I want someone to clearly explain this to me...

[Blazer Fanatic]

Happy to oblige. And you know you love having a foil on here as good natured as I am.

You seem to have enough intelligence to respond with information I can work with, mature enough to not throw a tantrum when I indulge in hyperbole or sarcasm, have enough self-esteem to not cry wolf when I poke fun, and enough self-awareness to realize you don't know everything and can't force people to change their opinion. I will keep you around... for now.

Watch SlyPuppyDog try to edit this to make it about him. Too predictable.

P.S.

 

[Rhal]

Like he does?



He makes a big deal about how accurate his formula is, but is constantly revising it - and he gets paid a lot of money because of it. Still, their are exceptions almost every year, or as he'd call them statistical anomalies. I guess we're this year's anomaly - so far anyway.

Does anyone know of a location that archives Hollinger's past power rankings. I'd be curious to know just how accurate they actually are, and what other past anomalies have occurred.

BNM

Hollinger used to constantly make changes and revamp that formula but he isn't working for ESPN anymore. He hasn't for several years he is working for the grizz front office now and just left the work in progress formula with ESPN

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Draco]

We've played the majority of our easy road games for the year. We've played none of our very tough road games for the year. I love the start the team is having but I'm keeping some perspective on it, this team may have a big drop off during those difficult stretches in the schedule. Doesn't mean we can't be a legit team, or make some noise in a couple of playoff series. But it could very likely mean we aren't the best team in the league as our record indicates today.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

We've played the majority of our easy road games for the year. We've played none of our very tough road games for the year.

GS and Denver were easy?

 

[Strenuus]

We've played the majority of our easy road games for the year. We've played none of our very tough road games for the year. I love the start the team is having but I'm keeping some perspective on it, this team may have a big drop off during those difficult stretches in the schedule. Doesn't mean we can't be a legit team, or make some noise in a couple of playoff series. But it could very likely mean we aren't the best team in the league as our record indicates today.

I see what you're saying. But I am more talking about the overall philosophy of it. It's flawed, to say the least.

 

[Draco]

GS and Denver were easy?

You misread my statement. I didn't say every road game we've played so far has been easy.

 

[Natebishop3]

Fools.

Gold.

 

[oldmangrouch]

People posting in this thread care. If no one is suppose to care, do they really need you to imply that they shouldn't care? Having the media, or so-called Blazer fans, jump on the bandwagon won't make your post any better.

The short version:

I despise 90% of the sports' media. (a product of the "jailblazer" era) IMHO, Sheed's "both teams played hard" interview was one of the greatest moments in NBA history. Real fans don't need the media.

 

[lawai'a]

it is just some one else doing the heavy lifting, to provide "critical thinking for the masses". small market team vs. the league. portland had their due as the nouvoe team on the ascendancy but they let the national pundits down when oden's and roy's knees fell apart. thougher for them to jump back on the bandwagon after letting them down so recently.

 

[Samuel]

it is just some one else doing the heavy lifting, to provide "critical thinking for the masses". small market team vs. the league. portland had their due as the nouvoe team on the ascendancy but they let the national pundits down when oden's and roy's knees fell apart. thougher for them to jump back on the bandwagon after letting them down so recently.

I honestly don't think Roy and Oden have anything to do with it. It's a completely different team now. Aldridge, Batum and Matthews are the only guys left from that era. New coach, new GM, completely different offensive philosophy.

What type of national media/national fan validation are we looking for? What would they have to do to appease Portland fans? The team is winning games, building confidence and continuing to establish their identity as a team. Their defense is awful, but it's already quite a bit better than it was earlier in the season and will continue to get better as the bench guys develop and/or if Olshey makes a minor move to shore things up. Plus the whole system is based on guarding the perimeter, and they've already proven they're elite in that area, which seems to be Stotts' entire game plan.

Portland is the new kid on the block right now and it's going to take more than 30 games to warrant legit respect. All they have to do is keep winning. It's pretty simple, and I don't think it's an issue of respect or 'small market vs. big market' or letdowns based on the Nate/Pritchard/Roy/Oden era.

It took fans and the media years for the OKC to get respect. It was a lot of 'they're not ready yet', or, 'they're too young'. It was the same thing when the Knicks shot out of the gate last year. People still had serious doubts about Melo's ability to pose a serious threat to the Heat.

I hate to invoke Al Davis, here, but 'Just win, baby.'

