Bones bro be realistic, they were 19:28 in January because of many injuries and 3 Months later they almost overtook us. If healthy they are better than us, also expect improvement from mitchell over the next Year while our two best Players are in their Primes
Many injuries? Who besides Gobert was out?
Mitchell missed 2 games during the stretch you mentioned (Utah went 1-1).
Favors missed 3 during this stretch (Utah went 1-2, but I don't think is lack of playing is why they lost @ Cleveland and @ Houston).
Rubio missed 1 game (0-1)
Why did you pick game 47? Gobert had been back for 3 games by that point.You should've picked game 44. So, Imma do both scenarios, because I'm bored and can't sleep.
after 47 games, Utah was 19-28 and finished the year 29-6. After 44 games, Utah was 18-26, and finished the year 30-8.
By comparison, after 47 games Portland 25-22 and finished the year 24-11. After 44 games, Portland was 23-21 and finished the year 26-12.
For full disclosure, over 82 games that's between 65 and 67 games for Utah and 56 for Portland. Obviously a better record for Utah.
It was impressive, but while Utah got healthy, Portland got injured.
Admittedly, Moe was almost a complete non factor for the first 50+ games. But after game 47, Moe missed 13 games (including the last 9 regular season game). Because he was almost a non factor in the first 50+ games, his missing games 45-47 don't really matter to me.
But over the last 9 games, the Blazers went 4-5 in the games he missed. Realistically losing 3 games they should have won (Memphis twice and San Antonio). Even if you take out the San Antonio game from the hypothetical win column, 2 more wins would mean the Blazers would have gone 26-9 (24-11 to 26-9) with your start date, and 28-10 in mine (26-12 to 28-10).
Over 82 games, that's going from 56 wins to 60 based off of their record after 47 games (same #'s for my scenario too)
So Utah going 29-6 (or 30-8 after game 44) is awesome and means they'll be dominate next year, whereas 24-11 (or 26-12 after game 44) while missing a starter for 9 of those games (and potentially going 26-9 or 28-10) means nothing?
I'm not saying that Moe is on par with Gobert, he isn't. Not even close.
I also understand that one could argue that if Gobert was healthy all year, they would have won more games. But I'd just counter by saying had Moe not sucked shit for most of the year (until the end)...my aunt would've been my uncle.
I'm just pointing out that the grass is greener.
Of course, as with anything, circumstances matter. If Moe sucks again, it won't help matters. Or if Gobert gets hurt. Or something unexpected happens (Trent, Curry, Simons or Collins have a significantly unexpected boost in production)...
