Blazers' Edge Power Rankings
No, it's not a list of the best commenters on Blazers' Edge, although that would be an entertaining list. This is just another NBA power ranking. There are two main reasons I have decided to put together power rankings here on BE. First, the site has gotten popular enough that we could use our own rankings, especially one with a little more Blazer bias and a little less East coast +Laker bias. Second, the level of discourse in the comment section will be many times higher than what will be found on ESPN or Yahoo. I love hearing other people's opinions, but not when they consist of LEBRON IS TEH BEST!!1! CAVS PWN YOU!!!1111!
I will try to get these rankings out every Sunday during the regular season. Hopefully that will give people who hate football a little more basketball related reading. On to the rankings!
Additional Note:
This isn't my prediction for how the standings will look at the end of the year. This will be a ranking of how teams are playing up to that point in the season weighted some toward recent performance. In this case, it is how teams look heading into training camp.
For example, the difference between power rankings and a prediction for the end of the season is that teams are far healthier now then they will be in April. The Spurs are number 3, but could easily be hit with injuries again this year and fall out of the top 10, something I would take into account in a season end prediction.
1. Lakers 65-17 (record last season)
The defending champs get the nod for the top spot. The Artest for Ariza swap is a lateral move at best, but the Lakers will be the title favorites until proven otherwise.
2. Magic 59-23
The other NBA Finals participant comes in at number 2. They spent lavishly (read: overpaid) this off season and should have more lineup flexibility this season. Forget Hedo. Can Jameer Nelson repeat the numbers that earned him an All Star selection before getting injured?
3. Spurs 54-28
I'll admit it; I thought the Spurs were going to fade from contention last year and especially this upcoming season. They reloaded in the off season and now have one of the scariest 8 man rotations in basketball. They have the veteran know how and the coaching to compete for a title. Can they stay healthy?
4. Cavaliers 66-16
They added Shaq, Anthony Parker, Leon Powe, and Jamario Moon, but do any of those guys other than Shaq help them win in the playoffs? We know they can build an impressive regular season record, but does that roster have what it takes to win a ring? Whatever happens, Lebron+Shaq will make this the most interesting team in the league.
5. Celtics 62-20
The combination of overrated free agent signings, an aging roster and Garnett's questionable health status forces me to rank the Celtics 5th. This team could win the East, but it could also finish in the bottom half of the playoff seedings. The key is, obviously, Kevin Garnett.
6. Nuggets 54-28
I'm giving the Nuggets to edge over the Blazers here due to superior post season success. It's going to be very tough for the Nuggets to have a better season than last year. Other teams have big FA signings or sure to improve young players while the Nuggets have no where to go but down (I don't think any non-Nuggets homers would argue they could make the finals). Even so, they are a tough team on both offense and defense and they have the confidence of their Western conference finals appearance backing them.
7. Blazers 54-28
There are about 6 dozen reasons for us to be wildly optimistic about the upcoming season and, unlike the Nuggets, the Blazers have plenty of room for improvement. However, I'm not going to rank this team based on potential anymore; we've done that the past few seasons. I can't rank the Blazers higher until I see them on the court.
8. Mavericks 50-32
Count me among the people who are unimpressed with the Shawn Marion signing. Marion does give this team another weapon, a bit more flexibility and some insurance against injury, but he has been a large disappointment since leaving the Suns; Cuban would have been better off signing Ponce de Leon.
9. Hornets 49-33
Any team with Chris Paul leading it is a dangerous team. Look for Emeka Okafor to feast on Chris Paul lob passes and boost his scoring average up to 15 points a game. Depth will once again be a major issue this year especially as Peja Stojakovic slides further into (less than) mediocrity.
10. Bulls 41-41
I need a slightly shocking ranking and the Bulls are my pick. Kirk Hinrich and Luol Deng are healthy, mid season acquisitions John Salmons and Brad Miller will be at training camp and Rose is in his second year. There is a lot to like about this team after they nearly upset the Celtics in the playoffs last season.
11. Jazz 48-34
It is unlikely the Jazz will be hit by injuries as hard as they were last season. This is a good team and if they can overcome the distraction of the Carlos Boozer trade saga (or better yet if they can trade Boozer for help on the wings) they'll be a top team in the West again.
12. Hawks 47-35
Adding Jamal "I never saw a shot I didn't like" Crawford doesn't make them contenders in the East. This is an above average team that has a date with a 4th seed and a second round exit at the hands of either Cleveland or Orlando.
13. Suns 46-36
They aren't the British Empire. Sure, the Suns will win games because they can outscore their opponents and they will probably make the playoffs, but when you have Channing Frye and 36 year old Grant Hill manning your starting forward spots you're in trouble. If the season goes well they could end up the 7th seed and if Nash or Amar'e go down they're in the lottery again.
14. Heat 43-39
Dwyane Wade can't do everything on his own if this team is going to improve. A healthy Wade will drag the Heat into the playoffs, but unless Beasley improves significantly in his 2nd year the Heat will be one and done in the playoffs again.
15. Wizards 19-63
I'm putting the Wizards at 15 to emphasize the following point. This is an average team even with Agent Zero back from injury. 45 wins is an optimistic projection.
16. Clippers 19-63
Ok, this might be a bit high for a team as dysfunctional as the Clippers, but there are some things to like here. Blake Griffin should make an impact immediately, Zach Randolph is gone, Baron Davis is healthy, Eric Gordon had an impressive rookie season and should improve in his 2nd year and they picked up Rasual Butler.
17. Raptors 33-49
Thank you, Toronto.
Even though Toronto desperately needed a scorer and facilitator on the wing, Hedo won't improve their record as much as his price tag demands. It's clear Toronto management made an effort to build around Chris Bosh, but spending money isn't the same thing as building a contender.
