60 wins: What Will It Take?
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 1:23 AM PDT
176 comments
The last few seasons we have seen our young Blazers improve their win total from 21 to 32 to 41 to 54 wins. We all want to see another substantial increase in the win total, but it is just as hard, if not harder, to improve from an average team to a good team as it is to improve from a good team to a great team. 60 wins is a benchmark for a great team; it's not a perfect benchmark, though. For example, the Orlando Magic finished with 59 wins last season and made the finals while knocking out the best regular season team. Only 14 teams (unless I forgot how to add) in the last 9 seasons have cracked the 60 win mark. Roughly 62 wins puts you in this kind of company. Of course, winning a lot of games can be aided by an large underclass of terrible teams; a few haves can pillage a large number of have-nots to boost their win totals. The '09-'10 season could have that phenomenon with the bad economy and many teams clearing cap space for the summer of 2010 FA bonanza.
So, what can the Blazers do both as a team and as individuals to increase their win total next year? I've put together a list of areas that can be improved, but it certainly isn't exhaustive and not everything on the list must happen to get to 60. There are plenty of ways for the Blazers to improve that won't be covered below; for example, I did not list any coaching improvements. Also, with the exception of Andre Miller and Greg Oden, who I believe could single handily bring us to 60 wins with enough improvement, I didn't try to estimate how many wins any one thing might contribute. I will, however, put an asterisk by the entries I think are the most crucial.
General Team Improvements:
1. Improve Road Record (20-21) *
The Blazers need to learn to win on the road. There's no easy formula or drill for this. It is just about confidence, execution and experience. This is about as close as you can get to just saying "win more!" without coming off as ridiculous. The Blazers already have the talent to win on the road; they just need to put it all together.
2. Improve Record Against playoff teams (21-21: 15-6 home, 6-15 road)
This is similar to point number 1 and somewhat tautologous for a 54 win team. Clearly, the Blazers can beat the lesser teams so to improve they must beat the better teams; there is no other way to (significantly) improve the overall record. It is important to note that the record listed above includes wins against East playoff teams. Certainly, wins against the Pistons and Bulls are a bit different than a win against the Jazz or Hornets. Specifically improving on the road against West playoff teams (2-11) is a crucial step toward potentially winning a championship. If you want to include the Suns, the two teams split the season series 2-2 with the home team winning every game.
3. Better Defense (Def. Eff. 107.8, 13th in the league)
The Blazers were the best offensive team in the league, but only middle of the pack defensively (Basketball-reference). The Blazer defense is an area that can be improved, particularly, pick and roll defense. The Blazers need to rely less on the bigs covering up the mistakes of the wings. Some defensive improvement should be expected from a young team as learning and anticipating the professional game develops with time. Veteran defensive savvy will develop eventually, but don't expect that alone to push us into the top 10.
4. Better FT% (76.51%, 17th)
This is just a matter of practice. Also, the Blazers may want to seat our more intimidating fans behind the baskets to scare opposing free throw shooters as they give up 80.3% at the line.
5. Not falling behind early
The Blazers had the most double digit comeback wins last year which is both impressive and a red flag. There is no reason for a good team to fall behind by 10 or more points this often. How many games did the Blazers end up losing by just a few points after almost making a comeback? Playing from behind is a good skill to learn because the other team can come out hot, but mailing in the first quarter is not something an elite team does.
Player Improvements:
If Roy improves his game again next season it would be like winning the lottery and then finding $100 on the ground. We already have one of the best players in the game so any improvement that Roy brings is just icing on the cake. I think it's safe to say any (minor) offensive improvement Roy makes won't boost our win total because he already generates many wins for us. For the sake of argument, though, Roy with a better jump shot (both 3s and 2s) would open the floor up more and reduce the pounding he takes going to the rim.
Defense is a slightly different story. Adequate is probably the best way to describe his defense. This could be an energy saving method because he's already working so hard on offense. The presence of another creator, ballhandler and scorer in Andre Miller might let Roy work a bit less on offense and therefore a bit more on defense. We'll see.
Everyone wants to see more beast mode from Aldridge. Here are some things I think he could do to improve.
1. Further develop his post game (counter move, spin move, etc) An array of post moves makes you less predictable and harder to defend. We'll need a (more) refined post presence while Oden is learning.
2. A quick first step on the perimeter a la Bosh. Aldridge has the quickness to get to the basket with a dribble drive. This would compliment his face up jumper nicely.
3. Better Interior Defense. Aldridge has the length and quickness to play good interior defense, but he seems to lack the awareness of what to do. Hopefully, this is fixable with some coaching and tape review.
4. Aggressive Rebounding. Przybilla goes after rebounds like I would go after a 20 dollar bill laying on the ground. I would like to see Aldridge go after rebounds like Joel does.
5. Box out better. This is simple, fundamental basketball. Just do it.
6. Add the 3 ball (but don't use it that often). If he's going to insist on being primarily a jumpshooter then extending his range to the 3 point line makes sense. A 3 point shot is much more efficient than a long 2. However, he needs to not fall in love with it like Rasheed did.
Greg Oden: *
Significant improvement from Greg could single handily bring the Blazer win total to 60. His improvement is by far the most crucial component not only for the upcoming season but for the future of this franchise. I cannot overemphasize the importance of interior defense and low post scoring.
1. Have an healthy and productive off season of training. This includes losing some weight, regaining athleticism, refining skill sets etc.
2. Develop a "go-to" move in the post. The hook shot was inconsistent at best, having at least one solid post move will make him an exponentially greater threat on offense
3. Keep those hands straight up---no bad fouls. Many of his bad fouls were the result of poor conditioning. Number 1 will hopefully take care of number 3. Just having Oden on the court for 30 minutes a game will be a vast improvement over last season.
4. Enjoy the game again
As much as we love his high flying alley oop dunks and spectacular 3 point shooting, Rudy needs to expand his game. He'll never be a lockdown defender, but he can expand his offensive repertoire. Rudy demonstrating an ability to slash to the rim will keep his defender honest and open up the 3 ball more. A mid range shooting game would also be very helpful in maximizing Rudy's contribution.
Rudy should also endeavour to develop a rapport like he had with Sergio with one of our PGs, most likely Miller. Rudy likes to cut and work for back door lobs and Andre Miller has the passing ability to get him the ball.
Nic Batum was the big surprise of the 08-09 season. Significant improvement from Batum would a great help toward achieving 60 wins. A lockdown perimeter defender with length, athleticism and a solid 3 point shot is exactly what the Blazers need at the 3.
As a slight aside: Nate often took Batum out of the game when we need some more offensive firepower. With the arrival of Andre Miller, I see less need for Batum to be subbed out for the sake of our offense.
Study Shane Battier, Tayshuan Prince and Scottie Pippen who all have similar body types and are known for their great defense and high BBIQ.
Add some strength.
Work on that (corner) 3
Be more aggressive. I'd like to see him flash 3 fingers at Gasol at some point next season.
Get healthy
A year off from basketball is going to leave Martell rusty. I think it would be unfair to expect him to do much other than regain his feel for the game. A healthy, non-rusty Martell Webster could be deadly come January. His 3 point shooting and potential for break out scoring is a great asset to have.
It's difficult to say what Bayless could do to help this team. On one hand he could breakout next season and become a potent combo guard off the bench. On the other hand the only playing time available is 3rd string point guard and that isn't known as a difference making position. Bayless has the potential to help the team, but don't count on it this year.
Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, Joel Przybilla:
It is doubtful that any of these guys improves a significant amount, certainly nothing that would boost our win total. I'm not saying they won't be important to the team, quite the opposite, these guys have been and will be crucial to the success of the team. I'm saying that these guys have maxed out their talents, yes, even Outlaw. I will make one small exception for Steve Blake. A Miller/Blake PG rotation is much better than a Blake/Sergio rotation. Essentially, Blake>Sergio. We no longer have to worry about what happens when our starting point guard goes out.
Our New Point Guard Andre Miller: *
If you're not familiar with Andre Miller yet, please head on over to Dave's preliminary thoughts, and who benefits? posts as well as jscot's fanpost on Miller's fit on the team.
Now you're saying, "Ok, Magnum, but what does all that mean in terms of wins?"
My guess is as good as yours. I don't think Miller, ceteris paribus, boosts the Blazers to 60 wins, but I do think he helps the team. If you tied me down and used Chinese Water Torture on me until I cracked and gave you an exact number I would say Miller pushes the Blazers to 58 wins on his own. Please, keep in mind that our Pythagorean win total was 56 last season, so Miller is adding 2 games and not 4.
22 recs |
176 comments
Email
Print
Comments
nice.
Don't be sexist. Broads hate that.
by L-TrainFTW! on Aug 1, 2009 1:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks L-train
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 1:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lot's of good points.
But the bottom line – The key is Oden. I’ll guess if Oden plays 32 minutes a game, gets 15 points, 12 rebounds, blocks 2.5 shots a game, we win 60. More likely he plays 28 minutes, gets 12 points, 10 rebounds, blocks 1.5 shots a game, and we win 58.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 1, 2009 2:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent post, and I agree on almost everything.
My list would look like this:
Greg Oden
Greg Oden
Greg Oden
Greg Oden
LMA Beast Mode ++
Healthy Martell
Greg Oden
Greg Oden
This is of course on top of getting Andre. But basically I think a healthy Oden (if he plays 2000 minutes over the whole season) means 60 wins. If Martell comes back well and LMA becomes more of a post player (rebounding especially) or even just plays like he did post-all star break last year, then I hope for 62 wins or so.
Of course I’ll still live and die with each win and loss, but I have so much hope for this coming season!
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 1, 2009 2:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're right. I think people might have missed my point there.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 2, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's all in style
If you said GREG ODEN people might be more likely to get it.
GREG ODEN! would be even better.
GREG ODEN!!!!!! could perhaps get the point across.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excellent fanpost
Rec. This is really good analysis.
I voted for elite, because I think we exceed 60 wins, but I’m not sure I expect us to make WCF — both LA and SA may have the firepower to beat us in the second round, and we probably will have to face one of them.
I’ll add a couple of things.
1. Jerryd can help us by becoming a 3 point threat and learning to use his athleticism to become a skilled PG defender. If that happens by midseason, he could take some or all of Blake’s minutes, even if his decision-making still isn’t great.
2. Travis can help us by focusing on boxing out on the defensive boards. Outlaw’s history seems to be that each year he improves one aspect (and only one) of his game. If we could see that, or see significant defensive improvement from Travis, it would really help. I don’t expect the defensive improvement because there are just too many things on which to focus, and it takes high concentration for an entire possession each time down. I don’t see that happening. But I can see Travis being told to really focus on boxing out when a shot goes up, and getting significant improvement in that area.
3. Joel. This is a team thing, but run the pick and roll more, and Joel can actually score some points AND draw some fouls. If both Greg and Joel are drawing fouls…. Wouldn’t it be fun to have opponents’ first and second centers in foul trouble and trying to handle our seven footers?
Of the things you mentioned, leaving Andre out and just talking about internal improvement, the things that are most important, IMO.
