Per Jason Quick's Blog

[Pinwheel1]

"The Blazers have a share of the division lead 65 games into the season for the first time since winning the Pacific Division in the 1991-92 season. .."


Is this realy true? 17 years?

 

[BlazerBeliever]

It is if Jason Quick says so.

 

[MAS RipCity]

well the 65 games part is true, but percentage of the season done would not be true, because we won the pacific in 98-99 during the lockout shortened season.

 

[Sug]

65 games in is the key there

 

[THE HCP]

I think that's right! You can't count the strike season. I'm very impressed considering all we wanted was to make the playoffs this season!

 

[Boob-No-More]

The 65 games part is the key. In 2000-2001 the Blazers had the best record in the entire NBA through 60 games (42 - 18). Then, Whitsitt brought back Rod Stickland (and had also recently brought back Detlef Schrempf) and the chemistry experiment blew-up in his face. The Blazers, who hadn't lost more than two games in a row all season, lost 5 in a row (including two to last place Vancouver), went 8 - 14 for the rest of the season, fell all the way from best record in the entire league to 7th seed in the west and were swept in the first round by the Lakers.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

well the 65 games part is true, but percentage of the season done would not be true, because we won the pacific in 98-99 during the lockout shortened season.

That was a crazy season. I remember the Blazers playing back-to-back-to-back games at least one time.

 

[blazerboy30]

Meaningless stat.

The term "division" has changed drastically since 91-92.

In 1991-1992, the Pacific division looked like this:

Portland Trail Blazers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns
Golden State Warriors
Seattle Supersonics
Los Angeles Clippers
Sacramento Kings


That is quite a bit different compared to today's Northwest division:

Utah Jazz
Portland Trail Blazers
Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
Oklahoma City Thunder

 

[PapaG]

Meaningless stat.

The term "division" has changed drastically since 91-92.

In 1991-1992, the Pacific division looked like this:

Portland Trail Blazers
Los Angeles Lakers
Phoenix Suns
Golden State Warriors
Seattle Supersonics
Los Angeles Clippers
Sacramento Kings


That is quite a bit different compared to today's Northwest division:

Utah Jazz
Portland Trail Blazers
Denver Nuggets
Minnesota Timberwolves
Oklahoma City Thunder

It's not really meaningless when one considers how winning a division affects playoff seeding.

 

[julius]

The 65 games part is the key. In 2000-2001 the Blazers had the best record in the entire NBA through 60 games (42 - 18). Then, Whitsitt brought back Rod Stickland (and had also recently brought back Detlef Schrempf) and the chemistry experiment blew-up in his face. The Blazers, who hadn't lost more than two games in a row all season, lost 5 in a row (including two to last place Vancouver), went 8 - 14 for the rest of the season, fell all the way from best record in the entire league to 7th seed in the west and were swept in the first round by the Lakers.

BNM

Thanks for that beautiful reminder.

 

[OddEnormous]

Meaningless stat.

uhgreed, wyning tha divishun wood bea meanyless bekuase they are diffrunt now.

Gryt post

 

[Boob-No-More]

Thanks for that beautiful reminder.

Sorry, it's permanently etched in my brain.

Even more than the game 7 collapse in the 2000 WCF and the off-season moves (Jermaine for Dale Davis and Brian Grant in the S&T that netted Shawn Kemp), I think acquiring Rod Strickland was the straw that broke the camel's back and permannetly slammed shut that team's chances at a title. Things certainly went south IMMEDIATELY and the team never seriously contended after that. Before picking up Rod, things we're going well - at least on the court - but with the addition of Rod, the addition of Schrempf and Scottie coming back from injury, the teams was suddenly 2 - 3 deep at every position with guys who all thought they deserved starter's minutes.

Now that the team is headed in the other direction, I keep thinking about writing an article comparing the two different situations - Whitsitt's over accumalation of talent with a total lack of chemistry and team unity vs. Pritchard standing pat at the trade deadline and allowing this young team to grow together.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

Sorry, it's permanently etched in my brain.

Even more than the game 7 collapse in the 2000 WCF and the off-season moves (Jermaine for Dale Davis and Brian Grant in the S&T that netted Shawn Kemp), I think acquiring Rod Strickland was the straw that broke the camel's back and permannetly slammed shut that team's chances at a title. Things certainly went south IMMEDIATELY and the team never seriously contended after that. Before picking up Rod, things we're going well - at least on the court - but with the addition of Rod, the addition of Schrempf and Scottie coming back from injury, the teams was suddenly 2 - 3 deep at every position with guys who all thought they deserved starter's minutes.

Now that the team is headed in the other direction, I keep thinking about writing an article comparing the two different situations - Whitsitt's over accumalation of talent with a total lack of chemistry and team unity vs. Pritchard standing pat at the trade deadline and allowing this young team to grow together.

BNM

And title it:

History Repeating Itself?.... Nope.

 

[Haakzilla]

Does anyone remember the STOCKTON/MALONE HATE CLUB that met near the Memorial C