18. Warriors 29-53
Another slightly unconventional ranking. The Warriors have a scary amount of offensive firepower and they force teams to play their style of basketball. Weaker teams will often be overwhelmed and stronger teams don't want to catch these guys on the wrong night.
19. Pacers 36-46
The Pacers played the top teams pretty well last year and were in the race for the 8th seed without their 2nd best player.
20. Bobcats 35-47
The league's lowest scoring team (and 26th in Off. Eff.) swapped Okafor for Tyson Chandler reducing their scoring ability further. Could they finish under 90 points/game?
21. 76ers 41-41
Elton Brand, who recently turned 30, has only played 37 games in 2 seasons and the departure of Andre Miller means the 76ers will likely be starting a rookie at point guard. Ouch.
22. Pistons 39-43
How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the off season. Detroit's rush to spend cap space on 2nd and 3rd tier free agents is puzzling. A two year plan capitalizing on the 2010 FA bonanza would have made more long term sense. I have two words for delusional Pistons fans: Kwame Brown.
23. Thunder 23-59
The development of their young players and the continued ascension of Kevin Durant to elite status should allow the Thunder to win 30 games. They have an outside chance at making the playoffs if things go their way, but I wouldn't count on it.
24. Rockets 53-29
The Rockets have proved they are a tough team that can win games even when playing without Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady. When they win those games I'll gladly bump them up the list, but at the moment it doesn't appear that they have the talent to win many games.
25. Knicks 32-50
I don't think there is much to say about the Knicks except see you in 2010.
26. Timberwolves 24-58
Ramon Sessions was a good pick up, but their ability to win games will depend on the health of Al Jefferson.
27. Grizzles 24-58
I may have to retract my statement about the Cavs having the most interesting team in basketball. The Grizzles could easily "earn" that distinction. As such, I hear by propose that the Grizzles change their name to the Black Holes. All in favor please type "aye".
28. Bucks 34-48
They played well with Redd and Bogut injured much of last season, but they shipped out most of the roster responsible for that.
29. Nets 34-38
There isn't much to talk about basketball wise in New Jersey, so how about a Yakov Smirnoff joke? In Russia, you don't play basketball, basketball plays you! (Bad teams don't deserve good jokes)
30. Kings 17-65
If I could give the Kings a lower ranking, I would. This will be their de-facto ranking unless they show dramatic improvement.
13 recs |
174 comments
Comments
Denver will not end the season above P-town...
so let it be written
by In Walks Rudy on Sep 27, 2009 7:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I voted wrong...
Who will be the most interesting team in basketball this season?
The Answer is Memphis
1998 is Back
by In Walks Rudy on Sep 27, 2009 7:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LEBRON PWNS EVEREEE1!
I agree with the first comment. Denver ends up below us.
I also think Houston is ranked too low. The “Thunder” can’t be above them until they do something good with all their talent.
Whatever
thetinfoil@gmail.com
by TheTinfoil on Sep 27, 2009 7:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice job with all the links.
That probably took forever.
Whatever
thetinfoil@gmail.com
by TheTinfoil on Sep 27, 2009 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
shhh
no one tell him about the auto link feature
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 9:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to but I didn't want him to feel bad again.
by Roybot on Sep 27, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and what's slightly funny about this
I didn’t make any effort to bring in outside links, but in my last non JD fanpost I went crazy bringing in extra links and hardly anyone noticed.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one appreciates poor Magnum!
I think I made a comment that I wished one of the links was to Allen Iverson’s practice rant.
by Roybot on Sep 27, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I bet Tinfoil only noticed because he was trying to find something to compliment you on
after he yelled at you.
by Roybot on Sep 27, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah, I get my fair share of attention
that post got 20 some recs. I’m no jscot, Norsk, tom or mortimer that’s for sure.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually the joke is on SB Nation who don't recognize Blazers!
Maybe they need to hit the trail and come out west once?
by lee3022 on Sep 28, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
See my post about "Conventional Wisdom"
Ranking the Blazers based on last season’s results not only fails to acknowledge all the expected improvement. It also fails to acknowledge their level of play for the last month and a half of the regular season.
I get the Missouri “Show Me” thing, but I think it is leading you and everyone else to sell the Blazers short.
I would rank them no lower than 4th. LA, Cleveland, Boston, Portland, Orlando, San Antonio
by upper left corner on Sep 27, 2009 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll make sure to emphasize this in future rankings
but it’s not meant to be a measure of what a team could do if everything goes right, but my best estimate as to how good they are looking (playing when the season starts) right now. The one thing that separates all of the top 6 teams (and even some of the lower ranked Western teams) is playoff victories. Since the first batch of rankings are taking into account the off season and the playoffs I have to give an edge to teams that made it past the first round.
Don’t worry, I’ll have no reservation in ranking the Blazers higher the moment we see how awesome they are on the court.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant to say
the one thing that separates the top 6 teams FROM THE BLAZERS is recent playoff success.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
I didn’t mean to sound so grouchy. I think I was a little irked by Marc Stein placing the Blazers ninth in his opening rankings.
Good post. Lots of work. It will be interesting to see how your rankings develop over the coarse of the season.
by upper left corner on Sep 28, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, to be fair
if we’re going to account for the level of play over the last season and a half, then we’d have to throw the playoffs in there, too, and regardless of matchups, Denver and Orlando looked a heckuva lot better than we did in the playoffs. Given that Orlando has an even higher profile PG returning in addition to adding VC over Hedo (a huge improvement), I think Magnum’s pretty right on here, at least based on the offseason.
Maybe we could be ahead of Denver, but I don’t see how we could be put ahead of Orlando right now.
by Royster on Sep 27, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Based on offseason play the rankings are fair. I expect us to move up though.