1. Oden #1 (healthy and productive off-season, conditioning).
2. Oden #2 (post move).
3. Oden #3 (D w/o fouling). If these happen, Oden #4 (have fun) will happen, too.
4. Martell healthy and in synch. This could be devastating.
5. Nic hit the 3 at 40%+ on 2-3 shots per game or more.
6. Rudy become a slasher.
7. LMA #2 (quick first step and dribble drive). If Oden becomes an inside threat, we’ll see lots of LMA in the high post. Right now, if he gets the ball there, he is either going to shoot or pass. A pump fake and a drive gives a dunk. All he has to do is do that about once every third game and the shot will be much more open, and his percentage on that FT line jumper goes up by 2-3%.
If Miller can find our SGs and forwards on the fastbreak for 4 more easy buckets a game, you have to figure those possessions might have brought us 5 points anyway (roughly), so that is an increase of 3 pts per game. I could see his impact being that much, and that propels us to a 60 win season right there, I’m guessing.
Any of these other non-Miller factors you’ve mentioned are realistic. This isn’t pie in the sky stuff. These things won’t all happen, but they all are possible, and it is likely that enough of them will to add several wins to our total.
I think we’re between 60-65, if I have to narrow it down I’ll say a 62-63 win team. If Miller really clicks with our guys, or Martell comes back really strong, or Greg and/or Nic show significant improvement, 65 is certainly possible. We would have to A) stay reasonably healthy and B) have quite a few of those improvements you’ve listed pan out.
Should be a fun season.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 3:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Travis Outlaw will block out when Hell freezes over
If then…
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Three years ago
no one expected him to be a legitimate 3 point threat.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The difference: Trout WANTED to shoot 3's
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I suspect he wants to be a better rebounder, too
The main question is HOW MUCH he wants it.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 10:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swell post Magnum
I think Miller replacing Sergio is probably worth two more wins.
Keeping practically the entire team together is probably worth two more wins because everyone should be more familiar with Nate’s system and each other on both offense and defense.
There are enough young guys on the team who should improve and should increase the win total.
I haven’t evaluated the rest of the NBA to figure out who should win more games against the Blazers than last year. Right now I’m comfortable saying the Blazers will have home court advantage in the first round of the Playoffs but I’m not sure about the win total.
I think it might not be as easy to win in the East this year and I have no faith in the economy changing teams. It seems like most the cheap teams lack expensive players and they’re not going to unload players on their rookie contracts.
by tominhawaii on Aug 1, 2009 3:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Miller replacing Sergio is worth five wins
So is GO being in better shape and no longer a rookie. So is the rest of the youngest playing rotation in the league being a year older and a year more experienced. Add a win for Nate being more experienced while you’re at it. That gets the Blazers to a smooth 70 wins. Nice, huh?
Only problem: inevitably, some things will go WORSE than last season, e.g., injuries. Maybe chemistry issues will finally raise their ugly head. Maybe Roy’s last minute magic will wane a bit.
So I say 58-60 wins. In the real world, that’s practically a quantum leap from 54. The better you get, the harder it is it attain the next level.
Besides, what’s really important is what happens in the playoffs. 54 wins and homecourt in the first round is plenty good enough to launch a championship run. I think this team won’t get nearly as pumped by ANYTHING that happens in the regular season this time around. And that in itself is a sign of maturation and progress.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Injuries worse than last season?
I hope not. We lost our starting SF for the year. Greg missed a lot of games. Steve missed a lot of games.
Fortunately, Brandon, LMA, Joel, Nic, and Travis stayed healthy, with only a few games missed here and there.
But I think we had more than our quota of missed games, whether you are talking about starters or rotation players.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PLEASE don't get me wrong
I’m not wishing more injuries on the Blazers. But look around the league: every team suffers injuries. Compared to most, the Blazers got off easy last season. The two best players (Roy & LMA) stayed healthy. That’s huge. GO missed some games, but the Blazers happen to have arguably the best back-up center in the league, and GO was going to struggle anyway in his rookie season, coming off of microfracture. As for Martell, by sheer luck it turned out that Batum was far more ready to step in than anyone expected.
So yes: it could have been much worse, and WAS so for other teams, e.g., the Spurs, Celtics, & Rockets. Granted, the Lakers had fewer injury issues than the Blazers. That’s part of the reason they won the championship. The injury factor is always a determining one in NBA success. If you’re lucky, your major injury years don’t coincide with your championship window.
Fingers crossed…
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what you’re saying is that, due to our depth, we were able to withstand the injuries that did happen… we’re still 12 deep, with the best backup point guard and center and one of the best backup 2s in the league. We can simply deal with injuries better than most teams.
optimism ftw
by Cablinasian on Aug 1, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
We did NOT get off easy. How many teams lost their starting SF for the entire season, their starting center for 21 games, and their starting PG for 13 games?
Fortunately, the injuries weren’t to our two best players, and we have a lot of depth. We’ll have a lot of depth this year, too. But it is pretty unlikely that we’ll have worse injury trouble than last year.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice try, jscot
But Martell was easily the weakest member on the Blazers’ projected starting five. He wasn’t even considered a lock to start in front of Outlaw, who Nate hates to even PLAY at small forward. As it turned out, the skinny French teenaged rookie (Batum) gave the Blazers nearly as much as they’d have expected from Martell (less on offense, but more in terms of defense, rebounding, and nose for the ball).
I already addressed the GO injury factor. (Was he the starting center? Yes, but it’s arguable that he was the Blazers’ BEST center in ‘08-’09.) As for Blake, sure he was missed when he was out. But that certainly didn’t cost the Blazers more than a handful of losses.
In sum, the Blazers got off relatively lightly injury-wise last season. What they dealt with was nothing compared to what the teams I listed—and others—lost in ‘08-’09. Those teams lost not just starters but stars—even superstars—for large chunks of the season. The Blazers should count themselves lucky to cruise thru the upcoming, far more critical, seasons with so few key injuries.
[To you GO lovers out there: I’m a member of the club. Much as I love Przy, going forward GO will deservedly be the Blazers’ starting center.]
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the Martell issue, Nic really came around in the last half of the season. I would guess that we lost a game or two in December, when he wasn’t giving us anything on offense.
Also, the Spurs, Celtics, and Rockets are simply older than Portland is. Duncan, Garnett, and McGrady are all older superstars who have a ton of NBA mileage.
optimism ftw
by Cablinasian on Aug 1, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, one would EXPECT those vet teams to suffer more key injuries
But that’s no guarantee the Blazers will continue to get off relatively easy going forward.
The other side of the coin: there’s always the chance that one of the geezer teams—e.g., the Celtics—will get lucky and stay healthy. If that happened, the Celtics in particular would be faves to win it all. But come on: that’s asking a lot for that many geezers to stay healthy for a full season & the playoffs.
After Ainge signed Garnett & Allen, he said, “In the NBA, you win with men.” And it did work once. But adding ‘sheed to the increasingly aged Celtics roster is taking the maxim to ridiculous extremes. In the NBA, you DON’T win with senior citizens.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 2, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we see it differently
I’m convinced that the Oden injury had a huge impact on his mental attitude, timing, and conditioning. And then, he was getting more and more comfortable (remember how he destroyed the Bucks?) and went down again.
And Martell? All I remember is how disappointed we were that we were going to have to rely on Travis and Nic at SF.
All you are saying is that Nic and Joel came through and minimized the impact. I agree. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a bad season for injuries. Any time you lose 130+ starter games in a season, it is a bad season. If you are fortunate enough to have good depth at those positions, that lessens the impact, but it is still bad.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll give you Greg Oden and Steve Blake's injuries making a tad impact, but ...
losing Martell Webster for the whole season and effectively replacing him with Nicolas Batum — who actually put up better numbers as a rookie than Webster had ever done in his career — was a wash.
Oh, and with regards to Oden and Joel Przybilla, I’m still baffled that GM Kevin Pritchard won’t enhance the depth at center by just acquiring a true third-string pivotman.
If either Oden or Przybilla are shelved for an extended period due to injury, then Jeff Pendergraph will get extended playing time — which surely isn’t a desired scenario — or LaMarcus Aldridge will once again be forced out of position and get manhandled in the post.
Now, with that said, all of those scenarios would pale in comparison if Brandon Roy went down with a serious injury. At that point, the Portland Trail Blazers as currently constructed would become a fringe playoff team. While the squad has depth, a shooting guard rotation wherein Rudy Fernandez and Jerryd Bayless replace Roy would make this a, oh, .500 ballclub at best.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 1, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"’I'm still baffled that GM Kevin Pritchard won’t enhance the depth at center ..."
Patience. Just wait for the start of the season when we will be $2.3M under the cap. He will move Travis + cap space + (possibly more) for a veteran 4/5.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 1, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that happens I can change my opinion
to 60+ wins
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Aug 2, 2009 12:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year
without Brandon we beat Boston and Detroit (admittedly home games) and lost to New Orleans and at LA. That’s a pretty decent showing. One wonders if LA would do as well without Kobe.
I suspect if you take Brandon out of the mix for an extended time, Rudy gets comfortable with a starting role, Andre starts at the point to facilitate, and we’d do pretty well. No, we wouldn’t win 60 if Brandon misses 40 games. But if Greg contributes at the level you expect, this is a 48-50 win team even without Brandon.
I agree that we could use another big man. I think Milsap would have been a very nice acquisition for us. Maybe Pendergraph can be adequate in that role, but it is too early for me to feel confident about that.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we could surprise people without Roy
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, we are a 41 win team again without Brandon
Even if we would get a good replacement player if it was a long-term (1 year) injury and Rudy would play good. And since Roy’s salary is still low, an injured player exception which is half of that wouldn’t get you much (unlike for Raef, don’t know why KP never tried to get that done. The Rockets got Ariza with the exception from Yao’s injury).
As an example, Sefolosha and Livingston who are both just below league average guards which is likely more than you could get on the last-minute FA or trade market minus 13 wins. And in this case I don’t think Hollinger would have it wrong.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=nwjs87
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
by Norsktroll on Aug 2, 2009 2:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AK is expecting 20/8/3 or 16/11/3 from Greg
With that, we’re better than 41 even without Brandon.
We’d have to trade Travis for a decent backup to Rudy, probably, unless Nic or Martell could show that they can back up the 2, which I doubt.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if Greg Oden reached star level, the organization would ...
still be screwed if Brandon Roy suffered a season-ending injury.
It’d be one thing if Oden reached superstar level, but at star level you’d be relying on LaMarcus Aldridge to buck up for once in his life. That, quite frankly, won’t happen under any circumstances.
Without Roy, there’d be a multitude of issues — even if Oden hit the expected 16/11/3 marker — because he definitely can’t carry a team on his own at this juncture. Hell, Patrick Ewing was stuck on a 38-win squad when putting up 20/8/3 as a 25-year-old guy.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's pretty high for Greg, I would conservatively rather go with 13/9/1.5 in 25+ minutes
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
by Norsktroll on Aug 2, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I've been thinking 14/10/2
but those were AK’s numbers, so I’m discussing his thinking based on his assumptions.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greg Oden's numbers ought to be calculated at a per-28 ...
minute basis, for I think he’ll reach those numbers next year.
Yes, I’m actually being optimistic in a way here.
