Mark Warkentien An Option For....

[hasoos]

Much greater success? Had the exact same record, and IMO, they had an easier opponent in the playoffs, otherwise we could have just as easily been in the WCF last season. A tie breaker shifted our position with their position. I wouldn't say that's MUCH greater success.

While I do agree Denver had an easy road to the WCF last year, that doesn't make them not better. I think Denver would have rolled Houston, personally, if nothing else. Denver is just a better team than Portland right now. The facts are, there is getting it done, and not getting it done. Denver nearly got it done last year. Portland hasn't even approached getting it done yet.

 

[RR7]

Denver was 1-3 against Houston last season, so not sure what is there to show they would have rolled them.
Right now, they are a better team. I attribute that primarily to the health of our Cs. There is getting it done and not. And I think if the schedules were reversed, the results would have been different. Just an opinion. I understand all of that doesn't necessarily matter. But the great success can be attributed to the road they traveled to get there. All things being equal, in the regular season, where the schedules were the same, we showed that we were just as good as they were.

 

[Minstrel]

I think Denver and Portland were equivalently good last year, which is why they finished with identical records. The difference in playoff results were due to the difference in quality of opponents. Houston was a MUCH tougher draw than the Hornets.

This season, I think they would have been equivalently good again...both contenders for the Western Conference title. But Portland losing Oden/Przybilla all season and Roy/Batum for large chunks of the season put an end to that.

So, considering Warkentien started with a solid group of talent and Pritchard started with arguably the worst roster in basketball, I think Pritchard has done a much more impressive job.

 

[Wheels]

agreed. KP has done a much more impressive thing than Warkentien.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Mark Warkentien an option for... back stabbing, shit talkin', hide behind Wojnarowski, rat, douche bag of the year.

When an organization shits all over a valuable employee, they really have no right to bitch when he takes the chance at a little payback.

The only argument I have with Warkentien, is that he picked the wrong target. KP isn't the one who hosed him.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I want KP as a GM and the Nuggets playoff results . . . make it happen PA.

 

[hasoos]

I think Denver and Portland were equivalently good last year, which is why they finished with identical records. The difference in playoff results were due to the difference in quality of opponents. Houston was a MUCH tougher draw than the Hornets.

This season, I think they would have been equivalently good again...both contenders for the Western Conference title. But Portland losing Oden/Przybilla all season and Roy/Batum for large chunks of the season put an end to that.

So, considering Warkentien started with a solid group of talent and Pritchard started with arguably the worst roster in basketball, I think Pritchard has done a much more impressive job.

I disagree completely. The difference is the two stars on the team that get it done from night to night. Denver has 2 guys who are pretty much guaranteed for 20 and 29 points a night apiece, like machines. Portland on the other hand, has one guy who hits above 20 regularly, and a bunch of role players.

Let me see the choices being:

1. The team that has 49 points pretty much guaranteed so their role players only have to chip in 50+ to win.

Or

2. The team that has 20+ points guaranteed, and depending on their role players to put down 80 a night. (A crapshoot IMO).

No brainer.

 

[Minstrel]

Let me see the choices being:

1. The team that has 49 points pretty much guaranteed so their role players only have to chip in 50+ to win.

Or

2. The team that has 20+ points guaranteed, and depending on their role players to put down 80 a night. (A crapshoot IMO).

No brainer.

And yet they couldn't win more games with all their "guaranteed" pace-unadjusted scoring.

I think this will actually require a brain to analyze.

Your choices are silly. It's not like only the top two players' scoring averages can be counted on. Why is Batum's scoring average any less reliable than Anthony's? His scoring average is lower than Anthony's, of course, but the team can count on that lower scoring average just as much.

You can count on Portland for their average team offensive output and their average team defensive output. You can count on Denver for the same things. Last year, those things led to identical records. Ergo, similar teams.

 

[oldmangrouch]

agreed. KP has done a much more impressive thing than Warkentien.

Except that KP has never had to deal with a situation like losing Camby just to balance the budget.

KP started with less talent, but a whole lot more financial flexibility and resources.

 

[RR7]

You disagree, but the biggest difference in those scoring averages, besides you choosing to include Billups and ignore Aldridge, is that Carmelo, who averages 29 a night, was inherited by Wark. So how does inheriting a guy who scores in bunches make what he has done better? And that's ignoring the faster pace that Denver plays at. Or the risk that, when one of those guys goes cold, they are screwed, because such a high percentage of their points are determined on those two.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

And yet they couldn't win more games with all their "guaranteed" pace-unadjusted scoring.

