"New" vs. "Old" NBA

by OCBlazerfan on Jun 1, 2007 8:14 AM PDT Comment 8 comments

I posted this in the O-Live forum too. However, the way that forum goes, the post will be long gone in minutes (exciting time for us Blazer fans!!!!) Do you think that the results of these finals will have a say in who the Blazers pick? For example, if Cleavland wins, it shows that the "new" NBA is taking over. Then one would think we should take Durrant. If the Spurs win, then that would say that the "old" NBA is still here to stay. Therefore, we should take Oden. (I'm in the Oden camp by the way)

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nah

First of all whoever comes out of the East is going to be heavy underdogs.

Second, while I would apply 'new' and 'old' NBA to the Spurs and Cavs, it has nothing to do with their playing styles or the fact that the Spurs revolve around a big man, and the Cavs revolve around a (also plenty big) wing man. I would just apply it in terms of one team having been dominant for years with a couple more left, and one on its way up with a great longterm future. Its not entirely unlike the Bulls and Pistons overlapping the Lakers and Celtics in the late 80s (so if the Cavs are the Pistons, maybe we can be the Bulls? Right? Right?)

There were plenty of great teams in the 80s and 90s that centered on G/Fs, and although there are less today that center on, uh, centers, I think it has more to do with a relative dry spell in the NBA with regards to big men. But there are never that many, so if there are one or two fewer dominant big men at a given time, its pretty noticable. Also, a couple of guys now playing who could have become dominant, longterm centers but were injured are guys like Alonzo Mourning and even Ilgauskus (who is good but could have been so much better if he didn't have so many injury issues).

I rambled a bit there, but in short what I'm saying is because the number of really good centers is always going to be small the position is going to be more vulnerable to droughts and sudden spikes in quality. We've been in a drought for a while, but there actually now seems to be a lot of good young big men in the league, plus Oden entering next year.

by matthewcc on Jun 1, 2007 8:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If you're referring to style of play ...

Then I wouldn't consider Cleveland as a representative of the "new" NBA. They are NOT the run-and-gun, small lineup type of team. They play good defense, and lean on Lebron to score big points for them in the half-court set. If they win, then I don't think anyone will take anything from it other than they have a dominant player and a nice supporting cast. The best pick for us will still be Oden.

by bfan on Jun 1, 2007 8:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

1 on 5

The NBA is trying to turn a team sport into a man vs man competition in order to generate ratings and hype. The best five player TEAM will win the Finals. Whether LeBron can do the work of three players remains to be seen, but it's possible.

I don't think we could go wrong taking Oden because he is a strong team player, and also has the potential to become a dominating super-star. We've got Roy and LMA to take the pressure off him, so it's a three headed monster in Portland rather than one. If I remember my mythology, the Hydra kicked a lot of butt before Hercules got to him.

I think the Blazers feel the same way deep down, but they're keeping an open mind for anything that might change that opinion. In the end it will be Oden...I hope. I know I'd rather see my TEAM surgically execute another team rather than see one guy try to win it by himself. Unless your initials are MJ, you need a strong TEAM to win.

by Steve The Hedge on Jun 1, 2007 8:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Mythology

Yes, but Heracules did kick Hydra butt. Who do most people remember? The son of Zeus or a mutant lizard?

by timg56 on Jun 1, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

naw

KP's thinking of it the absolute right way. Look at the minimizing risk and maximizing returns. There's a position adjustment for big versus little (yes, I DO understand that, it's just that it's not the ONLY factor), look at Value Over Replacement Player, then if it's just too close to call, you look at how they fit in with your existing assets.

My own assessment btw is the opposite of I forget who at the Oregonian who interviewed KP about this risk/return stuff. KP said (I'm paraphrasing here) one of these guys is higher risk/higher return, one of these guys is lower risk/lower return. Quick or Canzano or whoever thought that meant Durant is high risk high return, Oden is lower risk lower return.

I think the exact opposite, Durant is the surer thing, since all he needs to do is beef up. Oden is the higher risk higher return guy since we need to have faith that he can develop low post scoring skills that he hasn't demonstrated, based on our assessments of his raw abilities. Plus, Durant is lower risk because he has the desire and intensity and competitiveness that means he's likelier to reach his peak, Oden is definitely not a slacker but Durant's on a different level as far as that goes.

by howlingfantods on Jun 1, 2007 9:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

bfan's correct

in that Cleveland's defense is being praised as the key to their success in this series. And we know SA's defense is very good. If we draft Durant our defense, which right now is our weakest aspect, is not really addressed. Oden makes us so much better ddefensively, right away...

by Blazerholic on Jun 1, 2007 10:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We will pick Oden.

The four teams left are playing the style that has won from 1988 to the present. All of them have at least two giant humans that play regular minutes. The way to win in the playoffs is to shoot lay-ups and free-throws while the other team shoots contested jump shots. The best way to stop the opponent from running (the "new" NBA) is to make shots, or shoot free-throws.

by EnglandDan on Jun 1, 2007 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs