OFFICIAL AROUND THE NBA: MARCH 2023

This is true. Injuries weren’t our culprit. It was the coach.

 

Westbrook shot 5/5 on 3s tonight. And RoCo hit 7/7. And they only won by 9 lol.

 

Pure bullshit. "Rogue, isolated criminal" my ass! Fuck you David Stern.

 

They want the Lakers in the playoffs.

But how embarrassing is it to have LeBron and AD and need that much help to win games?

 

Can’t wait for Summer League to start. Need to defend our title.

 

No no.....bad dog....he's Shelly's boyfriend.

 

Interesting, so how many games did Dame, Ant, Nurk, and Grant all play together?

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Clippers were without PG13....on the road.....at the #2 team in the west and scored 142 on them! And you're cracking on them that they "ONLY" won by 9? Man some of you here never cease to amaze.

 

The one that gets me the most is the conspiracy people who claim the league wants certain teams to win and some to lose. That right there is some nutbaggery! Simply amazing.

 

Enough to know they weren’t good enough.

 

I mean can we use this same metric on every team considering their top 4 starters?

 

34 games, 577 minutes, net-rating of 0.4 (positive, but only just...)

https://www.nba.com/stats/lineups/advanced?slug=advanced&TeamID=1610612757&GroupQuantity=4

The Dame, Grant, Drew, Sharpe, in comparison, only played together 129 minutes, but has a net-rating of 18.1

So, clearly, assuming Dame and Grant are locks to be back, if the Blazers can upgrade from a slow moving center to an athletic modern center that's better than Drew and have someone bigger next to Dame...

Another interesting example, Dame, Grant, Winslow and Hart (with Winslow probably playing small center) had a net-rating of 31.3...

 

I was just curious. You said the core was together for most games. I guess technically "most " does mean ....more than half.
And no I do not think they were good enough. But at the same time when many teams in the west were hovering around 500 up until about a 2 weeks ago, (when they started feasting on tanking teams) ...I am not all that convinced that it would take a major overall to greatly improve. If the team that started the season remained healthy, there is no question in mind that they would be over 500 right now. Is that good enough? No. But it is certainly better than where we are now.

For the record, I am fine with tanking this year when we did. (Earlier in the year I would have been pissed)

 

The comment i was responding to was saying the Blazers were injured 170 games missed. It also eluded to that being the reason the team was underperforming.
Injuries were absolutely not the reason this team underperformed. They didn't help of course but the core was relatively healthy this year. You take out the Winslow and Payton injuries which the poster included and you don't have a tremendous amount of lost games.
Justice Winslow might have made a difference but was not a starter and neither was Payton.
Now try the metric you used on any other team using 4 core starters and see how many games you have with them playing together and stop it at the 60 game mark where this team pretty much called it quits. Out of the first 60 (heck I'm willing to go 65 games) games how many games did they play together?
My bet is 34-35 games is pretty good.

 

Glad the Knicks have a healthy lead over Miami for the 6th spot with Randal going down. They are in 5th now, so maybe Brooklyn moves up....but I doubt Miami can.

 

actually, all I said was that the label of "injury-plagued" fit the Blazers if it was based upon the full season. I never said that was the reason for 'underperforming'. It was a factor for sure, but it was one of several

 

Al Horford > Nurk.

 

I guess I am more inclined to believe the reasons had very little do do with injury and a whole bunch to do with the “Several” you speak of.
Just felt injury plagued was a huge stretch for an excuse to tank.
Just see it different though I guess that argument has some merit.