How many games over a season would this Cavs team win?

• lhslep134

  

  I got into a debate with my friends last night while watching the Cavs game, so I'll ask it here.
  
  
  
  How many games would this lineup win:
  PG: Mo
  SG: Parker
  SF: Jawad Williams
  PF: Jamison
  C: Hickson
  
  
  Everyone else would be on the team (Moon, Delonte, Boobie, etc.)
  
  Essentially, how would the Lebron-less and Shaq-less Cavs do over the course of a season?
• SportsAndLady

  

  4 or 5 games over .500, which would be good for about 6th in the east.
• wildcats20

  

  You have no real center, unless you are counting Z being back with the team??
  
  I would have to agree with S&L, probably a few games over .500.
• thedynasty1998

  

  Under .500
• devil1197

  AV also?
  
  Yeah, this team would be above .500.
  
  They were without 3 of their 4 top scorers for most of the 2nd half and still beat the Spurs.
• wildcats20

  

  The Spurs who are slowly(actually not slowly) becoming an average team. And were without one of the better PG's in the League. It was still a big win, because of how the game went and who the Cavs were without, mainly just Bron and then losing Tawn. They win that game with or without Shaq.
  
  
  This team would also still be in the East, where .500 ball gets you the 6th seed. They would remind me of the Bobcats this year.
• sleeper

  

  If you would have asked this question before the game last night, the results would be different.
• ytownfootball

  

  The Spurs were sans Parker too, but the point is the same. They would make the play-offs just above .500 but with virtually no chance in the play-offs, even with an aging Z.
• sleeper

  

  FWIW, this team would win 20-25 games.
• lhslep134

  

  I personally think it would be in the 40-48 range. Just the fact that some teams in the league are so bad it's pathetic makes me think this team could win more than half of their games.
  
  They'd stand no chance against a team that can bang down low but I think they'd hold their own against most teams.
• hoops23

  

  Anybody who doesn't think this team has talent w/o LeBron knows absolutely nothing about the Cavs..
  
  They would still be a playoff team and would probably finish with 43-45 wins.
  
  However, the Lakers w/o Bryant could still be a title contender, so it's truly a testament to LeBron.. But I do get sick of the media trying to claim that the Cavs are a lottery team w/o LeBron, because that they are not.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  No way in hell they'd win 40-48 games. They'd be below .500. Doesn't mean they don't have talent outside of LeBron and Shaq.
  
  LeBron adds an estimated 26 wins to your team, the next closest player in the league right now is D-Wade at 18. It isn't a perfect stat, but I don't think it's completely irrelevant.
• se-alum

  

  I'd say 25-30 games.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  se-alum wrote: I'd say 25-30 games.

  Me too.
• KnightXC1

  

  Probably right around 35 wins and maybe up to 40. Without Lebron and Shaq, the Cavs would have no real go to guy besides Jamison. Probably finish around 7 or 8 in the East.
• Footwedge

  Cavs don't lose diddly squat without Shaq. Obviously, the King would be a huge loss. But I wouldn't go overboard on the Kingless Cavs being dogshit. Cavs just played 2 air tight games against 2 really hot teams.
  
  With Brownie as the coach, this team would still win 45-48 games.
  
  Just a side note...the Cavs are 10-12 without the king playing since he came here. And this team is pretty deep now.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Footwedge wrote: Cavs don't lose diddly squat without Shaq. Obviously, the King would be a huge loss. But I wouldn't go overboard on the Kingless Cavs being dogshit. Cavs just played 2 air tight games against 2 really hot teams.
  
  With Brownie as the coach, this team would still win 45-48 games.
  
  Just a side note...the Cavs are 10-12 without the king playing since he came here. And this team is pretty deep now.

  1-9 in the last 10.
• Hb31187

  

  theres a stat that says how many wins a player would add to a team? Is this only for bottom feeding teams that it applies to?
• SQ_Crazies

  

  No, it's just in general.
• wildcats20

  

  Footwedge wrote: Cavs don't lose diddly squat without Shaq. Obviously, the King would be a huge loss. But I wouldn't go overboard on the Kingless Cavs being dogshit. Cavs just played 2 air tight games against 2 really hot teams.
  
  With Brownie as the coach, this team would still win 45-48 games.
  
  Just a side note...the Cavs are 10-12 without the king playing since he came here. And this team is pretty deep now.

  Um...the Spurs are not hot. 6-4 over their last 10...
  
  And without LeBron, there is no Mike Brown as coach.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  And to say the Cavs don't lose anything without Shaq is insane.
• wildcats20

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: And to say the Cavs don't lose anything without Shaq is insane.

  Yeah I was kind of ignoring that comment...lol
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Considering a lot of people think that he is the difference between a Cleveland team that can't win a title (last season) and one that can, I'd say we miss something without him...
• wildcats20

  

  I'll be honest, I didn't think he would have as big of impact that he has. I thought yeah he would provide a big they didn't have, but I didn't expect him to be able to play at the level he has until the injury.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I did. He fell off a bit a few years ago and then leveled out again, he's been the same good player since he won the ring with D-Wade.