However based on offseason play I’d also expect Houston higher.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Sep 27, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Thanks!
Good stuff, well thought out, and the commitment to do it every week is very admirable. I look forward to seeing it as the season progresses and the Blazers make their run to the top.
by Rick C in Tigard on Sep 27, 2009 7:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't do anything on Sundays except watch football
so when I’m not yelling at my fantasy team for being terrible, I’m going to put together rankings.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is this being run?
Is this a ranking on who will finish with the best regular season record, the most likely to win a championship, the best team at the time of the ranking, or is it the team with the best resume? Some blend of it all? It makes a difference in how I would rank the teams, personally.
If you ever hear of someone punching out a girl scout and stealing her Samoas, it was me
- Mortimer
by Clevelander among roses on Sep 27, 2009 7:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I believe it is a ranking of teams before training camp
based on their offseason.
by Roybot on Sep 27, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you underrate the cavs. shaq should be enough to slow Howard should they face the magic again
and Moon is a decent defender. I think they’ll make the finals this year, maybe even win.
Truth never was or can be propagated by fire and sword - Albert Gallatin
my last.fm
by Zaron5551 on Sep 27, 2009 8:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if things go right, ya sure they could be right there.
one could also look at it this way:
all there weakness were exposed against magic, making their regular season success seam like it was based on hustle and intimidation and shaq’s oldness/chemistry issues with lebro and friends will mitigate anything he would otherwise give them.
could go either way, and will probably go somewhere in the middle.
but i agree with you on one point. shaq puts this team above orlando thats for sure… i dont think orlando should be that high. they are no asking vince carter to be their closer.
by mandoman10 on Sep 28, 2009 6:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or Shaq could be a big fat distraction
there’s that
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Sep 28, 2009 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Denver will not only be behind us
They will be behind Utah, bank on it.
"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-
by We-B-Dunkin on Sep 27, 2009 9:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maggy actually contributing something to the site?
preposterous!!
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 27, 2009 10:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
inconceivable!
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WORST FANPOST EVER!
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 27, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
worst face EVER
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WORST COMEBACK EVER!
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 27, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*plays sad music*
*walks away with shoulders hunched
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 27, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 28, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is quickly becoming a 2nd JD
NOT ALLOWED
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well we need a new one
you could… y’know just rename this one :)
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 28, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's too basketball related
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That .GIF
Is beyond disturbing. I’m going to need some serious opiates to sleep tonight.
by DonkeyShins on Sep 28, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mags did a good job of analysis
Earned my rec.
"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY
by Storyteller on Sep 28, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks storyteller
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave you a rec because I feel bad for your FF team
by tominhawaii on Sep 29, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't believe Steve Smith only had 4 points
what kind of nonsense is that?
by Magnum on Sep 29, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Was pretty sure I was going to lose that one since the only guy I had playing Monday night is a little hurt.
by tominhawaii on Sep 30, 2009 12:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice rundown but my question is Amare is not starting at PF for Phoenix?
I have assumed Lopez at Center is better than Frye at PF or Center. Frye’s agent might agree based on the low contract amount.
Good feature to add – why go elsewhere to read ignorant rankings when you can come here?
by lee3022 on Sep 28, 2009 12:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
exactly! soon BE will be a one stop shop for all your basketball needs!
Dave, Ben and Norsk will provide all the links and info that you need!
My guess is that Amare is better suited to slide over to starting center than Robin Lopez is to start in his 2nd year. He wasn’t effective coming off the bench and he doesn’t seem like the type of guy who would come into his own after being thrown to the dogs. Contrast that with Batum and Bayless, for example
I think you put your best lineup in the game and that means Frye over Lopez.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 12:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Robin Lopez wasn't very good
And in their offensive system, I think they’d favor either undersized Amare or sweet shooting Channing, who also would be undersized a bit as a 5.
Lopez has no offense and not many other skills besides the appearance of hustling. That’s okay for off the bench.
M—
by Mortimer on Sep 28, 2009 2:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Meh
Nice fan post, I’ll even rec it, which puts it at the top and zaps mine down.
But the title is pathetic. If I can come up with Da BOM, you should be able to do better. It should be Magnum Power Index. Magnum P.I.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 28, 2009 3:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you know something, I might have to use that title
with credit to jscot of course
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 3:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No need to attribute it
it will just be our little secret.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 28, 2009 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you use that, there has to be a way to
embed the them song and a mustache into your post.
There just has to.
It wasn't the first time I'd been kicked in the cherries and called a rat by a woman, but it was the first time I didn't mind.
by shenanigans on Sep 28, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
'the them song'
(shakes his own head in disgust)
Let us try, ‘the theme song.’
It wasn't the first time I'd been kicked in the cherries and called a rat by a woman, but it was the first time I didn't mind.
by shenanigans on Sep 28, 2009 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, at least the mustache
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 2:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Thunder, Timberwolves, and Grizzlies are the worst teams in the NBA
They should be tied for last.
by tominhawaii on Sep 28, 2009 3:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For the 2009-2010 NBA season, here's my early prognostication.
