Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Mediocre Man, Nov 4, 2018.
Most of them seem to be in response to something I posted
Right, just keep telling yourself that...
Cute story but a fairy-tale.
Its more like Jimmys gonna play when he feels like it, because he knows he can get away with it.
Yeah. I just recall seeing a lot of posts about it and it's like, okay......we need to enjoy this time of health before the next injury happens. I'm especially thankful that Dame has been relatively healthy his entire career. Seems like a lot of point guards end up with a major injury or two at some point in their careers and then they start slowing down and become shells of themselves.
I assume that the Lakers get negative points in this system because Kawhi didn’t play tonight? Are we keeping track league-wide?
All the good players dodge Portland. It's a conspiracy to get Portland fans hopes up, only to be extinguished when we play the healthy version of teams in the playoffs.
Or do we because we lost to them at home, and then they get embarrassed at home by a short handed team without it's best player?
Or, perhaps, we could look at this with the perspective that we should both have as long time NBA fans: Each individual game is a unique blend of factors that makes comparing scores and looking at who was playing and who wasn't pretty foolish. Butler misses the game against OKC, but "over-the-hill" Derrick Rose plays an out of his mind blast from the past and scores 50, leading the hapless TWolves past Utah. The Lakers are on a mission to beat the Blazers and the 16 game win streak and meet a cold shooting, turn-over prone, Blazers team that has to try to rally from 20 points down and can't quite get the job done. The next night, the Lakers are flat and perhaps a bit overly optimistic about their chances against the Raptors because Kawhi isn't playing, and Ibaka goes off for 34 points. The Blazers pull the same kind of overly confident start against the Pelicans absent Davis and Randle comes off the bench as a one-man wrecking crew in the first half before the Blazers finally make some adjustments and end up pulling out a comfortable win. Teams get hot from three or can't hit the broad side of a barn. Plays run like clockwork or can have sloppy passes sailing into the arms of an opponent or a fan sitting in the first row. Those kinds of things are why comparing scores and looking at who is missing is a futile effort.
The Blazers are 7-3 and you and others may knock them for some of their opponents not being at full strength, but that's the NBA. Every team has games like that and they also have games where they're undermanned themselves due to injuries or other factors. The only thing a team can do is try to win the game that is in front of them. The Blazers 70 percent start will help them later in the season and maybe will make it so that they don't need a super late season push to make the playoffs. I'm celebrating that.
I'm curious, when we talk about stats, should we not count the easy buckets? If Dame gets a breakaway layup, should that not count towards his averages because it was so easy? Should difficulty be a factor when we talk about his three point shooting? Are there points for style?
No one is knocking them. I started this thread because like last year, it will come up
Good for you starting this thread. It's true last season people claimed opposing stars missing games against us had no effect/affect on our win total basically. Has nothing to do with other teams, just us.
Oh, the knocking comes later. I guess I'll bookmark my post so it's readily available for when the fun starts.
You do you
You forgot Dejounte Murray being out for the Spurs.
I think more interesting (or instructive) than looking at how many teams were missing significant players is looking at how have we played against teams that were at (relatively) full strength.
To that end, I would consider the games against LA, WAS, ORL, MIA, IND, and LA again as fitting that description. In those games, we're 3-3.
I'm glad we've also got 4 wins against weakened teams, and I hope we get plenty more, but I think the preceding sentence is more indicative of the team's overall quality.
I look at it as more comparable to (and pardon the cross-sports analogy) when college QB's play in conferences that don't have legit pass defenses, or in an offense in which the scheme more often than not generates wide open receivers. When evaluating that QB for potential pro success, you don't focus on how well or often he can complete passes with no DB within 10 yards of the target; you focus on situations in which he actually has to make throws comparable to what he'd have to make in the NFL. If he's completing 70% of his throws overall, but only 40% on passes where defense is actually being played, then that's a bit of a red flag.
I don't think we can count anyone who got injured prior to the season starting and won't play in a single game this year. No team has to play them at "full" strength.
Yeah, that's like saying all the other teams got lucky because they don't have to play us with Gred Oden and Brandon Roy this year.
If you insist. Call us 4-3 against "relatively" full strength teams, with two good wins (vSAS, @IND) and two bad losses (vWAS, vLAL). Still pretty average.
Hey, can we count the Heat game as unlucky because Dion Waiters didn't play? We probably would've blown them out if he suited up.
Separate names with a comma.