Jim Mora playoffs thread

Any And All Things T-Wolves Related
User avatar
60WinTim
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by 60WinTim »

The playoff cluster-f### continues! We have 6 teams sitting at 37 losses fighting for the 4 play-in spots, which includes the Wolves. The 6th seed Warriors at 36 losses will likely join the c-f with a loss tonight. The Wolves have a few days off and several of those 37-loss teams will lose another game.

The Wolves at Warriors game on Sunday has huge implications as to whether the Wolves are battling for the 5th/6th seed, or jockeying for play-in position.
User avatar
Carlos Danger
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by Carlos Danger »

Sadly, I have all three games on this next road trip as "assumed losses". If they can pull out one win - I'll be very happy with that result.

The good news is after we get that trip out of the way, the remaining 5 games look "winnable" other than possibly Brooklyn.

I'm still predicting .500 end result. But it might be up and down (or down and up).
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Posts: 9920
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by AbeVigodaLive »

Carlos Danger wrote:Sadly, I have all three games on this next road trip as "assumed losses". If they can pull out one win - I'll be very happy with that result.

The good news is after we get that trip out of the way, the remaining 5 games look "winnable" other than possibly Brooklyn.

I'm still predicting .500 end result. But it might be up and down (or down and up).



Brooklyn is on a 5-game losing streak and is 7 - 14 over the past 21 games.

I'm not saying the Wolves will win... but if we're worried about matching up against teams like that, why even bother with the playoffs or play-in.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23341
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by Monster »

AbeVigodaLive wrote:
Carlos Danger wrote:Sadly, I have all three games on this next road trip as "assumed losses". If they can pull out one win - I'll be very happy with that result.

The good news is after we get that trip out of the way, the remaining 5 games look "winnable" other than possibly Brooklyn.

I'm still predicting .500 end result. But it might be up and down (or down and up).



Brooklyn is on a 5-game losing streak and is 7 - 14 over the past 21 games.

I'm not saying the Wolves will win... but if we're worried about matching up against teams like that, why even bother with the playoffs or play-in.


IMHO other than 4 bad teams and a handful that are at the top (although Boston and Denver have been struggling a bit lately) I don't see a big difference between the around 20 teams left in the middle. Injuries, inconsistency, acclamation of players, or whatever (Wolves have all these things and they are not alone) so many teams you don't know what you are gonna get on any given night even more than a typical NBA season. Part of that is that only a couple teams actually kinda suck and even a couple of those bad teams do actually have talent.
User avatar
60WinTim
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by 60WinTim »

Big time klunker from the Mavs tonight, dropping them out of the 37-loss club. Jazz are well on their way to dropping out, as well. And the loser of the Thunder/Laker game will also drop out. A good night for the Wolves!
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by FNG »

Yeah, just a crushing loss for the Mavs, losing to a hornets team with only 7 players on the back end of a back to back...and Irving and doncik were something like 3-17 on threes! Imagine the despair in Dallas right now!

The loss drops Dallas into a 3-way tie for 7th with the wolves and lakers on my sheet...and we have the tiebreaker. A tough 3 games coming up for us, but it's also good to have anti klunker potential in all 3. A win in GS combined with a clippers loss to the pels would put us in a tie with them for 6th on my sheet.
User avatar
FNG
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by FNG »

Dallas was favored by 16 in that game by the way...tough to bounce back from a loss like that
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23341
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by Monster »

FNG wrote:Dallas was favored by 16 in that game by the way...tough to bounce back from a loss like that


I believe they are 8-12 since the Kyrie trade.
User avatar
Jester1534
Posts: 3525
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by Jester1534 »

FNG wrote:Dallas was favored by 16 in that game by the way...tough to bounce back from a loss like that


Just saying I called the Mavs collapse 4 weeks ago it's only going to get worse there.
User avatar
60WinTim
Posts: 6923
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Jim Mora playoffs thread

Post by 60WinTim »

The Pelicans are trying to make a last push for the playoffs! The Suns and Warriors (2 of our next 3 opponents) seem to be getting their act together. The Mavs and Clippers are stumbling. And LeBron James is closer to returning.

The Wolves are currently slated for the play-in. They will likely need an anti-klunker or two to avoid the play-in. Fortunately, they have three anti-klunker opportunities on this road trip starting tonight. But more importantly, this team needs to figure out their chemistry with KAT and ANT in the lineup before the playoffs begin.

Here is the current KOM standings:

Code: Select all

Klunk-O-Meter

Top Teams:		76ers,Bucks,Cavaliers,Celtics,Grizzlies,Kings,Nuggets

Bottom Teams:		Hornets,Pacers,Pistons,Rockets,Spurs


Projections:
Seed	Team	Wins	Losses	Klunks	Anti-Ks
2.	Griz	54	28	3	0
3.	Kings	52	30	5	0
4.	Wars	43	39	1	3
5.	Clips	42	40	4	3
6.	Suns	42	40	1	4
7.	Lakers	41	41	4	5
8.	Wolves	41	41	3	6
9.	Mavs	40	42	6	2
10.	Thunder	40	42	2	2
11.	Jazz	39	43	2	3
12.	Pels	39	43	4	3
13.	Blazers	36	46	5	2

* - Klunkers / Anti-Klunkers since a few games before the All-Star Break
Post Reply