What does .500 mean to you?

In a quest to determine my own expectations of the Blazers this season, I thought it would be interesting to identify every team that finished .500 over the course of the last 18 years, and see what they did the year AFTER their .500 season. Now I know, statistically speaking, the below numbers don't draw any solid conclusions. They're a baseline. So many questions lie beneath those static numbers. Like, if a team was .500 one year, what was their record the previous year? Were they on their way up? Were they on their way down? Or....who did they pick up/draft/lose after their .500 season? Did they change conferences? Divisions? Coaching changes? What about teams that won 40 games? Or teams that won 42 games? Should they be out of scope? So many variables.

Eh.....I'm starting this conversation, that's all. I highly encourage those of you that don't suffer from ADD (like me) to take what I've provided below and dissect it, elaborate upon it and build upon it to form a solid prediction for where the Blazers will finish this season.

I suppose the main reason I'm doing this is because I want to temper my expectations for this season. The Blazers, as a .500 team, are walking in to this season under some extremely unique circumstances. Historically speaking, how many .500 teams, on the rise, not on the decline, add three lottery picks to their squad? - (Oden and Bayless obviously, but Rudy would have been lottery this season as well) - One lottery pick, in Oden, stands as an "all time" prospect!

I can't help but try to temper my expectations, because lately my expectations have been flying off the handle like I'm a 16 year old Blazer fan again. No levity. No logic. Pure emotion......trying.......to........separate logic from emotion....but my logic is feeding my emotion......I NEED HELP.

Example: 1989-1990 teams finishing at .500 are below
Atlanta - the following year, 90-91, Atlanta finished at (43-39)
Houston 90-91 (52-30)
Seattle 90-91 (41-41)


90-91 @ .500
Indiana 91-92 (40-42)
Seattle 91-92 (47-35)

91-92 @ .500
None

92-93 @ .500
Orlando 93-94 (50-32)
Indiana 93-94 (47-35)
LA Clippers 93-94 (27-55)

93-94 @ .500
Charlotte 94-95 (50-32)

94-95 @ .500
Denver 95-96 (35-47)

95-96 @ .500
Charlotte 96-97 (54-28)
Phoenix 96-97 (40-42)

96-97 @ .500
None

97-98 @ .500
Orlando 98-99 (33-17) - strike season - .660 winning %
Houston 98-99 (31-19) - strike season - .620 winning %

98-99 @ .500 = 25 W’s 25 L’s previous year
Minnesota 99-00 (50-32) - .610 winning %
Seattle 99-00 (45-37) - .549 winning %

99-00 @ .500
Orlando 00-01 (43-39)

00-01 @ .500
Indiana 01-02 (42-40)

01-02 @ .500
Milwaukee 02-03 (42-40)

02-03 @ .500
None

03-04 @ .500
New Orleans 04-05 (18-64) Moved to the Western Conference
Milwaukee 04-05 (30-52)
Portland 04-05 (27-55)

04-05 @ .500
None

05-06 @ .500
Indiana 06-07 (35-47)
Chicago 06-07 (49-33)

06-07 @ .500
New Jersey 07-08 (34-48)
Washington 07-08 (43-39)

Well I do have ADD, so I just skimed it. Looks like a mixed bag . . . many teams did worse and many teams did better.

But I wonder if any of those .500 teams had the number pick for next year. I know the Blazers didn't, but with Oden being out a year, it is like the Blazers had the #1 pick . . . and #11 pick . . . and Rudy.

It really depends on the stages the team is going through. Think trends. If a team was lower then the year before it went .500 then it is showing improvement and it should be expected to continuing improving unless it suddenly implodes. While if it has declined from the previous year the team has problems and should find a competent GM Stat. I would think Portland is a little like Chicago a few years ago without the Ben Wallace Gaff.

it's_GO_time said:

Well I do have ADD, so I just skimed it. Looks like a mixed bag . . . many teams did worse and many teams did better.

But I wonder if any of those .500 teams had the number pick for next year. I know the Blazers didn't, but with Oden being out a year, it is like the Blazers had the #1 pick . . . and #11 pick . . . and Rudy.

Click to expand...

Exactly. To me, it's almost like you can throw out all history regarding previous .500 teams. The Blazers are breaking new ground, potentially.

The biggest jump is Charlotte

95-96 @ .500
Charlotte 96-97 (54-28)

Quick Google check, Charlotte drafted....Kobe and Tony Delk in 96. Lol. Ok....Vlade traded for Kobe. How did Charlotte do that? Another quick Google check, I think that was Glenn Rice's best season. When he won the All-Star MVP. Weird. Am I off on my years? It only took Vlade and a really good Glenn Rice to improve the Hornets by 13 games?

Piltzer said:

It really depends on the stages the team is going through. Think trends. If a team was lower then the year before it went .500 then it is showing improvement and it should be expected to continuing improving unless it suddenly implodes. While if it has declined from the previous year the team has problems and should find a competent GM Stat. I would think Portland is a little like Chicago a few years ago without the Ben Wallace Gaff.

Click to expand...

I know. I touched upon that in my original post. That's what we should discuss.