ATLANTIC DIVISION
Boston Celtics (62-20)
Philadelphia 76ers (39-43)
New Jersey Nets (34-48)
Toronto Raptors (31-51)
New York Knicks (14-68)
CENTRAL DIVISION
Cleveland Cavaliers (69-13)
Chicago Bulls (56-26)
Indiana Pacers (33-49)
Milwaukee Bucks (30-52)
Detroit Pistons (26-56)
SOUTHEAST DIVISION
Orlando Magic (64-18)
Washington Wizards (49-33)
Atlanta Hawks (37-45)
Miami Heat (36-46)
Charlotte Bobcats (32-50)
NORTHWEST DIVISION
Portland Trail Blazers (55-27)
Denver Nuggets (53-29)
Utah Jazz (51-31)
Oklahoma City Thunder (25-57)
Minnesota Timberwolves (16-66)
PACIFIC DIVISION
Los Angeles Lakers (63-19)
Phoenix Suns (44-38)
Los Angeles Clippers (29-53)
Golden State Warriors (28-54)
Sacramento Kings (12-70)
SOUTHWEST DIVISION
Dallas Mavericks (61-21)
San Antonio Spurs (60-22)
New Orleans Hornets (52-30)
Houston Rockets (47-35)
Memphis Grizzlies (22-60)
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 4:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I love the courage
to put actual win projections for every single team out there. It gives so much opportunity for people to take shots at you.
Most of those are pretty reasonable, too. I think you overrate the Rockets somewhat, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Utah win the 55 you have for us, I expect we’ll win more than you said, I don’t have a clue what the Clips will do, and I think you overrate the Mavs. I don’t see the Bulls becoming THAT good that fast (you actually rate the Bulls to win more than us?), I think Atlanta is better than that, and Detroit is probably better than you’ve said, but still not too great. I think you overrate Philly and underrate NY (their system is always going to get some wins). And I’m not sure that Cleveland is really a 69 win team (will Shaq play on back to backs?).
But there’s no way I could begin to put a precise number on every team. Do the wins and losses balance, did you actually put it all in a spreadsheet to ensure that?
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 28, 2009 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, there should be 1230 wins and 1230 losses.
Yet, ‘cause it’s around the time I normally crash, I’ll wait to explain my rationale ’til a later point in time.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow 6 teams at 60 or more wins.
I doubt that has ever happened before. No – Not – Never
"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-
by We-B-Dunkin on Sep 28, 2009 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
Most ever 60+ win teams in an NBA season was 4 in 1997-8.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no better time to start than now.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it ain't gonna happen AK
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On second thought, Dallas and San Antonio will probably be 55 win range this season.
I must stand by my original predicition, though, even if I come out looking stupid in the end.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's okay to change your predictions
I know I revised my opinion on Dallas, OKC and the Hornets among others.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah, you can change it up until the start of the season. Then you stop to preserve credibility.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My name is jscot
and as future ruler of the world, I approve this message.
Besides, AK might be right about the Spurs winning 60, and he will really look stupid if he changes them from 60 to 55 and then they win 60.
I changed my prediction two years ago after Oden went down. I don’t remember what my original prediction was, now, but I changed it down to 39. Everyone should be able to change until the start of the season.
Besides, AK hasn’t given his rationale yet, so that is all the more reason to be able to change it.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 2:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My God.
I really can’t believe everyone is drinking the Mavs coolaid like they are. No way they win 60 games, no way on earth.
I am with the OP, Marion is overrated, and as such is an overrated addition. They are still very thin upfront even if you consider Dirk playing Center. Sure they did that last year, but last year they won less than 50 games as well, gimic lineups can only take you so far. They are old, and they have roster confusion with too many SF’s and PF’s.
Dallas wins few games this year than:
Lakers
Spurs
Blazers
Nuggets
And they could easily win less games than:
Hornets
Jazz
Suns
Nothing they did this summer makes me think they are any better than last year. Infact with the loss of Bass they may be worse.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Sep 28, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, ask the Raps how many extra wins Shawn Marion is worth
0
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Sep 28, 2009 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
People say Portland is in trouble because we are thin upfront because we only have three quality big men. And the Mavs have?
I don’t think they finish behind the Suns, but I see them as a 5-7 seed, probably.
AK thinks we need a third center, but both of our centers are better than Dampier, and Dampier is old enough (34) you don’t want to count on him staying healthy, and after Dampier at center Dallas has, um, you know, that guy, yeah, I’m sure I can think of him. Uh, somebody help me out here, um, rats.
Jawai? Yeah, well, he’s a forward, and since he only got to play in six games, it isn’t fair to look at his stats, because if Toronto had only given him a chance….
OK, maybe Jawai isn’t going to play center for them. How about Gooden? OK, he’s fairly decent as a forward, but he’s not exactly a starting center if Dampier gets hurt, is he? And it seems like he changes teams mid-season every year these days.
Tim Thomas is injured, isn’t he?
And of course, you can play Dirk at center, but if they play Dirk at center, we could put Travis on him and let our center abuse the other forward they put in the game.
I’m not feeling the love for the Mavs. They’ll win some games, and make the playoffs pretty easily, but they aren’t a 60 win team.
The power is shifting from the Southwest to the Northwest, IMO. Jazz are much better than they showed last year. Denver was pretty close to maxed out, but they will win 53-57. Neither will be able to keep up with us.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 28, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet Mark Cuban will basically mandate a trade for another big-time center come mid-season.
Unlike Kevin Pritchard, Cuban and Donnie Nelson have the cojones to pull off a mid-season steal of a deal. I’d expect something such as Drew Gooden, Kris Humphries, and Shawne Williams to the Los Angeles Lakers for Chris Kaman to go down sometime around Christmas.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that trade is less than likely for one particular reason.
…
…
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, according to RealGM Marcus Camby is the one who the Los Angeles Clippers will ...
put on the trade block. Okay, a package of Drew Gooden, Kris Humphries, and $3,000,000 in cash considerations for Camby around Christmas would be a fair deal. That, along with Erick Dampier and Shawne Williams for Andrew Bogut and Dan Gadzuric, would make the Dallas Mavericks potential championship contenders.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
while that may be true, I was referring to the fact that Kaman is not a member of the Los Angeles Lakers.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I'm an idiot.
