It's kind of funny if you look at it, OKC and Portland are diabolical opposites! We have a strong SG and do have a better PF and center (when healthy). They have a superior SF and PG.
I think most teams if not all get a majority of their wins from beating non-playoff caliber teams. You have 14 teams who aren't going to make it, and those teams are getting the most losses. I think a better record would be to see how teams are doing against the winning teams, are they above .500 against them?
Vegas likes them as 1.5 to a pickem in our building. Hollinger's odds also have them as 10% more likely to make the playoffs. I think the love is justified.
According to Hollinger, the Thunder and Blazers are currently tied for 5th most difficult schedulke at this point in the season at 0.513. I think the difference is the Thunder are winning the games they should win against the crap teams (they haven't lost to a "non play-off team" since mid-November) and struggling against the really good teams. The Blazers have lost several games to bad teams (Clippers, 76ers, Wizards, Warriors and Knicks), but have overachieved (given the injury situation) against the top teams (3 wins over the Spurs, two without Roy, win in Dallas without Roy, win in Orlando, previous win over the Lakers, Christmas day win over the Nuggets, etc.) So, the Thunder have been playing great lately and are more predictable (winning the games they should, losing to "better" teams) and the Blazers are more unpredicatable (losing games they should win and winning games they have no business winning with their current short-handed roster). BNM
Westbrook is still figuring it out but I would take him over all of our point guards without blinking an eye.
Westbrook also gets quite a few minutes at SG now that Eric Maynor is on board, so he isn't playing all PG. To me that is a non issue.
I guess it's kind of like the Nate thing. Poster preach how bad he is and keep bringing him up after each loss saying I told you so (or Miller when the Blazers win and he starts) With OKC, there are posters who have said Durant was the better pick and posters who claim Oden is the better pick. This board is full of psoters who love to not only say I told you so but to shout it out whenever they get a chance . . . I suspect that is what is going on everytime someone continuously compares Durant to Oden . . . time for the "I told you so" to come out when OKC is mentioned.
makes sense. and I am in no way bashing Durant and or the Thunder... I just found it interesting. very valid points though.
It's interesting you bring that up. Bayless was pretty much considered higher than Westbrook across the board going into the draft. The difference is, Westbrook got to play coming into the league. Bayless did not. The same can be said of Rudy. Yep you are going to take some lumps to let them play. But you will find out what they are made of, and if they are a solution at a weak position, and if they aren't, you can move on and try to get somebody who is. At least you know so that you can make that decision, and move on. As opposed to playing Steve Blake, who has no upside, not improving the team at all, and learning nothing that you didn't already know.
Totally different situations. Last year the Thunder won 23 games and had ZERO chance of making the play-offs. They won 20 games the year before. They weren't trying to "win now" and didn't have the players to do it if they would have tried. So, of course they played their youngsters. They had NOTHING to lose and everything to gain. Last year, the Blazers were trying to make the play-offs for the first time in six seasons. And, not just make the play-offs, but in a battle that came down to the final game of the season to both win the divison, and secure HCA in the first round. Last year, Steve Blake had a career year and Jerryd Bayless wasn't close to NBA ready. So, I think starting Blake last year and giving him the majority of the PG minutes was absolutely the right thing to do. I don't have a problem with that at all. This year is different. Starting Blake over Andre Miller was absolutely the wrong thing to do. Miller is, was, has always been, and will always be a better NBA PG that Steve Blake. Bayless has also shown very significant improvement this season. With Roy out, Nate gets to play all three of Miller, Bayless and Blake significant minutes. My fear is that when Roy comes back, it will be Bayless whose minutes get cut - and that would be absolutely the wrong decision (but unfortunately, also the most probable as long as Nate is coach and Blake is on the roster). Bayless has now surpassed Blake in on-court production and deserves to continue to get 24+ MPG backing up both guard positions after Roy comes back. Last year, given the situation, Blake was the right choice. This year, he was the wrong choice over Andre Miller and will be the wrong choice over Jerryd Bayless - if it's allowed to happen. BNM
I like how some people point out that OKC is in front of Portland, barely I might add, but fail to mention it took Portland's entire roster to be destroyed by constant injuries for this to be even debatable.
