Ric Bucher Likes OKC Over Blazers In A Few Years

[Boob-No-More]

"Proven he can win at this level" means nothing to me.

Well, it means everything to me. The point of playing the games is to win.

Sorry. I think that all of the "Roy has led his team to more wins" talk is just hot air... the team has improved across the board in the time Roy's been here... his improvement is CERTAINLY a factor in the team's improvement, but I don't think he deserves all--or even most--of the credit.

So, then doesn't Durant deserve some of the "blame" for his team's LACK of improvement?

Roy is the clear leader and best player on a team that has gotten substantially better each of his three years in the league. And yes, his improved play is a major reason for the team's improvement. The way he plays lends itself to "making his teammates better". Durant's doesn't (at least not yet).

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

There is NO guarantee that Durant will continue to improve. I make NO assumptions that he will continue to improve.

You said Durnat wasn't currently a superstar. Therefore, he must continue to improve to become a superstar. You said he was more likely to become a superstar than Brandon Roy Therefore, you have made the assumption that he will continue to improve at a greater rate than Roy.

BNM

 

[mgb]

I don't know why you're misreading my argument so badly.

There is NO guarantee that Durant will continue to improve. I make NO assumptions that he will continue to improve.

I am NOT writing Roy's season off as a fluke.

It's amazing how many ways you can misinterpret what I'm saying.

Durant is putting up a better PER--by about two points--than any Roy had put up until this year, and Durant is still two years younger than Roy was before he put on a Blazers' jersey.

Might he backslide? Absolutely. Might he have maxed out his production and potential at his current age? Sure, I guess. I don't find these likely in the long term, though, any more than I felt it was likely after, say, Roy's rookie season.

Ed O.

Might it be because he's on a bad team? Yes. Then again he might turn out to be a better player than Roy.

 

[mgb]

Well, it means everything to me. The point of playing the games is to win.



So, then doesn't Durant deserve some of the "blame" for his team's LACK of improvement?

Roy is the clear leader and best player on a team that has gotten substantially better each of his three years in the league. And yes, his improved play is a major reason for the team's improvement. The way he plays lends itself to "making his teammates better". Durant's doesn't (at least not yet).

BNM

I think a big part is that Roy tries to get his team mates involved more. He doesn't care about stats. He has to be told to be more aggressive because he isn't selfish. On a bad team I think he'd put up much better numbers.

 

[Ed O]

Well, it means everything to me. The point of playing the games is to win.

The point for the TEAM, sure.

When looking at individual capabilities, wins don't have much value in my eyes.

So, then doesn't Durant deserve some of the "blame" for his team's LACK of improvement?

What lack of improvement are you talking about?

Durant's team has improved markedly this year... they have already won more games this year than they had all of last year.

A massive reason for the Sonics/Thunder backslide during Durant's rookie year was because the team had shed the previous year's two best players in Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis.

In any case, since I don't place too much credit or blame on a team's performance on a single player, I am not too concerned about attributing blame for the uber-young Durant's improvement of his team in his first couple of seasons.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Might it be because he's on a bad team? Yes. Then again he might turn out to be a better player than Roy.

It is absolutely, positively true that Durant's numbers could be being blown out of proportion because his team is terrible, or it could be that his numbers are worse because defenses can focus on him.

It's very difficult to say with such a short track record.

Ed O.

 

[rocketeer]

ed o,

if you don't expect roy to be worse than he is now and you do expect him to continue to put up top 10 production, at what point does that top 10 production turn him into a top 10 player?

 

[BengalDuck]

3 years.

 

[Ed O]

ed o,

if you don't expect roy to be worse than he is now and you do expect him to continue to put up top 10 production, at what point does that top 10 production turn him into a top 10 player?

I don't have a specific time frame. It's squishy.

If he did top-10 production another two years? It would be hard to argue he didn't deserve it by my definitions.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The point for the TEAM, sure.

When looking at individual capabilities, wins don't have much value in my eyes.




What lack of improvement are you talking about?

Durant's team has improved markedly this year... they have already won more games this year than they had all of last year.

Improved markedly???? Since when is improving from 21 wins to 24 or 25 showing marked improvement. When you're that bad, improving by 3 or 4 wins isn't exactly all that hard to do.

A massive reason for the Sonics/Thunder backslide during Durant's rookie year was because the team had shed the previous year's two best players in Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis.

In any case, since I don't place too much credit or blame on a team's performance on a single player, I am not too concerned about attributing blame for the uber-young Durant's improvement of his team in his first couple of seasons.

Ed O.

And didn't you also claim the Blazers would not improve after they "gave away" their "best player" prior to Roy's 2nd season? Yet, they won 41 games, nine more than the previous year, in spite of giving away their best player and neither of their first round picks playing a single minute that season.