The Professional Fan said:

Exactly. To me, it's almost like you can throw out all history regarding previous .500 teams. The Blazers are breaking new ground, potentially.

The biggest jump is Charlotte

95-96 @ .500
Charlotte 96-97 (54-28)

Quick Google check, Charlotte drafted....Kobe and Tony Delk in 96. Lol. Ok....Vlade traded for Kobe. How did Charlotte do that? Another quick Google check, I think that was Glenn Rice's best season. When he won the All-Star MVP. Weird. Am I off on my years? It only took Vlade and a really good Glenn Rice to improve the Hornets by 13 games?

Click to expand...

I got to wonder if Vlade had a bigger impact that first year in Charlotte than Oden will have. Because Vlade was a seasoned pro by that time.

Nah, we are still talking Vlade and Oden. 13 games looks like a good starting base . . . now let's aim higher because it's Oden and Rudy and Bayless.

Are your expectations being tempered? : )

The first 25 games is going to be a bitch for us this year! I wouldn't be surprised if we were around 500 at that point.

it's_GO_time said:

I got to wonder if Vlade had a bigger impact that first year in Charlotte than Oden will have. Because Vlade was a seasoned pro by that time.

Nah, we are still talking Vlade and Oden. 13 games looks like a good starting base . . . now let's aim higher because it's Oden and Rudy and Bayless.

Are your expectations being tempered? : )

Click to expand...

You aren't helping.

HispanicCausinPanic said:

The first 25 games is going to be a bitch for us this year! I wouldn't be surprised if we were around 500 at that point.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd take .500 at that point. Totally.

To dovetail this analysis with another statistic, the average win improvement after acquiring a #1 pick is 11 games. Now, we're already starting off with 41 wins, but factor in the thought that GO is the best big man prospect since Tim Duncan, that the best player in Europe is joining us and we're also adding the SL MVP and I think we could match it.

As has been stated by other posters, however, we're in uncharted territory.

maxiep said:

To dovetail this analysis with another statistic, the average win improvement after acquiring a #1 pick is 11 games. Now, we're already starting off with 41 wins, but factor in the thought that GO is the best big man prospect since Tim Duncan, that the best player in Europe is joining us and we're also adding the SL MVP and I think we could match it.

As has been stated by other posters, however, we're in uncharted territory.

Click to expand...

Match the 11 game improvement? Is that what you're saying?

The Best comparison may be Orlando with Shaq and Penny or San Antonio with David and Timmy with Orlando being the closest, heck we have the the next great big and are thinking of signing the once thought " He could be as good as a young Penny" Livingston.

Hopefully our team doesn't break apart like that Magic team!

The Professional Fan said:

Match the 11 game improvement? Is that what you're saying?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm predicting between 48-52 wins this year for this team, or a 7-11 game improvement (as opposed to a 7-11 convenience store).

I sometimes wonder if Shaq would have stayed if they had won the trophy, then I remember the money he signed for and really it would be stupid to not leave for the money. Just wish it had not been to the Lakers.

Had Shaq stayed in Orlando and Penny Hardaway not ruined his knee, that Orlando team could have been special. They were so well constructed...two superstars, one a beast in the post, one a slick perimeter player, and good, solid supporting players in Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott and Horace Grant.

To me, .500 means we won exactly as many games as we lost.

Piltzer said:

It really depends on the stages the team is going through. Think trends. If a team was lower then the year before it went .500 then it is showing improvement and it should be expected to continuing improving unless it suddenly implodes. While if it has declined from the previous year the team has problems and should find a competent GM Stat. I would think Portland is a little like Chicago a few years ago without the Ben Wallace Gaff.

Click to expand...

At the end of next season we'll pretty much be at the same point as Chicago was when they made that Ben Wallace Gaff. Hopefully we learn from that mistake.

.500 to me means we miss the playoffs and still have a lot of work to do.

Nice research, Professional Fan! Why Charlotte fall back in 95-96? Did Orlando fall back in 99-00 or was their good record in 98-99 a fluke due to the small sample size of the strike season?

gambitnut said:

Did Orlando fall back in 99-00 or was their good record in 98-99 a fluke due to the small sample size of the strike season?

Click to expand...

Penny Hardaway had a resurgence in the 1999 lockout season, as I recall, then was injured again in 1999-2000 and was never the same again.

..500 is yin/yang.

In life it's really zero-sum. In basketball it means playoffs in the East.

.500 is unacceptable. Blazers need to raise the bar and get the 4th seed or higher in the playoffs.

That 96-97 Charlotte team was an aberration. Their pythagorean wins number was 46. They just happened to get really, really lucky that year.

I think we'll win 54 games. And it won't be luck.

So what happens if we are "lucky" Cake. 60 wins maybe?

.500 means that you win as many games as you lose

DaRizzle said:

.500 means that you win as many games as you lose

Click to expand...

I guess one way to look at this thread is by title alone. Another way to look at this thread is by it's content.

I certainly can't make anyone actually read the original intent of this topic, but I know the smart people will come through in the end.

Lottery?

Sorry, lol...I was feeling smart assish at the time

The Professional Fan said:

I know the smart people will come through in the end.

Click to expand...

This is the internet.