I think this will actually require a brain to analyze.

Your choices are silly. It's not like only the top two players' scoring averages can be counted on. Why is Batum's scoring average any less reliable than Anthony's? His scoring average is lower than Anthony's, of course, but the team can count on that lower scoring average just as much.

You can count on Portland for their average team offensive output and their average team defensive output. You can count on Denver for the same things. Last year, those things led to identical records. Ergo, similar teams.

So this year not similar teams . . . Denver the far better team because they have a much higher win percentage.

 

[Minstrel]

So this year not similar teams . . . Denver the far better team because they have a much higher win percentage.

Yes. I said that in my original post on this subject: "This season, I think they would have been equivalently good again...both contenders for the Western Conference title. But Portland losing Oden/Przybilla all season and Roy/Batum for large chunks of the season put an end to that."

Had Denver lost Billups and Lawson for almost the entire season and Anthony and Andersen for large chunks of the season, I don't think they'd be higher in the standings than Portland.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yes. I said that in my original post on this subject: "This season, I think they would have been equivalently good again...both contenders for the Western Conference title. But Portland losing Oden/Przybilla all season and Roy/Batum for large chunks of the season put an end to that."

Had Denver lost Billups and Lawson for almost the entire season and Anthony and Andersen for large chunks of the season, I don't think they'd be higher in the standings than Portland.

So last year they were equal teams but the Nugggets out perfomed the Blazers in the playoffs because of the match ups.

This year the Blazers and Denver would have been similar teams if not for the injuries.

And you still would pick Oden over Durant

Do I have all that right?

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Except that KP has never had to deal with a situation like losing Camby just to balance the budget.

KP started with less talent, but a whole lot more financial flexibility and resources.

Ok, but you can't fault KP for those resources. He used them, and used them well. Could Wark do better? Possibly, but why the fuck find out when we already know that we have one of the better GMs in the league at this point.

Seriously though, the problem isn't our GM. You could put the wandering wizard, Gandalf in the position and the Vulcan'ts would fuck it up.

I never thought I'd say this but it's Paul Allen that's the problem. There are too many meddling fingers connected to this man's money and ears. There's no one-team, one-vision. Until then, he will fail. The Blazers will fail. The Hawks will fail. You just can't operate a business without a clear goal, a way to get to it, and the fortitude to follow it.

Shit, I've become a concoction of kingspeed and mixum. I'm blaming the shitheads up north for that as well!

 

[RR7]

So last year they were equal teams but the Nugggets out perfomed the Blazers in the playoffs because of the match ups.

This year the Blazers and Denver would have been similar teams if not for the injuries.

And you still would pick Oden over Durant

Do I have all that right?

What parts of that aer you putting an argument against? Portland and Denver had identical records last season, did they not? Portland performed poorly versus Houston in the regular season, as did Denver. Denver had the easier of the two matchups in the postseason.

We are currently 5.5 games back of Denver. Do you think the value of a Oden/Przybilla combo over old man Juwan Howard doesn't equal 5 wins? Try to think of games where we needed a stop inside, or a block, or a rebound that coudl have helped. I think Oden/Przy over Juwan is good for roughly 5 wins in a season.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

What parts of that aer you putting an argument against? Portland and Denver had identical records last season, did they not? Portland performed poorly versus Houston in the regular season, as did Denver. Denver had the easier of the two matchups in the postseason.

We are currently 5.5 games back of Denver. Do you think the value of a Oden/Przybilla combo over old man Juwan Howard doesn't equal 5 wins? Try to think of games where we needed a stop inside, or a block, or a rebound that coudl have helped. I think Oden/Przy over Juwan is good for roughly 5 wins in a season.

We can sit here and play with stats, injuries everything else. I'm with hasoos, I tend to look at what team gets it done.

So yes they had identical records last year, but most NBA fans would say that Denver had a better season and was the better team . . . and I would agree. This year, I think fans think the same thing. Blazer fans could sit here and make up excuses/reasons, but I think the reality is Denveer has a better team and most NBA fans would agree with that. But hey playoffs have yet to begin.

As far as five more wins, sure I guess. Did Denver lose games when Anthony or Billups was hurt or now that Martin is out?

