"Youngest team in the league"

[Ed O]

Can we please stop saying that we're the "youngest team in the league"?

We weren't before the trade deadline and we certainly are not now that we traded for Michael Ruffin.

Unless, of course, the Warriors somehow managed to age more quickly than we did. The current roster average ages are around 25.17 years for the Blazers and 24.69 years for the Warriors, by my calculations. Taking Raef out, you get 24.63ish, but taking Raef and Martell out you get 24.81.

My calculations might be a bit off, but they're close enough to convince me that we are not the youngest team in the league.

It doesn't seem necessary for us to make stuff up in order to make our team's efforts look more impressive. We are very young and we're doing very well. We don't call ourselves the "best team in the NBA" and I don't think we should call ourselves the "youngest team in the NBA", either.

Ed O.

 

[yenniedn]

simple solution: add "one of the" to the front of that label and problem solved.

 

[Boob-No-More]

But, I bet if you do the calculatrion on a per minute played basis the Blazers are younger than the Warriors.

Not that it reall matters...

BNM

 

[Reep]

We are very young and we're doing very well.

I am not very young, nor am I doing particularly well. But, that may not be what you meant.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Can we please stop saying that we're the "youngest team in the league"?

We weren't before the trade deadline and we certainly are not now that we traded for Michael Ruffin.

Unless, of course, the Warriors somehow managed to age more quickly than we did. The current roster average ages are around 25.17 years for the Blazers and 24.69 years for the Warriors, by my calculations. Taking Raef out, you get 24.63ish, but taking Raef and Martell out you get 24.81.

Ed O.

Why take Martell out? He's actually been with the team since the beginning of the season. When's the last time Raef LaFrentz was even present with the team? Do the Warriors have any players on their roster that are off in another state and aren't actually present with the team? Sounds like when you compare players who are actually present between the two franchises, you see that the Blazers are younger. Seems like an odd thing to get bitchy about...

 

[Ed O]

Why take Martell out? He's actually been with the team since the beginning of the season. When's the last time Raef LaFrentz was even present with the team? Do the Warriors have any players on their roster that are off in another state and aren't actually present with the team? Sounds like when you compare players who are actually present between the two franchises, you see that the Blazers are younger.

I totally agree that if we go by a per-minute basis, the Blazers are probably the youngest team in the league. If we go by "presence", then the Blazers are the youngest team in the league.

But if we go by home court record, we get one "best record in the NBA" and if we go by road record we'll get another "best record in the NBA". Why not just go by "best overall record in the NBA" when we say "best record in the NBA"?

And why not just look at the rosters when we say "youngest team in the NBA"?

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

And why not just look at the rosters when we say "youngest team in the NBA"?

Because LaFrentz wasn't really a part of the team. Technically, Portland wasn't the youngest team in basketball, but for all intents and purposes they were.

That may have changed with the swapping of Diogu for Ruffin, I don't know. But if Portland is the youngest when LaFrentz is not counted, I have no problem with the claim. It's not deceptive in the least, because it accurately conveys the fact that Portland has the youngest group of active players. The fact that the team still employs LaFrentz to sit at home until the end of the year strikes me as a mere technicality, not a meaningful issue.

If there were an award for it, or money given out, or playoff seeding at stake, then we should go by the NBA's accounting. Since it's simply a descriptive point, not an accounting point, I think leaving out LaFrentz is perfectly valid.

Not that it matters very much.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

We are the youngest team in the league if you go by active roster. What we are accomplishing in spite of this is, to me, pretty extraordinary. To ignore this simple fact, is like ignoring an injury to a starter. It's a factor.

When we lose in the first or second round it will be THE factor.

 

[PapaG]

What would being the youngest team in the league mean for that team? Does it get extra wins or something?

Meh

 

[Ed O]

We are the youngest team in the league if you go by active roster. What we are accomplishing in spite of this is, to me, pretty extraordinary. To ignore this simple fact, is like ignoring an injury to a starter. It's a factor.

Are we the youngest by that measure? Have you done the math? I ask honestly.

And are we talking about a cumulative track of who's been active and who's been inactive, or are you talking about the latest games?

I'm not saying that our youth is not a factor, and I'm not saying that we're NOT young. Just that I question the accuracy of repeated assertions that we're THE youngest. It seems like spin to me.

And unnecessary spin at that.

Ed O.

 

[THE HCP]

Raef isn't a part of this team. And when we lose in the first round, the "experts" will say it was because of our youth and lack of experience.

 

[Ed O]

Raef isn't a part of this team. And when we lose in the first round, the "experts" will say it was because of our youth and lack of experience.

He's on the roster. He's part of the team.

Steve Francis is not on the roster. He is not part of the team.

See the difference?

Ed O.

 

[mook]

Can we please stop saying that we're the "youngest team in the league"?

Can we please stop saying that "we're" the youngest team in the league? I mean geez, Ed, when was the last time you put on an NBA jersey and went up against Ron Artest?

By my calculations it's not "we" who are playing against the Rockets tonight. It's the collection of NBA players wearing a Portland jersey doing that.

Sheesh. It's so annoying and unnecessary.

