The NBA’s Midseason Arms Race Is Upon Us (The Ringer)

[Minstrel]

As much as I like Harkless, I do not consider SF a position of strength. Being that, IMO, SF and SG are the two most important positions to have top quality talent at we could definitely use an upgrade. A star SF (and adequate PF or C) is exactly what this team needs. Harkless will never be a star.

Harkless is definitely no star and shouldn't block a stud, but on the other hand, Harkless is one of our few solid two-way players. It would be nice, if possible, to get a star at another position so Harkless can play a supporting role alongside that player. It's not a huge deal, but right now three-and-D guys are gold, even at non-star level.

 

[Denny Crane]

Harkless is definitely no star and shouldn't block a stud, but on the other hand, Harkless is one of our few solid two-way players. It would be nice, if possible, to get a star at another position so Harkless can play a supporting role alongside that player. It's not a huge deal, but right now three-and-D guys are gold, even at non-star level.

This.

 

[blue9]

Everyone drools over MIN's talent. With Wiggins and Townes, they had two consecutive N0. 1 overall picks than netted them two consecutive ROYs. That looks great, until you look at their won:loss record.

What's our W/L record again?

Disclaimer: I do expect us to squeak into the POs...but I'm not as certain about it as I was a few weeks ago.

 

[blue9]

Harkless is definitely no star and shouldn't block a stud, but on the other hand, Harkless is one of our few solid two-way players. It would be nice, if possible, to get a star at another position so Harkless can play a supporting role alongside that player. It's not a huge deal, but right now three-and-D guys are gold, even at non-star level.

Oh, I agree. Harkless might be my favorite current Blazer. And if we can get a star C then I think we'd be fine with Harkless at SF for the long haul. But I've always felt the easiest path to contention is having one of the top wings in the game, unless you get the rare ultra-dominant C with a good supporting cast.

 

[Boob-No-More]

What's our W/L record again?

Disclaimer: I do expect us to squeak into the POs...but I'm not as certain about it as I was a few weeks ago.

Better than MIN, with their 13 consecutive trips to the lottery and two consecutive ROYs. In case you missed it that was my point.

We are currently 8th in the West, on pace for our 4th straight playoff appearance.

MIN is currently 13th in the West, on pace for their 14th consecutive trip to the lottery.

We briefly dipped into the lottery for two seasons. In the three completed seasons since our last trip to the lottery, we've had two 50+ win seasons and two trips to the second round.

The last time MIN made the playoffs, Steve Blake was a rookie for the Washington Wizards, two years before he became a Portland Trail Blazer for the first of three times. That was also the season we traded Sheed to ATL, Qyntel Woods (pre-dog fighting charges) played in 62 games for us and Travis Outlaw was a rookie.

I only bring all that up to reiterate my point about the fallacy of tanking. Being in the lottery, and even winning the 1st pick, is no guarantee of immediate success.

BNM

 

[blue9]

Better than MIN, with their 13 consecutive trips to the lottery and two consecutive ROYs. In case you missed it that was my point.

No, I got your point. My response was mostly tongue in cheek.

I only bring all that up to reiterate my point about the fallacy of tanking. Being in the lottery, and even winning the 1st pick, is no guarantee of immediate success.

But here I think you're dredging up a straw man. Nobody is saying the picks (#1 or not) are a guarantee of immediate success. Nobody. That's not the argument. The argument is whether it's better to be in our current position, which appears to be 1st round fodder for the good PO teams, or take one step backwards in the hopes of taking two steps forward. An argument can (and has been) made for either side. You can't discredit the thought that the second path might be the better path by saying it doesn't guarantee success...especially when we aren't having success by remaining on the current path.

 

[TBpup]

What's our W/L record again?

A historically bad (for the West) 16-23 has us in the #8 slot....on pace for a gruesome 33 wins. That is pathetically bad for a Playoff team. I think Portland will finish better than that but it shows how far the chaff are behind after the #7 seed.

We briefly dipped into the lottery for two seasons. I

BNM

....where we drafted Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum. I totally agree, the Lottery can be a crap shoot and some teams are run better than others but the stars in this league usually come from the Lottery. Not that there aren't busts and you can hit on a player later in the draft but when you look through the All-NBA teams, the majority are Lottery players.

