Whether or not the team is better right now doesn't concern me nearly as much as the fact that we DO play 3 rookies (and integrating a 4th) who will, at some point, hit the rookie wall. That our "veterans" are more "really good role-playing backups" rather than team leaders in performance. I just don't know if last season's relative collapse at the end was a fluke, or a sign of things potentially to come. I love the outlook of the team going forward, but I think you have to take at least a cursory glance at recent history and the cautionary tales of young teams in our position (though perhaps less talented). I love what I'm hearing about incorporating new offensive sets (like the hi-low wrinkle last night) and that we're getting guys on the floor who are part of our future. But couldn't you admit, that, even if you personally weren't worried, you could see potentially how someone could be concerned about the present-day performance of the team (especially against inferior teams on the road and our lack of game-to-game adjustments)? I mean, from the other threads we've seen recently, just the "switching picks", "offensive efficiency vs. inefficiency" arguments and the "rotation issues" thoughts give enough meat to chew over one way to another and back. As far as comparing last year to this year, 2 weeks ago I didn't take it for granted we'd be better than 41-41. I started this season with really high expectations based upon how I thought our team had improved and was going to mesh together. I didn't expect some of the lackluster efforts we've seen, especially against the poorer teams (getting crushed by LAL and BOS didn't bother me as much as losing to CHA and SAC did). If there's anything a young team should have, it's effort and hustle. And those lapses, coupled with what I thought was a stagnant offense** and ineffective-at-times defense that played to the level (or just below the level) of the competition on 2 of every 5 nights wasn't giving me warm fuzzies. All that said, I really like that we're taking a hard look at our D, and having the media finally start asking some questions about it. I like seeing the offense tweaked to incorporate new things. I like that we're seeing what Sergio and Bayless can do without the crutch of Blake (don't take that as an indictment of Blake--I just mean that we're seeing an accelerated look at what these guys can do against NBA players in real-life games). I like Oden having more consistent games more often. It's those things, MUCH more so than record, 3pt%, offensive EFF, rebounds, whatever that give me the hope of >50wins. And that's come within the last two weeks.
Well at some point dont all teams go from a young team that falls short to that team that gets "over the hump" or does it always take some intrigral veteren pieces for those young teams to get get over that hump??? The answer to that question will probably go a long way towards deciding how we want to handle trades now and going forward.
I predicted 47 (with Webster) and I think we are good for another 23 wins by looking at the schedule. 48 may not be enough for the playoffs but it will be close. But to say this team is doing the same as last year is a little short sighted IMO. As pointed out we are playing 4 rookies and still have won 25 games at the half way mark. I am pleasantly surprised.
You have the most fucked-up memory. I predicted 48 wins AND protected some of Hollinger's methods (which put them at 42 wins). Who mocked anyone for predicting 48-50 wins? Ed O.
Leading by example... You also "protected" nothing by Hollinger since it was, as I said then, impacted by subjectively unknowns such as "luck". He now says 50. Gee, what was the point of his initial prediction?
We are on pace for 50, and we also have more home games than away the 2nd half, and already got rid of our hardest stretch of the season (taking into account opponent, home/away, and time in between games). I think we can break 50 barring injuries.
Stop being ridiculous. Firstly, I did protect something. Was I successful? That's unclear. With you, obviously not. You seem unwilling or unable to ever change your mind, though, so it's no big deal to me either way. Secondly, as anyone who read Hollinger's projections should know, his preseason and in-season projections have different data to project FROM. Hollinger's current projections are based on the performance to date and the remaining schedule. That's entirely different from preseason projections. Ed O.
