Jame sJOnes was ona nd off in the injury department as far as active players last year, but recall that we whipped upon Denver when Lma went down for a handful of games.

Hi Miled. I really like BDL, and mannyfresh seemed to like the writing too. Kelly Dwyer, as I said, appeared to have actually watched some Blazers games last year, which is always reassuring when you are reading an analysis. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything they say at BDL, though!

• Regarding the injuries, it certainly appears they are parroting Hollinger. They make a pretty good point, though — of our top 7 players (ranked by min/g), we missed a total of 27 games last year (<4 games/player). While I don’t buy into this whole “injury prone Blazers” idea, overall that is very healthy. This season, we are already going to miss that many games from our top 7 projected minutes/game earners just due to Martell’s injury. (Note: I don’t think we can look at Oden’s injury when discussing whether last year’s 41 wins were “overachieving” or not, so that is sort of a moot point.)

• Your point that veterans get “slightly better” while young players “progress much faster” is somewhat dubious. I think more accurately, younger players sometimes progress much faster. I am generally more surprised when veterans drastically outperform their historical output (e.g. Turkoglu last year), but are less surprised when younger players do that. This is offset by the number of young players who seemingly are poised to outperform past output, and never do (come on Tyrus Thomas!). I’ll point you to last year’s Bulls as a good example. Numerous analysts and fans (including myself) expected big things from the young team, which never materialized. So, there is certainly the possibility that all our youngsters blossom before our eyes, and I certainly hope and expect that, but there is still the possibility that some of them flame out.

• Regarding Blake (and Przybilla, too) — I’m totally on board with you on this one. I don’t expect much or any of a drop off in his performance. Both Hollinger and Dwyer are saying he played much better last season (07-08) than he did the previous season (06-07), so we shouldn’t expect similar play. They both miss the fact that the 06-07 year was in fact below par for him (especially his 3-pt shooting). Dave Berri put together a very nice table that shows this: Berri table

• Just to bring up a point jksnake made above, I certainly believe that point differential is a better predictor of future success than win totals. It is common enough to get 55 heads when you flip a coin 100 times — this does not mean you are clutch. (Dave Berri’s tables show that we exceeded expectations, even correcting for Hollinger’s ideas on Blake.) That said, I think Nate is a good coach that generally maximizes his players’ abilities. I remember seeing a chart somewhere showing that the Blazers had the best (or one of the best) shooting percentages in the plays immediately coming out of a timeout, indicating he’s good with the X’s and O’s. I guess my overall point is — yes, the Blazers got more wins last year than might be expected. That should factor into win predictions for next year.

• Regarding point guards and Roy — I think these are somewhat judgment calls. What Dwyer calls “quite a lot” and you say is not quite a lot may actually be the same thing. Having your SG handle the ball in crunch time is “quite a lot” for some teams (e.g. Hornets), whereas some teams let their SF or SG handle the ball even more than Roy does (e.g. Cavs, Lakers). Overall, I can’t argue too much when Dwyer says the PG situation is lousy. Last year this was one of the team’s weaker areas. A weak area on a .500 team could certainly be considered lousy.

Overall, I’m slightly more optimistic than Hollinger or BDL. I think the Blazers will win 45-46 and just squeak into the playoffs.