Gladly. As soon as you come up with an explanation of the disparity between the OKC starters' and bench players' Net On/Off that is consistent with your hypothesis that Net On/Off is simply a function of how much better a team's starters are than their replacements. It's obviously not that simple. There are many variables and one of them is how a team's starters fare against the opponents they play against the most (opponent's starters). If you look at all the variables and the data for all teams, I think you'll come to the same conclusion I have: that we're both partially correct. That Net On/Off is a function of both starter performance against other starters, and starter performance relative to their replacements. If not, I'd love to hear more, but perhaps it would be better to move this back to the original thread. BNM
Because this thread hasn't already been derailed beyond recognition? Your description of my "hypothesis" is a mischaracterization of what I actually said. Check it again. The only thing that was "partially correct" was your original interpretation of the Blazers' Net On/Off ("What the data does shows, is that our starters consistently outscore their opponents, and our bench consistently gets outscored when they are on the court.") Your final observation about our starters and bench is probably true -- I simply pointed out that it isn't actually being shown by Net On/Off in the way you said it was. Every team in the league MUST have both positive and negative Net On/Offs, even if EVERYBODY on the team outscores their opponents.
See last paragraph below. Davis would not have started over Lopez at center. People read your BS and think you're brilliant. As an accountant, it was my job to see through mumbo-jumbo like yours. Hidden in the middle is an unprovable supposition. When I don't fall for it, you write stuff like the last paragraph. You can't understand why one person won't give in to your irrelevant stats.
I didn't guess at anything. It's a fact. I even posted a link to the box score. Lopez started at center on opening night when a healthy Anthony Davis started at PF. I didn't have to guess at anything, I just looked it up in the box score. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? Lopez was the starting center from day 1 last season in New Orleans and it had nothing to do with Davis' injuries, which came later. That's an easily verifiable fact, not an opinion or a guess. BNM
Davis plays center now. Had he been healthy last season, he might have taken Lopez' starting job after awhile. So Lopez wasn't confident the job was his, as he is now as Blazers starting center. He has embraced the responsibility and is playing out of his mind. Our team is focused on one game at a time because--what did I write--"it helps to have players trying to prove themselves in new situations (usually because they're young, but for Lopez, because he's never been the starter uness injury forced it)." You keep saying that in the first few games of Davis' rookie season, he and Lopez started together. Well duh, a rookie usually doesn't start at his eventual position right from the first game. But had there been no injury, after a few games or a month or a half-season, there's a good chance that Davis would have become the starting center. Lopez never was confident of starting till he came here, which made him play harder.
Marc Stein @ESPNSteinLine Portland at Houston tonight trying to become first team to sweep Texas Triangle since Boston in 2008. Elias says Blazers last did it in 1991
Sorry, guy, but I looked at blog posts and new orleans newspaper articles from the time they traded for Lopez. He was slated to be their starter as soon as he was acquired. The actual concern was that Lopez had been injury prone prior to the trade and they were worried he might not be available to start for all the games. They were very thin at the C position, after they traded away Okafor and let Kaman walk via free agency. Lopez was seen as the guy to be their replacement C.
May I suggest taking a few Aikido classes? When someone swings a baseball bat at you, you'll learn that it's better to step aside and let them swing at nothing until they end up hitting themselves in the nuts.Lopez did comment about not starting when we signed him but it was in ref to his days behind Shaq in Phoenix. He was the starting center for NO. Doesn't really matter why, fact is he was. Denny...Kaleb Canales reply to Texas being overrun with Mexicans...."we were here for ages before the rednecks showed up"
I'm fine with Texas being overrun with Mexicans. I live a short drive from Mexico myself. Lopez didn't start ahead of Marcin Gortat, either.
True that! Off topic here but Denny, with the growth in San Diego could you ever envision the Clippers moving back there and actually having a fan base? (I lived on the border in San Ysidro when I got out of the service in the early 70's)..it's really a bigger market these days.
They really should. The NBA never should have allowed two teams to occupy the same building. It's just stupid. Does New York really need two teams? Does LA? It's one thing to have multiple teams in a large state, but in the same city? It kind of defeats the purpose of having a team that represents your city like Portland. I can't imagine having two teams in Portland. It would just be silly.
I wasn't here when the Clippers played here. I think they played at the Sports Arena, which isn't far from my house at all. I'd most definitely be a season ticket holder, or at least attend a lot of games. The city supports a baseball team and a football team. They talk about moving the football team to LA and how the baseball team is hampered by small market economics. But on Sundays? I see people in Charger uniforms everywhere. I don't think I've ever been anywhere where I've seen so many supporting the team by wearing jerseys like here.
LA would make sense now though because they don't have a football team. They'd probably maintain their fanbase in San Diego because it's not that far away, but they'd gain one of the largest markets and all the fans that go with being "an LA team."
It is too far away. It's further than Milwaukee to Chicago. It'd be a 4 hour drive if no LA traffic (yeah, right) round trip. I'm quite sure there would be a huge negative backlash against the team, especially by season ticket holders who supported the team in bad times.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng[video=youtube;zuQK6t2Esng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuQK6t2Esng[/video]
a friend of mine grew up in San Diego, and has told me if the Chargers return to LA (since thats where they started, lo those many years ago), most fans wouldn't remain Charger fans. They HATE LA down there. From his perspective, LA stands for all the things San Diego hates. It'd be like if the Blazers moved to Seattle. Most fans (at least, fans in the state of Oregon, and are long time Blazer fans) wouldn't remain Blazer fans.
