's the basis for that sentiment?  Remember...it can't be recent history; you took that away from me.  So is it ancient history?  Wild guessing?  E.S.P.?

[DuckyNinja]

I did not argue that I think we will do better next year than we did this year.  I argued that just because we were 41-41 this year doesn't mean we're a .500 team next year.  We could be worse (Brand gets injured again, Thad stalls in his development, we use Lou as a starter and don't replace his bench production, or a multitude of other factors) or we could be better (Brand goes back to his all-star form, Iggy, Thad, Lou, Smith, and/or Speights jump to the next level, we bring in a coach who can teach defense, we bring in a good player via S+T or MLE, we get lucky in the draft, and/or a multitude of other factors).

I reiterate what I said in my previous post: trying to guess now is beyond pointless.

[RickyPryor]

I reiterate what I said in my previous post: trying to guess now is beyond pointless.

Oh.

Isn't that why we're here?  I mean all of this is "pointless", using that logic; isn't it?  Does it make a difference to comment on the previous night's games?  Trades?  The draft?  Is ANY of that actually impactful.  A cynic might say no.

I enjoy discussing past, present and future issues as they relate to our sports teams.  Many here feel the same way, I'm guessing.

But I'll understand if, from now on, you decide not to participate in these discussions.

[DuckyNinja]

Why hasn't Ricky been banned yet?  He was a troll on the Philaphans board and banned there.  He certainly doesn't belong here.

[Derek Bodner]

Why hasn't Ricky been banned yet?  He was a troll on the Philaphans board and banned there.  He certainly doesn't belong here.

FYI, I've already banned ricky at another board.  I don't need you telling me who ricky is, what kind of poster he is, or how to do my "job".