FanPost

WHAT DWIGHT JAYNES AND THE OTHER "TALKING BALL" ANALYSTS ARE MISSING

OK, last year most of the NBA "experts" predicted that the Portland Trailblazers would win fewer than 30 of 82 games and miss the playoffs by a mile. Of course, they ended up winning 44 games, making the playoffs, and doing some real damage once they got there.

Watching "Talking Ball" yesterday, I heard THIS season's conventional wisdom from Dwight Jaynes, et al: that 1) the Blazers had "overachieved" last season by winning 44 games (lucking into the playoffs because other teams had off years), and that 2) even if that wasn't a fluke, a 44-win team certainly isn't going to improve enough to win 50 or more games and contend this season.

Here is what's really dumb about that analysis: last season's team--the second youngest in the league and the team with the fewest returning players--started the season 11 & 20 as they struggled to gel...then went 33-18 the rest of the way. Considering their inevitable slow start, that 33-18 clip would logically reflect the team's actual ability. If my math is correct, that clip translates to 53 wins over an 82 game season (OK, assuming that strength of schedule is unchanged).

THIS season, that same team is returning virtually unchanged, save for the addition of two quality players (Evan Turner & Festus Ezeli) who address weaknesses in last season's roster. In the meanwhile, all those young players have had an offseason in which to mature and develop, and they are going to have a training camp together in which to continue developing the chemistry they displayed over the final 51 games of last season.

So, health willing, why in the world shouldn't the Blazers--who gave the Warriors all they could handle in last season's playoffs--be considered a contender in 2016-2017? I have no clue. Yes, as one of the Talking Ball guys said: the Warriors are loaded. But that brings me back to that health factor: one key injury, and the Warriors would return to the pack. That's the NBA; how can "experts" not realize that?