 

[Strenuus]

I honestly don't think Roy and Oden have anything to do with it. It's a completely different team now. Aldridge, Batum and Matthews are the only guys left from that era. New coach, new GM, completely different offensive philosophy.

What type of national media/national fan validation are we looking for? What would they have to do to appease Portland fans? The team is winning games, building confidence and continuing to establish their identity as a team. Their defense is awful, but it's already quite a bit better than it was earlier in the season and will continue to get better as the bench guys develop and/or if Olshey makes a minor move to shore things up. Plus the whole system is based on guarding the perimeter, and they've already proven they're elite in that area, which seems to be Stotts' entire game plan.

Portland is the new kid on the block right now and it's going to take more than 30 games to warrant legit respect. All they have to do is keep winning. It's pretty simple, and I don't think it's an issue of respect or 'small market vs. big market' or letdowns based on the Nate/Pritchard/Roy/Oden era.

It took fans and the media years for the OKC to get respect. It was a lot of 'they're not ready yet', or, 'they're too young'. It was the same thing when the Knicks shot out of the gate last year. People still had serious doubts about Melo's ability to pose a serious threat to the Heat.

I hate to invoke Al Davis, here, but 'Just win, baby.'

Again, my OP was not about the media, it was about the "fans" (more so the 'realists', and not even all of them).

No, with the Knicks, it will never be "are they ready?" when they are doing good, it's shove-it-down-our-throats they are some kind of great team.

Again, I just wanted someone to explain how (and why) they think it's logical for those scenarios to have any merit... and, with all due respect to all the posts... I haven't seen a satisfactory answer. Probably because it's just swiss-cheese logic.

 

[Samuel]

Again, my OP was not about the media, it was about the "fans" (more so the 'realists', and not even all of them).

No, with the Knicks, it will never be "are they ready?" when they are doing good, it's shove-it-down-our-throats they are some kind of great team.

First off, I wasn't specifically responding to you; was responding to lawai'a. Second, there was absolutely a lot of skepticism about the Knicks last year in the media, especially early in the season. ESPN, TNT and NBA.com writers may have been hyping them up, but they're just trying to get people to tune in... that's different than the NY press and the NBA writers across the country. The latter were a bit more skeptical, I found.

Again, I just wanted someone to explain how (and why) they think it's logical for those scenarios to have any merit... and, with all due respect to all the posts... I haven't seen a satisfactory answer. Probably because it's just swiss-cheese logic.

You appear to be responding to a non-specific, self-selected subset of 'realist' fans. A lot of this 'realist' negativity has to do with a few pieces of information.

1. The Blazers schedule started off easy, and is now middle of the pack. These are facts. They've performed incredibly in these games, but the fact that they were an awful team last year, started off hot, and were playing easy games led to these reactions. I don't begrudge the so-called 'realists' for reacting this way.

2. The Blazers are winning in a relatively non-traditional way. The last teams to play like this (Volume 3PTA & limited OPP 3PTA) were the 06-07 Suns, the SVG-era Orlando Magic and the 06-07 Spurs. This strategy doesn't emit a lot of the performance indicators that fans look for: Namely, defensive efficiency, point-differential, FG%, and limited opponent PPG.

3. Some of the issues that hurt the team had last year, like bench production and starters minutes, are still there.

4. (probably the main reason) Portland opened the season 20-15, hung around the playoffs until early February, then bombed out. Injuries had a lot to do with this, but I think among the 'realists' there's a PTSD about potentially regressing in a big way, and I think that feeling is still there.

---

Portland is about to go on the road and face a lot of their big western conference foes. A lot of this 'realist' argumentation you're referring to won't really work in these games, so maybe we won't have to put up with it then, eh?

 

[magnifier661]

First off, I wasn't specifically responding to you; was responding to lawai'a. Second, there was absolutely a lot of skepticism about the Knicks last year in the media, especially early in the season. ESPN, TNT and NBA.com writers may have been hyping them up, but they're just trying to get people to tune in... that's different than the NY press and the NBA writers across the country. The latter were a bit more skeptical, I found.



You appear to be responding to a non-specific, self-selected subset of 'realist' fans. A lot of this 'realist' negativity has to do with a few pieces of information.