With that said, jscot makes a fair assumption that Oden may average 16/11/3 — even though I’d personally go 15/10/2 — if he’s healthy and is allotted 28 minutes per game.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
for 28 healthy minutes
I’ll say 14/11/2 on 60% shooting and 66% from the line
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a fair presumption.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not that different from yours
but at the same time it would be strange if we had wildly different estimates
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 2:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, this is my week for disagreeing with Mr. jscot
I attended that Boston victory, and it was glorious. But it was also the classic case of a team coming together and playing over its head when its star goes down. The Lakers have done the same without Kobe, the Celtics without Garnett, etc, etc. Inevitably, those teams fall back to earth a game or two later. You just can’t sustain that level of effort and inspiration; it’s a long season.
The fact is, if Roy were out an extended period, the Blazers would struggle to play much better than .500 ball. I just don’t think there’s any question about it—not unless someone (GO or Rudy, most likely) suddenly made a quantum leap forward. Not likely…
But let’s pray this is one debate that will never be resolved by real world developments. Stay healthy, Brandon!!
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 2, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we may be better than .500 if Roy went down for an extended period...
because we have added Miller, a consistant high double digit scorer. If Brandon went down, I would see Rudy and Martel playing SG, and maybe some Bayless, with Andre taking on more scoring duty. Blake might play SG next to Miller at times, since his shooting would compliment AMs drives about as well as Rudy’s. Blake also has shown the ability to pick up his scoring when needed, like his 21pts against Boston when Roy was out. Martel could also score in bunches if healthy, Outlaw can increase his numbers, and so can Rudy. Miller with his consistancy is the big difference that prevents a skid if those guys slump at the same time.
It would really depend on who the opponent has on the floor. Without Roy, we have no problem going big, or small, but might get killed in between, by “true shooting guards” like Kobe, since we have to go big if we intend to put Batum on Kobe. Mainly we could have problems offensively if we have two SFs on the floor unable to create their own shot, or defensively with two PGs, one playing against a bigger player, but this will only be the case when Rudy is resting, so I wouldn’t worry too much.
I think the Blazers field a very good team while missing any one player, now that we have AM. Maybe we would go .500 for the time Roy was out, and above .500 while he’s playing, giving us an above .500 record. However, I don’t see this group with two legit centers, a future all-star PF, two solid PGs, a very talented back-up SG, and three talented SFs going below .500.
by wingzeta on Aug 2, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Again, it depends on who the starters are
In the Blazers’ case, those starters were the marginal guys. Look what just happened in the free-agent signing period: the Blazers brass spent the whole time trying to find replacements for Martell & Blake (Turkaglu & Miller) in the starting line-up.
As for GO, last season he was a rookie who arguably was only starting in front of Przy because Nate wanted him to start getting a feel for the guys he’d be starting alongside the rest of his career.
So no: last season wasn’t a bad one for Blazer injuries, despite the impressive number of starter games missed. In fact, it was the exception that proves the rule. But we could debate this one until the cows come home. It might be the dog days of the off-season, but there’s gotta be more interesting topics to tackle.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 2, 2009 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, we'll leave it
My conclusion is that we were unlucky in how much injury trouble we had, but lucky in that it happened where we had depth.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Er, yes: but not to Brandon Roy or LaMarcus Aldridge
Here the Blazers aren’t alone. E.g., the Lakers would fall apart without Kobe. Not that I would EVER wish an injury on any NBA player. That would be classless and inappropriate. Of course, even mentioning the POSSIBILITY of an injury to any NBA automatically increases its likelihood. It’s a fact—look it up.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Should read..."to any any NBA player...")
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
any team would suffer without its best players. That’s not being argued. The point is that we had a large number of games lost to injury last year.
optimism ftw
by Cablinasian on Aug 1, 2009 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with Greg’s injury/injuries, we were pretty lucky in the last 2 years. I think CBS Sports has an overview of days missed with injuries for teams. Will have to look that up for last season, but I did for 2007-08 and there we were still significantly below league average.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
by Norsktroll on Aug 2, 2009 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think every fanbase thinks its team is snakebit by injuries
The fact is, it’s a long season and basketball is extremely demanding on the body. Every team has lots of injuries in the course of a season. What makes for a tough season injury-wise is when your key guys go down for long stretches. That simply didn’t happen to the Blazers last season. If it does this year, forget about our rosy 60+ win projections.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 2, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milwaukee e.g. almost made the playoffs with Redd, Bogut, and others one after another going down with injury. LA missed Bynum for a while. San Antonio missed Ginobili. Boston KG. Dallas Howard and Terry with a fractured wrist. Orlando Nelson. About every team has some time they need to bridge with injury issues.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
by Norsktroll on Aug 2, 2009 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I autually think thatit will take
some time for the players to get used to playing with Miller. Remember that the PG has the most influence on a team’s performance that bringing in a PG that is completely different to Blake is going to take some time to bring cohesion to the Blazers. Nate already said that he wants the team to run more and that could take time for the players to understand. Look at last season, I read that Nate was always trying to get the team to run more but they looked pretty useless doing so. That was understandable because we had Blake at PG. With Miller on board, it should take till late December/January for this team to be a proficent fastbreaking team. With Webster having been out for so long, we can’t count on him too much till after the All-Star break. He’ll probably be good for only 15-20 minutes a game tops. Batum should get the rest so I fugure that his improvemnt will need to be pretty great. Perhaps 10+ pts a game? I guess that would be kinda difficult for him to acheive. So Webster gets 15-20 mins and Batum gets about 20 mins. That leaves about 8-12 minutes for either Rudy or Outlaw to fight for.
I guess that I’m getting of topic. In order for us to get 60 wins, one of the things that has yet to be discussed is our dilema at SF. Its unlikely that Batum will improve his scoring to double digits and Webster might not be able to so where to we find the answer?
by VinnyB on Aug 1, 2009 5:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow, there's a lot of homers awake this late.
Heck, I thought I was generous by choosing 52 to 56 wins in Magnum’s poll — for objectively it’s way more likely that the Portland Trail Blazers finish with 48 wins versus 60 wins — but I should’ve known better from the get-go. At times, the masses succumb to the foolishness of optimism over the rational nature of realism.
Anyhow, the only way that the Trail Blazers become a top-two seed in the Western Conference next season is if Greg Oden makes the leap. Yet, as much as I like Oden, my opinion is that this upcoming season will be a transition year for him, while it’ll be the 2010-2011 campaign wherein he’ll breakout into superstardom. Until Oden becomes a true franchise cornerstone, the Trail Blazers will be stuck with a substandard second fiddle in LaMarcus Aldridge masquerading as a star.
Now, it’s obvious that Aldridge needs to improve his first step on dribble-drive plays from the high post — for he often settles on shooting inefficient mid-range jumpers via the pick-and-pop due to being soft — as well as quit being a weak, shoddy man-to-man interior defender and frustratingly lazy weakside help defender.
On another note, Aldridge definitely shouldn’t focus on trying to extend his range; it’d be a fruitless endeavor. Heck, he’s already mediocre from mid-range — as the overrated soft forward shot a eye-rollingly poor 41.8% on those attempts last season — so there’s no point in pulling him further away from the basket.
Oh, and if I were a betting man, I’d wager that it’s more likely Brandon Roy suffers a serious season-ending injury this autumn or winter versus versus the Trail Blazers getting past the Los Angeles Lakers come playoff time. While I certainly hope that the University of Washington legend manages to stay healthy all season, he had a knee injury his junior year with the Huskies and a heel injury his rookie year with the Trail Blazers.
For old time’s sake, let me just say Roy is more injury prone than, oh, Kirk Hinrich. Ugh, I still wonder how the myth got spread that Hinrich is brittle and made of glass. Alas, the “stupid people have stupid ideas” quote in my signature holds water.
All things considered, I think it’s fair to assume that the Trail Blazers will win roughly 54 games next season.
Yet, with that noted, 48 wins is substantially more probable than 60 wins. Of course, I’ll never top the fact that in October of 2007 I correctly predicted that the 2007-2008 Seattle SuperSonics would go 20-62 on the year.
“EASTERN CONFERENCE
ATLANTIC DIVISION
Boston Celtics (59-23)
New Jersey Nets (53-29)
Toronto Raptors (41-41)
New York Knicks (28-54)
Philadelphia 76ers (19-63)
SOUTHEAST DIVISION
Miami Heat (48-34)
Washington Wizards (44-38)
Atlanta Hawks (33-49)
Orlando Magic (32-50)
Charlotte Bobcats (23-59)
CENTRAL DIVISION
Chicago Bulls (62-20)
Detroit Pistons (58-24)
Cleveland Cavaliers (57-25)
Milwaukee Bucks (34-48)
Indiana Pacers (26-56)
WESTERN CONFERENCE
MIDWEST DIVISION
San Antonio Spurs (66-16)
Dallas Mavericks (65-17)
Houston Rockets (58-24)
Memphis Grizzlies (43-39)
New Orleans Hornets (33-49)
NORTHWEST DIVISION
Denver Nuggets (52-30)
Utah Jazz (50-32)
Portland Trailblazers (22-60)
Seattle Supersonics (20-62)
Minnesota Timberwolves (15-67)
PACIFIC DIVISION
Phoenix Suns (63-19)
Los Angeles Lakers (45-37)
Golden State Warriors (42-40)
Sacramento Kings (25-57)
Los Angeles Clippers (14-68)"
http://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=1462
I obviously wasn’t perfect, though, since the New Orleans Hornets shocked the world and the Chicago Bulls failed to meet my expectations. The 2007-2008 Trail Blazers were certainly better than I projected, although that 13-game win streak in December of 2007 was a fluke. My biggest mistake, however, was predicting the Miami Heat would win the 2007-2008 Atlantic Division crown, but Dwyane Wade’s serious injury issues and Shaquille O’Neal’s pouting ruined things down in South Beach.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008.html
On a final note, it was fun going back through that Sonics thread from the fall of 2007. Back in those days, my main focus was debating that people were overhyping Kevin Durant beyond reasonable belief. As of this very moment, my claims that he’d be nothing more than a modern-day Tracy McGrady is seemingly on the money.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 1, 2009 5:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Optimism is an inherent part of fandom.
Hope breeds optimism. And hoping your team wins leads to looking at things in a brighter light than everyone else does. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It often lead to disappointment, but it’s better than having no hope at all. Without hope, one can’t really be a fan. Now, that hope may be for next season, or in the next few years, but when people lose hope, they lose interest. That’s why teams coming up to 41 wins sell more tickets than teams who fall down to 41 wins.
You do have a point though. Achieving 54 wins again would be an accomplishment for this team. If everything goes perfectly, 60 wins is possible. If we get slammed by injuries then a total in the 40’s wouldn’t be a surprise. And a lot of Portland fans have been spoiled by the fact that our team exceeded expectations two years in a row. That’s about as far back as anyone can remember. It was just four years ago that both Memphis and the Clippers earned a better playoff seed than the Lakers did.
Personally, I’m going to take a repeat of last year at 54 wins. At least until our schedule comes out.
μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε.
by T Darkstar on Aug 1, 2009 5:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great post, AK
objectively it’s way more likely that the Portland Trail Blazers finish with 48 wins versus 60 wins
Objectively, this is a stupid statement. At no position is Portland likely to be worse than they were last year.
Objectively, we can reasonably expect substantive improvement at center this year, given that Oden missed a lot of games and was a rookie just off of microfracture. Even if he doesn’t improve at all but stays healthy, we’ll be substantially better. And virtually everyone knows he’s going to improve.
Objectively, we can reasonably expect to be just as strong if not better at PF, since LMA progressed throughout the year on his low post game and his rebounding became stronger as the year went on.
