The optimism (this season) about the Blazers is ludicrous

[BoBoBREWSKI]

I think we'll be the 8th seed. HOMER!

1 - Thunder
2 - Lakers
3 - Spurs
4 - Clippers
5 - Grizz
6 - Nuggets
7 - Timberwolves
8 - Trail Blazers

Dallas - OUT!

 

[Denny Crane]

Really Denny? I guess I should have qualified the question with "superstar that actually played".

He played in 66 of 82 games. If having a superstar gets you a .500 record, they'd have won at least 33 that season, no?

 

[blazerboy30]

He played in 66 of 82 games. If having a superstar gets you a .500 record, they'd have won at least 33 that season, no?

Who said a superstar gets you a 0.500 record? Strawman? Yes. But you sure knocked it down.

 

[Denny Crane]

Who said a superstar gets you a 0.500 record? Strawman? Yes. But you sure knocked it down.

It's not a strawman. It speaks to how much of an effect you might expect from a weak-ish team with a top 15 player.

 

[Blaze01]

I disagree. Batum and Hickson are both above average as players, and Matthews is actually very good compared to other SGs around the league.

If Lillard gets you at least 15/6 and can stay in games for starters' minutes, the starting lineup would be solid.

As I said, it's the bench that looks thin. You want a guy on the bench who can step in for an extended period and not be a significant drop off in talent.

If you have to play Nolan Smith 20 games at PG, or start Babbitt or Jeffries, yikes!

Lillard averaging 15\6 is on par\better than what the majority of elite PG in the NBA produced in thier 1st year...I think that is an overly ambitious assumption....

Hickson is a year removed from being picked off the scrap heap by the Blazers, after washing out with both CLE & SAC...While he played well last year, particularly when LA was down and of course when the games really didn't matter...it remains to be seen how he will perform playing WITH LA and being counted on to be a consistent performer.....

As for Batum & Matthews being above average...well, average must really suck then....they are both wildly inconsistent players, whom people are "convinced" will turn the corner this year and become these much better versions of themselves than they have shown to date....

Here is how Batum started the season last year (1st 15 games):10-15-6-15-12-2-12-11-9-14-7-29-19-0-9. Now being paid like an All Star caliber player, he needs to start playing like one, every night....I remain skeptical than he can.

And while I like Matthews attitude and grit, I do not like him as a starting caliber SG at all...He started off like gangbusters last year and then went in the tank mid december-mid february, when the games actually mattered...another wildly inconsistent player.....

I have heard this record enough from the Blazers before.....They have 1 fringe All-Star caliber player, a few rotation caliber players and a whole bunch of scrubs....Not usually a playoff caliber team without some serious help from other teams' misfortunes....

 

[Rhal]

25 and 6, and arguably #2 SF in the league. I'd say as good if not better.

The first two years in the league all Durant did was chuck, he didn't play D and his team +/- was better when he was off the court. In his third year was really when he went from this scorer who could do nothing else (his defense was beyond a joke) to elevating every other part of his game.

 

[blazerboy30]

It's not a strawman. It speaks to how much of an effect you might expect from a weak-ish team with a top 15 player.

Like I said, who claimed that a superstar gets you a 0.500 record? I asked the question of how likely a superstar gets the worst, or even bottom 5 record in the league. (ASSUMING THEY ACTUALLY PLAY).

 

[Denny Crane]

Hickson, aside from a miserable half a season in Sacto put up PERs of 12.5 14.7, 17.6, and then 17.2 with Portland (9.2 with Sacto, 35 games). It sure seems like he's a ~17+ PER player at this point in his career.

The Bulls won 50 out of 66 games last season, starting Ronnie Brewer at SG for 43 of those games (and Rip didn't play starter's minutes when he started). I think Matthews is better, so did Utah who let Brewer go to let Matthews start.

Regardless of his consistency, Batum's averages were quite good. His PER of 17.3 is far better than average, though I agree not all-star caliber. What you need for his paycheck is 36 minutes a night, IMO.