Our four rookies are averaging : Rudy: 26.5 MPG for 40 games Oden: 22.7 MPG for 35 games Batum: 17.6 MPG for 41 games Bayless: 11.4 MPG for 21 games It's not like these guys are all playing 35 - 40 minutes per night. Rudy and Batum were both starters who played heavy minutes for their European teams. Granted, the schedule was shorter, but they are both used to playing more MPG than they are currently getting. The more Oden plays, the better shape he's in. He's finally starting to get into game shape where he can play more than 24 minutes without kealing over. Unless Nate starts playing him 40 minutes per game, I don't see him hitting the so-called rookie wall anytime soon. In fact, I see him continuing to improve as the season progresses. And Bayless played over 4x as many minutes last season in colleg than what he's played sor far this season in the NBA. Given their roles and their PT, I don't expect our rookies to hit any kind of "wall". If anything, I see them continuing to improve (especially Oden and Bayless) with more PT and more experience. BNM
Then what is the point of him predicting anything if the predictions change on a daily basis based on performance? He'd have best left luck out of his pre-season prediction as well if it is all performance-based. I found it an affront to the Jamesian approach to statistical analysis. Now it is revised upward to reflect reality. Revolutionary stuff there, Hollinger.
You display your incredible arrogance on a remarkably consistent basis, plus the name-calling and insults are a tell. FWIW, I'm betting that Hollinger will be right on the Blazer win total when he revises his prediction again after all 82 games are played.
Time is on the Blazers' side. The more games these guys play, the more experience they have together. The more confidence they get. The more Roy will get superstar calls from refs. The more Oden will learn how to avoid fouling. The more Aldridge will recover from his early season slump. The more McMillan will be able to figure out how to fit guys like Bayless, Fernandez and Outlaw into the system. How can a veteran team like the Spurs or Rockets really improve? The great players they had at the beginning of the season are still great. Really, all they can do is focus and work harder. Barring trades, they aren't going to get more talented. Imagine the second half wasn't an easier schedule with fewer back-to-backs, with fewer pressure national tv games, with fewer games against playoff teams, with fewer home games. Imagine the second half was just as tough as the first half. Imagine Portland didn't have all those advantages. This team should still do better in its second half than its first half. A young team with enormous upside should realize more of that upside as the season progresses.
In fairness, I can't think of a single "expert" who predicted that Batum would contribute this quickly, or that Blake would have a career year.
I would just be happy if we make the playoffs. Record means very little to me, unless we're talking HCA.
I think we're on pace for a much better season than last. If anything, we don't have the "benefit" of that 13-game win streak at this point. In other words, without that streak, the Blazers would have been around 20 wins at this point last season.
I guess (as not being someone who travels in the NBA) that I was going based off of what Brandon, LMA and others have said in the past--that it's not necessarily the minutes per game played, but the travel schedule, being in 4 cities in 5 days, etc. Rudy's already commented that the tempo's completely different from the ACB, where they had (tops) 2 games a week. In the NCAA, iirc they only play on THU and SAT generally, right? Don't get me wrong, I don't think Greg's game will fall off the face of the earth b/c it's March and he's averaging 30 mpg. It's more of the intangible things players always talk about ("dog days" of Jan/Feb, fighting nagging injuries, being at 80% for months on end) having to have lived through to work effectively around, and that almost half of our "rotation players" haven't done that in the NBA before. But I fully admit that those thoughts are based upon inferences from the players second-hand, not through any experience I have. Though I HAVE been doing what Dr. Sleep's been saying for a while, to keep my body clock on Pacific Time when I take business trips to the East.
And both players performed their best, by far, late in their rookie seasons. LaMarcus in March until he had to shut it down for the heart thing. Brandon in March and early April. Roy also averaged 9 MPG more per game as a rookie than Rudy is now. While it may be psychological, I think the rookie wall, as it affects on court performance is largely a myth. Most rookies are young and dying for PT. If you look at most decent rookies (guys who finish in the top 10 in ROY voting and/or make 1st or 2nd team All-Rookie), you'll see their performance increase late in the season, rather than the other way around. There's a learning curve to playing in the NBA, and most rookies take a few months to adjust before they fully hit their stride. And, I think that has more impact on performance than some mythical barrier. BNM