Is it really that much of a debate who has been the better team the last two years . . . I guess so.

 

[Minstrel]

So last year they were equal teams but the Nugggets out perfomed the Blazers in the playoffs because of the match ups.

This year the Blazers and Denver would have been similar teams if not for the injuries.

And you still would pick Oden over Durant

Do I have all that right?

Yup. As RR7 said...which of those assertions would you argue with (other than the Oden/Durant one, which isn't relevant here)?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Yup. As RR7 said...which of those assertions would you argue with (other than the Oden/Durant one, which isn't relevant here)?

Just sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.

The only part that is relevant about Oden Durant is one must consider the source.

 

[Minstrel]

Just sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.

If your analysis is unable to go any further than the standings and/or playoff round reached, then I see how you'd feel that way.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Just sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.

"You're not coming in to work because you were hit by a bus? Aren't you just full of excuses? All the rest of your coworkers were able to get in here without a problem."

Some "excuses" are actually valid explanations. Try differentiating between the two.

 

[RR7]

Just sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.

The only part that is relevant about Oden Durant is one must consider the source.

Excuses, or facts. Simple fact that we have not had our starting Cs for the majority of the season. And that hurts the performance of our team. And, with the way Nate's teams are designed, to rely heavily on offensive rebounds, it has a large effect on our game plans. The current teams, I would say Denver is better. Because they are healthy. At full health, I don't see where the disparity in talent lies in their favor. Sorry if it is just making excuses for you. Would you say Chicago was a better team than us last season, because they played an extra game in the playoffs? They "got it done" one extra time, so that would, I assume, make them better, in your opinion?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

"You're not coming in to work because you were hit by a bus? Aren't you just full of excuses? All the rest of your coworkers were able to get in here without a problem."

One day, no. I know workers who are known for coming in late and they always have an excuse (kids, sick, car trouble, traffic).

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Excuses, or facts. Simple fact that we have not had our starting Cs for the majority of the season. And that hurts the performance of our team. And, with the way Nate's teams are designed, to rely heavily on offensive rebounds, it has a large effect on our game plans. The current teams, I would say Denver is better. Because they are healthy. At full health, I don't see where the disparity in talent lies in their favor. Sorry if it is just making excuses for you. Would you say Chicago was a better team than us last season, because they played an extra game in the playoffs? They "got it done" one extra time, so that would, I assume, make them better, in your opinion?

Yea that's what I'm saying. Chicago in the east winning one more playoff game is just like Denver last year.

I would love to see a poll among NBA players who they think are a better team the last two years. Bcause I'll admit that I'm confused right now. It seems obvious the Nuggets have been better the last two years and most I've asked around here agree . .. but the posts on this board is making me think more about it.

 

[RR7]

Not the end result, but the actual team is what the discussion was about. Players on the team, who built a better team. tems with identical records. So the better team was the one who beat a different opponent, but had similarly struggled against Houston during the regular season. Now, if Portland had the tie breaker, and beat NO, and Denver lost to Houston, even though the teams are the exact same. Same exact players, etc. somehow, that makes Portland, now, the better team? And the better roster. With the better GM? Please explain how that changes their makeups and outlook, a matchup in the first round. Or an injury.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Not the end result, but the actual team is what the discussion was about. Players on the team, who built a better team. tems with identical records. So the better team was the one who beat a different opponent, but had similarly struggled against Houston during the regular season. Now, if Portland had the tie breaker, and beat NO, and Denver lost to Houston, even though the teams are the exact same. Same exact players, etc. somehow, that makes Portland, now, the better team? And the better roster. With the better GM? Please explain how that changes their makeups and outlook, a matchup in the first round. Or an injury.

That's a huge "if" and then you want me to explain taht "if"? But yes, win a playoff series and that changes things. Heck even a local reporter says KP's job is linked to playoff success. I don't think I'm being way off base by putting so much value into winning playoff series.

I don't think Denver loses to Houston in the playoffs because playoffs are a differnt creature. No one is saying we will beat LA at home in the playoffs even though we have owned them. I don't see anyone chanting to play Lakers over Utah because we are more likely to beat the Lkaers in teh playoffs. I don't want to play Dallas in the playoffs even though we have owned them. Personally I don't know how you can look at a regular season record and say what would have happened in the playoffs. We must be programed differnetly which is why we see this differntly.

