http://mikebarrettsblog.blogspot.com/ *Blazers have led by 29+ in each of our blowout wins over San Antonio, Phoenix, Utah, and the Lakers. Unbelievable. *In the last 30 years of the league, only two teams playing 4 rookies at least 50 games have finished 10 games over .500. No team that has played 4 rookies at least 50 games has finished 20 games over .500.
It's an interesting "stat" and another way to illustrate how young AND good this team is, but the whole 50 games played thing is a little deceptive. Yeah, Bayless has played 50 games, but only 631 minutes. Yes, he's a rookiem but he's not part of the regular rotation. The most recent young team that had some success playing four rookies big minutes was the 2004-05 Bulls. They had four rookies (Gordon, Nocioni, Deng and Duhon) that played over 1600 minutes, including two that played over 2000, and finished 47 - 35. The Blazers have a better record, but are less reliant on their rookies than that Bulls team was. The Blazers will only end up with one rookie (Rudy) playing over 1600 minutes compared to the 4 Bulls. Not that I'd trade our roster for those Baby Bulls, just pointing out how this "stat" doesn't show the whole picture. BNM
Our domination of some very good to great teams, at home this month has been incredible. It is exciting to see that kind of domination and explosiveness, knowing how young this team is.
I think the rookie stat is a little misleading and meaningless, mostly because it seems unlikely few teams in league history have actually had 4 rookies to field in a given game, which makes the sample size for comparison pretty damn small. And like BNM said, Bayless can barely be said to be part of the rotation. Whatever the case, this is a helluva young roster that is well ahead of the curve of expected performance, and they've impressed me even more by stepping up their game at the end of the season when it matters the most (especially Nicolas and Greg).
What are you smoking? I have seen plenty of teams, mostly bottom feeders, put teams out with 4 rookies getting playing time.
Also on the 4 rookies topic, two of them are arguably second year players. Just took them a year to suit up... It's not like we're talking 2nd round long shots that surprisingly panned out... Oden and Rudy were as close to can't miss as anyone you're likely to find. The fact that they're rookies in the same year as Batum and Bayless is fairly coincidental.
The Baby Bulls had everyone excited. That they had 4 rookies making big contributions, PLUS much of the rest of their team were very young: Hinrich 24; Curry 22; Chandler 22. The Baby Bulls was an apt moniker and their 47 wins was impressive. But I don't think 47 wins in the East is anywhere near the accomplishment of 50ish wins in the West. Also, I think the Blazers overall are on par with those Baby Bulls in terms of overall experience level. Both teams had 9 players with 1,000 plus minutes. Let's concentrate on that 9 man rotation. Bulls average age: 24.7 Blazers average age: 23.8 Bulls total years NBA experience: 26 Blazers total years NBA experience: 24 Antonio Davis, who was very important to that team as the vet leader, aged 36, does skew their numbers. Even factoring that, the youth and experience of the two teams looks to me to be roughly the same. Other notes: Both teams had an experienced Euro "Rookie". Both teams had two old guys (Davis, Harrington and Blake, Pryz). Both teams had two rookie PGs who weren't very good (yet). The difference? We mostly sit Bayless down. They played Duhon big minutes as they had little choice. Both teams had 10th & 11th men who got between 600 and 1,000 minutes. The difference? Our guys - Bayless and Frye pretty much have sucked (this season) and have not contributed to victories. Win Shares combined; 0.7. And Bayless is a prospect who is part of our "assets" for the future. The Bulls 10th & 11th guys were 30+ year old vets who won games for that team even in limited minutes. Piatkowski and Griffin had Win Shares combined of 3.6. Makes our 50ish wins even more impressive when you realize McMillian doesn't even have a Piatkowski or Griffin caliber vet on the bench to turn to when the need arises. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/2005.html http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2009.html The difference between these two very youthful and successful teams? The Blazers are already a much better team at the same stage than those Bulls. And they way the Blazers win is much more promising. Blazers have an excellent and methodical offense (Offensive Rating No. 1, Pace Factor 30th) that should translate long-term to quality playoff basketball. The Bulls hung their hat on defense (Defensive Rating 2nd), hustle and outworking the other team. Great defense is great for playoff basketball, but the constant hustle wears thin over time. Their offense was terrible (Offensive Rating 26th) and they had trouble improving it without affecting their "hustle" and defense or trading away core youth. I think the Blazers will find an easier time improving their already not so atrocious defense (Defensive Rating 18th) than the Bulls did trying to improve their offense. Just having Oden and Batum play big minutes in the coming years will make a huge improvement. If we can add a PG who can slow ball, plus factor in the expected normal NBA experience improvment in defense for Aldridge, Roy, Rudy, Webster and Bayless, and good team defense should happen.
This is slightly off-topic for this thread, but if the Blazers finish 51-31, everyone would say that's 20 games above .500. However, .500 for 82 games is 41, so shouldn't that only be 10 games above .500? I understand 51-31=20, but tell me where my logic is off.
31-31 = 62, so that makes zero sense to me. If we finish 51-31, and 41-41 is .500, to me we are 10 games above .500 (51 minus 41).
The reason people use wins minus losses to determine "games over .500" is because they're talking about how many losses they are away from being .500. If you're 51-31, you'd need to lose the next 20 games to hit .500. Thus, you are (at least) 20 games away from .500, in the positive direction, or "20 games above .500." Your way of calculating is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, too...it's just saying something different.
Were you the one that called into Wheels' show the other day on 'what's your beef?' and said the exact same thing?
I've seen plenty with 2 a few with 3, but 4? I'm too lazy to go look it up, but fielding 4 rookies implies a ton of draft picks that most teams simply never acquire, let alone put into the rotation.
I'm not arguing the point that winning with 4 rookies in the rotation isn't amazing, I just think the sample size of teams that have actually played 4 rookies is meaningless and misleading because the sample size is statistically insignificant. It's just a comment about the oddball nature of the statistic, not a comment about how unusual it is for a young team to win; I probably phrased my original comment poorly.