 

[Jayps15]

GOD made a post a few weeks ago on this, about how if you go by average age per minutes played that the Blazers have a much younger rotation than other young teams like the Warriors, Hawks, Bulls.

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134211&highlight=average

 

[Sheldon Shape]

He's on the roster. He's part of the team.

Steve Francis is not on the roster. He is not part of the team.

By your definition. Raef LaFrentz and Steve Francis effectively play the same role for the Portland Trail Blazers, it really can't be disputed.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

He's on the roster. He's part of the team.

Steve Francis is not on the roster. He is not part of the team.

See the difference?

Ed O.

The voice of reason has finally snapped

Steve Francis lives out of the state 24/7.
Raef lives out of the state (in Iowa) 24/7.

See the similarities?

 

[THE HCP]

He's on the roster. He's part of the team.

Steve Francis is not on the roster. He is not part of the team.

See the difference?

Ed O.

Interesting. Haven't seen either of them all year!

 

[LittleAlex]

I just wish they would stop talking about it at all. I don't really care one way or the other. I tire of the announcers and beat writers giving the team an out.

 

[Masbee]

Can we please stop saying that we're the "youngest team in the league"?

We weren't before the trade deadline and we certainly are not now that we traded for Michael Ruffin.

Unless, of course, the Warriors somehow managed to age more quickly than we did. The current roster average ages are around 25.17 years for the Blazers and 24.69 years for the Warriors, by my calculations. Taking Raef out, you get 24.63ish, but taking Raef and Martell out you get 24.81.

My calculations might be a bit off, but they're close enough to convince me that we are not the youngest team in the league.

It doesn't seem necessary for us to make stuff up in order to make our team's efforts look more impressive. We are very young and we're doing very well. We don't call ourselves the "best team in the NBA" and I don't think we should call ourselves the "youngest team in the NBA", either.

Ed O.

Nice try, but it won't stop us from spinning the truth to suit our needs.

And we NEED to be the youngest team in the NBA.

Thank you and good night.

 

[Paxil]

We were called the Jailblazers long after we had turned our roster over... so I think we get a few years of calling us the youngest team. =) Of the players on the court... we are anyway.

 

[Rozza5]

I CAN'T BELIEVE WE ARE THE YOUNGEST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE!

that's awesome.

 

[Rozza5]

I just wish they would stop talking about it at all. I don't really care one way or the other. I tire of the announcers and beat writers giving the team an out.

It's not an out.

It's a compliment.

 

[Tince]

I'm surprised this is a big deal. Depending on how you come up with the calculations we are or we are not the youngest teams in the NBA. Either way we're close, and I don't think that should take away from the point that is usually being made when that phrase is used.

 

[Boob-No-More]

He's on the roster. He's part of the team.

But, he hasn't spent 1 second on the active roster all season. He's been on the inactive list. So, his services haven't been available. He has also not practiced with, or traveled with the team.

Steve Francis is not on the roster. He is not part of the team.

See the difference?

I see more similarities than differences. Neither player has spent one second on the active roster. Neither have practiced with, or traveled with the team. While LaFrentz may technically be on the 15-man roster, he's not really part of the team. I wonder if Rudy, Batum and Bayless have ever even met him. They certainly haven't spent any time on the court with him, either at practice or during the games.

BNM

 

[Ed O]

I see more similarities than differences. Neither player has spent one second on the active roster. Neither have practiced with, or traveled with the team. While LaFrentz may technically be on the 15-man roster, he's not really part of the team. I wonder if Rudy, Batum and Bayless have ever even met him. They certainly haven't spent any time on the court with him, either at practice or during the games.

I don't really see why any of this is relevant to determining the youngest team in the NBA.

I think by the definition that anyone would use except some Blazers fans (that is, the age of players on the team's roster) the Blazers are not the oldest team in the NBA.

Ed O.

 

[tlongII]

I believe one of the duties of a forum moderator is to generate site traffic. Good job Ed!

 

[Ed O]

I believe one of the duties of a forum moderator is to generate site traffic. Good job Ed!

Woo hoo! Thanks.

Ed O.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

I don't really see why any of this is relevant to determining the youngest team in the NBA.

Ed O.

Look up the definition of team if you don't know it already. Raef LaFrentz is not included with the team, by definition. Roster yes, team no.

 

[Ed O]

Look up the definition of team if you don't know it already. Raef LaFrentz is not included with the team, by definition. Roster yes, team no.

Do you have a link to the definition that's applicable? After all, a wide definition of "team" includes coaches, right?

The Blazers are paying Raef. He was a guy they could trade. He's on the roster and therefore the team.

Why should we limit ourselves to excluding Raef? Because he hasn't played a minute? But Webster has BARELY played and that difference is insignificant on the floor.

Because he hasn't traveled with the team and Webster has? Who cares? Do we look at the ages of the assistant coaches, who also travel with the players and probably spent more time with them?

Face it. Blazers fans have to stretch definitions to spin it to sound most impressive and there's simply nothing to be gained by doing so.

Ed O.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

Are we the youngest by that measure? Have you done the math? I ask honestly.

Haven't done the math. We were the youngest active roster in the league prior to the deadline, according to something I read/heard a month ago. I doubt that changed much.

I suppose if you don't like it being referred to, and you'd like to disprove it, you could do the math.