Background: Older teams generally do better than younger teams.... up to a point. So, let's look at wins vs. team age for the year 2024/25. How did different teams do considering their age? How did the blazers do? Which teams are expected to get better, which teams are expected to get worse? A quick mathematical analysis with some definite assumptions (like no trades...), but interesting anyway. OKC is a humongous outlier so I through them out. If you throw out the high, you should throw out the low, so I did (Pels). Data: Blazers were far left on graph. 2024/25 Analysis: Blazers wins (age 24.3): 36 NBA expected average wins (for teams age 24.3): 22 (stretched graph and eyeballed, using formula doesn't work probably because of sig figs). So, Blazers finished 14 wins above what would be expected from the youngest team in the league! 2025/26 (predictions): Age: 25.3 Expected NBA wins for age 25.3: 22 -> 36 Expected Blazers wins: 36+14 = 50 Visually: Imagine moving graphed line straight up until it goes through this years Blazers data point (far left), then look at where that moved graph is for a 25.3 year old team. Interesting results: Once your average age is 27.2, you are expected to get worse, which makes some sense. So, the teams that were older than 26.2 THIS year are expected to get worse NEXT year (unless they do something to get younger). 12 teams finished below the curve, 16 teams (including the blazers) finished above. Including okc and and pels, it would be 13 and 17. The reason? Some of the teams that did bad did REALLY bad. Teams with 40 wins or less (teams above the line are in red, Blazers are way above the curve): Utah Jazz Washington Wizards Charlotte Hornets Philadelphia 76ers Brooklyn Nets Toronto Raptors San Antonio Spurs Portland Trail Blazers Phoenix Suns Miami Heat Chicago Bulls Dallas Mavericks Atlanta Hawks Sacramento Kings If I took out the top 3 and the bottom3 teams, the data would probably be a little more accurate (okc, cleveland, boston and charlotte, philly, phoenix) I used nbaage.com for age data. Used Average Age by Minutes (not usage). Check nbaage.com if you want to know which team is represented by a given data point. 3 oldest teams: Los Angeles Clippers Golden State Warriors Phoenix Suns 3 youngest teams: Portland Trail Blazers Brooklyn Nets Utah Jazz Example: Both the Hawks (age: 25.8) and the Kings (age: 27.7) had 40 wins. Hawks are expected to do much better than the Kings next season. So, how is this team supposed to improve by 14 games this season? The interpolation assumes the core piece stay the same - Internal Improvement. That's why the model has the younger teams improving at a higher rate than the older team, which is sensible.
Um, not to steal @THE HCP 's thunder here, but wtf did I just read? Please explain that to me like I'm a 5 year old
just out of curiosity...where did you find the numbers for average age by minutes? and I'd definitely bet against Portland winning 50 games next season
can we close this thread? way too early and not enough info available with possible trades and the draft - waste of time IMO.
We're young, so you'd expect us to do badly. However, we did good. Next year, we'll be a year older, and young teams improve with age, so we'll be even better.
The model is based on simple improvement due to getting older. It is based on our current players. Significant change would diminish the accuracy of the model, so trades don't matter in this model. Waste of time, lol. Have you actually read the bickering based on feelings on this board? Here's the actual point: The argument has been that without an ESTABLISHED Superstar, we can't substantively improve. It has been demonstrated that this is incorrect logic for very young teams. The point isn't to accurately predict how many games we'll win next year. The point is to improve the discourse, which I don't consider a "waste of time".
I would say we'll have no realistic chance at winning a championship without a superstar. We'll almost certainly improve as our guys age. Unless the coach is just toxic.
My experience is that they OFTEN dub player "superstars" after they win. This is what happened to Drexler, and many, many others. As a more modern example, I think that if Houston makes it to the finals, one of their players will deemed a superstar by players, fans, and media.
Bad news for HCP. I'm a just recently retired physics professor, and I've got time on my hands, baby!
Oh No! Doesn't Amen Thompson play for the Rockets. We have a dude already primed to call him the next "Superstar".
Sure. And we passed on MJ because we already had Drexler. Do we have anybody worth risking passing on a guy with the athleticism and size of Sharpe who played an important role in winning a national championship?