Objectively, we can reasonably expect improvement at the wings, with Rudy being more adjusted to the NBA game and Nic maturing. At Nic’s age, you expect substantive improvement from year to year. Add to that the reasonable possibility that Martell could make a contribution.
Objectively, we can reasonably expect improvement at the point, with Andre replacing Sergio. There is even a chance (perhaps a slim one) that Jerryd surpasses Steve.
Objectively, we can reasonably expect improvement (offensively and defensively) through greater cohesion.
Objectively, it isn’t a very good idea to use your 07-08 predictions to toot your own horn while accusing Portland fans of being homers, since you underpredicted Blazer performance by a mere 19 wins — if that “fluke” 13 game winning streak had been a 13 game losing streak, you STILL would have been well off the mark. Objectively, this makes you look rather, well, unobjective, though not objectionable.
Objectively, if you are going to post stupid ideas, it is not a good idea to have your current signature appear immediately beneath them.
Love you, AK. You remind me of the kid who used to intentionally go around with a sign around his neck saying, “Hit me.” You almost felt bad doing what he wanted, but he obviously enjoyed being the center of so much attention, so you’d accommodate him.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 6:41 AM PDT up reply actions 17 recs
Well, he has a point that if Roy gets injured for more than a few games we can’t really compensate for that by playing Rudy/Jerryd/… as SG and will rather end up with 48 or less than 60 or more wins. But since that is not predictable, both versions could come true. You can also expect someone like Hollinger to “prove” at some time this offseason why the last season was a statistical fluke for Joel and Blake and we should expect less from them.
I think starting out with prognosticating 55 wins banking on the addition of Miller and small improvements from most players, and trying to win the division vs. Utah and Denver and the rest is a high enough goal.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
by Norsktroll on Aug 1, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Hmm....
Objectively, players usually make their biggest improvement between their rookie and soph year.
And we started two rookies in many games. But perhaps there are additional factors that make those two rookies less likely to improve. Well, no, there are major factors that make them more likely to improve — health/microfracture recovery for Greg, extreme youth for Nic.
I would say there is a very high likelihood of incremental improvement from those two players alone putting us near or over 60 wins, even if no other players improve, and Martell doesn’t contribute, and Miller doesn’t help us at all. I would say that is much more likely than an injury costing Brandon more than 10 games, especially since Brandon shouldn’t have to play the same long minutes this year.
And that doesn’t factor in the likelihood of adding wins due to Andre’s influence, or the possibility of adding wins due to Martell’s return, or Rudy improving, or having the post all-star break LMA for all season, or (God forbid!) Travis or Jerryd improving.
I doubt that most independent observers think it is more likely that Portland is worse this year than that they are better. If Pythagorean predictions are right, we should predict 56 wins based on last year’s level of play.
Is it really more likely that we are 6 games worse than 6 games better? Really? Obviously, either could happen, but his objective comment was about which was more likely.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
the main reason I would be a little cautious
is that I am not sure if the Blazers schedule next year will be easier or harder than last year or about the same… And, when I talk about schedule I mean the “true” quality of the team on the floor that the Blazers actually play against. For example, in reality, the Blazers played a couple of different Spurs teams last year.
It seemed like there were a lot of injuries in the league last year, but I’m not really sure how unusual it was.
by PoliSam on Aug 1, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point...
The growth, and decline, of other teams will definately have an impact on our success. We may gain some from the actual physical schedule though. We had a pretty tough row to hoe last year at the beginning of the season as I recall.
by Ilikeemall on Aug 1, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
I think injuries to key players were a little higher than normal last year. We got some breaks and some non-breaks.
We didn’t get Boston without Garnett, like some teams did. We played at Phoenix twice when they were still healthy and were playing pretty well. Most of our games against Minnesota came when they were healthy, and they gave us a battle. Both of our games against Orlando came before Jameer’s injury.
I think we probably did get more breaks than went against us on the opposition injury front. Cleveland had injuries when we played them in Portland (we still lost). Milwaukee was decimated when we played them. S.A. was weakened every time we saw them I think. We caught a break with CP3’s injury. Crash was out when Charlotte came to town. Etc, etc.
I personally think the front-loading of the tough games actually helped us last year. We caught some teams before they were really into their stride, and got some wins we might not have had if the same games came later in the year. Then, in the stretch run, we had a lot of eminently winnable games, and we won them.
I would rather have the toughest part of the schedule come early, personally. Of course, you can build a lead on your rivals and gain confidence if you start easy, but I think it is easier to slip on the banana peels when you are trying to find your rhythm. If both teams are going to be out of their rhythm anyway, give me a game that I’m not expected to win, rather than one that I’ll really regret if I lose it.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...
I guess it mostly just adds additional error in making projections. I certainly think it’s possible that the Blazers will play an easier schedule.
A few other things that helped the Blazers:
Played Miami early at Maimi without Marion.
Played the Bulls before their big trade.
Played Sacramento without Martin.
Maybe that’s worth two extra wins.
by PoliSam on Aug 1, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We should have been able to beat Sac anyway
Miami? Very possible we gained one there. Chicago? Hard to say.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's easy enough to talk about other games we should have won...
while our guys were injured. Both games against the Cavs, they got a lucky break because we had injuries. The first one Blake was out, and the second Aldridge and Batum were out, and we took them to overtime on their home court in that one, and were basically sent out with a loss by the officials, who called a “mystery” travel on Outlaw, and then turned a blind eye to an obvious travel by Labron at the end of regulation, not to mention his blatent foul on Outlaw’s three point shot that they didn’t call. That was some BS sponsored by Nike and David Stern. The point is, there are a half dozen games the we should have won, and just as many we shouldn’t have that we did, which puts us at the 54 wins that are probably what we deserved.
Athough, I would say the Blazers overall were probably the only team with as many wins that got the short end of the stick on officiating most often. Meaning; most of the top teams benifit from “vet” calls, that we just don’t get. It got to the point where Brandon had to shout “Heyyy!!” every time he made a drive, just to call attention to the muggings he was fighting through, so the officials would feel a little more obligated to call a foul. I know this is a whole other disscussion, but I do think it is one difference between the Blazers and most other playoff teams. We got the raw deal even at home, which most playoff teams don’t have to endure, so you could say that counted for a couple losses too. Some will call me a homer or conspiracy nut-bar for having the gall to mention the officials, but at least I can appeal to them, that with no “vets” on our team, we do have a problem getting “vet calls” which are a fairly widely recognized phenomenon in the NBA. I would say it has to do with market size and merchandise sales too, but that may be too much for some to handle.
Anyway, if you factor in our heavily front loaded road schedule, and injuries, I’d say we won a lot of games under less than ideal circumstances, and I would say last season was no fluke. In fact, if you realize that without his injury, we could have had Oden in 07-08, where we won 41, you could easily theorize that we could have won near 50 or so games that year if he had played, and that was with JJack, JJones, and Webster rather than Rudy and Batum. If Oden had played in 07-08, he would have had a year experience last year, and likely taken us to more than 54 wins.
by wingzeta on Aug 2, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to note
Cavs were missing Z and Delonte when they played in Portland. We really were hurt by having Steve out last year, but probably not as much as those injuries hurt Cleveland.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they still won more games than we did including that one.
Without Blake, the Blazers were rudderless against good teams. It was enough to have Sergio and Bayless with the rest of the starters against average to weak teams, but against quality opponents, we had issues. With Steve back, we gave the Cavs a real run for their money on their home court, where they had only lost once all year up to that point, and we were without LMA and Batum. And, I believe Z and West were back for that second game. I think that showed that when healthy the Blazers were on par with the Cavs, but they played us at lucky times, and had some help from officials. I mean seriously, LMA missed one game the whole year! And Batum was probably one of the guys most capable of defending Labron in the NBA. Healthy, I could see us having won both those games, rather than losing both. At least we would have split, so that is one more win. Throw in a little inbounding practice, and we beat Orlando in that game where Hedo hit that last second three. In fact, I would say we lost two or three games simply due to the lack of a back up plan if Roy didn’t have a shot at the end of games. Teams got wise to Roy always taking the last shot, and starting doubling him. Rather than pass out of it, he would jack up a stupid off balance shot, and the game would be over. if he can figure out when he really has no shot, or better yet, the coach can mix it up a bit, so that we are not so predictable, we could win two more games. I mean, if you really need a shot, LMA is a good option. He can shoot over most opponents, but in any case, you have to pass out of the double team to make the defense pay for using it. We just kept rewarding teams for doubling Roy in the fourth, by not being dynamic.
by wingzeta on Aug 3, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That being said I do remember
most people predicting that we were gonna struggle in late march/early april….didn’t happen though
"My avatar picture is of the favorite vehicle I ever owned" -Me
by 92wastheyear on Aug 1, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't predict that
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed that, against all predictions, the front-loading of the Blazers' schedule helped
But only because the players stepped up and competed.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 1, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on this one, jscot
AK’s “objectivity” is normally more accurate than some of the understandable optimism that tends to permeate through any up and coming team’s blog… but to say it is more likely that the Blazers will decline significantly than improve significantly is baffling to me.
The Blazers are one of the youngest contending teams in NBA history, with three rooks getting significant minutes. AK, you’re making this more complicated than it is. Guys get better in their second year. It will happen.
Also, maybe Miller will be a great fit and maybe not, but it’s hard to imagine we won’t add SOMETHING. He turned Philly into a playoff team. Remember how putrid they were before he got there in the Iverson trade? They were really, really, really bad. He’s an underrated PG and his savvy will help.
The point that Roy could get injured is like saying Lebron or Kobe or Howard or anyone in the league could get injured – except that the Blazers are one of (if not the) deepest teams in the league. Love him or not, Bayless as your third option at 1 or 2 is pretty sick. Rudy as a back up is great. Martell (if healthy) as a third option at swingman is great. Przy or Oden at back up five is great.
Obviously any team would take a step back minus an All NBA caliber player, but the guy the Blazers are most reliant on right now isn’t Roy (because of the depth in the backcourt) – it’s Lamarcus. The Blazers have ONE scorer in the post. That’s it. The Blazers have ONE power forward who’s logged NBA minutes. The two rooks looked ok in summer league, and they’ll be fine in spot minutes, but Lamarcus missing significant time would be a disaster.
I fully recognize LMA’s limitations, but without getting too much into the stats, I got the sense he was starting to “get it” in the second half of last season. And that was reflected in the Blazers performance.
I think LMA, not Greg, will make the most discernable “jump” this season – not in terms of peak performance, but in terms of consistency. And if he does, watch out.
As a final point, in terms of point differential, the Blazers 54 wins last year were not a fluke. And they were trending upwards – exactly what you would expect from a team that young.
All in all, I think the more interesting question would be: is it more likely the Blazers hit 54 wins again, or 60 wins? Probably 54, but it’s not as open-and-shut as many would think. I tend to think 60 is very much in play…
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
by KP Corleone on Aug 1, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
1. Yes, LMA is key. Without him, we either need Greg to really be a threat offensively, or need Travis to suddenly morph into a PF.
2. Yes, LMA was “getting it” as the season went along. If we have second half LMA all year, that should be good for a couple more wins right there — and he might improve beyond that.
3. Yes, 54 vs. 60 is a much more interesting question. I think 60 is more likely than 54, but at least I can see the argument for 54.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fact that your post isn't green and jscot's is speaks volumes. I'll leave it simply at that, too.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 1, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right on, jscot
But brutal!