1. The Blazers schedule started off easy, and is now middle of the pack. These are facts. They've performed incredibly in these games, but the fact that they were an awful team last year, started off hot, and were playing easy games led to these reactions. I don't begrudge the so-called 'realists' for reacting this way.

2. The Blazers are winning in a relatively non-traditional way. The last teams to play like this (Volume 3PTA & limited OPP 3PTA) were the 06-07 Suns, the SVG-era Orlando Magic and the 06-07 Spurs. This strategy doesn't emit a lot of the performance indicators that fans look for: Namely, defensive efficiency, point-differential, FG%, and limited opponent PPG.

3. Some of the issues that hurt the team had last year, like bench production and starters minutes, are still there.

4. (probably the main reason) Portland opened the season 20-15, hung around the playoffs until early February, then bombed out. Injuries had a lot to do with this, but I think among the 'realists' there's a PTSD about potentially regressing in a big way, and I think that feeling is still there.

---

Portland is about to go on the road and face a lot of their big western conference foes. A lot of this 'realist' argumentation you're referring to won't really work in these games, so maybe we won't have to put up with it then, eh?

Question.... Do you think SAS, OKC, Clippers, Indiana and Miami contenders?

 

[Strenuus]

First off, I wasn't specifically responding to you; was responding to lawai'a. Second, there was absolutely a lot of skepticism about the Knicks last year in the media, especially early in the season. ESPN, TNT and NBA.com writers may have been hyping them up, but they're just trying to get people to tune in... that's different than the NY press and the NBA writers across the country. The latter were a bit more skeptical, I found.



You appear to be responding to a non-specific, self-selected subset of 'realist' fans. A lot of this 'realist' negativity has to do with a few pieces of information.

1. The Blazers schedule started off easy, and is now middle of the pack. These are facts. They've performed incredibly in these games, but the fact that they were an awful team last year, started off hot, and were playing easy games led to these reactions. I don't begrudge the so-called 'realists' for reacting this way.

2. The Blazers are winning in a relatively non-traditional way. The last teams to play like this (Volume 3PTA & limited OPP 3PTA) were the 06-07 Suns, the SVG-era Orlando Magic and the 06-07 Spurs. This strategy doesn't emit a lot of the performance indicators that fans look for: Namely, defensive efficiency, point-differential, FG%, and limited opponent PPG.

3. Some of the issues that hurt the team had last year, like bench production and starters minutes, are still there.

4. (probably the main reason) Portland opened the season 20-15, hung around the playoffs until early February, then bombed out. Injuries had a lot to do with this, but I think among the 'realists' there's a PTSD about potentially regressing in a big way, and I think that feeling is still there.

---

Portland is about to go on the road and face a lot of their big western conference foes. A lot of this 'realist' argumentation you're referring to won't really work in these games, so maybe we won't have to put up with it then, eh?

I see everything you're saying, and understand it. However, it (not what you wrote, but again, the scenarios I layed out) doesn't make sense. I guess I just wished there was some culpability. But, since the internet age has flourished, accountability has become almost non-existent in an anonymous landscape.

I realize I'm not going to get a straight answer, and that's fine, I suppose. Regardless of a soft schedule and all that, that's why I bring it up. That's pretty much my whole issue with it. Why is it such a bad thing to be winning the games were supposed to win? That's where the swiss-cheese logic of their argument comes in. I would hate to watch a game in a lose-lose situation all the time, but that's just me.

 

[Samuel]

Question.... Do you think SAS, OKC, Clippers, Indiana and Miami contenders?

What's your point? I'm simply outlining the arguments of the 'realists' that Strenuus is referring to. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[magnifier661]

What's your point? I'm simply outlining the arguments of the 'realists' that Strenuus is referring to. Don't shoot the messenger.

My point? Just asking you a question. Don't need to get all defensive!

 

[Samuel]

My point? Just asking you a question. Don't need to get all defensive!

You asked a pointed question; just asking you what your argument is behind it. Don't get all defensive!

 

[magnifier661]

You asked a pointed question; just asking you what your argument is behind it. Don't get all defensive!

My point is that I think Portland is a contender, been thinking that since last summer after we picked up Lopez.

Those "realist" points are all fine and dandy, but the door swings both ways. Examples: SAS hasn't even beat any contending team. Only our team has beaten them all.

So as we have "holes", but many other contenders do as well.

 

[TripTango]

My point is that I think Portland is a contender, been thinking that since last summer after we picked up Lopez.