2015-16 All-NBA Teams:
1st Team
LeBron James #1
Stephen Curry #7
Kawhi Leonard #15
DeAndre Jordan #35
Russell Westbrook #4

Jordan is an anomaly as he certainly isn't one of the 5 best players in the NBA but because the Center position is so down, they had to put someone in there.

2nd Team
Kevin Durant #2
Draymond Green #35
DeMarcus Cousins #5
Chris Paul #3
Damian Lillard #6

Again, a 2nd round pick but this is much more legit than DeAndre Jordan. Green is a stud and a true diamond in the rough.

3rd Team
Paul George #10
LaMarcus Aldridge #2
Andre Drummond #9
Klay Thompson #11
Kyle Lowry #24

Out of 15 players, only 4 are not Lottery players and Jordan has no business being 1st team but they had to choose a center. Kawhi at #15 missed the Lottery by one pick so Green and Lowry are the only real outliers. Those three teams don't include this year Top-2 choice for MVP, James Harden (#3).

So if you put the much more deserving Harden in and take Jordan out, that is 12 of 15 which is 80% of the All-NBA came from the Lottery. They also represent the last 5 NBA champions and all 10 of the teams that have played for the Finals in those season.

The Lottery is no sure thing when selecting....but teams aren't winning championships without Lottery picks either.

 

[Orion Bailey]

A historically bad (for the West) 16-23 has us in the #8 slot....on pace for a gruesome 33 wins. That is pathetically bad for a Playoff team. I think Portland will finish better than that but it shows how far the chaff are behind after the #7 seed.



....where we drafted Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum. I totally agree, the Lottery can be a crap shoot and some teams are run better than others but the stars in this league usually come from the Lottery. Not that there aren't busts and you can hit on a player later in the draft but when you look through the All-NBA teams, the majority are Lottery players.

2015-16 All-NBA Teams:
1st Team
LeBron James #1
Stephen Curry #7
Kawhi Leonard #15
DeAndre Jordan #35
Russell Westbrook #4

Jordan is an anomaly as he certainly isn't one of the 5 best players in the NBA but because the Center position is so down, they had to put someone in there.

2nd Team
Kevin Durant #2
Draymond Green #35
DeMarcus Cousins #5
Chris Paul #3
Damian Lillard #6

Again, a 2nd round pick but this is much more legit than DeAndre Jordan. Green is a stud and a true diamond in the rough.

3rd Team
Paul George #10
LaMarcus Aldridge #2
Andre Drummond #9
Klay Thompson #11
Kyle Lowry #24

Out of 15 players, only 4 are not Lottery players and Jordan has no business being 1st team but they had to choose a center. Kawhi at #15 missed the Lottery by one pick so Green and Lowry are the only real outliers. Those three teams don't include this year Top-2 choice for MVP, James Harden (#3).

So if you put the much more deserving Harden in and take Jordan out, that is 12 of 15 which is 80% of the All-NBA came from the Lottery. They also represent the last 5 NBA champions and all 10 of the teams that have played for the Finals in those season.

The Lottery is no sure thing when selecting....but teams aren't winning championships without Lottery picks either.

@TBpup

You have been saying alot that we wont be able to move up even if we go on a winning streak, but I think the thing you are not putting into account is if we go on a winning streak then other teams are losing.

Right now we are sitting at 16-23, The 4th place clippers are 10 games ahead.

if we win 10 in a row and they go 5-5 then we gained half the ground in 10 games.
Im not sure I am following or agreeing with you saying even if we go on a winning struck we are stuck at #7-#8.
Teams can go on losing streaks too, like the Clips have.

10 games is not impossible to make up and if we do well then the games that separate 4th from 7th is 3 games currently. If we go on a 10 game winning streak, I think we are in the hunt to move up. Might not happen, but I disagree with the premise that we are locked in for no better.

 

[TBpup]

What I have said is, that at the time, Portland could go on a 15 game winning streak and not catch the #7 seed at the pace they were playing at. Sure they could go on a big losing streak but the reason they (or any of the other teams hovering at 4-7) are where they are is because they are better teams playing better ball. It would take an injury like what happened to the Clippers when they lost 6 straight...Chris Paul was out, to facilitate such a free fall in all likelihood.

The same holds true now as before. If Portland were to go on a 15 game winning streak and OKC (current #7) were just to play at the same pace they have all season, Portland would still be 1/2 a game behind the #7 seed and still in 8th. A 15 game winning streak would be 1 less win than they have all season so I don't see that in their future. Sure, some teams could fall back but historically, they are where the West usually is for winning percentage.

