There have been multiple articles written over the last week about the Blazers lack of playoff experience and how it might, or might not, hurt them in the playoffs. The common assumption seems to be that veteran teams are more experienced, less likely to get rattled, and therefore tend to do better during the pressure-packed post season than teams lacking post season experience. However, I think there is one very key issue that that assumption overlooks. Yes, previous post season experiebce is nice, and it probably doesn't hurt to have it. However, I think an even bigger factor in the performance of veteran teams in the post season is the format/schedule. During the regular season, teams typically play about 4 games per week on average, with about 15 - 16 pairs of back-to-back games. During the playoffs, there are no back-to-back games and often 2 or 3 (sometimes 4) days off between games. This gives the verteran teams and their older players more time between games to recover. And, as someone who has been playing basketball for over 40 years, I can tell you that the older you get, the more time it takles you to recover - whether it's simple fatigue and sore muscles or minor nagging injuries. So, I think that this extended recovery period allows veteran (old) teams to perform better in the posts season than they often due during the grind of the regular season. Last night was a perfect example. After putting up a huge game the night before (25 pts, 15 reb, 3 blk), Tim Duncan tried to play on the 2nd night of a back-to-back for the first time in almost two months. The results: 4 pts, 5 reb, 1 blk. In the play-offs, with the extended rest between games, I doubt if you'll see a stat line like that out of Tim Duncan. I'm sure there are other more recent examples, but in the post season the one that stands out is the 1995 NBA finals where the veteran (old) Houston Rockets swept the inexperienced (young) Orlando Magic. Yes, Orlando blew game one when Nick Anderson missed 4 FTs in the closing minutes, but I can't help but wonder if the series might have been closer if the Rockets hadn't had SIX days of rest and recovery prior to game 1, or if they would have had to play 4 games in 5 or 6 nights, rather than 4 games in 8 nights. Some may argue that the Rockets were simply the "better" team, but keep in mind that the Magic won 57 games and entered the playoffs as the #1 seed in the East, while the Rockets only won 47 regular season games and were the 6th seed in the West. Clearly, the veteran (old) Rockets team performed much better during the post season than they did during the grind of teh regular season. So, while we stomped them last night, I wouldn't take the Spurs lightly in a 7-game play-off series where their veteran players will have time off between games to rest and recover. BNM
And the Magic were in a dogfight with the Pacers before they faced Houston. I like our chances against the Spurs. Although, I'm not sure how this team would react to being down 0-2 in a series without HCA.
I actually am a proponent of young teams in the playoffs, especially against experienced teams, because I feel that young teams do not "fear" the competition. Veteran teams come in, and they fear this player, or that player, or that team just because of history. Young teams will come in, and look around, and then look at the opportunity to make a name for themselves. A lot of times a vet team comes in, acts like they know they can't win, and mails it in.
I'd rather have experience, but Atlanta, New Orleans, Golden State, and Utah have proven over the past few seasons that deep playoff experience isn't a prerequisite if the goal is to compete against the best, and in the case of New Orleans, Golden State, and Utah, defeat more experienced teams in at least one series.
I also like the enegry and enthusiasm that young teams bring. I think that energy can help make up for a "lack of experience". Just look how much trouble Atlanta gave eventual champs Boston last year. Granted, the older, more experienced team won, but I think it had more to do with talent than experience - Boston was just more talented than Atlanta and that talent rose to the top over the course of a 7 game series - well, that and they had HCA. BNM
Back to my original point... While I love the Blazers youth, energy and talent (that will continue to get better), I think the drawn out post season schedule helps veteran teams like the Spurs much more than young teams like the Blazers. If they met in a series that was 7 games in 10 days, with a couple back-to-backs (typical regular season schedule), I think the Blazers would be a lock - probably even win in 5 games. But, if it's 7 games in 14 or 15 days with no back-to-backs (typical play-off schedule), I think it will be a much closer series that could go either way - in which case HCA becomes VERY important. BNM
The other issue besides age is depth. You play the stars extended minutes in the playoffs, sometimes up to the entire 48 minutes, because you know they've got several days to recover. So a team like Portland that relies so much on its bench advantage doesn't really see a lot of benefit from running a 9 man rotation, unless there's an injury or foul trouble. The one thing a decent bench can give a coach is more options. If, for example, we play a team like Utah, I can see Oden really licking his chops on offense. Or if you are playing a team like Houston and you want to give their smaller guards headaches, maybe you play Roy and Fernandez some minutes at the two guard positions. Still, in the playoffs it usually comes down to your best two or three players. On an older team, those guys are generally going to be older and closer to their prime. And like you say, if they are over the hill they have the benefit of experience coupled with the ability to recover between games.
Yep, I had thought of that, too. Portland has a great, deep bench, but with the extra time off between games - and the heightened importance of each and every game, starters/best players tend to get more minutes per game in the playoffs. Which takes away another advantage the Blazers have during the regular season - a great DEEP bench. Still, I'd rather have a deep bench than not. That way if you have an injury/illness, or a player gets in foul trouble, you have someone who can step in. Plus, as you mentioned, it gives you more flexibility in dictating match-ups. BNM
To really be designed to slice through the playoffs, Portland would be well-served to trade from their great depth to upgrade their top 3-4 players. The much ballyhooed consolidation trade. A Bayless/Fernandez/Outlaw/draft pick for Devin Harris type of deal (just as an example, I'm not saying that specific deal could be made). Punting on depth to concentrate star power in the top four players. Of course, that also makes the team less fault-tolerant. One or two major injuries and the season is sunk. San Antonio goes from contender to likely first-round victim because Manu goes down.
Speaking of depth, I wonder if Nate will adjust the PG minutes since there are typically 1-3 days between games. Will Roy play more of a "back-up" 1 at times with Sergio only getting minutes in the first half? In other words, is Roy going to play 42 minutes/game instead of 37.6? I don't see any reason for Nate to trust either Sergio or Bayless at this point, and a tighter rotation may mean Sergio plays a very limited back-up role.
I think both Roy and Aldridge will play > 40 MPG in the play-offs. The less we see of Sergio and Channing, the better. BNM
