Notice McCollum's last 10 games

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Two weeks ago most of this forum and arguably most of the blazer fan base turned on CJ, just months after he was setting franchise records in the playoffs, and wanted to trade him so we could start a 19 year old with ~150 total minutes in the NBA.

We will never go anywhere with this lack of loyalty and lack of appreciation. The blazer fan base treats its players like crap sometimes. You don’t see this happening on elite teams (golden state, the spurs) after a player slumps. You see the fans offering support and encouragement. CJ isn’t going to forget that next time he has to make a decision who to play for. Aldridge didn’t forget either. And everyone sees what we did to Roy. Is it really a wonder why free agents aren’t more anxious to play here?
 
H.C. said:
Will say though I'm fully aboard the Collins Bandwagon.
I completely believe Portland would be far from 4games under 500 if Collins never dislocated his shoulder.
Portland would be top 5 offense and a top 8 defense. With maybe 5 losses.
Click to expand...

BonesJones said:
Collins isn't the difference between a team with a 40% winning percentage and a 75% winning percentage. Thats the difference of 30 games at the end of the year...
Click to expand...

H.C. said:
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
Just like I'm entitled to my own opinion.
Thank you have a nice day.
Click to expand...

obviously, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but if somebody's opinion completely disregards any sense of logic or math, that opinion can certainly be challenged, which is what Bones did

essentially, what you just said was that with Collins, Portland would/could have a 15-5 record instead of an 8-12 record. So then Collins would be responsible for 7 more wins, 20 games into the season. That simply defies logic

last season, Colling played in 77 games and his total winshares was 2.9. His RPM wins mark was 2.11....again, that was over 77 games

this season, here are the winshares/48 ranking of the Blazers:

Damian Lillard .220
Hassan Whiteside .192
Skal Labissière .129
Rodney Hood .120
CJ McCollum .062
Zach Collins .057
Carmelo Anthony .055

now here are the same people ranked by the number of total winshares:

Damian Lillard 3.1
Hassan Whiteside 1.9
Skal Labissière 0.9
Rodney Hood 1.4
CJ McCollum 0.9
Zach Collins 0.1
Carmelo Anthony 0.2

now, I imagine you're going to try and dismiss winshares as a stat because what they show completely defies your opinion, but at least they are worth examining.

* Collins had 0.1 winshares in 3 games. Allowing for him playing a little better he'd then have 0.7-0.8 winshares by now. 1/10th of what you give him credit for

* you're giving Zach credit for 7 wins which is more than twice as many as Dame has posted. CJ actually has a higher winshare/48 mark than Zach, and he's played in all 20 games, and he has less than 1 winshare. Last season Nurkic had 7.8 winshares in 72 games. So you're basically saying that 22 games of Zach = 70 games of Nurkic

* if Collins was worth 7 winshares 20 games into the season, that would give him 28 for the year if he played 80 games. Last season Harden led the NBA in winshares at 15.2 (Dame was 4th at 12.1). Harden had 18.5 RPM wins (Dame 14.52). Paul George led the NBA with 19.86. So yeah, Collins was definitely going to hit 28 this year if he doesn't get injured....(imagine eyes rolling here)

I'm sorry, but your assertion does not withstand any scrutiny...and yeah, that's just my opinion, but at least it's grounded in a little reality
 
wizenheimer said:
obviously, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but if somebody's opinion completely disregards any sense of logic or math, that opinion can certainly be challenged, which is what Bones did

essentially, what you just said was that with Collins, Portland would/could have a 15-5 record instead of an 8-12 record. So then Collins would be responsible for 7 more wins, 20 games into the season. That simply defies logic

last season, Colling played in 77 games and his total winshares was 2.9. His RPM wins mark was 2.11....again, that was over 77 games

this season, here are the winshares/48 ranking of the Blazers:

Damian Lillard .220
Hassan Whiteside .192
Skal Labissière .129
Rodney Hood .120
CJ McCollum .062
Zach Collins .057
Carmelo Anthony .055

now here are the same people ranked by the number of total winshares:

Damian Lillard 3.1
Hassan Whiteside 1.9
Skal Labissière 0.9
Rodney Hood 1.4
CJ McCollum 0.9
Zach Collins 0.1
Carmelo Anthony 0.2

now, I imagine you're going to try and dismiss winshares as a stat because what they show completely defies your opinion, but at least they are worth examining.