I’m not sure if I insulted Laker or Clipper fans more with that miscue.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know either
But insulting L@ker fans is the kind of thing that will make you really accepted around here.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 2:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 years ago, who wudda thunk
that Camby would be considered less of an injury risk than Kaman?
"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY
by Storyteller on Sep 28, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, why are the Bucks trading a good young center again?
Bogut ain’t great, but he’s good at a position where good can be great.
Camby will be traded if someone wants him, but Bogut for expirings?
M—
by Mortimer on Sep 28, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel the Milwaukee Bucks will blow it up if stuff goes poorly to start the season.
Moving Andrew Bogut and Dan Gadzuric for Erick Dampier — who’s salary for the 2010-2011 season is fully non-guaranteed if he doesn’t meet certain performance qualifications — Shawne Williams, unprotected first-round draft picks in 2012 and 2014, and $3,000,000 in cash considerations would be a big cost-cutting measure.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think they deal Redd first
He’s pretty worthless, as a maxed out player.
Maybe you’re right, but I think the young and decent big man will be lower on their list for guys to rid themselves of to save money. Redd, Charlie Bell, uhhh…
He’s young enough and good enough to be a part of a good team moving forward. He’s also worth something more than a cost cutting move. I don’t see it happening, but who knows how the season will go. Ramon Sessions ultra-cheap contract was too pricey for them, so they’re definitely in penny pinching mode.
Mo—
by Mortimer on Sep 28, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Michael Redd is the main guy who must soon be moved elsewhere.
There aren’t many good fits for Reed, though, except for maybe the Houston Rockets. Because the Rockets won’t be players in free agency ‘til 2011 and an exceptionally efficient spot-up three-point shooter would be a nice fit at the wings alongside defensive-minded players like Trevor Ariza and Shane Battier, a Redd and Kurt Thomas — who’d be a big upgrade on the team’s thin frontline rotation over scrub Brian Cook — for Tracy McGrady deal would make sense for both ballclubs.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 29, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that might be an interesting move
I don’t think they trade Bogut, though, unless they just can’t move Redd. And I could see Houston going for that one.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
when was the last time
Cuban or Donnie Nelson pulled off a “mid-season steal of a deal”? Last big trade during the season they made, they were the losers big time.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Sep 28, 2009 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BUT IT TOOK GUTS
To pull off a horrible deal that everyone knew was bad then.
—M
by Mortimer on Sep 28, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too many wins for several teams
Bulls? They haven’t even won 50 yet, though I like a lot of their players.
Mavs, Spurs, Celtics, Lakers, Magic, Cavs, all won’t win 60+. Though I do think there will be at least three 60 win teams, which prolly is pretty rare.
The teams that are bad on your list, I agree with. I think our point differential shows that, if anything, we got less wins than the numbers suggest we could get and a 2nd year Oden will help a lot— also Andre, Roy’s continued excellence and now getting the benefit of the doubt from starry-eyed refs, LMA’s at least basic improvements, our rookies being non-rookies, etc. 54 wins wasn’t a crazy reach for us, so 1 more win would be disappointing.
Not saying it can’t happen, though. And I am a homer.
Wade, if healthy, will prolly help the Heat win more, the Hawks are solid enough to win more in that squishy middle of the East, Spurs don’t likely care enough about the regular season to win 60 (they’re just biding time for the playoffs), and Knicks will likely at least be as good/bad as last season.
I think the basic ORDER of things is correct. It’s easy to nitpick eventual win-loss records 8 months before we’ll see who is right-est.
Morty
by Mortimer on Sep 28, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you count NBA/ABA events there have been 3+ teams winning 60+ 9 times ever. But twice in the last 4 years and very likely again.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
AK is assuming LMA or Roy goes down for at least 10 games with an injury. That’s the only rational way the Blazers only improve by one game. The Blazers take a big step down absent either guy, obviously. But with all cylinders firing, the Blazers are much more likely to get to 60 than the Spurs (much more injury risk there, needless to say – what are the chances Manu and Timmy CAN stay healthy) or the Mavs (that prediction is just bizaree – they improved ten games because of … Marion?).
I predict Portland will be up there with LA in challenging for the 1 seed this year. If Oden or LMA take a big step forward, watch out. If they both do, and Brandon just maintains his level of play, the Blazers WILL be the one seed out west.
The Lakers will be solid – but they need Farmer or Brown to step up, and they need Artest to fall in line, and they need Bynum to stay healthy and return to his 20+ PER form. Are the chances those things happen better than the chances LMA and Oden improve?
You can pencil LA into the top spot, but don’t write it in pen…
Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.
by KP Corleone on Sep 29, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do they really "need" Bynum to return to his
pre-injury 2007-2008 form? He was pretty mediocre most of last year and pretty awful during the playoffs, and they still won 66 games and the title. Any improvement from him is probably just gravy to LA at this point.
And while I’d be mildly surprised to only win 55, it wouldn’t be shocking. As Barrett has pointed out, we got a ton of teams on the back end of back to backs, which accounted for a fair number of our absurd blowouts that boosted our point differential. Plus, we weren’t exactly considered a contender last year so we had the luxury of sneaking up on teams. There will be a lot bigger bulls eye on our backs this year, in addition to not getting to face as many teams on short rest.
While there’s no way in my mind we won’t be considerably better as a team, I don’t think it’s a given that that’ll translate automatically into a ton more wins, especially with the bottom feeder teams like OKC and the Clips progressing from the door mats they were last season.
by Royster on Sep 29, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think PoliSam did a study on our lack of back-to-backs and said that the few points that are lost through back to backs are made up in only playing LA and San Antonio once on the road.
While last year was nice, this sets up pretty well.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 29, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely possible
I wasn’t religious about reading posts for most of the summer.
