Science Where will the Blazer finish in 2025-26? (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Wizard Mentor

Wizard Mentor

Wizard Mentor
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
14,669
Likes
14,920
Points
113
Background: Older teams generally do better than younger teams.... up to a point. So, let's look at wins vs. team age for the year 2024/25. How did different teams do considering their age? How did the blazers do? Which teams are expected to get better, which teams are expected to get worse? A quick mathematical analysis with some definite assumptions (like no trades...), but interesting anyway. OKC is a humongous outlier so I through them out. If you throw out the high, you should throw out the low, so I did (Pels).

Data:
upload_2025-4-19_18-58-15-png.73502


Blazers were far left on graph.

2024/25 Analysis:
Blazers wins (age 24.3): 36
NBA expected average wins (for teams age 24.3): 22 (stretched graph and eyeballed, using formula doesn't work probably because of sig figs).
So, Blazers finished 14 wins above what would be expected from the youngest team in the league!

2025/26 (predictions):
Age: 25.3
Expected NBA wins for age 25.3: 22 -> 36
Expected Blazers wins: 36+14 = 50

Visually: Imagine moving graphed line straight up until it goes through this years Blazers data point (far left), then look at where that moved graph is for a 25.3 year old team.

Interesting results:
  • Once your average age is 27.2, you are expected to get worse, which makes some sense. So, the teams that were older than 26.2 THIS year are expected to get worse NEXT year (unless they do something to get younger).
  • 12 teams finished below the curve, 16 teams (including the blazers) finished above. Including okc and and pels, it would be 13 and 17. The reason? Some of the teams that did bad did REALLY bad.
  • Teams with 40 wins or less (teams above the line are in red, Blazers are way above the curve):
    Utah Jazz
    Washington Wizards
    Charlotte Hornets
    Philadelphia 76ers
    Brooklyn Nets
    Toronto Raptors
    San Antonio Spurs
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Phoenix Suns
    Miami Heat
    Chicago Bulls
    Dallas Mavericks
    Atlanta Hawks
    Sacramento Kings
  • If I took out the top 3 and the bottom3 teams, the data would probably be a little more accurate (okc, cleveland, boston and charlotte, philly, phoenix)
  • I used nbaage.com for age data. Used Average Age by Minutes (not usage). Check nbaage.com if you want to know which team is represented by a given data point.
  • 3 oldest teams:
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Golden State Warriors
    Phoenix Suns
  • 3 youngest teams:
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Brooklyn Nets
    Utah Jazz
  • Example: Both the Hawks (age: 25.8) and the Kings (age: 27.7) had 40 wins. Hawks are expected to do much better than the Kings next season.

So, how is this team supposed to improve by 14 games this season? The interpolation assumes the core piece stay the same - Internal Improvement. That's why the model has the younger teams improving at a higher rate than the older team, which is sensible.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2025-4-19_18-58-15.png
    upload_2025-4-19_18-58-15.png
    103.9 KB · Views: 74
Last edited:
Wizard Mentor said:
Background: Older teams generally do better than younger teams.... up to a point. So, let's look at wins vs. team age for the year 2024/25. How did different teams do considering their age? How did the blazers do? Which teams are expected to get better, which teams are expected to get worse? A quick mathematical analysis with some definite assumptions (like no trades...), but interesting anyway. OKC is a humongous outlier so I through them out. If you throw out the high, you should throw out the low, so I did (Pels).

Data:
upload_2025-4-19_18-58-15-png.73502


Blazers were far left on graph.

2024/25 Analysis:
Blazers wins (age 24.3): 36
NBA expected average wins (for teams age 24.3): 22 (stretched graph and eyeballed, using formula doesn't work probably because of sig figs).
So, Blazers finished 14 wins above what would be expected from the youngest team in the league!

2025/26 (predictions):
Age: 25.3
Expected NBA wins for age 25.3: 36
Expected Blazers wins: 36+12 = 50

Visually: Imagine moving graphed line straight up until it goes through this years Blazers data point (far left), then look at where that moved graph is for a 25.3 year old team.

Interesting results:
  • Once your average age is 27.2, you are expected to get worse, which makes some sense. So, the teams that were older than 26.2 THIS year are expected to get worse NEXT year (unless they do something to get younger).
  • 12 teams finished below the curve, 16 teams (including the blazers) finished above. Including okc and and pels, it would be 13 and 17. The reason? Some of the teams that did bad did REALLY bad.
  • Teams with 40 wins or less (teams above the line are in red, Blazers are way above the curve):
    Utah Jazz
    Washington Wizards
    Charlotte Hornets
    Philadelphia 76ers
    Brooklyn Nets
    Toronto Raptors
    San Antonio Spurs
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Phoenix Suns
    Miami Heat
    Chicago Bulls
    Dallas Mavericks
    Atlanta Hawks
    Sacramento Kings
  • If I took out the top 3 and the bottom3 teams, the data would probably be a little more accurate (okc, cleveland, boston and charlotte, philly, phoenix)
  • I used nbaage.com for age data. Used Average Age by Minutes (not usage). Check nbaage.com if you want to know which team is represented by a given data point.
  • 3 oldest teams:
    Los Angeles Clippers
    Golden State Warriors
    Phoenix Suns
  • 3 youngest teams:
    Portland Trail Blazers
    Brooklyn Nets
    Utah Jazz
  • Example: Both the Hawks (age: 25.8) and the Kings (age: 27.7) had 40 wins. Hawks are expected to do much better than the Kings next season.