* Collins had 0.1 winshares in 3 games. Allowing for him playing a little better he'd then have 0.7-0.8 winshares by now. 1/10th of what you give him credit for

* you're giving Zach credit for 7 wins which is more than twice as many as Dame has posted. CJ actually has a higher winshare/48 mark than Zach, and he's played in all 20 games, and he has less than 1 winshare. Last season Nurkic had 7.8 winshares in 72 games. So you're basically saying that 22 games of Zach = 70 games of Nurkic

* if Collins was worth 7 winshares 20 games into the season, that would give him 28 for the year if he played 80 games. Last season Harden led the NBA in winshares at 15.2 (Dame was 4th at 12.1). Harden had 18.5 RPM wins (Dame 14.52). Paul George led the NBA with 19.86. So yeah, Collins was definitely going to hit 28 this year if he doesn't get injured....(imagine eyes rolling here)

I'm sorry, but your assertion does not withstand any scrutiny...and yeah, that's just my opinion, but at least it's grounded in a little reality
Click to expand...
Win shares is such an interesting stat to bring into this argument... Its one way to look at it, but its one of those stats I think everyone should take with a grain of salt.
I dont know if Zach makes them that much better in terms of oh they win 7 more games, but it does keep them from playing Mario and Tolliver so many minutes, it keeps guys playing their natural roles. The Blazers were literally trotting out a SF at C, and that SF is towards the end even playing his natural position...
 
Cj should still be traded. Im not apologizing for my opinion.
 
Also, CJ is not good for this team. That part is just true. And im not apologizing for that either. Because on that point i know im right.
 
Blazers1977 said:
http://www.sportstwo.com/threads/its-time-for-cj-mccollum-to-go.350605/page-11

Wow it’s almost like someone told all of you that CJ should not be traded because he was just in a slump.

Won’t hold my breathe for the apologies for mocking me for 11 thread pages. I noticed the deleted comments btw ;)
Click to expand...

Blazers1977 said:
Two weeks ago most of this forum and arguably most of the blazer fan base turned on CJ, just months after he was setting franchise records in the playoffs, and wanted to trade him so we could start a 19 year old with ~150 total minutes in the NBA.

We will never go anywhere with this lack of loyalty and lack of appreciation. The blazer fan base treats its players like crap sometimes. You don’t see this happening on elite teams (golden state, the spurs) after a player slumps. You see the fans offering support and encouragement. CJ isn’t going to forget that next time he has to make a decision who to play for. Aldridge didn’t forget either. And everyone sees what we did to Roy. Is it really a wonder why free agents aren’t more anxious to play here?
Click to expand...

At one point maybe this guy will understand that CJ's raw numbers aren't the issue a lot of people have with him. I'm not holding my breath though
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Win shares is such an interesting stat to bring into this argument... Its one way to look at it, but its one of those stats I think everyone should take with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

every single stat can be taken with a grain of salt. But when there's an assertion that:

* Zach = 7 wins (opinion)

* Dame + Whiteside + CJ + Hood + Simons + Melo + Skal + others = 8 wins (fact)

then a stat like winshares seems a lot more grounded in reality
 
wizenheimer said:
every single stat can be taken with a grain of salt. But when there's an assertion that:

* Zach = 7 wins (opinion)

* Dame + Whiteside + CJ + Hood + Simons + Melo + Skal + others = 8 wins (fact)

then a stat like winshares seems a lot more grounded in reality
Click to expand...
Well... Melo's been here for what 5 games? Whiteside has missed games, Dame's missed games, Hood's missed games... Well, there 8-12 so in 20 games, the only Starter who hasn't missed games yet is CJ, you think if they're all healthy they only have 8 wins? It's possible, but it's also a fact that for what their starters will be for the foreseeable future, they've played a total of 3 games together, and Zach who was a starter only played 3 games total.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Well... Melo's been here for what 5 games? Whiteside has missed games, Dame's missed games, Hood's missed games... Well, there 8-12 so in 20 games, the only Starter who hasn't missed games yet is CJ, you think if they're all healthy they only have 8 wins? It's possible, but it's also a fact that for what their starters will be for the foreseeable future, they've played a total of 3 games together, and Zach who was a starter only played 3 games total.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure what you are arguing...?