Still, though, I’m not sweating the regular season. I expect 58-59 even though I expect the overall team to be much better. The west had some pretty horrendously bad teams last year that should all be better (I expect the Clippers in particular to be much better) in addition to some pretty huge injury problems for most of the lower half playoff teams, so even if we’re much better, the overall improvement from the rest of the conference might not translate into a huge win improvement.
No statistics or anything to go into it (which might disprove it easily), just a gut feeling.
by Royster on Sep 29, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice work, AK
Although personally, I think you’re overestimating some teams (Washington, Houston for example) and underestimating others (Clippers, Atlanta for example). Here’s my prediction (a line separates playoff teams from lottery teams):
Eastern Conference
Boston (63-19)
Cleveland (60-22)
Orlando (58-24)
Atlanta (49-33)
Chicago (44-38)
Miami (44-38)
Detroit (40-42)
Washington (40-42)
-———————-
Toronto (37-45)
Philadelphia (33-49)
Indiana (32-50)
Milwaukee (32-50)
Charlotte (28-54)
New Jersey (28-54)
New York (25-57)
Western Conference
LA Lakers (62-20)
Portland (58-24)
San Antonio (57-25)
Denver (55-27)
Dallas (51-31)
Utah (49-33)
New Orleans (47-35)
LA Clippers (40-42)
-————————-
Phoenix (38-44)
Houston (35-47)
Oklahoma City (33-49)
Golden State (32-50)
Minnesota (22-60)
Memphis (20-62)
Sacramento (18-64)
"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY
by Storyteller on Sep 28, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You took a much more balance approach, so kudos there.
I, however, have a feeling the Cleveland Cavaliers will post a monstrous regular season, with LeBron James putting up eye-popping, jaw-dropping numbers.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like that we both think
that the Memphis ‘experiment’ of adding Randolph and Iverson leaves the Grizzlies deep in the tank…..
"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY
by Storyteller on Sep 28, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we’ll see the high-PER Grizzlies struggle immensely and the WoW-spectacular Rockets be better than expected.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
don’t think we can glean anything definitive, other than both metrics are quite flawed.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure you can even call the Grizz
“high PER”. Z-Bo’s been over 20 only once in his career, AI was barely above average last year, and no one on the team previously had a PER above 17. Rudy Gay, who people seem to think is some PER darling, rated roughly average last year, almost exactly the same as Joel and our Rudy.
All in all, pretty bleak for Memphis by any statistical measure.
by Royster on Sep 28, 2009 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am a bit shocked by Mayo’s very poor PER. Conley had an excellent post-all-star break PER, if memory serves… Gay is essentially Travis Outlaw with more attempts and minutes.
Their additions were fairly high-PER players in AI and Zbo. AI’s was down last year but still above league average. Zach’s nearly-20 PER puts him in a pretty good tier of frontcourt players.
In retrospect, they aren’t high-PER… I do think that the players they added are notorious for having a good PER with questions about how effective they actually are.
I thought that Mayo’s PER would be at least 16 or 17. Yikes, it does look bleak.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
While it definitely has its flaws like any other metric
and some not insignificant ones, I think PER does tend to come under a lot of unfair stick from posters with the assumption being that whatever guy they hate for being an unrepentant gunner who hurts their team must have a high PER. Mayo using a ton of possessions to put up points and nothing. Iverson, for all the hate he gets now, was actually decently efficient in some of those Philly years considering the absolutely staggering number of possessions that he used. Maybe his teams would have been better off with other people getting the ball more, but if a guy is going to use nearly 40% of the possessions in a team’s season, it’s not easy to be efficient.
by Royster on Sep 28, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is true. PER does a good job of mixing all of the measurable (primarily) offensive statistics into a easy to digest cocktail.
I think that in the end, it’s a valuable resource has to be taken with a grain of salt, like every metric… including adjusted +/-, my personal favorite.
I have to admit I was surprised when looking at the disparity in PER between young Mayo and young Iverson. Between Randolph, Gay, Iverson, and Mayo, there will be some incredibly inefficient basketball in Memphis.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Sep 28, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It definitely won't be pretty
As I recall, they were already the owners of a pretty historically low assist rate, and adding Z-Bo and AI can’t help that too much.
by Royster on Sep 29, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1 assist away from having the lowest-assists ever record
A big problem is Rudy Gay, who has a super high usage rate but never ever passes.
M—
by Mortimer on Sep 29, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is that record?
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1422 assists in an 82 game season.
The Grizz had 1423. The New York Nets back in 1972 or so have one less assist.
That equals to 17.4 assists a game for the Grizz. The Nets had 17.3, and also had the dubious honor of having more turnovers than assists as an entire team. The Grizz didn’t do that, thankfully.
I got this from Basketbawful (this article: Worst Assist Teams Ever) and Basketballreference.
M—
by Mortimer on Sep 29, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I was too lazy to re-check basketbawful
To be honest, though, I’d bet the Nets were exponentially worse than the Grizz, considering how slow the league’s pace has been in recent history.
by Royster on Sep 29, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great predictions
cant wait to see the clip show make the playoffs this season
by jontwin on Sep 29, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, here's my standings prediction
Portland (82-0)
A bunch of other teams (some wins-some losses)
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 3:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
HOMER
"Early to bed, early to rise, makes a woman healthy, wealthy, and wise. That's why you all are wiser than me. It's cloudydays."
by cloudydays on Sep 29, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You spelled out the L*k*rs
and placed them first, with the Blazers being seventh.
How dare you, sir.
rec for ballsiness
Honor Alaa Abdelnaby.
First in the NBA. At least alphabetically
by OhOhOden on Sep 28, 2009 6:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the Nuggets are due for a big drop
They played about the best they could ever play last season and it still wasn’t good enough. I’m not sure we’ll see them click again like they did last season.
