You are really underestimating the wear and tear an NBA seasons has on a person's body. There is a very good reason why only 20 or so players avg 36 minutes or more over an entire season, Per Synergy sports, Portland Starters have played 1816 minutes through 52 games which leads the NBA. That's pretty black and white.
The minutes are certainly an issue and as been pointed out, the Blazers are league leaders in minutes played by the starters. But there are other factors as well. The Blazer bench has been so unproductive for most of the season that the mental wear on the starters starts to take a toll. No matter how well they have played (CJ's recent 3-game stint as an exception), they know they have to build a lead while they are there and recover a deficit by the time they get back in. They are responsible for a very high percentage of the points and it leaves little room for physical error and that takes a toll mentally. They now there is little to no support offensively or defensively outside of themselves and that too will wear on a player.....not just the minutes.
Completely agree TBpup and the toll on the starters has been evident for the last month or so. The Blazers' bench net efficiency rating is by far the worst of any western conference playoff team, though the funny thing is that they've actually improved over the season. The starters torrid start hid how bad the bench was at the beginning of the season and the drop-off since January 1st is massive. Net Efficiency rating up 12/31/13 Starters - 8.9 Bench - -2.6 Net Efficiency rating from 1/1/14 to present Starters 0.9 Bench- -1.3
I think you guys are correct that the starters are tired, but I don't really think that's the primary reason that accounts for a declining performance. I think that the defensive recipe used by opposing teams has changed since the start of the season. There used to be more emphasis on doubling LMA to try to restrict his scoring and the Blazers made teams pay by burying them in 3s. Now, the emphasis seems to be using single coverage on Aldridge unless he pushes into the paint. The primary emphasis is on denying the 3 point shots.
That's because we're the only team without a starter taking a major injury. Think this through before cherry picking stats.
What injuries have the Pacers had to their starters? I can't remember them missing any major time but haven't looked it up either
Swagger goes hand in hand with winning and dominating teams. We've been in a mini slump but there's plenty of swagger on our roster. It helps to look at a whole body of work instead of just the last game. Sort of like saying the Beatles lost it when the last song on the White album was #9...
You realize a starter is a player that "starts" the game, right? A player who starts in place for an injured person is still considered a starter.
Ah gotcha. My bad. So, give me the top 10 then. Saying Portland's number one is oh so scary, but when only one player is playing more than 36.2 minutes a game, I can't really be bothered.
This coddling is ridiculous. Wilt played 48 minutes a night, scored 40 a game, and banged 20 women afterwards. For 82 games a year.
Wilt though, never ever played anyone bigger and stronger than him in his whole career and he was also an alien.
It absolutely blows my mind how some people discount the mental and physical rigors of playing nba basketball. This isn't your freaking church league. Pops is routinely willing to face fines for routinely resting his key players and not because they are out of shape wusses.
Yeah but his best players are way old. Pop didn't always do this. Did the NBA suddenly get really horrible to play 82 games in around 2005?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/1990.html The 1989-90 team would have had 4 players in this year's top 40 for minutes played. Clyde with 36.8, Terry with 34.8, Jerome with 34.7, and Buck with 34.2. NOW: Our starters probably have to play harder because our bench is worse by far than most other teams. But playing our starters less is not really a viable solution to that problem, is it?
