Blazer Money Ball

[Blazer Fanatic]

I watch that baseball movie "Money Ball" the other night, and it was a pretty cool movie even though baseball is boring. The whole, “What's the problem?” scene around the table at the beginning of the movie, just stood out to me. A bunch of old school, set in their way, curmudgeons who built their career off of being “experts” of assembling a team, all telling sexbomb Brad to let them do their job.

Clip from the movie:


No matter what Brad did throughout the movie, no one but the stat geek wanted to hear it even when they were winning a ridiculous amount of games in a row. Then the media all gave credit to the Manager who had no choice to but to play the team Brad and his geek buddy assembled. And even though the A’s won their division and were in the playoffs, because they didn’t win the World Series, those same guys were like “I told you so.”

BNM’s post, (I posted below, because I think it deserves its own thread as opposed to being lost in some troll post) just brought it together for me. It’s like I knew what I was looking at, but never really put it all together, big picture, and could articulate it very well. Not like it’s near impossible or anything to have that discussion, what with all the curmudgeons and the sheep that follow them regurgitate the same tired, dissenting crap ad nauseum. Any Blazer fan daring to draw a parallel to the Blazers and Money Ball is drown out by the noise of piggy backing, populous diarrhea, add their two cents of simple solutions to complex problems - most often in the form of video game/trade machine fantasy. I get it fellas, it’s new, it’s different, it’s a change from conventional thinking, and Blazers fans want NBA Championships in Portland.

You read or hear “curmudgeons’ like Dwight Jaynes, John Clownzono, and Dave Deckard (by virtue of his audience) saying I’m not ready to believe that the Blazers three point shooting will overcome their lack of defense. And when the Blazers don’t win the Western conference, not doubt will look back on the season and say (if only to themselves) “I told you so.” Which should be a crime against logic and punishable by never being allowed to write about basketball ever again. Yeah, I know, harsh. Ok, they can write, but let’s at least throw a caveat on their writing. Regardless, the Money Ball the Blazers have committed to will be dismissed and we’ll here the endless rants about this variable or that variable being the reason why.

Long story short, Jerome Kersey agrees with BNM and so do I. The Blazers can hit open three's at a high clip, they can defend against their opponents shooting a high clip from behind the arc, and they can do just enough of everything else to “win the war.”

I got little excited, as you can tell by this diatribe, about such a common sense explanation that seems so obvious, but yet I had never actually put together. So, I just wanted to give BNM a little credit and hopefully help fans look at this Blazer team though that lens.

Golden State is almost exactly what the Blazers are. They have a big body on an island in Bogut, a decent mid-range guy and rebounder in Lee to connect the guards to the paint on both ends, and they have a back-court that can move the basketball extremely well and shoot lights out from behind the arc. Is Portland a better team? Maybe, maybe not, but the recipe for both teams is virtually identical. And, no doubt, Championship or not, both are built to be very good play-off teams. Can either team win a Championship? I think it’s a crap shoot at that point, but odds are definitely not bad. – rook

P.S. Flame away

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

This is Blazer Money Ball (posted by BNM):

"Since the subject of the pachyderm in the parlor has been broached, I will offer this observation...

Our high rate of points allowed in the paint is by design. This is the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about during training camp. Our major off season acquisitions were all made to give Stotts the personnel he desired to implement his system at both ends of the court.

Clearly Stotts places a premium the 3-point shot as an offensive weapon. That's precisely why Olshey signed Dorrel Wright and Mo Williams, two very prolific 3-point shooters to fill major roles off our bench. It is also why C.J. McCollum, a very prolific 3-point shooter in college, was chosen with the 10th pick in the draft.

So, if he places such a high premium on 3-point shooting at one end of the court, it is only natural he wants to take away that same advantage at the other end. Stotts' defense is not designed to limit points in the paint, it is designed to limit opponents making 3-pointers.

This is where the Lopez acquisition comes in. Yes, other teams are killing us inside, because we don't double team inside or play aggressive help defense. Why, because when you do, you leave someone open at the 3-point line, and a wide open, uncontested 3-pointer is the most effective offensive weapon in all of basketball. So, in the Stotts defense, Robin Lopez is left on an island, to defend his man one-on-one and to defend the paint against guards and wings penetrating - which happens a lot because our perimeter defenders overplay the 3, which means they are more likely to get beaten off the dribble. And while this makes Lopez look like he's losing the battle with his counterpart, the team, by shutting down the 3-point line, is winning the war - to to the tune of an 8-2 record.

