A case for 02-04 Nets being underrated

[Owly]

I'm not sure how their limp construction beating up on an absolutely threadbare East is really an argument. Yes, they were good defensively, and they had a good, structured gameplan. They handled the East for the most part quite well. That's... not impressive. Like, at all. In any way, shape or form.

In the other hand they got a lot closer to beating the pistons in 2004 than lakers did, and did comparably vs 2003 spurs than the 03 lakers

That doesnt mean much but it does mean somethingh i suppose

Were they a championship level team? They probably are a fair bit worse than the median championship team

But i dont know if they are really worse than the median second place finisher if that makes sense

Their east run in 2003 is not that of a weak team

Milwaukee Bucks (-0.2), won 4-2 by +4.4 a game (+4.2 SRS eq)
Boston Celtics (+2.4), won 4-0 by +10.0 a game (+12.4 SRS eq)
Detroit Pistons (+3.9), won 4-0 by +9.0 a game (+12.9 SRS eq)

Having one mediocre against a mediocre first round opponent is not unusual even for great ring winning teams and their next two series they beat good (but not great) teams pretty handily

First bracket supposed to be opponent SRS? From use to calculate "SRS eq" I would have guessed (and certainly some opponent quality measure).

If so Boston '03 was -0.75 (and Detroit 2.97).


To main Q. '03 was clearly their best SRS. Just north of 4 puts them on the very fringe of of the fringe contender bucket in terms of team caliber. Maybe (probably) you could argue some upside with a healthy Mutombo. Maybe 5th team as it was (the 3 above by SRS and the Lakers upside at full strength, motivation, tightened rotation)? Mind you that year looks to have a lot of middling teams at a glance.

[falcolombardi]

I'm not sure how their limp construction beating up on an absolutely threadbare East is really an argument. Yes, they were good defensively, and they had a good, structured gameplan. They handled the East for the most part quite well. That's... not impressive. Like, at all. In any way, shape or form.

In the other hand they got a lot closer to beating the pistons in 2004 than lakers did, and did comparably vs 2003 spurs than the 03 lakers

That doesnt mean much but it does mean somethingh i suppose

Were they a championship level team? They probably are a fair bit worse than the median championship team

But i dont know if they are really worse than the median second place finisher if that makes sense

Their east run in 2003 is not that of a weak team

Milwaukee Bucks (-0.2), won 4-2 by +4.4 a game (+4.2 SRS eq)
Boston Celtics (+2.4), won 4-0 by +10.0 a game (+12.4 SRS eq)
Detroit Pistons (+3.9), won 4-0 by +9.0 a game (+12.9 SRS eq)

Having one mediocre against a mediocre first round opponent is not unusual even for great ring winning teams and their next two series they beat good (but not great) teams pretty handily

First bracket supposed to be opponent SRS? From use to calculate "SRS eq" I would have guessed (and certainly some opponent quality measure).

If so Boston '03 was -0.75 (and Detroit 2.97).


To main Q. '03 was clearly their best SRS. Just north of 4 puts them on the very fringe of of the fringe contender bucket in terms of team caliber. Maybe (probably) you could argue some upside with a healthy Mutombo. Maybe 5th team as it was (the 3 above by SRS and the Lakers upside at full strength, motivation, tightened rotation)? Mind you that year looks to have a lot of middling teams at a glance.

Seems like my mistake was using sansterre project (his 2003 spurs write up) as a shortcut to look up the srs's. Forgot He combines playoff net rating with reg season srs to get his numbers

[BenoUdrihFTL]

Styles make fights, perhaps Kidd's Nets simply matched up well vs those Pistons. Jersey had the perimeter defense to make life difficult for the backcourt engine of Detroit's offense, and in that 2004 ECSF Billups/Rip accounted for 39% of Detroit's FGAs while only converting 40% of them and Detroit as a team shot 39.6% for the series. That's a lot of rebound and run opportunity for Jersey and the Nets were a top 5 defensive rebounding team

Which leads me into some theorizing..

I don't have the data to support this (nor know where to find it) but I remember the Nets' offense being highly dependent on their transition attack to produce points, seemingly more disproportionately so than any team in recent memory given just how dreadful their halfcourt offense was versus Kidd's potency in the open court. When you look at those Detroit teams, I think most here agree that their defensive anchor Ben Wallace was their most impactful player and Detroit's competitive advantage really derived from their halfcourt defense. So when you take a team like the Nets, whose rather outsized dependance on transition offense meant that they were relatively less reliant on halfcourt execution, you are essentially reducing the overall impact of Detroit's most impactful player and their greatest strength as a team

[dennythedino]

The 02 and 03 Finals teams were really good defensively, but their half-court offense was a mess. They really only had two guys in the rotation (Kittles and Lucious Harris) that could shoot, this was before Kidd eventually developed a solid 3-point shot.

Their offense was best in transition when Kidd could lead the fast break, but the shooting was too weak for them to become a true run-and-gun team.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I think the Nets overachieved a bit. They were merely a good team reaching the finals by default. They did not have a higher gearvthat they could kick into.

Here is what I want to do with the Nets, Best of Draymond and Best of Kid creating a faster Draymond Point forward. Best of Curry best of Anthony Johnson creating a better version of Curry because if I remember Johnson right he has better foot speed tha Curry. I don't trus my memory of Johnson. If Curry has somebody like Kyrie to guard Kidd can guard him instead. As well as Curry plays off Draymond, playing off Draymond Kidd is even better. Best of Klay best of Lucien Harris. Kittles becomes 6th man. Play some small ball with Kenyon Martin at center.

Kidd, Jefferson, Kittles, Kenyon Marten and Rodney Rogers will get better shots with the spacing created by Curry and Klay.