Last year was an anomaly with Portland getting the #5 seed with just 44 wins.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

yeah man, i mean im a rookie fetishist, but we would be lucky if one of those draft picks turns out to be as good as cj.

...on offense.

 

[Orion Bailey]

What I have said is, that at the time, Portland could go on a 15 game winning streak and not catch the #7 seed at the pace they were playing at. Sure they could go on a big losing streak but the reason they (or any of the other teams hovering at 4-7) are where they are is because they are better teams playing better ball. It would take an injury like what happened to the Clippers when they lost 6 straight...Chris Paul was out, to facilitate such a free fall in all likelihood.

The same holds true now as before. If Portland were to go on a 15 game winning streak and OKC (current #7) were just to play at the same pace they have all season, Portland would still be 1/2 a game behind the #7 seed and still in 8th. A 15 game winning streak would be 1 less win than they have all season so I don't see that in their future. Sure, some teams could fall back but historically, they are where the West usually is for winning percentage.

Last year was an anomaly with Portland getting the #5 seed with just 44 wins.

Sure but let's say we pick up every third game. This means that in 30 games we are half a game behind.

From there on it will only be three to four games separating and why can't we move up right at the end provided we improve and play stellar?

I may not be following you 100% and maybe I am missing something?
If here are 5-10 games left to play in get season and we are in seventh, half a game behind Inc why can't we win he rest and make a last minute jump? Again only 4 games separate 4-7

 

[TBpup]

@Orion Bailey ....so take the next 30 games. If the #7 seed (currently the Thunder) continue at their current pace, they would win 18 of those games. That would make them 41-28. Portland would have to go 25-5 over the same period to get to the same 41 wins. Sure, anything is possible but Portland would have to play insanely better than they have so far or OKC is going to have to decline quite a bit. Even if they were to just go .500 (which would be much less than they are doing now) that would put them at 38-31. Portland would then have to go 22-8 over the same stretch.

I just don't see that happening. It is too much of a departure from who they have been so far. Bad teams just don't get that hot unless they were without a star due to injury and they come back. Even then, that would be a monstrous improvement.

So there are 43 games left. If whomever is #7 were just to play .500 ball, they get 44-45 wins. Right now the #4-7 seeds are averaging over .600 with just 2.5 games separating them. To catch them by season's end (if the #7 seed plays worse), Portland has to win 28-29 games out of 43. If they play at their current pace, Portland would have to win 32-33 out of 43 remaining games.Does anyone see them doing that?

 

[Orion Bailey]

@Orion Bailey ....so take the next 30 games. If the #7 seed (currently the Thunder) continue at their current pace, they would win 18 of those games. That would make them 41-28. Portland would have to go 25-5 over the same period to get to the same 41 wins. Sure, anything is possible but Portland would have to play insanely better than they have so far or OKC is going to have to decline quite a bit. Even if they were to just go .500 (which would be much less than they are doing now) that would put them at 38-31. Portland would then have to go 22-8 over the same stretch.

I just don't see that happening. It is too much of a departure from who they have been so far. Bad teams just don't get that hot unless they were without a star due to injury and they come back. Even then, that would be a monstrous improvement.

So there are 43 games left. If whomever is #7 were just to play .500 ball, they get 44-45 wins. Right now the #4-7 seeds are averaging over .600 with just 2.5 games separating them. To catch them by season's end (if the #7 seed plays worse), Portland has to win 28-29 games out of 43. If they play at their current pace, Portland would have to win 32-33 out of 43 remaining games.Does anyone see them doing that?

They did something similar last year though.

 

[TBpup]

They did something similar last year though.

Yes they did but the teams around them were much worse. 44 wins got the #5 seed last year. At current pace, that would only be good for the 8th seed this year and would trail the #7 seed by several games.

 

[BonesJones]

@Orion Bailey ....so take the next 30 games. If the #7 seed (currently the Thunder) continue at their current pace, they would win 18 of those games. That would make them 41-28. Portland would have to go 25-5 over the same period to get to the same 41 wins. Sure, anything is possible but Portland would have to play insanely better than they have so far or OKC is going to have to decline quite a bit. Even if they were to just go .500 (which would be much less than they are doing now) that would put them at 38-31. Portland would then have to go 22-8 over the same stretch.