let me simplify: somebody said 17 games of Zach would be worth 7 more wins. Meanwhile 18 games of Dame + 20 Games of CJ + 17 games of Whiteside + 18 games of Hood + 20 games of Simons + 20 games of Skal + 5 games of Melo + 3 games of Zach was only worth 8 wins

simply it even further:

17 games of Zach = 7 wins
118 games of all those other guys = 8 wins

one of those equations looks like bullshit, and I know what the Blazer record is
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm not even sure what you are arguing...?

let me simplify: somebody said 17 games of Zach would be worth 7 more wins. Meanwhile 18 games of Dame + 20 Games of CJ + 17 games of Whiteside + 18 games of Hood + 20 games of Simons + 20 games of Skal + 5 games of Melo + 3 games of Zach was only worth 8 wins

simply it even further:

17 games of Zach = 7 wins
118 games of all those other guys = 8 wins

one of those equations looks like bullshit, and I know what the Blazer record is
Click to expand...

Not really arguing anything other than that no one thinks that simply zachs presence = 7 wins. They think that its a team game and that a player’s presence can have a huge impact on the team, and Im making that point by saying if Zach’s healthy you dont see Tolliver playing Center, or starting Nas, or as many minutes from Hezonja. You dont have a bunch of guys new to the team always playing roles they werent never meant to play. Does that mean the team wins 7 more? No probably not, but a culmination of all those things could and probably would have given them an extra win or two. You think Tristan Thomspon goes off on Zach, or even Whiteside?

You’re right every statistic can be taken with a grain of salt, and WS’s has its value, but I think pretending like his opinion is based in fantasy and yours in reality when neither of you have any idea what happens to the Blazers “if” his shoulder doesnt pop out. Yeah you have some good data for talking points but, you’re both just guessing.
 
wizenheimer said:
obviously somebody does since they said it, and that's what I was responding too

but yeah, that's enough of that
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I didnt take his comment that way. IMO usually when a starter gets hurt its that guys that have no business playing extended roles are forced into extended roles. I’ll move on.
 
I wish @SlyPokerDog would've closed the thread.
I saw none of the insults. But I find it insulting that someone brought up advanced stats for a 3 game sample size.
What a kingspeed post.

TorturedBlazerFan said:
Not really arguing anything other than that no one thinks that simply zachs presence = 7 wins. They think that its a team game and that a player’s presence can have a huge impact on the team.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it right here.
How poor was Portland's defense before they traded for Nurk and how good was it after the trade?
There were more factors than just Nurk joining the team. But at the end of the day it was one player who changed the course of that season. Still lost it round 1, so take it for what it's worth.
But at the end of the day I believe Collin's impact on the overall team would've been enough to keep Portland in the running for HCA right now.
You can't really dispute that belief because we only got to see him in THREE GAMES.

With all the posters buying into the hype about Simons and how nauseating it was to read how great of a player he was going to be THIS SEASON.
How dare I make a claim about Collins.
Shame on me.
What was I thinking?
You know what, I wasn't thinking!

Yeah the last part of my post isn't so nice but whatever.
I think it's silly to try and have a debate on a player who played in THREE GAMES. Not even three games, he went down in what the 2nd quarter of game 3?...........................
Which is why I told Torey to have a nice day, as I had no interest in a back and forth.

But alas this is the internet.
hi-mom-memegenerator-net-hi-mom-panda-mom-meme-53921408.png
 
Last edited:
H.C. said:
But at the end of the day I believe Collin's impact on the overall team would've been enough to keep Portland in the running for HCA right now.
You can't really dispute that belief because we only got to see him in THREE GAMES.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have disputed that claim because it's completely vague (I guess maybe I shouldn't say that because sometimes, if I'm bored enough, I might even argue with a possum....and I'd bring stats!). Besides that, Portland is still "in the running for HCA" even with the record they have. Seems unlikely, but it's a long way from impossible

but that's not the claim you made, and it's not the claim that got me engaged in the discussion


H.C. said:
I think it's silly to try and have a debate on a player who played in THREE GAMES.
Click to expand...

wut??

YOU are the one who started the 'debate' about Zach by making the claim he would have been worth a 15-5 record if he hadn't been injured. Apparently you just wanted to make the claim, then close off discussion about it afterward? I don't think that is how this place works...you may have bowed out of the thread but your claim stayed here

by the way, "THREE-GAMES"-Zach played over 24 minutes in the 3rd game and was injured late in the 3rd Q.