Those "realist" points are all fine and dandy, but the door swings both ways. Examples: SAS hasn't even beat any contending team. Only our team has beaten them all.

So as we have "holes", but many other contenders do as well.

Sample size, Mags. We've beaten some good teams a few times, but our core is relatively unused to this kind of success. SA's core has been beating good teams for over a decade. Are they contenders? Yes, because they have contended for (and won) titles already. Until that nucleus falls apart (which can't be TOO far away, right?), they have earned that much. Having a few good wins is wonderful. I love it. I'm enjoying the hell out of this season. But all "the realists" are saying is that there's a hell of a lot of basketball left to play before we will have earned anything close to the respect teams like the Spurs get. Does that matter? Probably more to us, the fans, than it does to the team.

In terms of the board, I'm a little worried about the polarization that seems to be occurring between "the realists" and "the believers" lately. Is it really necessary? Everyone expresses their fandom differently. "Belief" in a team (whatever the hell that even means) doesn't make anyone more of a fan than the endless stat checkers, or the constant worriers, or the season ticket holders, or whatever other kind of fan someone might be. We are Blazer fans because we follow the team and want them to win. Isn't that enough of a qualification? Do we now need to pass some kind of belief test? Predictions of 82-0 or GTFO?

 

[magnifier661]

Sample size, Mags. We've beaten some good teams a few times, but our core is relatively unused to this kind of success. SA's core has been beating good teams for over a decade. Are they contenders? Yes, because they have contended for (and won) titles already. Until that nucleus falls apart (which can't be TOO far away, right?), they have earned that much. Having a few good wins is wonderful. I love it. I'm enjoying the hell out of this season. But all "the realists" are saying is that there's a hell of a lot of basketball left to play before we will have earned anything close to the respect teams like the Spurs get. Does that matter? Probably more to us, the fans, than it does to the team.

In terms of the board, I'm a little worried about the polarization that seems to be occurring between "the realists" and "the believers" lately. Is it really necessary? Everyone expresses their fandom differently. "Belief" in a team (whatever the hell that even means) doesn't make anyone more of a fan than the endless stat checkers, or the constant worriers, or the season ticket holders, or whatever other kind of fan someone might be. We are Blazer fans because we follow the team and want them to win. Isn't that enough of a qualification? Do we now need to pass some kind of belief test? Predictions of 82-0 or GTFO?

Wait a minute!!! People said clippers and Houston are contenders and they haven't done shit. What's different? I understand the Spurs, Indiana and Miami. But the Clips, rockets and golden state? Really?!?!

 

[TripTango]

Wait a minute!!! People said clippers and Houston are contenders and they haven't done shit. What's different? I understand the Spurs, Indiana and Miami. But the Clips, rockets and golden state? Really?!?!

People say all kinds of shit, Mags.

 

[magnifier661]

People say all kinds of shit, Mags.

And they look foolish doing so

 

[TripTango]

And they look foolish doing so

Truth.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

Kennethn Massey has the Blazers 2nd in his rankings. OKC is #1.

 

[Mediocre Man]

And they look foolish doing so

On both sides

 

[BrianFromWA]

I've said on many occasions that orthography is not my strong suit.

Wilkins played on Team USA at the 1994 World Championships. While it's not "THE" Dream Team, it was still a Dream Team.

Isiah Thomas and 'Nique were snubs. They both should have been on THE Dream Team in the Olympics.

Thank you for ruining my evening!

Christian Laettner says the lot of you can go to Hades in a Pier One clearance item.

Everyone talks about Isiah, but I think Shaq's the biggest "snub" from that team. Isiah was going to be iffy anyway--no way he was beating out Magic or Stockton at PG, and Clyde was the superior player then for the "11th Man" choice--but Shaq was dominant at LSU, was a big that could play both ends, and had won PotY in 1991.

 

[magnifier661]

On both sides

Well so far, the homers win and realists are fencing for excuses that don't apply to other contenders.

 

[Blazer Fanatic]

People say all kinds of shit, Mags.

Profound. No, really. In general, people crave attention more than they crave being accurate.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Well so far, the homers win and realists are fencing for excuses that don't apply to other contenders.

I think the fact some are looking at it as winning or losing s the main issue.

 

[magnifier661]

I think the fact some are looking at it as winning or losing s the main issue.

Unusual that we are discussing an argument right? Arguments are either won or lost.