"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"
by broggerboy19 on Aug 1, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes you've gotta do what you gotta do
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"There is even a chance (perhaps a slim one) that Jerryd surpasses Steve."
For me, a statement like that destroys credibility regarding all your other points. And your “perhaps a slim one” as opposed to “probably a slim one” makes it every bit as stupid of a statement as your accusations were of ak1984’s pronouncements.
But I understand; you predicted last season that Bayless would be the starting PG this year (although you sort of denied it by hem and hawing). So you have to stick with him because ruler’s of the world can never be wrong.
Actually I agree with ak1984 that it is no gimme that we even reach the 54 win plateau. Yep, I think Roy will be even more effective, LA certainly will be, Oden could progress in leaps and bounds, Rudy and Nic will also surely be better and we have added Andre Miller. You bet we could improve our record. But despite you throwing out a couple of times that we lost our starting small forward for the season (he had yet to establish himself as an important small forward for us) potentially, and even likely injuries could be much worse. Greg Oden has certainly never shown him self to be an iron man—-not even an aluminum man.
But yeah, we’re a deep team, and that helps a bunch. Still, if Roy or Aldridge were to be out for significant periods, we’ll be struggling.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Aug 1, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, measure the statements on their worth rather than my credibility
My credibility has nothing to do with how likely those things are to happen. Make your own assessment as to how likely it is that Brandon or LMA will suffer significant injury, and how likely those other things are.
As for Bayless, I really don’t remember predicting he would start this year. I think that was timbo. As far as I know, I always said that he would start by the beginning of his third year, perhaps sooner. I may have said differently once or twice, but I don’t remember it.
I’ll stand by the “perhaps” wording, though. None of us really knows what Jerryd’s game is right now, we certainly don’t know what it will be by the end of training camp, and we don’t know how quickly he will progress in season.
But any objective (AK’s word) observer knows that Jerryd has the athleticism and physical tools to become a superb defender at PG in the NBA, the work ethic to develop a legit 3 point shot, and the desire to become a good decision maker at the point. And any objective observer also knows that it is very possible for very young players to develop very quickly.
Finally, I also agree that it is no gimme that we reach the 54 win plateau. But it is far more likely that we exceed it by 6 wins than fall short by 6 wins. This team can withstand spot injuries to our stars and more significant injuries to other rotation players and still hit 60 wins. The only thing that would keep us short of 54 is significant injury to Roy or LMA, or multiple injuries to other rotation players.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough.
I’m certainly not going to take the time to go back and look to see what prediction you actually did make. Of course it’s irrelevant anyway.
And I probably agree that 60 wins is more likely to happen than 48. I was just feeling a need to come to AK1984’s defense a little. It’s easy to write a post like yours, knowing that it plays to about 90 percent of bedgers, many who are hopeless homers and will rec you to high heaven. Although I certainly don’t always agree with them, I don’t mind reading comments from guys like Fatty or Ak which have a totally different perspective than the same old stuff that we unabashed and often nonobjective Blazer fans are prone to post.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Aug 2, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like comments from fatty and AK
And I only slam AK in fun. He is very astute and knows what he’s talking about. His perspective is a little negative, and he doesn’t hedge his absolutist statements, which makes him an easy target. I’m more cowardly and try to give myself a little wiggle room in case I’m wrong. AK just blasts it out there. Fine with me. He also usually admits he is wrong when the evidence is incontrovertible, which some people never know. I’m glad he’s here.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's a good assement of AK from what I observe jscot.
It’s obvious he is an intelligent dude, and an avid NBA fan…..one who is capable of expressing him self very well…..as are you and a good handful of others on this site.
I’m not being modest when I say I’m not among those … I know my strengths and limitations. I’m just a guy of average intelligence with very modest abilities to express thoughts. Therefore I quite appreciate, always consider and never, ever resent the expressions of smart and/or articulate guys like you, Norsktroll (my favorite), AK, Douglast, TimG, Engineer Scotty, Miledanimial, Krang, Storyteller, Knickfan, Darkstar, TDarkstar, NightBlueFruit and of course a bunch others that I’ve forgotten. That’s why I hate to single out anyone, but I think I’m safe here since I suspect the discourse in the remains of this thread is only being read by the two of us.
Oh, I should also mention: a favorite quality I appreciate and usually personally strive for is rational thinking, objectivity and an open mind.
Brandon Roy just destroyed everything in his path. There's your rational analysis -- Dave
Also: COMCAST SUCKS!
by TwoDeep on Aug 2, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha! I read it! now I know all your secrets!
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 2, 2009 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
You express yourself well. You may not feel yourself particularly articulate, but generally it is very clear what you are thinking. I never have trouble following what you write, and it is usually reasonable, and expressed in a logical, coherent fashion.
My only concern about you is a personal one. It appears to me you tend to see the negative to the exclusion of the positive, sometimes (rather than seeing both the negative and the positive). That is no big deal in basketball analysis — no real harm. On a personal level, though, if you bring similar thought patterns into real life, that tendency can really get someone into trouble, especially when they’ve had real heartaches as you have. It’s always good to stop and say, “Yes, but is there a positive interpretation that could be put on the situation that I might consider? Is there a bright side to the situation? Let’s find that bright side before we get mentally/emotionally destroyed by the bad that is there.” You know the line, if life deals you a lemon, make lemonade.
I try to see both negative and positive, but to keep my emphasis in my thoughts on the positive. It’s a conscious decision that I know makes me tend to the optimistic side of things — but I’m persuaded it makes life in general a lot happier. The only place it probably doesn’t belong is in investment and in major decisions like who are you going to marry — there, you’d better make sure you know all you can about the negatives in advance.
But we’re wandering far from basketball here, and uninvited amateur online psychoanalysis isn’t a great idea.
Thanks for the discussion, friend. We don’t come here only for basketball, we come here for community and friendship, and you add to the community, make no mistake.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I try to see both negative and positive, but to keep my emphasis in my thoughts on the positive. It’s a conscious decision that I know makes me tend to the optimistic side of things — but I’m persuaded it makes life in general a lot happier.
Absolutely. Optimism is a conscious decision… it just makes life more enjoyable.
optimism ftw
by Cablinasian on Aug 3, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're at the top of MY list, Mort
And that of any right-thinking BE denizen!
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 4, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
pwned
The Kings have the best bench I’ve seen. There are easily 14 guys on this team good enough for every bench in the league. Now if we could only get some starters, I’d totally jizz in my pants.
Kings fan
by dyshooter182 on Aug 1, 2009 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
jscot
you forgot something. other teams have improved as well. we are not the only team trying to get better. the things the blazers have done may have only been enough to keep up with the rest of the leage or maybe worse. They also might be enough to increase the win total but, I think AK’s point is valid. the blazers lost frye and sergio and gained miller. it sounds like we are banking on player improvement to carry us to 60 wins. with other teams adding big pieces this year I thhink the blazers need at least one more player to be confident of improvement. I’ll take a PF.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Aug 2, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair point
but I’m not sure how much it applies to this discussion. If one team is better, another will be worse. In general, the league isn’t getting better. So if it is harder to beat LA because they got Artest, it should be easier to beat Houston. If Toronto is tougher with Hedo (not sure they are), Orlando should be weaker. If Orlando isn’t because they got Carter, NJ should be weaker. And so on. If Cleveland is tougher for getting Shaq, then presumably Phoenix is weaker for losing him.
Your point very much matters as far as seeding. If San Antonio improved more than we did, our improvement may not get us a #2 seed. But it probably doesn’t matter much for total wins. The draft was not all that strong, guys are getting older, etc. We should definitely improve more than the league as a whole.
I would like a PF, too. For 12 mpg, Travis and Pendergraph might fill the hole, but it isn’t ideal.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
also I at least would make the argument that the West was weakened
Yao out, Shaq gone, Boozer maybe leaving, N.O. experiencing some turbulence…certainly among the playoff teams that we were neck-and-neck with this last year, none have had the continuity and totally positive (meaning no losses) of an offseason like ours.
PS SA is probably better but more because they won’t be injured to start out with than because of RJ.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 2, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that is a fair consideration
Because there is an unbalanced schedule (play West more than East) a shift of power in the league can affect your prospects.
I’m not sure the West really is weaker, though. I said “if” about Cleveland getting tougher, because I’m not sure Shaq’s move weakens the West. I think N.O. might be better for swapping centers. I definitely expect S.A. to be better. I think Minnesota will be improved somewhat. I think OKC will be better. I think Utah will have less injury trouble, and so be better, even if Boozer goes (and if he goes, he might stay in the West, and if he doesn’t go, he’ll be on a contract year). The Clips should be better. And this may shock people, but I think Memphis bears watching, and could be much, much better. Young guys like Gasol and Mayo have the potential to take major steps forward, and Conley should be better as well.
The only team that I’m sure will be worse is Houston. And I have a lot of confidence in Adelman’s ability to get more wins out of that team than their talent should dictate. But they won’t be as good as last year. I’m sure other teams in the West will decline as well, though I don’t know which ones. But I think it is very doubtful as to whether there has been a substantial power shift to the East.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 3, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"N.O. experiencing some turbulence"
Hope springs eternal, though. Louisiana is one of four states/regions voting for “other” in the plurality of ESPN.com’s most recent poll. The other states were Oregon, Utah, and all of New England. Anybody care to guess what the poll question was?
The Michael Ruffin of BlazersEdge, cuz Amlmart said so.
by BlazersOrBust on Aug 3, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
objectively speaking
it appears your predictions are more likely to be wrong than right.
by PoliSam on Aug 1, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congrats.
You are clearly more qualified to predict a team’s win total because you correctly predicted an obviously terrible team’s total two years ago, and have the evidence to prove it! Thank you for quoting yourself again so we’re all aware of your omnipotence.
"These are dreams that we have." --Rudolfo Fernandez
by bfan on Aug 1, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are/were right
about Greg Oden’s ascension, and the Sonics record in 07, and absolutely nothing else.
48 wins in a weakened West after adding an All-Star caliber PG? McGrady = Durant?
I always felt that was a weak comparison. Only time will tell it wrong, but you can expect the Thunder to make the playoffs in no less than 2 years, and Durant will surely get out of the 1st round at least once before his jersey is retired in OKC. That alone puts him in a different tier.
"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"
by broggerboy19 on Aug 1, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Kevin Durant is stylistically similar to Tracy McGrady and statistically similar to Carmelo Anthony.
Thus far, that comparison has been 100% on the money—especially in comparison to the lunacy that some folks spewed back in 2007 about how Durant was similar to Kevin Garnett.
Anyway, I wrote that “I thought I was generous by choosing 52 to 56 wins in Magnum’s poll […] it’s way more likely that the Portland Trail Blazers finish with 48 wins versus 60 wins” in my original post here.
For some reason, though, it appears that I have to explain my stance in more detail.
1. I predict that the Portland Trail Blazers will win 52 to 56 games next season.
2. I predict that it’s more likely that the Portland Trail Blazers will win 48 to 52 games next season than 60+ contests.