I am not suggesting the team is a championship contender, but they do have to play the games to find out for sure. I figure them to be a contender for 6-8th seed. Of more concern, to me, is the change in management - new coach and GM. Nate's coaching was consistently boring, but effective at winning ballgames without a lineup of superstars. This is TBD as far as current management and coach goes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Like I said, who claimed that a superstar gets you a 0.500 record? I asked the question of how likely a superstar gets the worst, or even bottom 5 record in the league. (ASSUMING THEY ACTUALLY PLAY).

For the games he DID play and the ones he didn't play, LA was near the worst record.

 

[Blaze01]

But is he a 17 per player playing alongside LA? I would be surprised if he is....

Batum is certainly a key rotational player on any team that he would be on, but the problem with him is consistency...and on POR for them to have any meaningful success he is going to have to be counted on to be that consistent #2 option...and he has been unable to do so up to this point, and his recent play on the national team didn't lead me to believe that he has suddenly changed into the type of player that his contract now demands that he become...

Matthews is better than Brewer, for sure I agree with that, but the Bulls winning 50 out of 66 games had little to do with Brewer and a lot more to do with other players on that team, the type of players (and coaching) that this POR team does not have....

 

[blazerboy30]

For the games he DID play and the ones he didn't play, LA was near the worst record.

Denny, your example just wasn't a good one. I'm not saying they're aren't other examples, but this isn't one.

 

[THE HCP]

I think we'll be the 8th seed. HOMER!

1 - Thunder
2 - Lakers
3 - Spurs
4 - Clippers
5 - Grizz
6 - Nuggets
7 - Timberwolves
8 - Trail Blazers

Dallas - OUT!

You son are OUT YO MIND!

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, your example just wasn't a good one. I'm not saying they're aren't other examples, but this isn't one.

OK

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/2004.html

 

[mook]

OK

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/2004.html

Side note: The Maggette/Brand experiment kind of reminds me of the Carmello/Amare experiment.

 

[blazerboy30]

OK

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/2004.html

Brand missed 13 games that season. However, when he did play, he put up a PER of 23. Those Clips finished 5th worst I think.

However, if LMA misses 13 games that would change my estimate for wins and standings quite a bit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Brand missed 13 games that season. However, when he did play, he put up a PER of 23. Those Clips finished 5th worst I think.

However, if LMA misses 13 games that would change my estimate for wins and standings quite a bit.

Yeah. I'd say PER of 23 is top 15 kind of player.

Aldridge missed 1 out of every 6 games last season, or proportionally a shade more than Brand missing 1.3 out of every 8 games that season.

 

[blazerboy30]

Yeah. I'd say PER of 23 is top 15 kind of player.

Aldridge missed 1 out of every 6 games last season, or proportionally a shade more than Brand missing 1.3 out of every 8 games that season.

I'm still curious though, in general, how likely it is that a superstar / top15 player finishes that badly in the league when they play almost all of the games. I'm wondering if we're underestimating the impact of a great player.

It's possible I'm way off base here, it was just a thought.

 

[noknobs]

I have to agree with the OP... I'm laughing that people are actually mentioning .500 or eighth seed... There is approximately 0.0% chance of either of those happening this year. (it's actually 0.03% & 0.008% respectively but I rounded down)

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm still curious though, in general, how likely it is that a superstar / top15 player finishes that badly in the league when they play almost all of the games. I'm wondering if we're underestimating the impact of a great player.

It's possible I'm way off base here, it was just a thought.

You could look at the distribution of players.

Top 15 implies there are 15 other teams with a player not as good.

It doesn't say anything about those other teams having a guy near that good and 4 others also near that good.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/1985.html

Dominique Wilkins at age 25, played 81 games.

 

[Rhal]

Lillard averaging 15\6 is on par\better than what the majority of elite PG in the NBA produced in thier 1st year...I think that is an overly ambitious assumption....

Hickson is a year removed from being picked off the scrap heap by the Blazers, after washing out with both CLE & SAC...While he played well last year, particularly when LA was down and of course when the games really didn't matter...it remains to be seen how he will perform playing WITH LA and being counted on to be a consistent performer.....