And, if you think Lopez is getting abused by opposing centers, imagine how bad it would be if J.J. Hickson was alone on that same island. And that's why Hickson had to go and they brought in Lopez. Let's face it, a talented offensive player, close to the basket has a decided advantage, even over an above average defender, and would absolutely kill an inferior defender like Hickson. That's why most teams elect to double team when an opponent receives the ball with deep post position.

So, with Lopez, the team no longer doubles in the post or plays aggressive help defense. All other defenders stay home on their man and extent the perimeter defense all the way to beyond the 3-point line.

And it's working. The Blazers are 1st in the league in opponent's 3FG% at 29%. That's amazing 3-point defense (lowest Opp 3FG% in the nba.com database that goes back to 2007-08). The Blazers are doing a fantastic job of taking the most effective offensive weapon away from their opponents. All the while using that same weapon very effectively at the other end, where the Blazers are 4th in the league in 3FG% at 42% - that's a 13% advantage in 3FG% the Blazers have over their opponents. The Blazers are averaging over twice as many made 3-pointers per game (10.0) as their opponents (4.9). On offense, the Blazers are 4th in both 3FG% and 3FGM per game. On defense, they are 1st in both opponent 3FG% and 3FGM allowed per game.

This combination of great 3-point shooting on offense, the best 3-point defense in the league and great team rebounding is exactly why the Blazers are 8-2. THAT'S the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about. He now he has the personnel to implement it, and we are seeing the results.

And if anyone thinks shutting down your opponent from 3-point point range is a gimmick, or some kind of fool's gold, here are the won-loss records of the teams that led the league in Opp 3FG% over the past six regular seasons (as far back as the database at nba.com goes):

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32

That's an average winning percentage of .712, which equates to a 58-24 record over an 82-game schedule. I'm not predicting the Blazers will win 58 games, there are a lot of other factors involved, I'm just pointing out that in today's NBA, league leading 3-point defense has a very strong correlation to a good won-loss record.

BNM"

 

[milehighblazer]

Damn, sprinkle me with some truth.

 

[Carlito]

That is ridiculous. Moneyball?!?!?! Do u follow baseball?! What they fail to tell u about that team..... They had Eric Chavez in his early years, Miguel Tejada, and Tim Hudson. Three all stars. I believe they also had Koch who was a dominant closer.

The blazers have vets every team wanted. Wright Lopez and mo would have been gone elsewhere easily. Hattenberg, justice, giambi and Bradford were like waiver wire signings. Nobody wanted em! Great movie but this isn't in the same universe as the blazers! Ur lost.

 

[magnifier661]

That is ridiculous. Moneyball?!?!?! Do u follow baseball?! What they fail to tell u about that team..... They had Eric Chavez in his early years, Miguel Tejada, and Tim Hudson. Three all stars. I believe they also had Koch who was a dominant closer.

The blazers have vets every team wanted. Wright Lopez and mo would have been gone elsewhere easily. Hattenberg, justice, giambi and Bradford were like waiver wire signings. Nobody wanted em! Great movie but this isn't in the same universe as the blazers! Ur lost.

We have an allstar named LaMarcus Aldridge, we have an up and coming all star in Lillard, we have a closer in Matthews and Batum and role players like Mo Williams and Wright. I love how your own posts help win the argument. Good job mixum!

 

[crandc]

The book is better. Not as sexy but closer to the facts.

And yes, I was at that 20th game.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Quality work... quality!

 

[Boise Blazer]

The only thing that concerns me a little is that the NBA is definitely a sport that is about adjustments. When other teams figure this out and adjust will that adjustment work and will we have a counter adjustment. Is our last game against the Raptors a sign of them seeing what previous teams did? Did we properly adjust to their adjustment or did we just hold on? Id like to think that we bounced back and got back to what works for us but I guess thats always subjective.

Repped BTW

 

[mook]

This is Blazer Money Ball (posted by BNM):

"Since the subject of the pachyderm in the parlor has been broached, I will offer this observation...

