Blazers Play-in Thread (4 Viewers)

[SharpeScooterShooter]

ok...some players and coaches have a feeling. Maybe they are right; maybe not; maybe they are too close to the situation; maybe they are thinking about the extra money they get for playoff experience

I was just asking for the evidence that the 'first' playoff experience actually pays off. You'd think better playoff results the next season would be evidence, but that hasn't been the case with the Blazers. Higher seeding the following season? That hasn't happened for Portland either

you also have to factor trade-offs. Is getting swept in the first round better for a team in the short and long term than being able to draft a Dame or an SGA or an Avdija or a Haliburton? Would the Blazers be better this season if they had made the playoffs in 2024, been stomped in the 1st round, and didn't have the pick to draft Clingan? Granted, Portland is in kind of a unique situation because of Olshey's idiot trade for Nance. Normally, Portland making or not making the playoffs would probably be the difference between a 17th pick and a 12th pick. That's would be a difference but the significance wouldn't be great. But that's not the Blazer situation at present; that's the difference between no pick and the 12th pick, Stakes are higher

you're right: there are so many factors and variables at work I think it would be next to impossible to demonstrate that early playoff experience consistently matters

as to your question, average age of Blazer rosters:

2013-14.....25.8
2015-16.....24.3
2018-19.....26.2
2025-26.....25.2 (Blazers 10th youngest, same as OKC)

1976-77.....24.5 (Blazers win it all first time in playoffs)

average age.....26.1 (this season)

Again, context and situations. If a young tram makes the playoffs one year but the next is riddled with injuries, then it is more unlikely that experience pays dividends that next season.

I also think you are cherry picking pdx. How about kther teams in the league?

 

[RR7]

Well 50 years ago a young team with no playoff experience won it all, so obviously it doesn't matter.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Well 50 years ago a young team with no playoff experience won it all, so obviously it doesn't matter.

Someone in the Detroit Pistons video team is making a motivational video on this topic right now

 

[wizenheimer]

Again, context and situations. If a young tram makes the playoffs one year but the next is riddled with injuries, then it is more unlikely that experience pays dividends that next season.

I also think you are cherry picking pdx. How about kther teams in the league?

I asked a question....that's all. 'Where's the evidence?' Maybe there's plenty; but maybe it's vague and circumstantial. And, I'm familiar with Portland history. It's not that big enough deal to me to go in depth

my hunch is that if a team is good enough to solidly make the playoffs one year they should be good enough the next year. If they are only good enough to barely make the playoffs one year, they might be lottery next season. Fringe is fringe

I'm also wondering about the continuity you mentioned. With changes to the last few CBA's and the more punitive tax and apron provisions, have the windows of roster continuity been significantly shortened? I'm thinking that's the case. My guess is that there is more roster churn now than 10 years ago and that may accelerate in the future

 

[Pinwheel1]

The Sun's schedule down the stretch is not easy. The Blazers may have had a chance for 7th if not for the losses to Philly and Dallas.
But then again, I would not be surprised if they lost to the Pelicans. They need to get Grant and Shae back for the last two games of the regular season so they can at least come off the bench.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I asked a question....that's all. 'Where's the evidence?' Maybe there's plenty; but maybe it's vague and circumstantial. And, I'm familiar with Portland history. It's not that big enough deal to me to go in depth

my hunch is that if a team is good enough to solidly make the playoffs one year they should be good enough the next year. If they are only good enough to barely make the playoffs one year, they might be lottery next season. Fringe is fringe

I'm also wondering about the continuity you mentioned. With changes to the last few CBA's and the more punitive tax and apron provisions, have the windows of roster continuity been significantly shortened? I'm thinking that's the case. My guess is that there is more roster churn now than 10 years ago and that may accelerate in the future

The evidence you are seeking is sometimes hard to quantify in stats I think. Just like some players can have an impact without getting stats, I think playoff experience rides that same wave. There is no specific play you can point to and because every season has different injuries issues, a season is hard to also pinpoint and quantify.

I think, in a perfect world, with no injuries and all rosters staying the same, there may be some direct statistical evidence, but that isn't ever going to happen… so maybe that plays into your point.

I think continuity is huge. Players need to know each others tendencies and once they become family, then can then often be able to read things earlier, like a quarterback knowing when his WR likes to cut and throwing the ball in advance to that spot. That same knowledge is huge on both offense and defense.
With that said, and i agree with you, is that continuity may only become harder and harder to garner. Though, to me, that makes it all that much more important. If less and less teams can maintain a core roster for any duration, then the ones that do/can, i think have a leg up on the opponents.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

According to AI, you can't win a championship without winning some playoff games.