I just don't see that happening. It is too much of a departure from who they have been so far. Bad teams just don't get that hot unless they were without a star due to injury and they come back. Even then, that would be a monstrous improvement.

So there are 43 games left. If whomever is #7 were just to play .500 ball, they get 44-45 wins. Right now the #4-7 seeds are averaging over .600 with just 2.5 games separating them. To catch them by season's end (if the #7 seed plays worse), Portland has to win 28-29 games out of 43. If they play at their current pace, Portland would have to win 32-33 out of 43 remaining games.Does anyone see them doing that?

Most teams above us have had relatively easy schedules that get harder as the session progresses. I expect 2 teams between 5-7 to finish out near .500

 

[Orion Bailey]

Most teams above us have had relatively easy schedules that get harder as the session progresses. I expect 2 teams between 5-7 to finish out near .500

Great point. @TBpup, Have you taken into account strength of schedule?

 

[Minstrel]

How much do we want to bank on strength of schedule when Portland just lost at home to the Pistons? Aren't those the "easy" games that Portland was supposed to feast on going forward?

Strength of schedule is a real thing and it matters, but I'd be very skeptical of the idea that Portland is a good to very good team that just got undermined by a tough early schedule. They could have had a tough schedule and be a mediocre to sub-mediocre team. That's where I'd place my bets at the moment.

Maybe the Detroit game was a total aberration and we'll see them start crushing the bad teams, but the Detroit game looked a lot like the Dallas game and other games where they basically didn't look any better than their bad opponent.

 

[selloutking]

Great point. @TBpup, Have you taken into account strength of schedule?

I would say he pretty much did

@Orion Bailey ....so take the next 30 games. If the #7 seed (currently the Thunder) continue at their current pace, they would win 18 of those games. That would make them 41-28. Portland would have to go 25-5 over the same period to get to the same 41 wins. Sure, anything is possible but Portland would have to play insanely better than they have so far or OKC is going to have to decline quite a bit. Even if they were to just go .500 (which would be much less than they are doing now) that would put them at 38-31. Portland would then have to go 22-8 over the same stretch.

I just don't see that happening. It is too much of a departure from who they have been so far. Bad teams just don't get that hot unless they were without a star due to injury and they come back. Even then, that would be a monstrous improvement.

So there are 43 games left. If whomever is #7 were just to play .500 ball, they get 44-45 wins. Right now the #4-7 seeds are averaging over .600 with just 2.5 games separating them. To catch them by season's end (if the #7 seed plays worse), Portland has to win 28-29 games out of 43. If they play at their current pace, Portland would have to win 32-33 out of 43 remaining games.Does anyone see them doing that?

 

[Orion Bailey]

How much do we want to bank on strength of schedule when Portland just lost at home to the Pistons? Aren't those the "easy" games that Portland was supposed to feast on going forward?

Strength of schedule is a real thing and it matters, but I'd be very skeptical of the idea that Portland is a good to very good team that just got undermined by a tough early schedule. They could have had a tough schedule and be a mediocre to sub-mediocre team. That's where I'd place my bets at the moment.

Maybe the Detroit game was a total aberration and we'll see them start crushing the bad teams, but the Detroit game looked a lot like the Dallas game and other games where they basically didn't look any better than their bad opponent.

More so referring to opponents strength of schedule, not ours.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I would say he pretty much did

That isnt discussing strength of schedule of our opponents though. That's just a what if.
Has anyone actually looked at the second half of the season for some of the top teams in the Western Conference?
I dont know, I am asking.

 

[TBpup]

@Orion Bailey ....I haven't looked at SoS of other teams. Most of today has been spent putting together a 401K plan so only so much time to go around. Portland has had a difficult schedule but as @Minstrel pointed out, they have lost games that they should be winning. Games like getting beat by Detroit at home and getting blown out by teams like Denver somewhat invalidate the SoS piece from Portland's end.

The Blazers' schedule should get a little easier and other teams may get more difficult. But no matter what other teams do, Portland is quite a ways behind teams that have played nearly .600 ball for the first half of the season. The Blazers would have to win EVERY game against the <.500 teams and a more than a few against the Playoff teams to even think about getting to the #7 seed.

I just don't see that happening even if other teams fall off.

 

[Denny Crane]

A historically bad (for the West) 16-23 has us in the #8 slot....on pace for a gruesome 33 wins. That is pathetically bad for a Playoff team. I think Portland will finish better than that but it shows how far the chaff are behind after the #7 seed.



