"Youngest team in the league"

[Ed O]

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.

The active list changes every game, though. I'm not sure how one could do that math very easily.

The Warriors last night, for example, had three young guys inactive. If they had a couple of their oldest guys inactive (Maggette and Jackson hurt, for example, which happens) and Portland has Oden, Webster and Raef on the inactive list, the Warriors would be younger.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

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.

I'd personally use the age of anyone who has actually played on the team. So, this year I wouldn't count Raef, and I wouldn't have counted Oden last year.

To me a team is: a number of persons associated together in work or activity. Since Raef hasn't practiced or played with the other players this year, I don't consider him part of the team.

So, I consider the Warriors to have the youngest roster, but the Blazers to have the youngest team.

Again, other than arguing semantics, I'm not sure why this really matters. When people refer to the Blazers youth they are doing so as either an indication of how bright their future is, or as a possible reason why they might not succeed in the post season. I don't see what Raef has to do with either case.

BNM

 

[Rozza5]

The active list changes every game, though. I'm not sure how one could do that math very easily.

The Warriors last night, for example, had three young guys inactive. If they had a couple of their oldest guys inactive (Maggette and Jackson hurt, for example, which happens) and Portland has Oden, Webster and Raef on the inactive list, the Warriors would be younger.

Ed O.

I honestly don't understand your problem with this.

Everyone knows what we're talking abut when it's said and almost every time someone mentions the preface involved making us the youngest.

It's in perspective. It's not like we're the 6th youngest team and trying to pull the wool over.

Not only that, I hear "we're the 2nd youngest team" at a 3 to 1 clip anyway...

So now were talking about a minority of a minority who actually have a case that "youngest" is correct.

"Splitting hairs" doesn't do this justice.

 

[Ed O]

Not only that, I hear "we're the 2nd youngest team" at a 3 to 1 clip anyway...

Why is that, do you think?

Do you think that the three people are wrong or that the one person is wrong?

Ed O.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/team

Correct, anyone that contributes to the team physically. Which wouldn't be Raef.

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

Roster and team are different, clearly.

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.

Martell has contributed to the team by being there and at the very least, supporting his teammates. The same can't be said for Raef. I'm willing to bet that some of the players have never met him, and if they have it was maybe once or twice. That doesn't constitute for someone being on a team.

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?

You're really trying to compare some tmie with no time? Raef hasn't spent anytime with the team, if he spent some time that we can actually see, then maybe we would give it a second thought. As of now however, it's doubtful that some of the newer players have even met him.

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.

If you would rather the Blazers be toutted as the 2nd youngest team in the league, then by all means go ahead, I think that it's just as impressive as if they were the youngest team. It appears that you are confusing roster with team. Is Raef a part of our roster? Yes. Is he part of the team? Absolutely not. If you don't contribute to the team, then you are not part of it. All those coaches, bench players, assistants, etc contribute something to the functionality of the team. Raef does not.

 

[Ed O]

If you would rather the Blazers be toutted as the 2nd youngest team in the league, then by all means go ahead, I think that it's just as impressive as if they were the youngest team. It appears that you are confusing roster with team. Is Raef a part of our roster? Yes. Is he part of the team? Absolutely not. If you don't contribute to the team, then you are not part of it. All those coaches, bench players, assistants, etc contribute something to the functionality of the team. Raef does not.

So you are considering physical contributions?

Webster is out for the year. Is he physically contributing?

If not, why should we include him in the age determination for the team?

And if we do NOT include him, then we are no longer the youngest team in the NBA as far as I can tell, even by your definition.

Ed O.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

So you are considering physical contributions?

Webster is out for the year. Is he physically contributing?

If not, why should we include him in the age determination for the team?

And if we do NOT include him, then we are no longer the youngest team in the NBA as far as I can tell, even by your definition.

Ed O.

I thought you would misunderstand my use of "physical." By physical, I mean present, doing something that contributes to the team. At the very least, Martell is with his teammates, talking, supporting, and rehabbing. I think all those contribute to the productivity of the team, don't you?

 

[LittleAlex]

It's not an out.

It's a compliment.

Not when it is mentioned by Quick and Mike B it isn't. At least, not always. It typically gets brought up when the team under preforms or struggles on the road. Something like "Look people, give this team a break. I mean, they ARE the youngest team in the league. What do you expect?"

