Game Thread PRESEASON GAME# 3: BLAZERS @ NUGGETS - DECEMBER 16, 2020 - WEDNESDAY, 6:00, NBCSNW

[PCmor7]

Yeah we figured that would be the response.

Well, let's be fair, he started by posting a very small part of my post and took what appeared to be a shot at it. The rest of my post made his reply moot, but that didn't stop him because he had a narrative. The heck with the context.

Kind of like what you did a few days ago. You made a snarky comment, you didn't like that I responded to it in a way that made you the king of message-board basketball, so it became you just going back and forth so you could regain your mojo.

 

[PHXBlazer1]

Preseason or not..this effort was pathetic

 

[B-Roy]

Every single Elleby three I’ve seen him take is way off.

 

[Tince]

Yeah. That would be incredible.

I'm anxious to read the correlation but also how it addresses specific unique situations. Which goes to my point here: With the Blazers and Nuggets playing their best guys, the Nuggets clearly outplayed the Blazers in every conceivable facet.

Certainly a 1-4 game data set would be difficult to draw meaningful conclusions on.

Serious question: If you feel strongly about the conclusion you've made over the last 2-3 games, do you think that it means we're not a playoff team? Not a top 6 team in the West? What did you think going into the preseason?

I said this was a 42-43 win team (above the vegas line) which is likely to put us 5th-7th. I have seen nothing in the preseason to make me feel much differently.

 

[tlongII]

Preseason. That was vomit inducing though.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

Outrebound 55-33!

 

[tlongII]

Everybody played like shit. Including Dame.

 

[Chris Craig]

I was excited after the first game. I'm not very excited anymore

 

[Tince]

Well, let's be fair, he started by posting a very small part of my post and took what appeared to be a shot at it. The rest of my post made his reply moot, but that didn't stop him because he had a narrative. The heck with the context.

Kind of like what you did a few days ago. You made a snarky comment, you didn't like that I responded to it in a way that made you the king of message-board basketball, so it became you just going back and forth so you could regain your mojo.

I didn't mean to offend by not replying to your entire post, I just thought that part in particular was note-worthy.

 

[julius]

Preseason or not..this effort was pathetic

That's always been my complaint about losses. It's not THAT they lose, it's HOW they lose.

They simply aren't good enough to coast, and they're not really showing any positive growth or improvement.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So if we're seeing the replays from the Nugget broadcasting crew what the hell does @THE HCP do?

 

[James lamphear]

The big notice I see 2 things they made 19 to our 9 three. They had 55 to our 33 rebounds. Our two starting fowards had 5 rebounds together Nurk going have to get help when the season starts.

 

[AldoTrapani]

As a fan of basketball, at least the Nuggest are fun to watch. Quick ball movement, cutting, unselfish play, open shots, etc. Wish that was us.

Michael Malone actually interviewed for our coaching position but Stotts got it

 

[Chris Craig]

Michael Malone actually interviewed for our coaching position but Stotts got it

Another Neil fuck up

 

[Tince]

Yeah. That would be incredible.

I'm anxious to read the correlation but also how it addresses specific unique situations. Which goes to my point here: With the Blazers and Nuggets playing their best guys, the Nuggets clearly outplayed the Blazers in every conceivable facet.

This is from The Ringer last year, which is more up-to-date than when I did it...

"Individual teams’ preseason numbers aren’t all that useful for forecasting the coming season, either. Since 2007-08, the first season that comprehensive preseason numbers are available at NBA.com/Stats, the correlation between preseason and regular-season winning percentage is just 0.30, on a scale in which zero means no relationship and one a perfect match."

From researchgate.net

"Correlation coefficient values below 0.3 are considered to be weak; 0.3-0.7 are moderate; >0.7 are strong. You also have to compute the statistical significance of the correlation"

 

[James lamphear]

By the way our top 10 offense every year is predicated on Dame being a one man offense. We have so much offensive talent on this team I feel like we don’t need that this year. But it looks like just a jumbled mess right now.

Dame and CJ is not going to change there offense matter who we bring in.

 

[kjironman1]

Well, let's be fair, he started by posting a very small part of my post and took what appeared to be a shot at it. The rest of my post made his reply moot, but that didn't stop him because he had a narrative. The heck with the context.

Kind of like what you did a few days ago. You made a snarky comment, you didn't like that I responded to it in a way that made you the king of message-board basketball, so it became you just going back and forth so you could regain your mojo.

His statement is pretty much common knowledge but again your opinion is welcome here.
Preseason does indeed tell a story but that is why they play it.
These are practice games.
If you don’t see it that way then so be it.
We can bring up multiple years and uncountable teams that played poorly in preseason and improved as the season progressed.
Also I absolutely do not see the “Bad Chemistry” you speak of. I mean how could we really when so few games have been played and so many different combinations of players have been on the court? Seems ridiculous to make that statement at this juncture?

 

[James lamphear]

It might lead to a couple extra losses early in the season but itll make that up later in the season when we execute it better, and itll make us a better team on the playoffs.