Again, the only way I can foresee the Trail Blazers reaching the 60 win plateau is if Greg Oden makes two leaps in one season, while Brandon Roy maintains 100% health. I, however, feel that’s stretching it a bit, for I expect Oden to become a star this season and a superstar next season. Yet, come 2010-2011, I fully believe Oden will have finally transformed into a modern-day Patrick Ewing.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 1, 2009 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
when I read it
it appeared you were saying 48 or lower, was more likely than 60 or higher. Making the range 48 to 52, gives you a significantly higher ceiling for error. To claim 52 or lower is far simpler than 48 or lower. The more standard deviations we move away from the most likely numbers the larger the jump. 48 or lower, would have been incredible. 60+ is not unlikely given the development of the players.Claims of 64+ would have been absurd, and certainly injuries were light on us because they did not occur to our most critical positions, but given the same impact of injuries this year as last, 60 is very well within reason.
by lurtsman on Aug 1, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All right, I'll simplify it further by laying out which I think are most likely from first to last.
1. 52 to 56 wins. (40%)
2a. 48 to 52 wins. (25%)
2b. 56 to 60 wins. (25%)
4a. 48 wins or less. (5%)
4b. 60 wins or more. (5%)
A lot will have to come together for the Portland Trail Blazers to surpass 60 win plateau. In fact, I’d argue it’s just as likely that the Trail Blazers suffer a serious injury to either Brandon Roy or Greg Oden and miss the playoffs altogether than it is #52 making two leaps in one season to superstardom — which will be necessary for the ballclub to be a top-two team in the Western Conference — when it’s more probable that this year will just include the second stage of his natural progression in development.
So, while Oden could be an All-Star reserve next season on the Western Conference team as a figurative replacement of Shaquille O’Neal, he’s not yet ready to reach the superstar status of a Dwight Howard. It should happen in due time, though, but we must be patient.
Basically, I predict that Oden will put up similar numbers to what Patrick Ewing did at 25 as a third-year player for the New York Knicks under Rick Pitino during the 1987-1988 season. For Oden’s sake, Andre Miller will embrace the Mark Jackson role as a pass-first playmaker and Joel Przybilla will be a veteran mentor like how Bill Cartwright had related to Ewing.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=pnPo4
Of course, Brandon Roy is immensely superior to Gerald Wilkins — as are LaMarcus Aldridge, Nicolas Batum, Martell Webster, and Rudy Fernandez to Sidney Green, Kenny Walker, Johnny Newman, and Trent Tucker, respectively — thus, the 2009-2010 Trail Blazers definitely won’t be mediocre like that version of the Knicks.
Oh, and for anybody who continues to think that being a floor general isn’t a combination of an innate quality with skills honed during adolescence, “Action” Jackson is a counterexample that puts a huge dent in such a belief system.
During their respective rookie seasons, Jackson posted an assist percentage of 37.4%, Miller posted an assist percentage of 38.7%, and Jerryd Bayless posted an assist percentage of an atrocious 18.2%. Ouch! That stark truth must hurt Bayless lemmings fans, but such pain isn’t my problem.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=IOMsK
I’m sick and tired of hearing about Chauncey Billups, too, for him blooming later in his career was a total anomaly. When I read about Bayless being compared to Billups, it reminds me of when Luke Ridnour was repeatedly compared to another well-known outlier, Steve Nash, even though it was plainly obvious that the comparison was a total shot in the dark.
If folks want to find a ceiling for Bayless, then look no further than Monta Ellis. Now, while Ellis is certainly a decent player, he’s not somebody who a winning franchise builds around in any way, shape, or form.
Anyway, in an attempt to finish on an upbeat note, I wouldn’t be at all shocked if Oden posted gargantuan numbers come the 2010-2011 season. Heck, Oden’s stats could someday mirror that of Artis Gilmore during the Kentucky Colonels ABA title run during the 1974-1975 season under head coach Hubie Brown.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=4j8DM
Now, I suggest viewing the pace-adjusted/per-minute advanced stats in lieu of the per-game stats when comparing players from different eras. Still, I think Oden will ultimately evolve into a contemporary Ewing/Gilmore hybrid; however, it’s easier for me to compare him to Ewing than Gilmore, as I actually watched the Knick legend play the game.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 1, 2009 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't remember who said it in these parts
but I don’t think we need huge improvement from Oden to get those next 4 wins, especially considering the addition of Miller and the development of the rookies.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, good stuff
Ewing was 20/8/3 in 31 mpg. Now, we know Greg is a much better rebounder than that, if he plays 31 mpg he’s going to get 11-12 rebounds. I suspect you would agree. But if we get the same level of contribution by deducting points, then Greg might be 16/11/3.
If Greg is 16/11/3 in 31 mpg and plays 70+ games we are going to absolutely torch the league. If you told Bedgers that Greg was going to go 16/11/3 this year, they couldn’t sleep at night waiting for the season. I’d be pretty happy with 14/10/2. Perfectly match Ewing at 20/8/3? Yeah, I’d take that in a heartbeat. We win well more than 60 if Greg does that for 82 games like Patrick did.
And you are right, that isn’t full-blown superstar stats. But it is going to be devastating if it happens, and we can even afford to have Brandon or LMA miss some games if we get that level of production from Greg.
Finally, your percentages in this post indicate that you think it is equally as likely that we only get 48 as it is that we get 60. Your original statement said “way more likely”. If you had been as moderate in your original statement as your percentages indicate, I might have been kinder and gentler in my response….
Your percentages are wrong, too, but far nearer to objectivity than your “way more likely” comment.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Greg Oden has a year like Patrick Ewing did in the 1987-1988 season and the ...
Portland Trail Blazers suffer no major injuries, then I’d go with 56 to 60 wins being the likely outcome. You, of course, are correct that Oden is marginally less of a scorer and marginally more of a glass cleaner than Ewing; yet, aside from that, they’re stylistically similar players. Ewing, by the way, had more of the scoring load placed on him due to his teammates; conversely, Oden has more of the rebounding load placed on him due to the same reason.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds about right
except that we easily win over 60 if Greg does that, barring major injury trouble elsewhere. Easily 62-63, maybe more.
Unless you think 1) Sergio was as good as Andre, 2) Nic and Rudy aren’t going to improve, and 3) Martell/Travis as our backup forwards will be no better than Travis/Channing. If all those things are true, then yeah, improvement from Oden might only take us to 56-60. Personally, I don’t think Sergio was as good as Andre will be for us, Nic at least will improve, and our backup forward situation is improved — which means we get into that 56-60 range even if Greg doesn’t improve.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the backup power forward situation that scares me, as well as the fact ...
that I doubt Rudy Fernandez improves too much due to his age. I totally believe that Andre Miller will be vastly superior to Sergio Rodriguez — and that Nicolas Batum will make huge strides next season — yet, unless Greg Oden reaches peak Artis Gilmore territory, this team as currently constructed isn’t surpassing 60 wins.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, let's break it down
Andre is better than Sergio. Worth 2 or 3 wins? That’s pretty reasonable, isn’t it? If we don’t gain that much from adding Andre, it’s been a waste. Few people would doubt that we should gain that much from Andre.
Nic makes huge strides. Worth 1 or 2 wins? That’s not homerism to expect that kind of contribution. Now we’re already at 58 wins.
Greg is 16/11/3 in 31 mpg for 82 games? That’s got to be worth an additional 3-4 wins over last year. But if you want to play the pessimist, perhaps it only adds a couple wins. Now we’re at 60.
Even under your assumptions, we hit 60 easily.
Backup PF scares me, too, but it isn’t any worse than last year.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said, the team hits 60 on the dot if everything goes as planned ...
without any significant injuries. As a result, expecting 60+ is reaching for the stars.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really think you're overexaggerating the risk of injury
Especially to young players (and especially someone like Brandon who is exceptionally careful with his body).
Joel is by far the most likely player to be injured, based on his age and history.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 2, 2009 2:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, there'll also be some huge problems if Joel Przybilla is ...
injured for an extended period of time. Sans a legitimate backup at power forward or a defensive-minded third-string pivotman, I can’t deny that the Portland Trail Blazers would struggle mightily without Przybilla.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
even with a fully healthy Oden we need Przybilla in a bad way.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
or perhaps in a good way depending on how you look at it
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly!
That, by the way, is why I’ll never grasp Dave’s apparent desire to trade away Joel Przybilla.
For some reason, the dude has included him in his rare trade proposals — including the doltish one that involved freaking Shaquille O’Neal — yet, as any intelligent person understands, defensive-minded pivotmen are at the core of winning teams.
As much as I like Dave and what he sometimes bring to the table, he’s yet to somehow intellectually comprehend that interior play — especially on defense — is way more important than perimeter play.
Heck, he wanted to deal Przybilla for Shane Battier!
Regardless, there’s flat-out no objective doubt that Greg Oden and Przybilla are two of the three most important players on this team. Obviously, Brandon Roy is the most important; conversely, LaMarcus Aldridge is so overrated it’s not even funny at this point—it’s just really sad to me.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 2, 2009 2:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think with the right series of deals
we could spare Przybilla, but that’s not going to happen.
Something like:
Oden becomes a star
We pickup a solid backup 4/5
Przybilla still has trade value and we still need an upgrade somewhere else
I don’t see where we get a decent replacement for Joel. And why not just keep Joel instead…..
I’m basically just talking to myself at this point.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 3:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
Although I think we would need two solid backups at 4/5 before you let Joel go (though one of them could come in the trade that would send him away).
You want two solid backups at 4/5, and Joel is the only one we have. So you let him go, we’re down two from what we want.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 5:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this post so freaking hard.
Joel is my man, he matters so much more than many people know. (Plus I consider myself a defensive minded pivotman even if I am skinny and not as tall as I wish.)
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 2, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree.
I just think he’s much more at risk than BRoy or LMA.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 2, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will choose the,"foolishness of optimism"...
…over the darkness of negativity you call “realism” anyday. Being realistic is just a spin on pessimism but I’m sure an educated gentleman such as yourself knows that. Generally people who expect the worst get what they want. Does that make them wise…or is it a self fufilling prophecy?
I voted in the 56-60 range but I think that range reflects a little more than solid improvement. Teams will be ready for us and it is quite possible that with only solid improvement we’d win the same number of games, or less, than last year.
I think we are a better team solely by the obvious additions and subtractions while also gaining from that over used,“organic growth” thing we all talk about.
Oden will be better… LMA will be better… Roy will be better…Rudy will be better… Andre will make Steve be better… Our depth will be better…
…Gee maybe my vote was too pessimistic…
GO BLAZERS!!!
by Ilikeemall on Aug 1, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're definitely right about Aldridge and his "defense"
The reason I put down 3 point range is that we seem to be more or less forcing Aldridge to play inside. He doesn’t seem at home boxing out or bumping/grinding or working in the post. He likes that midrange jumper. So if we have a finesse forward instead of a power forward, let’s build to his strengths rather than force a square peg into a round hole as it were.
It seems more likely that he will improve the efficiency on his jumpshot than he’ll become a monster on the block.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This may improve this year with Miller
Aldridge beats his man down the floor and establishes pretty good position many times and then the pass into the post draws him out. I am not trying to make excuses for why he floats outside but Miller should be able to make the pass that helps him hold his ground. With his work being rewarded more often with solid entry passes, he may be more inclined to fight for that post position.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
by tssbro on Aug 1, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Although I don't expect that LaMarcus Aldridge will ever develop a back-to-the-basket game by ...
posting up down on the low block, I’d like to see him dribble-drive from the elbow and draw fouls over shooting mid-range jumpers almost each and every time via the pick-and-pop. It’s not even a matter of high pick-and-roll or side screen-and-roll plays, either, for Greg Oden should be the focus of those sets run by Andre Miller.