Our high rate of points allowed in the paint is by design. This is the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about during training camp. Our major off season acquisitions were all made to give Stotts the personnel he desired to implement his system at both ends of the court.

Clearly Stotts places a premium the 3-point shot as an offensive weapon. That's precisely why Olshey signed Dorrel Wright and Mo Williams, two very prolific 3-point shooters to fill major roles off our bench. It is also why C.J. McCollum, a very prolific 3-point shooter in college, was chosen with the 10th pick in the draft.

So, if he places such a high premium on 3-point shooting at one end of the court, it is only natural he wants to take away that same advantage at the other end. Stotts' defense is not designed to limit points in the paint, it is designed to limit opponents making 3-pointers.

This is where the Lopez acquisition comes in. Yes, other teams are killing us inside, because we don't double team inside or play aggressive help defense. Why, because when you do, you leave someone open at the 3-point line, and a wide open, uncontested 3-pointer is the most effective offensive weapon in all of basketball. So, in the Stotts defense, Robin Lopez is left on an island, to defend his man one-on-one and to defend the paint against guards and wings penetrating - which happens a lot because our perimeter defenders overplay the 3, which means they are more likely to get beaten off the dribble. And while this makes Lopez look like he's losing the battle with his counterpart, the team, by shutting down the 3-point line, is winning the war - to to the tune of an 8-2 record.

And, if you think Lopez is getting abused by opposing centers, imagine how bad it would be if J.J. Hickson was alone on that same island. And that's why Hickson had to go and they brought in Lopez. Let's face it, a talented offensive player, close to the basket has a decided advantage, even over an above average defender, and would absolutely kill an inferior defender like Hickson. That's why most teams elect to double team when an opponent receives the ball with deep post position.

So, with Lopez, the team no longer doubles in the post or plays aggressive help defense. All other defenders stay home on their man and extent the perimeter defense all the way to beyond the 3-point line.

And it's working. The Blazers are 1st in the league in opponent's 3FG% at 29%. That's amazing 3-point defense (lowest Opp 3FG% in the nba.com database that goes back to 2007-08). The Blazers are doing a fantastic job of taking the most effective offensive weapon away from their opponents. All the while using that same weapon very effectively at the other end, where the Blazers are 4th in the league in 3FG% at 42% - that's a 13% advantage in 3FG% the Blazers have over their opponents. The Blazers are averaging over twice as many made 3-pointers per game (10.0) as their opponents (4.9). On offense, the Blazers are 4th in both 3FG% and 3FGM per game. On defense, they are 1st in both opponent 3FG% and 3FGM allowed per game.

This combination of great 3-point shooting on offense, the best 3-point defense in the league and great team rebounding is exactly why the Blazers are 8-2. THAT'S the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about. He now he has the personnel to implement it, and we are seeing the results.

And if anyone thinks shutting down your opponent from 3-point point range is a gimmick, or some kind of fool's gold, here are the won-loss records of the teams that led the league in Opp 3FG% over the past six regular seasons (as far back as the database at nba.com goes):

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32

That's an average winning percentage of .712, which equates to a 58-24 record over an 82-game schedule. I'm not predicting the Blazers will win 58 games, there are a lot of other factors involved, I'm just pointing out that in today's NBA, league leading 3-point defense has a very strong correlation to a good won-loss record.

BNM"

Thanks for re-posting that. Very interesting read. We could almost sticky this and use it for anyone wondering why the team is succeeding.

One of the older cliches in basketball is "Live by the three, die by the three." More like, "Live by the three, kill by the three."

There's also a psychological effect all these three pointers have against lesser teams. I've read a few quotes by opponents where they say basically, "Man we get back into it and they throw in a couple threes and it's so crushing." Yesterday Batum and Lillard had threes in overtime that just broke the back of the Raptors. They were only down by 5 with 90 seconds left, but you could see they knew they were done.

BTW, this may be some of the best perimeter ball movement I've ever seen on this team. It's not super-clever trick passes that get highlights, but just highly efficient no-nonsense swinging of the ball to the open man to exploit defenses. Nobody is a brilliant passer for their position. Batum is above average, Wes below average, the rest around average. But the system and the floor spacing all the threes create make the passing much better than it seems.

 

[TBpup]

Totally rep'd!