As for Batum & Matthews being above average...well, average must really suck then....they are both wildly inconsistent players, whom people are "convinced" will turn the corner this year and become these much better versions of themselves than they have shown to date....

Here is how Batum started the season last year (1st 15 games):10-15-6-15-12-2-12-11-9-14-7-29-19-0-9. Now being paid like an All Star caliber player, he needs to start playing like one, every night....I remain skeptical than he can.

And while I like Matthews attitude and grit, I do not like him as a starting caliber SG at all...He started off like gangbusters last year and then went in the tank mid december-mid february, when the games actually mattered...another wildly inconsistent player.....

I have heard this record enough from the Blazers before.....They have 1 fringe All-Star caliber player, a few rotation caliber players and a whole bunch of scrubs....Not usually a playoff caliber team without some serious help from other teams' misfortunes....

Besides you assuming Lillard isn't going to be that good you seem to be assuming everyone is going to regress this year (calling LA a fringe All Star with what he did the last two years is saying he will regress). This is something I can't get behind, yes I'm optimistic batum/mathews will become consistent offensive players, that Lillard is more nba ready then most nba guards coming into the league and that hickson/La will both improve.
Most of my optimism comes from a coach who will play a more open style and not bench everyone not named Roy when they make a mistake.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mook]

If you want to talk about elite 2-way power forwards who were always relatively healthy but stuck on crappy teams, a better example is Garnett in Minnesota. His teams after his rookie year never dipped below .500 until the final two years. And if you look at those last two seasons those teams were seriously terrible.

Obviously, at that time Garnett ranged from being maybe top 3 in the league to top 7. Much better than LMA. So it's a pretty imperfect comparison.

But it seems to me that if you have an elite PF who plays both offense and defense, and you have a bevvy of good three point shooters playing starters minutes (Batum, Matthews, Lillard), and a PG who by all accounts can run a good pick and roll, it's not a stretch to project it to go .500.

The perimeter shooting in particular should be a major upgrade for us this season. That, plus having a center who can score a little (which all 3 of our C's project to do). We're losing a lot in defense and savvy over last year's starting lineup, and we've definitely taken a hit on the bench, but there have been significant upgrades too.

 

[Boise Blazer]

I guess what I expect and what is realistic are one thing and what i think is possible is another. I actually like our starting 5/6 players. I think there is a chance that things come together and we catch some people off guard. But to compete or make the playoff a few things would have to happen:

First and foremost we would have to be completely healthy. Like zero injuries.
Second, the rookies would have to play not like rookies sooner rather than later. And one of the bench guys would have to "break out"
Third, we would have to catch some breaks and get a few calls here and there. Get lucky
And finally we would have to find a way to use are youth to our advantage. Which is really hard to do.

So although these things arent impossible or even hard to do in some cases, any true Blazer fan knows that these things dont generally happen when it comes to the Blazers. Its also really hard in our division where 4 teams could have a shot at the playoffs


So my high hopes are that for these young guys and the team in general is that it could be really beneficial to be battling for a playoff spot at least until the last few weeks or so. To get the good and bad taste in their mouth to build and motivate for next year.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you want to talk about elite 2-way power forwards who were always relatively healthy but stuck on crappy teams, a better example is Garnett in Minnesota. His teams after his rookie year never dipped below .500 until the final two years. And if you look at those last two seasons those teams were seriously terrible.

Obviously, at that time Garnett ranged from being maybe top 3 in the league to top 7. Much better than LMA. So it's a pretty imperfect comparison.

But it seems to me that if you have an elite PF who plays both offense and defense, and you have a bevvy of good three point shooters playing starters minutes (Batum, Matthews, Lillard), and a PG who by all accounts can run a good pick and roll, it's not a stretch to project it to go .500.

The perimeter shooting in particular should be a major upgrade for us this season. That, plus having a center who can score a little (which all 3 of our C's project to do). We're losing a lot in defense and savvy over last year's starting lineup, and we've definitely taken a hit on the bench, but there have been significant upgrades too.