....where we drafted Damian Lillard and CJ McCollum. I totally agree, the Lottery can be a crap shoot and some teams are run better than others but the stars in this league usually come from the Lottery. Not that there aren't busts and you can hit on a player later in the draft but when you look through the All-NBA teams, the majority are Lottery players.

2015-16 All-NBA Teams:
1st Team
LeBron James #1
Stephen Curry #7
Kawhi Leonard #15
DeAndre Jordan #35
Russell Westbrook #4

Jordan is an anomaly as he certainly isn't one of the 5 best players in the NBA but because the Center position is so down, they had to put someone in there.

2nd Team
Kevin Durant #2
Draymond Green #35
DeMarcus Cousins #5
Chris Paul #3
Damian Lillard #6

Again, a 2nd round pick but this is much more legit than DeAndre Jordan. Green is a stud and a true diamond in the rough.

3rd Team
Paul George #10
LaMarcus Aldridge #2
Andre Drummond #9
Klay Thompson #11
Kyle Lowry #24

Out of 15 players, only 4 are not Lottery players and Jordan has no business being 1st team but they had to choose a center. Kawhi at #15 missed the Lottery by one pick so Green and Lowry are the only real outliers. Those three teams don't include this year Top-2 choice for MVP, James Harden (#3).

So if you put the much more deserving Harden in and take Jordan out, that is 12 of 15 which is 80% of the All-NBA came from the Lottery. They also represent the last 5 NBA champions and all 10 of the teams that have played for the Finals in those season.

The Lottery is no sure thing when selecting....but teams aren't winning championships without Lottery picks either.

We have several lottery picks on the team already.

 

[H.C.]

Saying the West has been tough in the past, while true is complete cherry picking.
Someone who does this is blatantly ignoring the down-trend in number of wins needed to make the playoffs
I'd be surprised to see the 5th seed above 46 wins.(said this before the season, say it now)
A couple teams are already starting to come down from the .600 pace that was being set by 7 different teams... And we're not even at the break yet.

 

[Denny Crane]

The math that looks daunting is: the Blazers are 16-23. They have to go 25-18 to hit .500.

To win 50, they have to go 34-9 the rest of the way.

And so on.

25-18 seems doable.

34-9? We'd be kicking ass the whole rest of the season.

 

[Denny Crane]

Saying the West has been tough in the past, while true is complete cherry picking.
Someone who does this is blatantly ignoring the down-trend in number of wins needed to make the playoffs
I'd be surprised to see the 5th seed above 46 wins.(I said this before the season started, and I say it now)
A couple teams are already starting to come down from the .600 pace that was being set by 7 different teams... And we're not even at the break yet.

To win 46 games, we have to go 30-13 the rest of the way.

 

[H.C.]

To win 46 games, we have to go 30-13 the rest of the way.

Do-able but I doubt portland's ability to get to 46.
Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do-able but I doubt portland's ability to get to 46.
Hopefully I'm wrong.

30-13 is a 57 win pace. over 82 games.

 

[Minstrel]

More so referring to opponents strength of schedule, not ours.

Yeah, but opposing SoS doesn't matter too much if Portland keeps losing. There are no 15-game winning streaks to be had when you're even money against the Pistons and Mavericks of the world.

 

[BonesJones]

How much do we want to bank on strength of schedule when Portland just lost at home to the Pistons? Aren't those the "easy" games that Portland was supposed to feast on going forward?

Strength of schedule is a real thing and it matters, but I'd be very skeptical of the idea that Portland is a good to very good team that just got undermined by a tough early schedule. They could have had a tough schedule and be a mediocre to sub-mediocre team. That's where I'd place my bets at the moment.

Maybe the Detroit game was a total aberration and we'll see them start crushing the bad teams, but the Detroit game looked a lot like the Dallas game and other games where they basically didn't look any better than their bad opponent.

Yes, those are the easy games that Portland should win. But saying that these 5-7th seeded teams will keep up their current pace when they've been building that pace against weaker opponents and will start to face stronger opponents in the future, is wrong. They're pace, due to the soft early schedule and tougher-later schedule means that a current winning percentage of .600 means that they're ON PACE to finish around .550, just due to strength of schedule.

 

[BonesJones]

I'm just hoping we get the 6th seed. We could beat the Rockets in a first round series, and then we'd have confidence. Who knows with the Spurs and their older pieces.