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

Thanks for re-posting that. Very interesting read. We could almost sticky this and use it for anyone wondering why the team is succeeding.

One of the older cliches in basketball is "Live by the three, die by the three." More like, "Live by the three, kill by the three."

There's also a psychological effect all these three pointers have against lesser teams. I've read a few quotes by opponents where they say basically, "Man we get back into it and they throw in a couple threes and it's so crushing." Yesterday Batum and Lillard had threes in overtime that just broke the back of the Raptors. They were only down by 5 with 90 seconds left, but you could see they knew they were done.

BTW, this may be some of the best perimeter ball movement I've ever seen on this team. It's not super-clever trick passes that get highlights, but just highly efficient no-nonsense swinging of the ball to the open man to exploit defenses. Nobody is a brilliant passer for their position. Batum is above average, Wes below average, the rest around average. But the system and the floor spacing all the threes create make the passing much better than it seems.

I could have written more, but I think it is more entertaining and fun when you can give a chunk of info, and other people can add to it. You brought up some really great points that are what makes this topic fun to talk about.

1) It's not as simply as saying, live by the 3 die by the 3

As Jerome Kersey was saying, this team shoots very well. To say they "die by the 3," is to say that if person doesn't eat they will starve. "Well, no shit Mr. Dwight Jaynes. Why is it when you say it, it sounds really insightful, but when I repeat what you're really saying it sounds boarder-line retarded?" And I hadn't really gone that far with they whole psychological effects it would have on another team. But I smiled when I read that, just thinking about the sheer joy I had watching Dame and Nico just destroy all hope for those poor Canadian fans in over time. Pretty sick huh? lol Meh. I'll live.

2) How Portland is getting threes matters.

Key phrase "open looks." Granted, sometimes you gotta pop a step back 3 in a guys face. I mean, he had it commin'. But for the most part, you're right. Portland has extremely good ball movement and offensive spacing that creates a higher percentage, open, uncontested, three point shot.

 

[riverman]

To me, Stotts is the perfect coach for this team. He's not easily rattled, respects his players and even after a win, never ignores areas that need improvement. I don't see any "player only" meetings with this team anytime soon. Olshey has done one thing this team has needed for a long time...sign players that actually like each other and want to play here for these fans and this coach. If we keep this up, Terry will be in the conversation for coach of the year. Nobody thought the last championship Pistons team could win it all without superstars on the roster. They did it with different guys stepping up and defense. I like our chances.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

The only thing that concerns me a little is that the NBA is definitely a sport that is about adjustments. When other teams figure this out and adjust will that adjustment work and will we have a counter adjustment. Is our last game against the Raptors a sign of them seeing what previous teams did? Did we properly adjust to their adjustment or did we just hold on? Id like to think that we bounced back and got back to what works for us but I guess thats always subjective.

Repped BTW

Yah, it was more of an analogy, to hopefully help improve or focus the way we discuss the team, as Blazer fans, in terms of what the problem is that this team is built to solve. That when we frame our gripes and moans, we do so in that context. Yes, the points in the paints are bad. Yes adjustment must be made game to game. But its either disingenuous or simply misguided to harp on points in the paint, or any perceived flaw for that matter, when there isn't a fundamental understanding of what this team is. In other words, if fans are gonna shout, I would just like them to know what they are shouting about.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Sure it would be nice to get more baskets at the rim. Some more alley oops to the big guys, some some more fast breaks baskets, and some more finishes like Damian had in OT yesterday when he drove to the basket.

But I am not sure the three point shots are any more difficult to these Blazers than any other jump shot. As long as they are open, and the the way they have been moving the ball to find the open man....they are often taking a wide open set shot. It is almost like a free throw to these guys. When they are standing behind the arch in their favorite spot, the distance is always the same. (Unlike a contested pull up jumper from various locations. When they get into a rhythm it is fun to watch. Teams will adjust against the Blazers, but the ones off the fast break and from offensive rebounds will be tough to stop.

Most of the threes have been good shots. As long as they continue to be unselfish and pass the ball to the one most open, then I think it is a smart shot to take.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

That is ridiculous. Moneyball?!?!?! Do u follow baseball?! ... Ur lost

I know it was easy to miss being that it's in the first sentence of my post and all, "it was a pretty cool movie even though baseball is boring." I follow baseball like you follow... anyone's post. It warms my heart that "ur" even able to type at all, give your apparent disabilities.