I get that you're a big fan of Collins and that's fine. What triggered me was a claim that just went miles past any statistical logic I'm aware of. That's essentially what Bones Jones said, in many less words than me. And it ignored what Zach was doing at the time.

What killed Portland in the first 17 games of the year was their 1) bad perimeter defense; 2) their poor passing & offensive motion; 3) and their anemic rebounding, especially defensive rebounding. Those are the areas where Portland was failing, and Zach would not help much in any of those areas. 1) Zach is a good interior defender, especially in help defense, but he's over-matched defensively when he's on the perimeter, and that's often how he gets in foul trouble; 2) he's not a ball-handler and a facilitator; and 3) he's a mediocre rebounder, at best. He wouldn't really have plugged any of those leaks

obviously, I can't prove you're wrong because I'm not friends with Mr. Peabody and his WABAC machine. And if I was, I'd have other priorities about messing with alternative pasts. Like slapping the shit out of myself before proposing to my first ex-wife
 
Last edited:
If Zach got hurt in game 3 of last season and missed 4 months, I'm not sure our record would've been any different. At worst I'd guess it would cost us about 3 games.

This year however Zach's absence is compounded by the absence of Nurk as well. If Nurk was healthy then losing Zach for 4 months is just a minor setback but because Nurk is also out Zach might've been the 2nd most important player to this team heading into the season. Since Skal isn't playing any minutes at the 4, Zach is our only big that can capably play both the 4 and 5 spots. He's also our best overall defender. I've also been of the opinion that Zach is the type of player that is never going to have eye popping stats but does things that helps a team win ball games.

We've also seen how one player that shouldn't really make a huge positive impact if you only look at previous stats with both Nurk Fever and now Melo Mania (hopefully!) can greatly impact the trajectory of a team's season and win total. Out of the Blazers 12 losses only 2 have been by double digits. I absolutely think it's likely having Zach in some of those games would've been the difference between winning and losing. Especially when you consider that Whiteside has missed 3 games as well. All 3 of those games were losses, two of which we win easily (IMO Philly and Cleveland) if just one of Zach or Hassan is available for.

What does all that mean to me? I think we're looking at 10-10 as a worst case scenario right now if Zach had played in every game. 10-10 would put us in the 8th spot currently and just a half a game behind the Wolves for 7th and 3.5 games out of 4th place if we're talking home court advantage. They could've also been a little higher than that too but in this particular season the team couldn't afford to lose a guy like Zach right off the bat.
 
wizenheimer said:
I wouldn't have disputed that claim because it's completely vague (I guess maybe I shouldn't say that because sometimes, if I'm bored enough, I might even argue with a possum....and I'd bring stats!). Besides that, Portland is still "in the running for HCA" even with the record they have. Seems unlikely, but it's a long way from impossible

but that's not the claim you made, and it's not the claim that got me engaged in the discussion




wut??

YOU are the one who started the 'debate' about Zach by making the claim he would have been worth a 15-5 record if he hadn't been injured. Apparently you just wanted to make the claim, then close off discussion about it afterward? I don't think that is how this place works...you may have bowed out of the thread but your claim stayed here

by the way, "THREE-GAMES"-Zach played over 24 minutes in the 3rd game and was injured late in the 3rd Q.

I get that you're a big fan of Collins and that's fine. What triggered me was a claim that just went miles past any statistical logic I'm aware of. That's essentially what Bones Jones said, in many less words than me. And it ignored what Zach was doing at the time.

What killed Portland in the first 17 games of the year was their 1) bad perimeter defense; 2) their poor passing & offensive motion; 3) and their anemic rebounding, especially defensive rebounding. Those are the areas where Portland was failing, and Zach would not help much in any of those areas. 1) Zach is a good interior defender, especially in help defense, but he's over-matched defensively when he's on the perimeter, and that's often how he gets in foul trouble; 2) he's not a ball-handler and a facilitator; and 3) he's a mediocre rebounder, at best. He wouldn't really have plugged any of those leaks

obviously, I can't prove you're wrong because I'm not friends with Mr. Peabody and his WABAC machine. And if I was, I'd have other priorities about messing with alternative pasts. Like slapping the shit out of myself before proposing to my first ex-wife
Click to expand...