In exchange for Ray Allen, the Sonics got a top 5 draft pick, to go along with Durant at number 2 - and they added a top 4 pick this season. So, they added Durant, the future superstar, and two more top five picks, yet they will still finish with 5 or 6 FEWER wins this season than the season before Durant's rookie year.

BNM

 

[BrianFromWA]

To be completely fair, our season had a year of LMA's growth while the Sonics basically gave away rashard Lewis for nothing. Lewis is pretty good, also.

 

[Ed O]

And didn't you also claim the Blazers would not improve after they "gave away" their "best player" prior to Roy's 2nd season? Yet, they won 41 games, nine more than the previous year, in spite of giving away their best player and neither of their first round picks playing a single minute that season.

I said that they would have been better if they had kept Zach. I still believe that.

They also would have been better if Oden had not been hurt.

The funny thing is that if the team WOULD have been better if either of those things had happened, you'd be using it as evidence of how great Roy is.

In exchange for Ray Allen, the Sonics got a top 5 draft pick, to go along with Durant at number 2 - and they added a top 4 pick this season. So, they added Durant, the future superstar, and two more top five picks, yet they will still finish with 5 or 6 FEWER wins this season than the season before Durant's rookie year.

Allen (21.6 PER his last year as a Sonic) was a borderline all-star when he was traded. Rashard (20.7 his last year as a Sonic) is a borderline all-star now. Taking a HUGE step back by losing two of those guys, and having to make up for a series of wasted draft picks (Swift, Sene, Petro) takes time.

Jeff Green is still only 22. Durant is still only 20.

Compare that to Roy (24) and Aldridge (23)... the Thunder's core is simply younger than the Blazers.

Ed O.

 

[Wheels]

Jeff Green is still only 22. Durant is still only 20.

Compare that to Roy (24) and Aldridge (23)... the Thunder's core is simply younger than the Blazers.

Ed O.

Maybe so.. but Green while a nice player IMO will never be at the level the other 3 players are. Jeff Green's ceiling is much much much lower.

 

[Ed O]

Improved markedly???? Since when is improving from 21 wins to 24 or 25 showing marked improvement. When you're that bad, improving by 3 or 4 wins isn't exactly all that hard to do.

Come on.

The team started 3-29.

They've gone 19-25 since.

You don't think that's showing marked improvement? Really?

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Maybe so.. but Green while a nice player IMO will never be at the level the other 3 players are. Jeff Green's ceiling is much much much lower.

Fair enough.

Is that Durant's fault? I would say no... which is yet another demonstration that team success when judging a player's efficacy is a secondary (at best) consideration to me.

Ed O.

 

[Wheels]

Fair enough.

Is that Durant's fault? I would say no... which is yet another demonstration that team success when judging a player's efficacy is a secondary (at best) consideration to me.

Ed O.

I'll agree to that. I'm sorry I'll admit I didnt read the whole thread.. but to me my response about their core was more about their future being brighter. They are still some missing pieces away IMO.. but have some nice pieces.. and while I still believe Oden will have been the better pick for us, its not a knock on Durant.. like KP said before the draft.. "Is there a way we can get both of them?"

 

[Boob-No-More]

Jeff Green is still only 22. Durant is still only 20.

Compare that to Roy (24) and Aldridge (23)... the Thunder's core is simply younger than the Blazers.

But the Blazers core is simply better.

BNM

 

[alex42083]

edit: oops, nevermind. Already been posted.

 

[Ed O]

I'll agree to that. I'm sorry I'll admit I didnt read the whole thread.. but to me my response about their core was more about their future being brighter. They are still some missing pieces away IMO.. but have some nice pieces.. and while I still believe Oden will have been the better pick for us, its not a knock on Durant.. like KP said before the draft.. "Is there a way we can get both of them?"

Heh.

Yes, to get back to the original topic: I would never trade our core/future for the Thunder's. Even if I think that Durant has a better chance of being a superstar than Roy, I don't think he has a better chance of being an all-star... Roy already is, after all.

And I also still support the selection of Oden over Durant. Going over those reasons here (again) would be boring because almost everyone probably already agrees with them

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Come on.

The team started 3-29.

They've gone 19-25 since.

You don't think that's showing marked improvement? Really?

Ed O.

Not compared to the previous season, no. They added a top 4 pick, lost no one of any significance, Durant and Green are both a year more experienced and a year "better", yet they'll only win 3 or 4 more games. I stand by my statement that going from 21 wins to 24 or 25 is not difficult to accomplish and is not showing marked improvement.

BNM

 

[Ed O]

But the Blazers core is simply better.