For several years, I think Garnett was the very best, not in the 3-7 range

The guy put up PER over 23 for nine straight seasons, over 25 in five of those, 28 in one and 29 in one. Maybe PER isn't the ideal measure, so how about DPOY candidate who was a top 10 scorer, #1 in rebounds, and dished near 6 APG. A 7' version of Pippen.

 

[mook]

For several years, I think Garnett was the very best, not in the 3-7 range

The guy put up PER over 23 for nine straight seasons, over 25 in five of those, 28 in one and 29 in one. Maybe PER isn't the ideal measure, so how about DPOY candidate who was a top 10 scorer, #1 in rebounds, and dished near 6 APG. A 7' version of Pippen.

That's a debate worth having, especially considering those were also Shaq and Duncan's glory years.

But yeah, when you want to talk about the real travesties in terms of squandered talent over the past 15 years, how badly the T-wolves built around Garnett is right up there.

It's why I had absolutely no problem with LeBron leaving Cleveland.

 

[mook]

When you think back to the Shaq/Duncan/Garnett/Dirk era, it makes you wonder if the Heat could've won a title back then. The size and skill of the current crop of elite PF/C's just doesn't compare.

Man, I'm becoming one of those old guys I always hated, saying "back in my day..."

 

[PapaG]

I'm optimistic about the year and I think the team will struggle to win 32 games. A decent pick in the lottery and some cap space for the summer will take care of the issue at SG, hopefully, but that doesn't mean I am not excited to watch the team grow this year, and LMA develop into a true franchise player.

Why is that ridiculous?

 

[blazerboy30]

If you want to talk about elite 2-way power forwards who were always relatively healthy but stuck on crappy teams, a better example is Garnett in Minnesota. His teams after his rookie year never dipped below .500 until the final two years. And if you look at those last two seasons those teams were seriously terrible.

Obviously, at that time Garnett ranged from being maybe top 3 in the league to top 7. Much better than LMA. So it's a pretty imperfect comparison.

But it seems to me that if you have an elite PF who plays both offense and defense, and you have a bevvy of good three point shooters playing starters minutes (Batum, Matthews, Lillard), and a PG who by all accounts can run a good pick and roll, it's not a stretch to project it to go .500.

The perimeter shooting in particular should be a major upgrade for us this season. That, plus having a center who can score a little (which all 3 of our C's project to do). We're losing a lot in defense and savvy over last year's starting lineup, and we've definitely taken a hit on the bench, but there have been significant upgrades too.

Good post.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i think the main point of "optimism" is lillard, as he goes, so do the blazers chances to win this year, and in the future

 

[RR7]

i think the main point of "optimism" is lillard, as he goes, so do the blazers chances to win this year, and in the future

thus, championship.

 

[MickZagger]

Lillard averaging 15\6 is on par\better than what the majority of elite PG in the NBA produced in thier 1st year...I think that is an overly ambitious assumption....

Hickson is a year removed from being picked off the scrap heap by the Blazers, after washing out with both CLE & SAC...While he played well last year, particularly when LA was down and of course when the games really didn't matter...it remains to be seen how he will perform playing WITH LA and being counted on to be a consistent performer.....

As for Batum & Matthews being above average...well, average must really suck then....they are both wildly inconsistent players, whom people are "convinced" will turn the corner this year and become these much better versions of themselves than they have shown to date....

Here is how Batum started the season last year (1st 15 games):10-15-6-15-12-2-12-11-9-14-7-29-19-0-9. Now being paid like an All Star caliber player, he needs to start playing like one, every night....I remain skeptical than he can.

And while I like Matthews attitude and grit, I do not like him as a starting caliber SG at all...He started off like gangbusters last year and then went in the tank mid december-mid february, when the games actually mattered...another wildly inconsistent player.....

I have heard this record enough from the Blazers before.....They have 1 fringe All-Star caliber player, a few rotation caliber players and a whole bunch of scrubs....Not usually a playoff caliber team without some serious help from other teams' misfortunes....

You advocated us drafting Marquis freaking Teague over Lillard. You dug yourself so far in a hole emotionally that you're now crossing your fingers that Lillard won't pan out when its obvious he will.