Blazer Fan
by leeroyjenkins on Sep 28, 2009 7:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My son's soccer team is named: the black holes
I couldn’t make that up.
The Nuggs will be after us, that is all. I can’t see them getting any better without any huge moves, which will be interesting.
Sophia
The Princess of Blazersedge
Sport is my boyfriend
by BlazerFan1 on Sep 28, 2009 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
black holes are intimidating
they can swallow the earth
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 28, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How ironic.
so can Z-Bo.
"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."
by Arby on Sep 28, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good mother soccer is the way to go.
Keep his knees safe for hoops
by tevisthe4th on Sep 28, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
besides
chicks dig soccer players
"Early to bed, early to rise, makes a woman healthy, wealthy, and wise. That's why you all are wiser than me. It's cloudydays."
by cloudydays on Sep 29, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mavs have just signed Jake Voskuhl to training camp. Championship baby!
Just kidding, but I have them in the top 3 in the West, yet can’t really disagree with top 5 either. I’m in the camp that believes signing Shawn Marion was the right move (and they best available). And they pretty much added him and other small pieces for nothing but money like we did with Miller (Wright was bad last season, and is the only loss worth mentioning). If they had managed to also sign Gortat or at least retained Bass which blindsided the team, I would definitely have them as the #3. The core is old, but not over the hill. And they can still do significant moves later with Dampier’s expiring/unguaranteed contract, but that will be reflected at a later day.
I also think the Wizards will make the playoffs in the East so having them at 15 seems about right, but you can never be sure with that team and under a new coaching staff.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Sep 28, 2009 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But who is going to actually play center for them?
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 28, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dampier starts, Dirk finishes
Positions have little to say in the Mavs system. Starting lineup is probably Kidd, Howard, Marion, Dirk, Damp; but just as well they can run very small with Barea, Terry, Kidd, Singleton/Marion, Dirk like they did last year to good success. And defensively they play more zone and off their man than most teams anyway.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Sep 28, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What happens if Dampier gets hurt?
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 28, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually,
carlisle said the other day that gooden would start most nights…
not a good sign if you’re a mav’s fan
by where's billy ray on Sep 28, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
:: Celebration :::
But he never gets hurt, you can say a lot of bad things about him but the guy is durable.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Sep 28, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the Mavs could have kept Bass
or signed Gortat, I’d have given them several more wins. They’re just too much of a donut team for me to put higher than 5th in the conference.
"It's Our Time":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99POVJfglY
by Storyteller on Sep 28, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's how I see it
And there’s always the question of whether Kidd is going to lose effectiveness. It will happen someday.
"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 3:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments on projections
Ben’s Chicago projection depends a lot on the coaching. They have enough talent to do pretty well. Got to play the right lineups and draw up the right plays. I think Philly does better but PG will be a drag and so it might not be that strong. Rockets will do better.
AK has 3 teams winning 16 or less. That also has never happened in a normal NBA season.
But how the top and bottom tug at each other and how strong or weak on balance the middle is will be interesting to watch.
I don’t think the Knicks go that low but I haven’t looked hard at them. The Pistons at 26 wins, I can see that and expect something close but maybe not quite that bad. I expect Dallas to be a contender but I’ve started them out at about 55.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 5:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Duncan
The Spurs appear to be poised to move Duncan back mostly to PF. He played a lot of Center last season. It should help the defense and offensive rebounding but whether it hurts the offense much and specifically the 3 point attack they were highlighting (aided by Bonner at PF), well have to see.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 6:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Clarification
The season might go the way AK is predicting. I am mainly pointing out how unusual that would be on both ends.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 6:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
More on Duncan, a key for who wins the West
Moving back to Duncan at PF sounds like a no-brainer…
but the Spurs didn’t have a single lineup without Bonner in it that played over 40 minutes for the season that was very positive (better than +2 on Adjusted +/-). If they go back to playing without Bonner much they have to re-discover how to do it effectively. And with Duncan shedding a lot of weight, they almost don’t have the choice of reversing course.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 7:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Then again...
A lighter, quicker Duncan might play more like the Duncan of old than the one forced last season to play mostly Center, something I’ve heard he dislikes.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But it worked with him at center
How much was that related to weight? I guess he was more weight appropriate for center last season. We’ll see how much is age & quickness related, back at PF, even when lighter.
And the regular season is different from the playoffs. They might not want him bangin’ Bynum, Nene, or Portland’s centers. But do they want him covering Gasol, Aldridge or KMart? And which match-up is better when he is on offense or overall ? I don’t know.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 7:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
one more
Looking back at raw data at 82 games Duncan is shown as almost always better at center, personally and team-wise back thru 2005-6. He was last better at PF in 2004-5. Can he roll the clock back to that?
So is this significant or a tempest in a teapot? Has an outsider found something or are the insiders always (or usually) right? We’ll find out.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 8:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
My bet is that the San Antonio Spurs will once again go with Tim Duncan at center and Matt Bonner ...
at power forward in the starting lineup. Off of the bench, Antonio McDyess will play center on defense and power forward on offense, while DeJuan Blair will play center on offense and power forward on defense.
Lastly, Theo Ratliff and Ian Mahinmi will round on the frontline as third-string scrubs. To be frank, though, I believe that Gregg Popovich should seriously consider waiving Mahinmi — in spite of his contract being guaranteed this season for $989,670 — and instead give Dwayne Jones that spot. I doubt that’ll happen, though.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Sep 28, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't remember if I predicted 55 or 56 wins in the official prognosis thread by Dave, but I'll stick with that
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Sep 28, 2009 9:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Everyone should just put their official predictions in their profile
that’s an easy and semi-visible way of doing it. Plus it’s easy to go back and check your predictions instead of digging through a bunch of old posts.