I am pretty sure it will come up even more down the stretch and in the playoffs.

 

[Ed O]

I thought you would misunderstand my use of "physical." By physical, I mean present, doing something that contributes to the team. At the very least, Martell is with his teammates, talking, supporting, and rehabbing. I think all those contribute to the productivity of the team, don't you?

Why don't you count assistant coaches then?

Ed O.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

The active list changes every game, though. I'm not sure how one could do that math very easily.

I see what you mean. I guess I was thinking as of the start of the season.

Still, they're one of the youngest teams in the league and playing beyond their years. That's just not something I'm willing to ignore for now.

 

[Ed O]

I see what you mean. I guess I was thinking as of the start of the season.

Still, they're one of the youngest teams in the league and playing beyond their years. That's just not something I'm willing to ignore for now.

Sorry if ANYONE thinks I'm diminishing their youth... I think it's awesome what they're doing with all of their young guys, whether they're the youngest or second-youngest.

I just take issue with the, in my estimation, overstatement about them being the youngest.

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Do you think that the three people are wrong or that the one person is wrong?

Neither. I think both are right based on their definitition of "team". As has been shown in this thread, some people consider the team to be the players that have played, practiced and traveled with the team. Others consider the team to be the complete 15-man roster regardless of participation.

Again, I don't see what the big deal is. Depending on the definition of team, we're either the youngest or second youngest team in the league. Even if Raef technically makes us older than the Warriors by one definition, I sure wouldn't trade rosters with them. Nor, would I argue with any Warrior's fan who claims their team is younger than ours. It's simply not worth the energy.

So, if by your definition of team, the Warriors are younger than the Blazers, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to bend to your will and accept your definition as the only one that's plausible.

BNM

 

[Ed O]

So, if by your definition of team, the Warriors are younger than the Blazers, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to bend to your will and accept your definition as the only one that's plausible.

It's not just my definition.

Do you think any non-Blazers fans refer to them as the "youngest team in the NBA"?

Do you think that anyone accepts the general proposition that there are any number of "youngest teams in the NBA" at any given time in any given NBA season?

Ed O.

 

[Boob-No-More]

It's not just my definition.

Excuse me, I meant your preferred definition.

Do you think any non-Blazers fans refer to them as the "youngest team in the NBA"?

I've heard announcers on national telecasts refer to the Blazers as the youngest team in the league. Probably more out of ignorance than differing definitions.

Do you think that anyone accepts the general proposition that there are any number of "youngest teams in the NBA" at any given time in any given NBA season?

Actually, I don't think it matters. I thought I made that clear.

BNM

 

[Da_O]

So I decided to take a look at the average age by minutes played between the Blazers (technically the second youngest team) and the Warriors (technically the youngest team). I did not use exact ages to the day, just to the year, so if player X is 23 and a day, and player Z is 23 and 364 days, they were both considered 23 in my calculations.

Blazers average age - 23.865547
Warriors average age - 25.08755638

/thread

 

[number 10]

this post at BE (through a Warrior's blog) is much more revealing than average age
basically, Memphis is the youngest team, the Blazers close behind.

 

[Erroneous Subterfuge]

Here are some comparisons between Goldenstate & Portland. (My #'s slightly differ from those of GOD's posted a few weeks ago, maybe a few had b-days as well as a few minor trades)

Average Age of Active Roster:
Goldenstate: 24.13
Portland: 24.67 (includes Raef, Webster - Blake's b-day is in two days)

Average Years of Experience of Active Roster:
Goldenstate: 2.87
Portland: 3.47 (counting Greg as a rookie)

But it's far more telling when you break down who's actually on the floor...

Average Age of Active Roster per minute played:
Goldenstate: 25.28
Portland: 23.8

Average Experience of Active Roster per minute played:
Goldenstate: 4.09
Portland: 2.62

Overall Record:
Goldenstate: 20-37
Portland: 35-20

Stat I found most impressive is that Portland ROOKIES play 29.67% of the total minutes... wow.

 

[KingSpeed]

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.

I'm confused. Your very post shows that we are the youngest team in the league without Raef. And even if we're the 2nd youngest team in the league by a very small margin, it's still something that is impressive about our team. It's really unbelievable. We play 4 rookies and our two top scorers are only in their third year. Only one rotation player, Steve Blake, has played in the playoffs. Can you find any team in the last 10 years that fits that? It's really remarkable what we've accomplished and what an amazing upside we have in the coming years.

