Clippers Announcers: "Blazers Have No Chance At Making the Playoffs"

[Orion Bailey]

Your nuance is appreciated. The Nuggets example actually helped make my point., Might have been the #3 seed but was the 7th best record and certainly a rare example. Some people seem to think I'm calling this a blemish (which I didn't) or that Portland somehow doesn't deserve to be in the Playoffs which again is not the case. It was more of a historical observation simple based on facts. If someone can show me where 44 wins got the #5 seed on anything more than a rare occurrence, then great. I'm sure it happened some back in the day when there weren't as many teams so the talent in the league wasn't so diluted on the bottom end. Just didn't bother going back before 2000. 16 years seemed enough to reference.

Happy they made the Playoffs and hope they upset the whiny Clippers. And if the Blazers had been the ones with 70+ wins, that would have been rare as well.

I think sometimes certain posts sound as though some people believe there should be an asterisk next to us making the playoffs this year or something. And then there are a few like Tunchi, who still feel making the playoffs wont serve the team as well as retaining a pick in this years draft. And in any other year, we would be having that draft pick. But in any other year, as numbers have shown from others' great posts, we would have then had a few more wins in our pocket as well.
I think most feel it is a moot point to argue 44 is rare because in any other year we would have had a few more years when looking at it statistically. So it's a rare year all the way around is all it really comes down to and I think we can all agree on that and lets get on to kicking some ass tonight!!!!!!!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Your nuance is appreciated. The Nuggets example actually helped make my point., Might have been the #3 seed but was the 7th best record and certainly a rare example. Some people seem to think I'm calling this a blemish (which I didn't) or that Portland somehow doesn't deserve to be in the Playoffs which again is not the case. It was more of a historical observation simple based on facts. If someone can show me where 44 wins got the #5 seed on anything more than a rare occurrence, then great. I'm sure it happened some back in the day when there weren't as many teams so the talent in the league wasn't so diluted on the bottom end. Just didn't bother going back before 2000. 16 years seemed enough to reference.

Happy they made the Playoffs and hope they upset the whiny Clippers. And if the Blazers had been the ones with 70+ wins, that would have been rare as well.

I don't want to help make your point. That's why I was warning BNM about it!

 

[dviss1]

Wrong. In 2005-06, the Nuggets were the 3rd seed with 44 wins.



And again, the counterpoint is 73 wins is an all-time historic high for the #1 seed and 67 wins is an all-time historic high for a #2 seed. Prior to last season, there had only been 2 Western Conference teams win 67 games in the previous 42 years. Now, we've had three 67-win teams in two years. Again total wins is a net constant. When your top two team combine for an unprecedented 140 wins, there are far fewer wins for everyone else.

BNM

Drops mic.

 

[TBpup]

I think sometimes certain posts sound as though some people believe there should be an asterisk next to us making the playoffs this year or something. And then there are a few like Tunchi, who still feel making the playoffs wont serve the team as well as retaining a pick in this years draft. And in any other year, we would be having that draft pick. But in any other year, as numbers have shown from others' great posts, we would have then had a few more wins in our pocket as well.
I think most feel it is a moot point to argue 44 is rare because in any other year we would have had a few more years when looking at it statistically. So it's a rare year all the way around is all it really comes down to and I think we can all agree on that and lets get on to kicking some ass tonight!!!!!!!

Totally agree with the kicking ass part. Sure this year is rare which is why I included so many years before and didn't just cite this season in a vacuum. But there are so many things that were missed. Like teams used to play each other much more often in a conference and now it's down to 3 or 4 times a year. So the impact of playing a team like the Spurs/Warriors is minimized compared to before. I'm all for both sides of the debate.

 

[PDXFonz]

4 blowouts in 4 game ones speaks for TB's argument in my mind.

The west is definitely not as deep with talent as in previous years. But I don't think it's long until that is rectified. It's almost like a less exaggerated version of what the east has gone through - less teams affected and shorter turnaround.

The east is still on the rise, but now the west is too. We are one of those teams which promises to be more competitive in coming years. As are teams like Minnesota, Utah, Phoenix and Denver.

The east has a ton of them... Going to be fun to see which teams can claim eastern dominance for years to come.

 

[stampedehero]

Where were these cruds when the Clips were completely shitty. ............ Junior Nascar in Boulder?<"