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 28, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good idea
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Sep 29, 2009 3:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, your sig or in your profile, either way
"It’s a good ol’ fashioned Rip City beat down!"
by Magnum on Sep 29, 2009 3:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spurs and broader
I was speculating on a direction that they haven’t chosen yet. They may not abandon what worked last season totally. But how much of that use of Bonner was because they lost Ginobili and needed Bonner’s 3 point shot? McDyess does give them options and they have lots of others too. Pop will more likely get it right or pretty right with Duncan. They might not get as much as they expect with Jefferson though
Not all contenders will get it right with their big off-season moves. Shaq, Carter or Marion, there is probably at least one disappointment in there. Bynum might not ever be worth that much money. Miller might not be all KP and Nate say he will be.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 9:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Playoffs
In the end it comes down to match-ups in the playoffs and if you get the right ones or can make do. The general answer to how well something worked in the regular season is superceded by how well it works when the playoffs start to get tough.
Most contenders in the west have PGs who can score. Will any make LA pay a big enough price that tips the series? Didn’t happen last season but series are short, small samples and it could bite them this season. That is their main weak point.
by StatRaven on Sep 28, 2009 9:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LEBRON IS TEH BEST CAVS PWN YOU
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 28, 2009 9:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lighter Duncan
If he can still play good defense at center even at his lighter weight and he becomes quicker and even more aggressive on offense they might come out ahead. Super Gasol.
Might work in the west.
But then against Howard or Shaq it might become more double-edged.
Could be a key, wanted to explore it a bit before anyone else did, here as good as elsewhere, but long way to go before playoff match-up showdowns.
by StatRaven on Sep 29, 2009 7:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
pretty sure blazers will win more games than last season
by portlandgiirl91 on Sep 29, 2009 5:32 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Well the Blazer got lucky a number of times
I think they win around 54. Maybe a few more, maybe a couple less.
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 29, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and they played a lot of teams that were on the second of a back to back and had a great record against them
the number of games against teams of the second of a back to back has been reduced drastically this season
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 29, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i see what you're saying
but still i think the blazers will be even better this season and as i’m aware i don’t think their schedule is as hard as last season and if they want to get any further than first round in the playoffs they have to win more in my opinion.
by portlandgiirl91 on Sep 30, 2009 2:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're right
They are going to win more games this year just because of the extra year of chemistry between players like Roy, LMA, Oden, Pryz, Trout, etc.
Just like the core of the early 90’s teams, they’ll grow together
Blazers win!
by The X-man on Sep 30, 2009 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think you two understand the importance of playing team on the second night of a back to back
The Blazers played teams on the second of a back to back 27 times last year. Their record was amazing at 23-4. This season they only play only 14 games against teams on the second night of a back to back. Which means less of a home court advantage since most back to backs come when the opposing team is on the road. If the Blazers want to improve their overall record, then the road is where the extra wins are going to come from because I can almost guarantee that we won’t win 34 games at home again. This is why I believe they will still stay right around 54 wins total.
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 30, 2009 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You almost guarantee?
Really? A back to back shifts win percentage by about 3-5%, on average. Over 41 home games, if the opponents were on back to backs on all of them we would win perhaps two more games than if none of them were. The difference is non-negligible, but it doesn’t make or break your season.
I personally think we’ll be at least two home wins stronger than last season, which would easily cancel out the loss of the back to back advantage.
I also think it unlikely we’ll finish two games below our Pythagorean predicted win level again. I also think we’re not likely to have the worst “defensive free-throw shooting”, which cost us some games and is not likely to be repeated. Those two factors don’t even consider team improvement.
I also think we are unlikely to lose two games in LA to the L@kers this year, and we are unlikely to exceed last year’s one loss in SA this year.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Sep 30, 2009 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We can't lose two in LA as we only play the L@kers there once
"BEER IS LIVING PROOF THAT GOD LOVES US"
- Benjamin Franklin-
by We-B-Dunkin on Oct 3, 2009 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a similar reason
we are unlikely to exceed last year’s one loss in SA.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 3, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We also got unlucky a number of times
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Sep 30, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome to Blazersedge! My name is L-TrainFTW! or Tim. I'll be your tour guide. If you need ANY help at all, just call me at 503-555-5555.
We welcome you to this thriving community! Have you seen the junkdrawer, or JD for short? It’s where all the cool Blazers Edgers go to chat about random stuff. You should check it out sometime. if you need any help, you can just ask one of our friendly posters. I’m sure at least one of them will assist you. Well I’m off now, but you can reach me 23 hours a day in the junkdrawer. Toodle loo!
- Tim
Love.
by L-TrainFTW! on Sep 29, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
smh
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 29, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does smh mean?
or do I not want to know?
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Sep 30, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you shaking your head at me?
:)
Thanks.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Sep 30, 2009 6:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you need to steer this post back on track
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 29, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is creepy and funny
I don’t know if I should rec this comment or flag it.
by tominhawaii on Sep 30, 2009 12:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
flag it
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 30, 2009 12:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec it.
Now we know we have a Tim & a Kim on this board.
Marvin is sounding a bit jealous…
*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
by staylost on Sep 30, 2009 1:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im SO jealous
"What I'm not looking for is, uh, some big overgrown monster that's always thinkin' about food."
by Starvin' Marvin on Sep 30, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There sould be both options available.
What happens when a post is amazing but at the same time has something flagable?
by stravinski on Oct 4, 2009 4:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably already stated...
but the Suns have an SBnation blog.. Bright side of the sun.
Too late for me to link.
goodnight world.
Numerically Blazers Edge is #25
by Outlaw is Rejector on Oct 2, 2009 9:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 






















