You do realize that there was a major influx of O-live people at one point in the last year (no offense to some of you that don't suck ...). In general though this place is just as contentious, but with longer sentences and paragraphs.
The difference I see is that last year we were coming off a 41 win season and roles were pretty well-defined (except for Batum, who was a pretty pleasant surprise to everyone). Most wanted to see Oden start on opening night. McMillan's lineup was pretty un-controversial. This year expectations are a lot higher. The stakes have been raised, and on top of that 3 starting positions are up in the air (PG, SF, C). The team has played in the preseason like a 41 win team, not a 54 win team like they were last year, and definitely not like the 60 win team many of us have been projecting. It's not surprising at all that things are a little hysterical right now. We've suffered through a lot of bullshit to get a team to this point, and we want to see them used the right way. I'm generally pretty relaxed about things, but I have to admit to being a little concerned right now. Miller/Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden is obviously the best mix of starters for me, and I'd like to see them gel.
All true, and let me add a further point. If Nate and/or Roybe believe that Oden can't play with Roybe/LMA - we are boned. Our hopes for moving to the next level are largely dependent on Oden becoming a major force. For the record, I *like* Joel. Last season, I argued that he deserved to be the starter. The blunt truth, however, is that this team went as far as it could with Blake/Joel. (ie one and done) At this point, ANY rationalization for having Oden on the bench is an admission that we drafted the wrong guy.
Imagine if we were following a baseball team...these types of bitter arguments over lineup would be daily occurrences every single day, each season. Honestly, I'm less concerned than you. I think the roster is fairly hard to use badly, one advantage of depth. I'm not sure that precisely which combination of players plays together, and when, is all that key. What is key, IMO, is minutes played. I assume the cream will rise to the top. I also think Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge and Oden are our best players at those positions, so I hope they end up with the big majority of minutes played.
I would've agreed with you much more readily a few weeks ago. But if what you say is true, why isn't this team thumping opponents in the pre-season? If the talent is so overwhelming, you'd expect our guys to dominate other teams (who are going through their own playing time issues as well).
It's not "overwhelming." I didn't mean that any group of five players on the roster can whip other teams. I meant that if the best players are used the most, the specific combinations of players probably isn't a big deal. Roy didn't play last night and Portland lost by three to Utah. I think Roy should get more minutes than 0 when the games count. I assume/am hoping that Oden and Batum will get more minutes than they've played in the pre-season. But assuming Roy, Miller, Aldridge, Oden and maybe Batum get starter minutes, does it really matter if they are all called one unit, or if Miller/Oden play a fair amount of minutes that don't overlap with Roy/Aldridge? Or if Webster plays minutes with the "starting unit" while Batum plays a lot with Oden, if Batum is getting 30 minutes per game? My guess is that it won't be hugely impactful, but I could be wrong. An interesting result of statistical analysis in baseball is that lineup construction doesn't have a big effect on runs scored. You want to hit your better hitters higher in the order, because the higher in the order, the more at-bats they get over the course of the season...but for any specific game, you could pretty much toss out a random ordering of your starters and get largely similar results. Obviously basketball has one big difference: you can (mostly) control how much each player plays in the game...so, I think that matters, minutes per game for each player. But for the same minutes per game, I really wonder how much specific combinations of players matter. I get the arguments for offensive dynamics (pair a sharp shooter with a big man, etc), but you can find pretty solid reasons to like a lot of different possible groupings on this team.
This would be because our depth is a myth. Portland is deep at two position: SG and Center. Portland is somewhat set at point guard with Blake and Miller. The power forward rotation is currently a disaster. LMA is great. Outlaw is a pile of shit. I really hope Howard eventually takes all of Outlaw's minutes. That would shore this up quite a bit. I am going to hold my breath on this one. Small Forward contains two guys with a whole lot of promise and very little delivery. I am really enthused with Batum's promise. Webster is showing some good signs on the floor. But honestly neither of them is really getting it done. The best small forward on the team is Roy, which says just about all that need be said. To say Batum, Webster, or Outlaw would start for a lot of teams in absurd. They only start in Portland because there are no other options.
I have to say I loved Batum, but I'm starting to think Webster might be the spot up shooter that gets more time.