See it's posts like this is why I put people on ignore.
First off anyone is allowed to drop a comment and not be forced into a debate like you seem to think they should be.
No one is forced to respond to anyone on here. That's how this place works. That's how the internet works.
Trying to tell someone otherwise like you just did, is just going to make me laugh at you.
The only time it's different is if someone says something that could have repercussions on them irl. Simply because the anonymity of the internet is basically gone.

I responded to Torey the way I did because I had no interest in debating something that was such a small sample size. Because no one could prove to be right in a debate.
At best you could bring up last years stats, but Eric said it pretty well in his post.
At worst someone would start making Kingspeed statements. You've been around long enough, you have to know what those are right? If not well sucks to be you I'm not explaining it.
Btw that's what you did.

Right now the top 6 teams in the West have 6 losses. I made the claim that Collins not getting injured(as you took the time to find out how many minutes he actually played in game 3. Cool on you) 24 minutes into game 3. That Portland would have only 5 losses right now. Which is in the running for HCA. Wow amazing. Split hairs much?

fwiw I'm not that big of a fan of Collins. You make a lot of assumptions.
Collins was doing the little things that lead to W's. These things don't show up on stats normally, let alone a 2 game and 24 minute sample size.

I don't debate with opossums. Had one in my backyard Tuesday night.
My dogs were going potty and surrounded it. I got it's attention and it started hissing at me. Got my dogs inside and walked away from it.
If it comes back it's a dead opossum though. As I will smash it.
 
H.C. said:
See it's posts like this is why I put people on ignore..
Click to expand...

then for fucksakes, just put me on ignore without the useless threat; and also without trying to waterboard me into seeing the virtues of your way and the errors of mine. When you reply with that kind of insulting opening, there's no point in reading further, and I didn't....I see that and ignore the rest. To quote yourself: have a nice day!
 
Last edited:
hoopsjock said:
If Zach got hurt in game 3 of last season and missed 4 months, I'm not sure our record would've been any different. At worst I'd guess it would cost us about 3 games.

This year however Zach's absence is compounded by the absence of Nurk as well. If Nurk was healthy then losing Zach for 4 months is just a minor setback but because Nurk is also out Zach might've been the 2nd most important player to this team heading into the season. Since Skal isn't playing any minutes at the 4, Zach is our only big that can capably play both the 4 and 5 spots. He's also our best overall defender. I've also been of the opinion that Zach is the type of player that is never going to have eye popping stats but does things that helps a team win ball games.

We've also seen how one player that shouldn't really make a huge positive impact if you only look at previous stats with both Nurk Fever and now Melo Mania (hopefully!) can greatly impact the trajectory of a team's season and win total. Out of the Blazers 12 losses only 2 have been by double digits. I absolutely think it's likely having Zach in some of those games would've been the difference between winning and losing. Especially when you consider that Whiteside has missed 3 games as well. All 3 of those games were losses, two of which we win easily (IMO Philly and Cleveland) if just one of Zach or Hassan is available for.

What does all that mean to me? I think we're looking at 10-10 as a worst case scenario right now if Zach had played in every game. 10-10 would put us in the 8th spot currently and just a half a game behind the Wolves for 7th and 3.5 games out of 4th place if we're talking home court advantage. They could've also been a little higher than that too but in this particular season the team couldn't afford to lose a guy like Zach right off the bat.
Click to expand...

ok...at least that's an argument with some reasoning. And I'd agree there was nothing really behind Zach. It was a roster hole that got exposed. I'm not sure he'd have been worth two more wins, but maybe. He didn't play very well in the 3 games he did play, but he could have improved with a little more time in the role
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Exclusive GAME# 42: BULLS @ BLAZERS - JANUARY 9, 2019 - Quote Book
Replies
5
Views
275
Scalma
Scalma
SlyPokerDog
Blazer Playoff Notes
Replies
13
Views
820
BigGameDamian
BigGameDamian
SlyPokerDog
Exclusive GAME# 77: GRIZZLIES @ BLAZERS - APRIL 1, 2018 - Quote Book
Replies
3
Views
409
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Exclusive GAME# 46: MAVERICKS @ BLAZERS - JANUARY 20, 2018 - Quote Book
Replies
5
Views
632
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Exclusive GAME# 72: PISTONS @ BLAZERS - MARCH 23, 2019 - Quote Book
Replies
6
Views
256
kjironman1
kjironman1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top