Notice OFFICIAL AROUND THE NBA THREAD-January 2021

Cavs beat the Nets (without Durant tonight) two times in a row. I know it's easy to see it looking back; obviously we didn't know NJ would be desperate for a first round pick when we made the trade for Roco. And we didn't know Collins and Nurk would go down. Cavs got Jarrett Allen and Prince for Exum and Milwaukee's first rounder for 2021. Seems we could have got those two for Ariza and our 2021 pick. I tell you, it sure is nice to see a center who stuffs the ball on a regular basis.

 

Then I started thinking: Couldn't someone like Harry Giles do everything that a Jarrett Allen does, if he was given the opportunity? Why can't we ever have a change of pace second unit that really pushes the ball and uses their athleticism? That, of course, would probably require a dynamic playmaker PG, so I guess not......

 

While not the best coach ever, I always liked Monty.

 

I hope the rebuild starts sooner than later so we can find gems like this

 

You wish we were the Kings?

 

Exactly! It was my first thought.

 

That is all legitimate, but it doesn't seem to be bothering the Pacers who have new players, a MAJOR trade, a new offense, a new defense and a new coach.....and they are looking very good.

Excuses are easy. But when we've seen this movie over....and over...and over again, it gets a bit old.

 

Okay, I was with you in the first paragraph. You raise a good point as to why the Pacers are able to play competent defense with their many roster changes while the Blazers haven’t been able to. As with any question like that, I suspect there are multiple reasons. One certainly is the one that gets raised here over and over again, any team with Dame and CJ as it’s backcourt is at a disadvantage defensively no matter who is coaching the defense and what schemes they run. Another is that Stotts, while recognizing that the defense needs upgrading, is first and foremost an offense-oriented coach. There’s a lot more we could discuss on this topic.

Your second paragraph is the part I have problems with. Why is it that so often around here that when someone points to reality-based issues that impact the team’s performance, they get accused of making “excuses”? And why is it that after I wrote a lengthy post the other day on the vast differences from season to season of the Lillard/Stotts era, the same old mantra that boils down to “same shit every year” gets trotted out? It’s not the same. The Blazers have had weak defensive years and solid defensive years during that timeframe. It’s primarily been a function of the supporting roster that’s made the difference, not Stotts and not Dame.

 

Maybe because your posts are the same year after year?

 

Ah, but that’s only because yours are the same year after year, grasshopper.

 

"Just as a snake sheds its skin, we must shed our past over and over again.”
― Gautama Buddha

 

“We do not learn from experience... we learn from reflecting on experience.
—John Dewey

 

let me take a stab at answering this

they often seem like excuses to me because I have seen the same team and roster failings, season after season, no matter the personnel. The same offensive stagnation; the same defensive lapses. It's happened to the Dame/Aldridge team & the Dame/CJ team. It's happened to teams that have had almost no roster turnover. And teams that have had significant turnover. The same failures for healthy teams as those of injured teams

I know when viewed by winning percentage, there seems to be a big difference between seasons. 41 wins to 49 wins; 49 to 53. But if you look at the average record of the dame CJ era, after normalizing last season to 82 games, you end up with 45 wins, on average. A 55% winning percentage. That's just about what their winning percentage is this season.

in other words we're arguing if it's excuses or logic that explains the current season that happens to look a lot like the Blazer norm in the Dame/CJ era; or the Olshey/Stotts era, actually. There really hasn't been that much variance, and what there has been is basically due to the same player putting on a cape and going super-hero for long stretches of games

 

The Pacers are 9-6. The Blazers are 8-6, with the last loss coming without 2 of their 3 best players. I really don't see why we should at all be jealous of Indiana - they're even more stuck on the ladder than we are - no superstar means they have no chance.

 

that would be a lot more persuasive if we hadn't recently seen both team on the floor together...when CJ was healthy and the Pacers were missing two starters. Little doubt which team was better that night

 

That guy says, look more deeply than nominal standings...so this guy goes with nominal standings.

 

Blazers move up 3 spots in the standings without playing a game.
Now that is a pretty good indication as to where this season sits just yet.

 

Craziest part is the two games the Blazers just missed were games they probably win. So 8-6 goes 10-6 pretty quick. Puts them in 4th place all alone with a .625 winning record.

 

And here's my problem with that: When you look only at the results in terms of wins and losses and then try to make generalized deductions about the roster and coaching, without considering the things that happened that influenced the record, your conclusions are ultimately nothing more than opinions. Nurk broke his leg and that influenced the team's record for not one, but two of the seasons you're looking at. I'd submit that event had far more impact on the record than Stotts' coaching, the too-small backcourt, the offensive stagnation, or any other variable that gets bandied about here. But, of course, if one takes that point of view, it's "excuse-making", not reality. The main reason that I seem to annoy the heck out of jlprk appears to me to be that I look at the Blazers with that perspective. Oh well, one of us will croak eventually and leave the other in peace.