Gotta go through some growing pains early in order to raise our defensive ceiling during the postseason.

Let see how it going to work out and come back to this conversation during the season.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Oh well, it's only a 30 point loss. At least our star players didn't play 30 minutes each. Wait, what?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I was excited after the first game. I'm not very excited anymore

Maybe you can get excited about someone getting fired

 

[kjironman1]

So if we're seeing the replays from the Nugget broadcasting crew what the hell does @THE HCP do?

We all know what he isn’t doing?

 

[hoopsjock]

 

[Tince]

Anyone who thinks Denver is 30 points better than Portland, I will gladly give you Denver -20 in our first regular season match up with them. Heck, I'd give you -10.

 

[PCmor7]

This is from The Ringer last year, which is more up-to-date than when I did it...

"Individual teams’ preseason numbers aren’t all that useful for forecasting the coming season, either. Since 2007-08, the first season that comprehensive preseason numbers are available at NBA.com/Stats, the correlation between preseason and regular-season winning percentage is just 0.30, on a scale in which zero means no relationship and one a perfect match."

From researchgate.net

"Correlation coefficient values below 0.3 are considered to be weak; 0.3-0.7 are moderate; >0.7 are strong. You also have to compute the statistical significance of the correlation"

Which, as I kind of alluded to in my reply to kjironman, is fine, except the part where you only quoted one line of my post and eliminated context that kind of is important to what you are saying.

The correlation is built over all games. Some teams are looking to tune things up and some barely play their starters. Sometimes a younger team plays starters longer because winning is important to their culture, even at that point, but it won't carry over. There are variables.

In this specific game, the Blazers played their starters for most of three quarters against their biggest competition in their division who also played most of the guys they'd play against the Blazers in the regular season and dominated the Blazers with both main rotations on the floor.

Your approach is like saying there's very little correlation between a guy born in NE Pennsylvania going on to be president, and you'd be right. Yet, here we are, because a very specific set of circumstances.

In a normal situation, I'd agree with you. In this specific situation, I would think my thoughts were valid. At the very least, you could have done me the solid of posting my whole quote and not just the part of it fitting your narrative, but it is what it is.

 

[Buffalo Custard]

We all know who he isn’t doing?

FIFY

 

[Tince]

Which, as I kind of alluded to in my reply to kjironman, is fine, except the part where you only quoted one line of my post and eliminated context that kind of is important to what you are saying.

The correlation is built over all games. Some teams are looking to tune things up and some barely play their starters.

In this specific game, the Blazers played their starters for most of three quarters against their biggest competition in their division who also played most of the guys they'd play against the Blazers in the regular season and dominated the Blazers with both main rotations on the floor.

Your approach is like saying there's very little correlation between a guy born in NE Pennsylvania going on to be president, and you'd be right. Yet, here we are, because a very specific set of circumstances.

In a normal situation, I'd agree with you. In this specific situation, I would think my thoughts were valid. At the very least, you could have done me the solid of posting my whole quote and not just the part of it fitting your narrative, but it is what it is.

Blowouts happen all the time in the NBA where the starters play 30 minutes and I agree a narrative could be drawn from any one of them. Your narrative may be correct, I'm not trying to say it couldn't be. For example, our first 6 games are against high quality opponents, that if we played like tonight, we'd go 0-6. I don't think we'll go 0-6.

Am I correct to assume you feel highly confident that we can draw strong conclusions from tonights game? If so, where do those conclusions put us in the West and how did that compare to what you thought 3 games ago?

 

[riverman]

Butt ugly game ....Dame was way off all night...brickfest....not a fun watch

 

[julius]

So if we're seeing the replays from the Nugget broadcasting crew what the hell does @THE HCP do?

I think they're saying that this year maybe the broadcasts will be done by the home teams crew?

 

[PCmor7]

His statement is pretty much common knowledge but again your opinion is welcome here.
Preseason does indeed tell a story but that is why they play it.
These are practice games.
If you don’t see it that way then so be it.
We can bring up multiple years and uncountable teams that played poorly in preseason and improved as the season progressed.
Also I absolutely do not see the “Bad Chemistry” you speak of. I mean how could we really when so few games have been played and so many different combinations of players have been on the court? Seems ridiculous to make that statement at this juncture?

Again, if you go back and read what I posted, you'll see I didn't disagree with him in the overall, but this specific circumstance and for reasons I made clear.

Also, it wasn't me responding to him. He responded to me, just like you did the other night. So "if you don't see it that way then so be it" really applies to you. A lot of people in this thread had similar views to mine about this game.

Now, it's up to you, you can keep following me around and arguing with me about every post I make because I had the audacity to disagree with your snark the other night, or you can let things go. I don't think people here want to read our message board back-and-forth, but, it you don't see it that way, then so be it.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

Preseason I mean it’s preseason.....

We are going to have some rough games preseason and reg season. Guys need time to find their role. Plus when Dame goes 1-8 from 3 we aren’t winning many games