 

[BGrantFan]

That's a huge "if" and then you want me to explain taht "if"? But yes, win a playoff series and that changes things. Heck even a local reporter says KP's job is linked to playoff success. I don't think I'm being way off base by putting so much value into winning playoff series.

I don't think Denver loses to Houston in the playoffs because playoffs are a differnt creature. No one is saying we will beat LA at home in the playoffs even though we have owned them. I don't see anyone chanting to play Lakers over Utah because we are more likely to beat the Lkaers in teh playoffs. I don't want to play Dallas in the playoffs even though we have owned them. Personally I don't know how you can look at a regular season record and say what would have happened in the playoffs. We must be programed differnetly which is why we see this differntly.

Houston took the Lakers to seven games without Yao Ming for the last 4.5 games. So yes, the playoffs are a different creature. Houston was a MUCH better team in the playoffs than they showed in the regular season.

Since your argument apparently is about "success" in the playoffs, then the only assumption one can make is that Houston would have beat Denver. Because they took LA to seven games without Yao Ming, and Denver only went 6 games with a full roster.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Houston took the Lakers to seven games without Yao Ming for the last 4.5 games. So yes, the playoffs are a different creature. Houston was a MUCH better team in the playoffs than they showed in the regular season.

Since your argument apparently is about "success" in the playoffs, then the only assumption one can make is that Houston would have beat Denver. Because they took LA to seven games without Yao Ming, and Denver only went 6 games with a full roster.

What? Didn't Denver have more playoff success last year compared to the Houston. So if my agrument apparently is about playoff success, Denver is better than Houston.

I know it's been characterized that it's my hard fast rule that whoever has more playoff success is better, but it's really not. It is a big factor, IMO, which is why I'm having a hard time understanding that Blazers were as good as the Nuggets in the last two years, but as I already stated, maybe I'm wrong about this.

Also, we have yet to see what the Blazers do in the playoffs this year . . . with the aqusition of Camby and the team almost at full strength (minus Oden and Joel), we could make some noise.

 

[BGrantFan]

What? Didn't Denver have more playoff success last year compared to the Houston. So if my agrument apparently is about playoff success, Denver is better than Houston.

I know it's been characterized that it's my hard fast rule that whoever has more playoff success is better, but it's really not. It is a big factor, IMO, which is why I'm having a hard time understanding that Blazers were as good as the Nuggets in the last two years, but as I already stated, maybe I'm wrong about this.

Also, we have yet to see what the Blazers do in the playoffs this year . . . with the aqusition of Camby and the team almost at full strength (minus Oden and Joel), we could make some noise.

Denver had more playoff success solely because they didn't run into LA until the conference finals. Or even Houston in the first round. Since Houston had better success against LA, I have to assume that they would have beaten Denver had they been matched up in the first round.

Match ups do matter, and at the end of the day, 29 teams are losers.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Denver had more playoff success solely because they didn't run into LA until the conference finals. Or even Houston in the first round. Since Houston had better success against LA, I have to assume that they would have beaten Denver had they been matched up in the first round.

Match ups do matter, and at the end of the day, 29 teams are losers.

Really, if the Blazers beat the Lakers and went to the NBA championship and lost . . . they would be winners in my book and I'm guessing on this board.

Yes match ups matter. But to say that Denver and Ptd are equal teams while one got to the conference championships and the other lost in the first round . . . it just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course that has been twisted to say if a team wins one more playoff game than I think that team is better. I'm not saying that. I even get the point that if Blazers got knocked out by the Lakers and then the Lakers knock out Denver in the next round that could be comparable playoff losses.

But western confrence finals v. first round loss . . . I'm not buying it was about matchups, but I get that some Blazer fans do.

 

[BGrantFan]

Really, if the Blazers beat the Lakers and went to the NBA championship and lost . . . they would be winners in my book and I'm guessing on this board.

Yes match ups matter. But to say that Denver and Ptd are equal teams while one got to the conference championships and the other lost in the first round . . . it just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course that has been twisted to say if a team wins one more playoff game than I think that team is better. I'm not saying that. I even get the point that if Blazers got knocked out by the Lakers and then the Lakers knock out Denver in the next round that could be comparable playoff losses.

But western confrence finals v. first round loss . . . I'm not buying it was about matchups, but I get that some Blazer fans do.

I'm just killing time on a conference call, but are you saying that matchups don't have an impact on playoff success?