Agreed 100%.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

Not compared to the previous season, no. They added a top 4 pick, lost no one of any significance, Durant and Green are both a year more experienced and a year "better", yet they'll only win 3 or 4 more games. I stand by my statement that going from 21 wins to 24 or 25 is not difficult to accomplish and is not showing marked improvement.

I didn't say anything about seasons when I used the phrase "marked improvement", iirc. You're adding parameters that I did not after attacking my position.

They've won 19 of their last 55 games.

That's only one fewer than as they won in 82 games last year.

I think it would be hard to deny that they've markedly improved from where they were last year.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

Not compared to the previous season, no. They added a top 4 pick, lost no one of any significance, Durant and Green are both a year more experienced and a year "better", yet they'll only win 3 or 4 more games. I stand by my statement that going from 21 wins to 24 or 25 is not difficult to accomplish and is not showing marked improvement.

Carlisimo was pretty clearly mismanaging the team, considering how the team took off after he was fired. One of the big mistakes he made was playing Durant out of position. Durant has flourished since being moved back to his natural small forward position.

 

[Wheels]

I didn't say anything about seasons when I used the phrase "marked improvement", iirc. You're adding parameters that I did not after attacking my position.

They've won 19 of their last 55 games.

That's only one fewer than as they won in 82 games last year.

I think it would be hard to deny that they've markedly improved from where they were last year.

Ed O.

I would agree they have improved.. but alot of it to me is coaching. if Carlesimo (sp?) was still the coach they would be maybe at a 20 win clip all year. But they havent improved enough to scare me at all.

 

[Wheels]

Carlisimo was pretty clearly mismanaging the team, considering how the team took off after he was fired. One of the big mistakes he made was playing Durant out of position. Durant has flourished since being moved back to his natural small forward position.

yep beat me too it. but my thoughts exactly.

 

[Boob-No-More]

They've won 19 of their last 55 games.

That's only one fewer than as they won in 82 games last year.

You're honestly denying that they've markedly improved?

Ed O.

Weren't you the guy that was arguing that one season was too small of a sample size? Now your arguing about partial seasons?

Winning 4 or 5 more games, when your baseline is 21 wins, is not significant season over season improvement. So, they started off crappy. We don't just get to ignore those losses like they didn't happen. They all count. Net sum, they aren't all that much better this season than they were last.

Going from 21 wins to 25 is like weighing 400 lbs. and losing 20 lbs. Good for you. You're headed in the right direction, but you still have a LONG way to go.

BNM

 

[Wheels]

Weren't you the guy that was arguing that one season was too small of a sample size? Now your arguing about partial seasons?

Winning 4 or 5 more games, when your baseline is 21 wins, is not significant season over season improvement. So, they started off crappy. We don't just get to ignore those losses like they didn't happen. They all count. Net sum, they aren't all that much better this season than they were last.

Going from 21 wins to 25 is like weighing 400 lbs. and losing 20 lbs. Good for you. You're headed in the right direction, but you still have a LONG way to go.

BNM

I look at it this way.. when Portland had 21 wins and went to 32... 32 wins is still no big whoop.. but it was SUPER obvious that they were a much MUCH improved team. Even though the win total wouldnt necessarily show that.

 

[alex42083]

OKC is definitely improved but they're still going to be a 25-30 win scrub team next season. Their development curve will be a lot longer than ours when we went from 32 to 41 to now reaching 50. There's no way in three years that they'll be better than us.

Their problem is they don't play any defense. Durant is a great offensive player but he can't play D. I think Jeff Green is outsized and outmatched for a starting PF in this league. I like Westbrook though. He's got good size for the PG spot.

The rest of the team is replaceable. Although the roster is made up of names you've heard of, they're just not very good.

 

[oldmangrouch]

You know, some folks here have a serious bias against good players on bad teams.

No one with 2 marbles to rub together would say that Oden was 100% responsible for Portland's improvement.....but people will turn right around and give Durant 100% of the blame for everything wrong in OKC. Sorry, but team sports don't work that way!

 

[MrJayremmie]

This is Roy's 3rd season, so instead of comparing someone over the last 5 years, I go by who is the best this year (because over the year I think it gives a better understanding of how good a player is RIGHT NOW) and I think that Roy is the 6th best player inthe NBA, and I think the stats back that up. THey defintely back it up as 7th best, but I think he is playing better than Tim Duncan.

SImilar to how I think LeBron is the best player in the NBA and better than Kobe, but if you take into account the past 5 years, Kobe is better. But I am just taking into account right now because it tells me how good a player is right now (at least for a season)... and I have come to the conclusion (as many have) that LeBron is better than Kobe.

Even Rocket commentators on the MSP said that if Houston and PDX played a series that PDX would have the best player in the series.

Anyway, this has been a very entertaining thread.