Looking back at the 2004-2005 Seattle SuperSonics, it’s difficult to peg Aldridge as it pertains to the current Portland Trail Blazers. With that SuperSonics squad, Nate McMillan focused on the team’s weakside cornerman, Rashard Lewis, a lot more offensively than Nicolas Batum is here, while the trio of power forwards (i.e., Reggie Evans, Nick Collison, & Danny Fortson) were all used as bangers rather than mid-range jump shooters.
To make things even more complicated, McMillan had only two true centers, Jerome James and Vitaly Potapenko, and would use them sparingly. In fact, both guys would often sit at the end of games and Vladimir Radmanovic — who was used in a Travis Outlaw esque role — would come in and finish up with Collison usually manning the pivot.
Heck, it wasn’t ’til Radmanovic fizzled in the playoffs — which was similar to Travis Outlaw against the Houston Rockets — that James got his chance to shine versus the Sacramento Kings and con Isiah Thomas into giving him a five-year, $29,000,000 contract that off-season.
Anyway, aside from all of this pointless reminiscing, my point is that Aldridge should model his game on offense more after Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire. From drawing more fouls to being focused on both man-to-man interior defense and weakside help defense — with Lamar Odom being a guy who Aldridge can mirror defensively — there’s simple effort-based things he must do to improve as a player.
I’m just not sure Aldridge has got it in him, though. With Aldridge, I see the ghost of Charles Smith — whose career derailed with the New York Knicks in epic fashion — as well as once highly touted soft forwards like Juwan Howard, Vin Baker, and Joe Smith.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Aug 1, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he could definitely learn to dribble drive
that’s why I put it ahead of develop the 3 point shot.
I think those are both possible avenues for improvement even though I prefer him drawing fouls than jacking up 3s
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"...I’d wager that it’s more likely Brandon Roy suffers a serious season-ending injury this autumn or winter..."
Nobody likes a negative nancy! :)
I would like to play you 1 on 1.
by GregOdensRings on Aug 1, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AK
You said it perfectly. This is the best post I have ever read.
Life's short, Stunt it!!
by Irwin Fletcher on Aug 2, 2009 12:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just because you don't go along with the masses doesn't mean your opinion isn't foolish.
Sometimes the masses are correct.
Weren’t the people who predicted 52+ wins last year called homers too? Weren’t the Blazers called by many to be one of if not the worst teams in the league the when Oden was injured and anyone who said they’d be ok was called a homer?
When will pessimists and “realists” learn that their negative opinions and predictions don’t make them right just because they go against the grain? Believing that the masses are always stupid an incorrect is in itself a sheep like belief. Sometimes, just maybe, the masses all agree on something because its “correct”? It’s like when somebody says how can so many people like such a terrible movie? Well, because to those so many people the movie was good, and just because it’s bad to you doesn’t mean the movie wasn’t enjoyable to many. Is somebody likes a movie it was a good movie. I’m starting to derail a bit here…anyway.
Wow you once predicted the Sonics would be bad. Good job. I think the Lakers are going to be pretty good this year, what about you? Oh right you got lucky and guessed the correct wins and losses. That makes you reliable even though you were oh so wrong on many other teams.
Winning is winning, blaming a “fluke” for your incorrect prediction is just making excuses.
by Bskey on Aug 2, 2009 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
yeah, I remember when people were predicting over 50 wins last year
I predicted 46-48 if I remember correctly. I thought making the playoffs would be a great step and getting a 7th seed would be perfect because we’d avoid the L*kers.
People predicting 60 or more this year will probably be looked at the same way as the 50+ people from last year.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s truly a strange feeling.
I am so stoked about this season and my mind says it’s not overblown homerism to say 60 wins is reasonable for this team, and then there’s this voice that keeps telling me to tone it down.
But to say something without projecting some kind of numbers, I feel better about this up coming season than I have for a long time. And that also means quite a bit better than last year.
GO: THE TEACHER ...come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rancor reflected in that remark I won't dignify with comment. But I'll address your general attitude of hopeless negativism." – Everett "O Brother, where art Thou?"
by Blazer1342 on Aug 2, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're used to it
I predicted 39 the year before and was called a homer then, too.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
from here on out
improvement to wins added will be logarithmic. It’s going to take a lot of work to add just a few wins. It’s totally possible for Oden to put up 14/11/2 and have the team not get even one more win.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 2:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are mistaken
Add 2-3 points to our point differential and it is worth quite a few more wins. We still had a lot of close losses. I don’t see us as yet being at the point where it is hard to do that.
I think if we were looking at improving on 65 wins, you would be right. At 54, I don’t think so.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 5:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I'm saying is
I think it’s going to be hard to add those 2-3 points on the differential
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll see
I think we had a lot of weaknesses last year, so I think there are a lot of places to pick up that much improvement. You listed most of them above.
But we’ll see.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 3, 2009 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the first quarter is a big deal. If Lloyd takes over the starting job from Blake, then that could solve a lot of the issues we had last year starting three players who couldn’t create their own offense.
optimism ftw
by Cablinasian on Aug 3, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm hoping that Greg becomes part of the solution
to that little problem.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 3, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and who is Lloyd?
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 3, 2009 12:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's what I was thinking
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 3, 2009 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't put your 60 on Greg, yet
I am taking a little different view of Oden’s situation. Expectations have gotten in his way up to this point, so I say just let the man have fun.
Just play!
Another way of saying it is that if his statistical productivity roughly equals last year, while having fun, getting in shape and learning his craft, then the present will look good and the future will look downright bright. In the best interests of Greg Oden, and the Portland Trailblazers, this next year should still be looked as a learning/conditioning year.
We should be careful about trying to evaluate Greg’s improvement based on numbers. 15, 12, and 2.5 sound all too much like the failed mindset of last year. One of the things that WE should have already learned, besides the fact that Greg has a great deal of talent, is that he has a long way to go.
I’m not worried about the number of points he scores; I am worried about him being in shape, and being able to run up and down the court. I’m not worried about the number of rebounds he gets, I want to see a lighter, more agile GO. I’m not worried about the number of blocks he records, I want to see his lateral quickness return. Do you see the point?
In short I want to see a healthy, happy, and in shape Greg Oden, who makes progress mentally and physically all throughout next year. Wins, as well as individual statistics will take care of themselves.
I know we are all fans, short for fanatics, but in this case I am suggesting that we, as fans, can be a little bit reasonable as well. We can show some patience when it is warranted, and in this case I think it is. Greg has a tremendous upside, if we don’t, if he doesn’t, get too short sighted.
As for the 60 wins, I think we get there; it’s time for the rest of the Blazers players and coaches to get off their asses! Now lets go Blazers!
by KINGofMACct on Aug 1, 2009 5:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
a different view
I know everyone would like to focus on the tangible things that the Blazers can do to improve, but I think getting to 60 wins primarily depends on staying healthy, the health of other teams, and the strength of the Blazers’ schedule.
Had Oden been healthy all of last season, my guess is that the Blazers would have won 58-60 games. The Blazers may have played an easy schedule when one considers injuries, trades, and whatnot, so may a healthy Oden next year won’t be enough, but maybe it will.
by PoliSam on Aug 1, 2009 9:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The two biggest keys
Rebounding in the 4th quarter
Oden being at least a 14 and 10 player
by GMan83201 on Aug 1, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And not getting dug into a deep hole early in too many games
That was a nasty habit the team couldn’t shake until the playoffs where it came back to bite them.
"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw
by Norsktroll on Aug 1, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Magnum
Awesome post. Your writing is well-organized and thought-out, and presented in an entertaining and professional fashion.
"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"
by broggerboy19 on Aug 1, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thank you very much
I try to be clear and organized because I tend to lack a flair for writing the way say, Dave, has a distinctive flair.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grade "A" Post Magnum...
As good as I’ve seen… My head is still spinning a little from that, " tautologous" thing though. Thanks for the great read… and the vocabulary lesson.
by Ilikeemall on Aug 1, 2009 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I did my best to describe the meaning. I hope you understood what I was getting at
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Worries...
Never hurts to learn a new word to have in the arsenal. If you combine that with the latin, all things being equal, thing this post becomes quite the educational experience… Thanks…
by Ilikeemall on Aug 1, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
from the first time I heard ceteris paribus I've loved using it
probably because saying stuff in latin makes you sound smarter……..Hey, why not take any advantage you can get?
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the team starts games well
then things should go good. To often did they start slow and get behind by 10 or more right away which left them playing to hard just to get even again, starting intensity, will be the key to winning more games this year. All the player on the team should still be on the upward curve of improvement, except Miller who’s age is poining to the peak, or the downward slide. Not that BB IQ can not make up for age. If injuries do not happen, the door is open for championship runs now and for several years. Battum just needs a little more offensive aggresiveness like he already has on defense. If Bayless could be used for the few very fast PG’s on defense, and actually give some good min.‘s that would be great. GO will be a west all-star center this year. B Roy will be the best SG in the west this year, he was pretty = to Kobe last year, yet I really hope his min.’s go way down this year. LMA and Travis will play the PF with strength and great scoring. Also the bench player will get min.‘s because of all the junk time in the 4th quarter this year as the team will be playing hard from tip time and be leading by 20 at the start of the 4th. So go ahead and call me a homer, but objectively this reality is just as likely as them only winning 48 games this year, what they learned last year is with them now, does anyone recall the blowouts at the end of the season?, or the reason they lost the 1st game in the playoffs, I really do not think they do and if it’s my guess I think the know they can beat anyone, as long as they work hard out of the gate.
by prof.mike on Aug 1, 2009 11:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Great post. I wish someone would do this in the lakers forum
by robi s on Aug 1, 2009 2:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
for the Lakers or repost this in a Lakers forum?
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Think So...
The l*kers have no fans that have the concentration, or ability, to put together a well thought out piece like this. It has too many big words and too much intelligence to translate well in that forum…
And if you want to re-post it over there I really don’t get it…
by Ilikeemall on Aug 1, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
except for Timbo!
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 1, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awww, there's lots of smart Laker fans. They are spread out over about 15 websites though...
Josh, the boss at SS&R, is a bright guy and cranks it out in quantity. There are several of the guys there that are on top of it, actually.
"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal
by timbo on Aug 1, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Silly boy
This is a post on how Portland is going to improve. It would be impossible to do one like that on the L@kers. But perhaps we could put one together on all the reasons they might get worse, if you’d really like that.
Snark aside, you are welcome here, even if you support THAT team. Hope you come around after they come and lose in Portland again this year.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
This is probably the best, more accurate, and honest post I’ve seen hear.
One I agree 100 percent with. Everyone mentions how much potential this team hos, with out pointing what needs to be down to reach that potential. This post does, great jog.
The only thing i would add is the team needs to adjust to Miller, up tempo, more motion, slashes to the basket for lobes, rather then the other way aroung, ie watch Roy, Aldrige, and Outlaw play one on one.
Secondly Roy needs develope more synergy with Aldridge and Oden, and lear to setup them up, so he trusts them like he does with Blake.