 

[The Professional Fan]

Well....I don't see Raef as a human entity, I see him as a contract. I seriously doubt he'll ever play a game in the NBA again, and he hasn't contributed one iota of ANYTHING, on or off the court, all season.

I see Martel as a human entity, that is present, relevant, and will play again in the NBA.

Therefore, by my own definition, the Blazers are the youngest team in the NBA.

 

[Ed O]

I'm confused. Your very post shows that we are the youngest team in the league without Raef. And even if we're the 2nd youngest team in the league by a very small margin, it's still something that is impressive about our team. It's really unbelievable. We play 4 rookies and our two top scorers are only in their third year. Only one rotation player, Steve Blake, has played in the playoffs. Can you find any team in the last 10 years that fits that? It's really remarkable what we've accomplished and what an amazing upside we have in the coming years.

I can't think of any team in the last decade, no.

And all of what you typed is true. I don't think that excluding Raef makes sense, though, and so unless one is going to qualify the statement, I find "youngest team in the NBA" to be inaccurate.

Ed O.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

Why don't you count assistant coaches then?

Ed O.

Assistant coaches are part of the team. They give the rest of the team their presence and help the players in a variety of ways. You keep reaching and reaching but unfortunately for you, nothing is there. It's fine that you have a different point of view but you no longer make sense when disputing others'.

 

[MickZagger]

Its not really baffling logic here. Raef LaFrentz hasn't played a minute this year, he's the oldest player technically on contract, but he hasn't played so what is the point in figuring him into the team age? Ruffin has played a total of 2 minutes or something like that.

Outside of Blake, Joel and Outlaw no one else who actually gets burn is over the age of 25.

 

[MickZagger]

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.

Would it save you thought then if people added "per minute basis" to the youngest team in the league statement?

When implying that were the youngest team in the league I think most people actually are speaking of the playing rotation, not who sits around and collects a paycheck and doesn't have anything to do with the team except for monetary purposes.

 

[MickZagger]

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.

I wouldn't say its an out. More like realistic expectations. This is a league won by veterans, name the last time the youngest team in the league (on a per minute basis) was a top seeded playoff team?

 

[Sinobas]

Who really gives a flying fuck?

 

[Rozza5]

Why is that, do you think?

Do you think that the three people are wrong or that the one person is wrong?

Ed O.

My post argues none of the 4 are wrong. It's a grey issue. Not black and white.

 

[MrJayremmie]

So pretty much Ed thinks we should count Raef against our age and a majority of our posters think we should not count Raef.

I think I lean a little bit toward not counting Raef, since the only thing he is to us is a contract. I guess its close to Francis to where we are paying his contract but he isn't contributing to the team (or with the team).

 

[B-Roy]

So pretty much Ed thinks we should count Raef against our age and a majority of our posters think we should not count Raef.

I think I lean a little bit toward not counting Raef, since the only thing he is to us is a contract. I guess its close to Francis to where we are paying his contract but he isn't contributing to the team (or with the team).

He's with them in spirit. He's the driving force behind our threes.

 

[Boob-No-More]

And all of what you typed is true. I don't think that excluding Raef makes sense, though, and so unless one is going to qualify the statement, I find "youngest team in the NBA" to be inaccurate.

So, if you're going to insist everyone else qualify their statements about the Blazers being the youngest team in the league, shouldn't you also qualify your statement: I find "youngest team in the NBA" to be inaccurate by adding: by my preferred definition.

This is quite silly. Do you really think everyone else is going to stop calling the Blazers the "youngest team in the NBA" just because you want them to and started a thread about it in an online forum?

BNM

 

[Ed O]

So, if you're going to insist everyone else qualify their statements about the Blazers being the youngest team in the league, shouldn't you also qualify your statement: I find "youngest team in the NBA" to be inaccurate by adding: by my preferred definition.

This is quite silly. Do you really think everyone else is going to stop calling the Blazers the "youngest team in the NBA" just because you want them to and started a thread about it in an online forum?

You guys can do whatever you want. I'm just telling you that it makes you look like homers, redefining terms and bending over backwards to call them something they're not.



Ed O.