 

[Eastoff]

Just to reiterate a point BoisBlazer made here, the Blazers have spread out their investment in many shooters not just to get more points, but to also ride out the lows that are bound to happen.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

1) BNM: great, great post, but should mention that 3FG% is not enough, it's also that we're taking a LOT of them. It's the combination of these that's working so well for us. I hadn't thought about the defense in that way.

2) Instead of comparing us to GS, when I see the unselfish ball movement around the perimeter I think Spurs. Now, if we could play defense like them....

3) Blazer Fanatic: I'm putting you on restriction for your post. No reading Jaynes (or similar idiots) for a month!

 

[oldmangrouch]

It will be interesting to see if the Blazers sustain that good ball movement, or if they regress to the chuck-and-duck approach of the Nate years.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

It will be interesting to see if the Blazers sustain that good ball movement, or if they regress to the chuck-and-duck approach of the Nate years.

I think they will. We have the shooters to take advantage once the defense is out of position. Right now we only get 5.4% of our shots from ISO's and most of those come after we have passed the ball around to get a mismatch. Not seeing why that should change.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I know it was easy to miss being that it's in the first sentence of my post and all, "it was a pretty cool movie even though baseball is boring." I follow baseball like you follow... anyone's post. It warms my heart that "ur" even able to type at all, give your apparent disabilities.

Repped! contends for post of the week in a thread that qualifys for post of the week

 

[DaLincolnJones]

1) BNM: great, great post, but should mention that 3FG% is not enough, it's also that we're taking a LOT of them. It's the combination of these that's working so well for us. I hadn't thought about the defense in that way.

2) Instead of comparing us to GS, when I see the unselfish ball movement around the perimeter I think Spurs. Now, if we could play defense like them....

3) Blazer Fanatic: I'm putting you on restriction for your post. No reading Jaynes (or similar idiots) for a month!

For the past couple of days I have been trying to put my finger whether this success the Blazers are experiencing can be maintained or not. I believe that BNM and BF have nailed it.

When The Suns went to a run and gun zero D style of play, there were plenty of skeptics yet they had several good years before the lack of players able to play that style exposed the chink in the proverbial armor.

I realize that to expose your basket goes against every instinct, and every basic lesson coached from first grade, but the idea of giving the two to get the three is not new, Just the use of it as a game plan instead of a situational tactic.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I could have written more, but I think it is more entertaining and fun when you can give a chunk of info, and other people can add to it. You brought up some really great points that are what makes this topic fun to talk about.

1) It's not as simply as saying, live by the 3 die by the 3

As Jerome Kersey was saying, this team shoots very well. To say they "die by the 3," is to say that if person doesn't eat they will starve. "Well, no shit Mr. Dwight Jaynes. Why is it when you say it, it sounds really insightful, but when I repeat what you're really saying it sounds boarder-line retarded?" And I hadn't really gone that far with they whole psychological effects it would have on another team. But I smiled when I read that, just thinking about the sheer joy I had watching Dame and Nico just destroy all hope for those poor Canadian fans in over time. Pretty sick huh? lol Meh. I'll live.

2) How Portland is getting threes matters.

Key phrase "open looks." Granted, sometimes you gotta pop a step back 3 in a guys face. I mean, he had it commin'. But for the most part, you're right. Portland has extremely good ball movement and offensive spacing that creates a higher percentage, open, uncontested, three point shot.

I stole this from SPDs thread

Perfect example of how the three ball is equal to a kick in the nads

From the post game interview

Rudy Gay

Thoughts On Portland's Three-Point Shooting:
“It’s tough when they are knocking down shots like that. No matter how much we rotate, move it around, and switch, it’s tough to play when a team has it going. I’m not happy they made shots but I’m happy with the effort we put forth. For the most part, a lot of them were contested and that’s all you can ask for when they are shooting the ball like that. ”

Do You Get The Sense The Team Is Closer To Winning These Tight Games?:
“It’s tough when you put forth so much effort and still come out with the “L”. All you can do is take the good out of it. Honestly today the good was that JV (Jonas Valanciunas) protected the paint, we challenged most of their three’s. Not every day a team is going to play like that. Not every day a team is going to move the ball and shoot that many three’s and make them. It’s something we can take to the next game and use the same effort. Hopefully the shots will not fall the way they did today.”