Finally, the last step to become a dominate team, after the individual players have improved, is for the team to commit to play high intensity pressure defense from the opening tip on. This will start with Oden, finish with Roy, who as you mention dogs it on defense too much. He will need to set the example for them to be a dominate defensive team.
by MotoMan045 on Aug 1, 2009 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the compliment
Hopefully the team will get plenty of time with Miller during training camp and in the preseason. I’d like to think young guys can adjust to a new teammate pretty easily.
I wouldn’t go so far to say that Roy dogs it on defense; I think that sounds too negative. Last year the team needed Roy to perform on offense the way an old man needs viagra; it just wasn’t going to happen without Roy. To a certain extent he’s earned the right to rest some on defense because if he played as hard on defense as he does on offense we’d be up a creek without a paddle. We need Miller and to a lesser extent Aldridge and Oden to take offensive pressure off Roy so he can “rest” on offense too.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 1, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
on the money.
i too like magnum’s post, but this makes an excellent addendum. You could subtitle it “what Nate needs to work on for us to be a 60 win team.”
If we can get out of that one on one offense, I would be so happy! Not just because I believe we will be a much better team, but much more enjoyable to watch. I believe the synergy you talk about will mark the turning point. The point at which we become a really tough team to beat.
by Blazin' on Aug 1, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
Pythagorean Wins; the formula is G * (Tm PTS14 / (Tm PTS14 + Opp PTS14)). The formula was obtained by fitting a logistic regression model with log(Tm PTS / Opp PTS) as the explanatory variable. Using this formula for all BAA, NBA, and ABA seasons, the root mean-square error (rmse) is 3.14 wins. Using an exponent of 16.5 (a common choice), the rmse is 3.48 wins.
Yes, the blazers over performed incredibly based on 4 rooks playing 50+ games.
According to the Elias Sports Bureau, Portland is the first team in NBA history to win 50 games with four rookies appearing in 50-plus contests
But as you pointed out W Pyth put us at 56 wins, which means we under performed based on points (team points verses Opponent points). If you use the 16.5 exponent which the article says is common (does this mean more common?) we under performed to even a greater degree as that puts the win total at 58.5 games, 4.5 above our record.
Point being this: Based on points our win/loss record was outside the norm to the low side (this likely speaks to our youth and inexperience). According to the rmse (root mean-square error) we could have just as easily had 59 to 61 wins last year. And this would not have put us out side the norm on the high side.
So do I put this team in elite status for next year?
Miller – very positive player upgrade acquisition
4 rooks out, experience in – this should be equivalent to an upgraded player acquisition (Greg & Nic big improvements, Rudy a little, Martell big in 2nd half)
Team cohesion – upgrade (looking mighty fine at the end of last year)
Barring devastating injuries, Absolutely yes, we hit 60 wins. No questions asked.
GO: THE TEACHER ...come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rancor reflected in that remark I won't dignify with comment. But I'll address your general attitude of hopeless negativism." – Everett "O Brother, where art Thou?"
by Blazer1342 on Aug 1, 2009 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
to be more accurate: 60-61 wins does put us above norm of high side on one of the formulas. (i.e. outside rmse)
Our actual record last year put us below norm with one formula (outside rmse). So supposing a 60-61 season last year, is just about equal to the 54 wins we actually totaled as far as distance from norm.
To explain my point a little better in the above comment. We could very well under perform again next year, but it is very doubtful it will be to the same degree, since this under performance was likely due to experience level.
Hitting norm on the money we should have had 56 to 58.5 wins last year.
-———————————————————————————————————————————-
Here’s how we played at the end of last year
The formula for the 2nd half of the year = 61.7 wins (actual wins 58.0)
The formula for the last 21 games = 63.9 wins (actual wins 62.5)
(i.e. actual = 21 & 41 games we actually played extrapolated to full season, Yes this formula does work)
That’s with no upgrades and 4 rooks, this was our team last year.
GO: THE TEACHER ...come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rancor reflected in that remark I won't dignify with comment. But I'll address your general attitude of hopeless negativism." – Everett "O Brother, where art Thou?"
by Blazer1342 on Aug 1, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Pythagorean wins
may not be the best predictor for a very, very deep team.
Because our 8-12 guys are much better than most teams, our blowout margins are likely to be very high. We get a 15-20 point lead, and our scrubs come in and turn it into a 20-30 point win. Somebody else gets that kind of lead and they get a 15-20 point win.
So we have improved point differential due to our very deep bench which is irrelevant as to how likely we are to actually win games. We had some huge blowouts that skewed our point differential higher. I think point differential for the purpose of Pythagorean predictions should be capped at 20 — no win or loss should be counted as more than a 20 point win or loss. Anything beyond that is just garbage time and not indicative of likely wins.
In other words, using a slightly adjusted point differential which reduces blowout effects, we were probably pretty close to right on the expected win total last year.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 1, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember seeing the opposite
I remember seeing Nate keep the starters in longer than necessary and then seeing our reserves give back some points.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blowouts
We only had one game were we lost by more than 20 — at Philly, we lost by 21.
We had wins of 42, 38, 35, 32, 30, 29, 28, 25, and 21 twice.
Do you really think that a win by 42 says anything more about your chances of winning than a win by 20 or 25?
I don’t. It means you outplayed the opponent badly in garbage time.
The games you describe happened, but they aren’t the games I’m talking about.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 2, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think an individual win by 42 counts more than a win by 20
but I do think 10 blowout wins to 1 blowout loss do have meaning and I think there should be multiple tiers, not just a cap at 20.
A 40 point blowout is substantially different from a 20 point blowout. The way the blowout happened is also important. Plenty of 20 point blowouts happen in a game that was a 12-14 point game and then there’s some last minute scoring.
A 40 point blowout tends to be a thorough butt kicking from start until the main guys are pulled.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see your reasoning, but the formula held true.
Not only did it hold true but going from a full season, to the last half, to the last quarter, we kept getting closer to the norm.
I’m not really a stats guy. But I do like this stat because it is based on the very same thing as point differential, the raw data of points, which is a team statistic. And I hold to the idea that team statistics are more pure than any other stat.
But let me address the blowout theory. how many times is a team right there at the end of a game, within 2-5 points. But because they can’t climb that final hill they lose by 10 or even 15. What I’m saying is the blowout theory is true at various or all point levels and hence should level out over the year, for and against.
GO: THE TEACHER ...come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rancor reflected in that remark I won't dignify with comment. But I'll address your general attitude of hopeless negativism." – Everett "O Brother, where art Thou?"
by Blazer1342 on Aug 2, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
forgot to add
I believe the depth of our bench does probably skew a little as you said, but I think what it skews the most is how we perform in the playoffs. Nate clearly went to a smaller rotation in the playoffs (and I didn’t look that up, but I think that’s what you’d find if one were to check it).
If you look at the reasoning behind the therom and the rmse, this error factor is given to give a range due to the many factors that can’t be know at the time. This therom (as quoted above) is for all games all years. And since we were just at the edge of the range, the therom was on target.
Why at the low end of the range, blowouts? I think one could argue for that.
mag remembers us giving up some of those large leads, My memory is not that good at the moment, but I trust his recall as I do remember at least one. But we did lead the league in blowouts by 30+. But I still hold to the leveling out of this characteristic of the game. Not sure if there’s a way to prove it either way, at least not without a minute by minute data collection.
GO: THE TEACHER ...come into my classroom "THE PAINT" for some tutelage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The rancor reflected in that remark I won't dignify with comment. But I'll address your general attitude of hopeless negativism." – Everett "O Brother, where art Thou?"
by Blazer1342 on Aug 2, 2009 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahaha...
67-15 Dallas Mavericks 2006-07 Lost Western Conference 1st Round
Dunk
by Billy Ray Bates on Aug 2, 2009 5:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What a glorious victory for my childhood team
My allegiance switched to the Blazers long ago. But the way that Oakland crowd went into a frenzy brought back memories, for sure.
Of course, Avery Johnson & the Mavs brought it on themselves. When you’re the #! seed, you NEVER change your line-up to match up against the #8 seed. Talk about giving an underdog confidence!
Old Nellie, Avery’s former coach, was in his head before the series even started, and the players on both teams got the message loud & clear: Avery Johnson is scared.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 4, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we better win 60 games
I already bet $20 that it would happen
by raging WebTed on Aug 2, 2009 9:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
what odds did you get?
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Aug 2, 2009 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t see this option in the poll, but… 60+ wins, although WCF seems unlikely at this point. But if you guys could take care of the Lakers with those crazy matchups, Spurs fans would be happy to meet the Blazers there. Good luck!
Re-sign Bruce Bowen!
by Tim C. on Aug 3, 2009 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we'd have to beat you, first
I see L@kers as the #1 seed, with the Spurs and us as 2-3 (not sure which order). So that would mean we get you in the second round.
And yes, I think we win 60+ but WCF is going to be hard. Possible, but difficult — this year. Next year, we own the league.
It’s funny, some of these guys think only Blazer homers could expect us to win 60+. Obviously not.
Good luck to you, too. At least until we meet up in the playoffs. Hope the injury bug doesn’t bite you this year.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 3, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regular Season Shmegular Season
I’m fine with 55 wins and home-court in the first round again and go from there. I’ll takes me some Playoff success though this time around.
I think the most important thing next season is Oden. He’s got more room for improvement than anyone else. I hope guys like Rudy, LMA, Travis if here’s here make minor improvements. Martell is a huge wild-card but I’m going to go out on a limb and say he’s not ‘the answer we’ve all been waiting for’ at SF
I don’t think there’s any doubt that overall the team should be better. I want to see a second round series this season or else KP is a horrible horrible GM and person.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Aug 4, 2009 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In general
the better the regular season, the better your seed. The better your seed, the easier your first round opponent. The easier your first round opponent, the more likely you are to advance, and the more likely you are to be rested after the first round, improving your chances in the second round.
I will be disappointed if we don’t win at least 57. That is likely to get us top 3, which means we don’t have to face the top seed until the WCF.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Aug 4, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you, leeroy
Gaudy regular season records are seriously overrated. You can rack up regular season wins by the bushel, but if you don’t have a physical line-up that features an effective post-up game, you’re doomed to failure. Look at the poor ’07 Dallas Mavericks.
Way above in this thread, I said that, if the injury bug doesn’t bite, I see the ‘09-’10 Blazers improving to 58-60 wins. But I also said that 54 wins and home court in the first round would be a successful regular season.
Home court in the playoffs is certainly desirable, but it’s kind of fool’s gold. Historically, it mainly gives you an advantage in a 7th game, and many series are over before then. I actually would have liked the Blazers’ chances vs the Rockets better WITHOUT home court. In that case, they could have absorbed a Game 1 loss without really losing anything.
As it turned out, the veteran team hit the Blazers early & hard in Game 1 with a dose of playoff intensity and physicality, and our young guys were out of the series before they even realized it had started. Maybe they’d read too many press clippings pronouncing them the favorites. Veteran teams feast on that kind of stuff.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on Aug 4, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
playing time
i think the sooner we have a 10 man rotation the better. I’d love to see us go out and get a vet pf like joe smith, that would be a big step. but i think a bigger one is giving more minutes to those who deserve it. Though his stats didn’t show it i thought lamarcus played a lot better this season, and he got a lot more playing time, any of our young guys like martell and batum will get better faster if we can make a clear decision on playing time.
by StocktonNEP on Aug 5, 2009 11:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