So, how is this team supposed to improve by 14 games this season? The interpolation assumes the core piece stay the same - Internal Improvement. That's why the model has the younger teams improving at a higher rate than the older team, which is sensible.
Click to expand...
 
can we close this thread? way too early and not enough info available with possible trades and the draft - waste of time IMO.
 
Blazinaway said:
can we close this thread? way too early and not enough info available with possible trades and the draft - waste of time IMO.
Click to expand...
The model is based on simple improvement due to getting older. It is based on our current players. Significant change would diminish the accuracy of the model, so trades don't matter in this model.

Waste of time, lol. Have you actually read the bickering based on feelings on this board?

Here's the actual point: The argument has been that without an ESTABLISHED Superstar, we can't substantively improve. It has been demonstrated that this is incorrect logic for very young teams. The point isn't to accurately predict how many games we'll win next year. The point is to improve the discourse, which I don't consider a "waste of time".
 
Wizard Mentor said:
The model is based on simple improvement due to getting older. It is based on our current players. Significant change would diminish the accuracy of the model, so trades don't matter in this model.

Waste of time, lol. Have you actually read the bickering based on feelings on this board?

Here's the actual point: The argument has been that without an ESTABLISHED Superstar, we can't substantively improve. It has been demonstrated that this is incorrect logic for very young teams. The point isn't to accurately predict how many games we'll win next year. The point is to improve the discourse, which I don't consider a "waste of time".
Click to expand...
I would say we'll have no realistic chance at winning a championship without a superstar.

We'll almost certainly improve as our guys age. Unless the coach is just toxic.
 
Phatguysrule said:
I would say we'll have no realistic chance at winning a championship without a superstar.

We'll almost certainly improve as our guys age. Unless the coach is just toxic.
Click to expand...
My experience is that they OFTEN dub player "superstars" after they win. This is what happened to Drexler, and many, many others. As a more modern example, I think that if Houston makes it to the finals, one of their players will deemed a superstar by players, fans, and media.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
My experience is that they OFTEN dub player "superstars" after they win. This is what happened to Drexler, and many, many others. As a more modern example, I think that if Houston makes it to the finals, one of their players will deemed a superstar by players, fans, and media.
Click to expand...
Oh No! Doesn't Amen Thompson play for the Rockets. We have a dude already primed to call him the next "Superstar".
 
Wizard Mentor said:
My experience is that they OFTEN dub player "superstars" after they win. This is what happened to Drexler, and many, many others. As a more modern example, I think that if Houston makes it to the finals, one of their players will deemed a superstar by players, fans, and media.
Click to expand...
Sure. And we passed on MJ because we already had Drexler.

Do we have anybody worth risking passing on a guy with the athleticism and size of Sharpe who played an important role in winning a national championship?
 
Phatguysrule said:
Sure. And we passed on MJ because we already had Drexler.

Do we have anybody worth risking passing on a guy with the athleticism and size of Sharpe who played an important role in winning a national championship?
Click to expand...
Well, we needed a center too.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
Here's the actual point: The argument has been that without an ESTABLISHED Superstar, we can't substantively improve. It has been demonstrated that this is incorrect logic for very young teams. The point isn't to accurately predict how many games we'll win next year. The point is to improve the discourse, which I don't consider a "waste of time".
Click to expand...

I wonder though, how many of the young teams that have established the baselines, did have a player who became a superstar while they were skewing those baselines upward

for example, the OKC model. They only won 24 games in 2021-22 as by far the youngest team in the league (22.8). SGA hadn't even made it to an all-star game yet
The next season, OKC improved by 16 wins to 40. SGA became an all0star and generally a superstar that season. But because of draft picks, OKC's average age remained the same (22.8). The next season, they improved by 17 wins while their average age went from 22.8 to 23.4. That season, SGA averaged 30-6-6 with a PER of 29.3

obviously, OKC has to be on th upper end of any age/win curve. But I'm wondering if their position on the upper end is because of average age or SGA

Detroit had a 30 win improvement. Was that because of overall roster maturation or because Cade Cunnigham elevated to a top-15 player, going from 23-4-7 to 26-6-9?
 
We are not winning 50 next year. As you move up in wins and age the spread shrinks a lot. We are winning 41-44 games next season.

50 wins is the absolute max for this roster as it ages. Bert has built another mid-tier monster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top