Dave from Blazers edge nails it

[PapaG]

I don't think that anyone can make ANY prediction and consider it a "fact". Even historical analysis is open enough to interpretation that it's tough to establish facts based on what's happened. The question to me, then, is when someone makes predictions are their predictions likely.

A pair of sixes is definitely extreme, but your paragraph still makes my point: the odds of getting nine or higher on a roll of a pair of dice is 5/18... less than 33%. If we do a single toss, or a series of tosses, if I keep telling you that the total won't be more than eight I will be right most of the time.

If a person has to say, based on those odds, whether the player is going to get better or not, I think it's safe to say that the person should say he will not.

Ed O.

What if the improvement ceiling is higher than the sum of twelve that a pair of dice limits in terms of potential? What if the ceiling is a total of 20, and we don't know this because we are only playing with 6-sided dice? What if the ceiling is twelve, yet you're playing with 10-sided dice in order to assess room for improvement?

 

[Tince]

I don't think that anyone can make ANY prediction and consider it a "fact". Even historical analysis is open enough to interpretation that it's tough to establish facts based on what's happened. The question to me, then, is when someone makes predictions are their predictions likely.

A pair of sixes is definitely extreme, but your paragraph still makes my point: the odds of getting nine or higher on a roll of a pair of dice is 5/18... less than 33%. If we do a single toss, or a series of tosses, if I keep telling you that the total won't be more than eight I will be right most of the time.

If a person has to say, based on those odds, whether the player is going to get better or not, I think it's safe to say that the person should say he will not.

Ed O.

I totally agree, it's not probable they'll both have career years next year. I would not be surprised to see one of them improve and I thought that idea was being dismissed in the post I was replying to. I read that post as a very clear cut here who is going to improve and who isn't. As we know with Sergio, some players don't get much better despite being young.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

How can you have Outlaw as "Potential" and uncertain? We've had the guy for what, six years? Yes, he has improved some aspects of his game but he is a defensive liability (most of the time), rebounds like crap (most of the time) and has highly suspect Bball IQ (all of the time).

I'd relegate him to Mediocrity at best.

Gramps...

1) I said one could quibble over the categories, but it doesn't really change the arguments. So, you're quibbling - I can live with that.

2) I used the term "uncertain", but now that I look back, what I really meant was "consistent". Part of the article that I agree with was that you want consistency in how your players play. I don't think you really think Outlaw is consistent, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

3) Regardless of what you think of TO, it is pretty uncontroversial to say that he is playing better than he was 2 years ago - he's still improving. If someone is improving but not consistent, I'd say they have potential. Again, you might not think his ceiling that high making claims of potential dubious, but I thought it OK to put him it the potential category because of this.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

Unless we are "dumping" Joel this year for something far better, it would be pointless to get rid of him later. I don't care if you can get a back up center for far less, which I disagree with (Diop, Nazr), Portland will be over the cap for the next decade. If you are trading some collection of Joel, Rudy, Blake, Webster, Outlaw, etc for that missing piece (third scorer, facilitator at a position of need) we might as well keep Joel. I don't care if he makes $7 mil per. If he is not getting you the upgrade in trade then it is stupid to trade him for Battier. Battier is not a third scorer or facilitator. He is just an aging defender thrown into a mix of five other wings. But Oden/Joel gives us an advantage at the center position on most nights, why weaken that for duplication elsewhere?

Whether Joel or Rudy can start for many other teams is irrelevant. It seems Battier, Odom and Hinrich can start on many teams, but do not. We can afford that luxury with a player or two as well. I am certain that Rudy will eventually need to be traded just like Drazen 20 years ago. But we do not need to waste him on Battier, who would be a luxury type of player on a vet laden team. Rudy, or any of our tradeable assets need to be traded to fullfill our needs;

Third scorer
Facilitator of offense
Banger/rebounder PF

This is what we need to be looking for.

100%

This is why I come up with zinger-deals like: Pryz+Travis+Blake for Bogut+Sessions. or like: Pryz + Travis + Bayless for Nash+Lopez.