Rudy is correct, it is not every day a team shoots like that or passes the ball so well..just eight out of ten times

 

[tlongII]

I stole BNM's post and posted it at another forum.

 

[Pinwheel1]

For the past couple of days I have been trying to put my finger whether this success the Blazers are experiencing can be maintained or not. I believe that BNM and BF have nailed it.

When The Suns went to a run and gun zero D style of play, there were plenty of skeptics yet they had several good years before the lack of players able to play that style exposed the chink in the proverbial armor.

I realize that to expose your basket goes against every instinct, and every basic lesson coached from first grade, but the idea of giving the two to get the three is not new, Just the use of it as a game plan instead of a situational tactic.

Yes I can't help but be reminded of the Portland/Phoenix playoff series when it was so frustrating watching the Suns bury three after three. I remember the discussions about our lack of jump shooters on the team at the time.

Of course they had Nash who was brilliant at penetrating and kicking it out. Damian is a different type player, but none-the-less the style of ball is still fun to watch.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Pulled this from another thread, I like Reeps take on things, and for the most part tend to think alike, so I am not being negative in useing this as an example

Reep Reep is online now

Reep has written some things that people like Reep has written some things that people like Reep's Avatar
Part of the Rotation
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,179
Rep Power
6
Default Nov 18 Power Rankings: Lucky 7s
CNNSI: 7
ESPN: 7

Sweet. Maybe Mags was right.

In a perfect world, the team will develop against the weaker teams they are playing now and be able to show some real defense when the schedule gets tougher.


I contend that as others have pointed out, our dominance in defending the three while shooting the three far superior is our defense. I had a hard time recognizing this for what it was or is, over half a decade of conventional thinking is hard to shake. I think if we have to we can set up in the half court set, yet still maintain the ability to hit a three..just an evolution in style.

and yeah Pinwheel1, as I am becoming more comfortable with the style of play, I am finding an appreciation of the concept. I would much rather watch this than Mo or Nates grind it out half court..walk the ball up for a last second shot...yawn...

 

[Carlito]

Ok ok humor me..... Give me the quality wins of the 8. If we are so good then why are u giddy over beating bad teams? Aren't we suppose to?? So give me the big wins.


As for miss moneyball... All u said was baseball is boring. So ur admitting u know nothing about baseball? Then how can u compare? The players "brad" brought in weren't gonna make most mlb rosters!!!! The guys we brought in were getting multiple offers lmao. It's not even close to the same. Tell me who on the blazers is contributing that was a guest invite to camp?! And who is our Thompson on the blazers??? Ur lost. What happens when the threes stop falling???

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Carlito

I do not know who you are addressing, I don't know what to think other than what I am seeing. As I have stated several times, the style of play goes against conventional thinking.

As far as being "giddy", I have been one of the biggest skeptics from the start of the season.

Beating bad teams?

http://ripcityproject.com/2013/11/17/portland-trail-blazers-8-2-record-fixable-problems/

http://fansided.com/2013/11/18/nba-power-rankings-week-3-pacers-top-heat-find-groove/

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/stor...p-more-accurately-rank-portland-trail-blazers

http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2013/...ing-to-establish-themselves-among-nbas-elite/

These guys have the belief that we are pretty good and playing against some pretty good teams. Look at their W/L record and you will see we have played some pretty good teams.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Ok ok humor me..... Give me the quality wins of the 8. If we are so good then why are u giddy over beating bad teams? Aren't we suppose to?? So give me the big wins.

We could win 60 games and never beat someone that is "quality" How many options are there? Miami, Indiana, SA, Clippers, OKC.........a few more will emerge.

But my point is there is a lot of parity this year after the top few. Just win as many as you can and then get hot in the playoffs. We can lose to any of these teams just as easy as we can beat them. No one is that bad at home.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

http://www.nba.com/blazers/schedule

a lot of winning records there

 

[Sinobas]

I was surprised that they got Williams and Wright for so cheap. I suppose many teams are trying to employ the "save up for a star" stategy that Neil Olshey took his first year here. Mo Williams is the only free agent we need to worry about next year, and I hope we can re-sign him.