There’s perception, and then there’s reality.

The perception is that the Nets will still be contenders in the Eastern Conference this season. But has anyone checked in with reality lately? Because heading in, I’m wondering if we’re being honest about where the Nets really stand. The “contender” tag is a funny thing, bestowed as it is by a consensus of the press. Some teams get a mystique about them and immediately earn the honor, while others are largely ignored until seconds before winning. Last year, for instance, nobody took the Cleveland Cavaliers terribly seriously as contenders for the Eastern Conference title … right up until the part where they were putting hats and T-shirts on and jumping around like crazy after beating Detroit.

Meanwhile, other teams get the benefit of the doubt almost regardless of how they play. Take Miami, for instance. Working off the mystique of the previous season’s title run, the Heat had a nearly full bandwagon heading into last year’s playoffs, despite the fact that they’d given up more points than they’d scored and their best player was clearly not at full strength. That was a fun ride — all four games of it.

Or for a more local example, take the Nets. We hear others talk about them as contenders. We hear them discuss themselves as contenders. Everyone treats them as contenders, and acts as though they’ll continue to be contenders. So pardon me if I’m the guy to rain on the parade here, but I was just wondering: When, exactly, was the last time the Nets did anything to back that up? Was it when they scored 85 and 72 points in consecutive home losses to Cleveland last spring? Was it when they lost four straight games to Miami the year before, three of which came by double-digits? Or was it the four straight losses in the first round against the same Heat the year before?

As near as I can tell, the last time the Nets looked remotely contender-ific was in May of 2004, when they won Game 5 in triple overtime against eventual champion Detroit to take a 3–2 series lead in the Eastern Conference semifinals. The Nets lost a close shave in the Meadowlands in Game 6, and then couldn’t stop the Ben Wallace-jump-shooting machine in Game 7. But they gave the champs their toughest test of the postseason. Now that’s what a contender should look like.

In the last three years, though, the Nets haven’t come close to looking like that. In the regular season, they’ve won 42, 49, and 41 games. Does that sound like a contender to you? It sounds like the Nuggets to me — well, except that Denver has won more. Though the Nuggets have been nonexistent in contender discussions in recent years, they’re far from the only team to outdo the Nets in this category. And, in addition, the usual suspects, such as San Antonio and Dallas, as well as clubs such as Houston and Chicago, have won more in that span.

The Nets also haven’t made the conference finals, or come particularly close to doing so. Last year was their best shot, helped along by a first-round matchup against a limping Toronto team that had outclassed them in the regular season. But even so, the Nets couldn’t have taken advantage of a Cleveland team that itself wasn’t in top gear yet.

That, mind you, was in a competition to win the East. I don’t think anyone needs reminding that the winner of said conference was utterly dismantled by San Antonio in the Finals last year — meaning that the bar to win an actual championship is much, much, much higher.

Once upon a time, New Jersey was reasonably close to that bar, especially in 2003 when they took the Spurs to six tough games before falling. But they’ve managed to keep their aura as contenders because they still have some of the same players (Jason Kidd and Richard Jefferson, most notably), they still play the same style, and they’ve been in the playoffs every year.

Thus, many casually glance at the team and still see Kidd and Jefferson, and also see Vince Carter as the wingman, and think that these are pretty much the same Nets as four and five years ago. Based on that inference, it’s hardly shocking that they don’t think it would take much for this team to get back to the Finals.

So, let me present an alternate hypothesis. It’s one that goes contrary to the general perception, but conforms far better to the reality of the last three seasons: Maybe they just aren’t that good. Obviously, the Nets themselves considered this possibility last season, or Kidd wouldn’t have been on the market at the trade deadline. But apparently they’ve decided to give it another go by bringing in a veteran center (Jamaal Magloire) and hoping that Nenad Krstic’s return and Jefferson’ recovery from ankle problems can rekindle the magic.

But is that enough? Consider that, just like the Heat, the Nets weren’t even as good as their record last season. They gave up more points than they scored and, with normal luck, would have been expected to go 38–44.

That’s not the only place where perceptions are colliding with reality: One perception is that Kidd will magically make all the newcomers better with his dazzling passing. The reality is that the Nets haven’t been in the league’s top dozen teams in Offensive Efficiency since he arrived half a decade ago.

Another perception is that the Nets’ two stars will keep doing what they’ve been doing. The reality is that a backcourt of ages 34 and 30 is probably going to see some slippage.

And the perception is that New Jersey’s veteran know-how can get them over the top in the postseason, while the reality says they’re 11–18 in playoff games since taking that 3–2 lead against Detroit in 2004.

So, as the Nets go through training camp in preparation for Friday’s preseason opener in Philadelphia, let me raise the first warning flag. The Nets are acting like and being treated like contenders, but it’s been a long time since we’ve seen any evidence that they really are contenders. If folks are going to continue describing them this way, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand some tangible proof.

jhollinger@nysun.com