I found this interesting http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/9909058/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-owner-says-dwight-howard-made-wrong-decision
As a Blazer fan its interesting because prior to these 17 years Houston won back to back titles. They have had some superstar players. They haven't really been a tanking team even though they did get Yao with the #1 pick. Portland has a long drought without a playoff series win; none in the last 13 years. Of course we know who they defeated in this one series as well.
The Houston teams who won the title got lucky at the right time (i.e. no Jordan), and had great team chemistry. I think the Bulls would have won 8 in a row had Jordan not "retired", or been on "double secret probation" at the time.
Those stats mean nothing. It's just media trying to sway people to think one way. Think about it for a few seconds and you'll realize something. Who on this team was there 17 seasons ago? Who was even there 5 seasons ago? They are vastly different.. It's a whole new team, so these stats are meaningless, and it's easy to see.
I saw that this evening, looked it up, and saw that in 7+ seasons, Yao was in only 28 playoff games. Another one I read tonight, as the extension deadline passed: https://mobile.twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine
Picks, respectively, on those offered the extensions/Q.O. from that draft. 1, 10, 5, 3, 15, 26. That's it. Q.O.s will be offered to Turner, Monroe, Hayward, Patterson, Bledso (PHX), Vasquez, though, right? Only Wall and Cousins seem like highly picked franchise players at this point, although George at #10 may be the best pick in the draft. Tanking doesn't work, typically.
I think it often does, but in our case it didn't help with our top-12 protected. If we had won a couple more games, instead of 10 McCollum we could have had 11 Michael Carter-Williams. If we'd won a couple more games than that, we'd have had 12 Steven Adams or 13 Kelly Olynyk or 17 Dennis Schroeder. Not really worse from what we got. Or been denied entirely and waited for this next unusually strong draft and done better than any of those.
Interesting that the one series that they have won in 17 years is against none other than your Portland TrailBlazers.
Seriously, though. How does a stat about a team 16 years ago affect a team that has nobody from 16 years ago? It's really common sense. I just hate stats like that. Or "Its going to be tough, they haven't won here in 20 years" Different team, different time. Those stats are used to create an emotion. I guess I have a mindset of "I don't need to have contrived emotions." If I like the team, and root for them.. there's no need for the contrivity. For the record, this isn't about the OP or any sort of reflection on why he posted the stat. Just a frank opinion of how I feel about this type of stat.
Many of us have followed a team for more than 16 years. Teams have ownership, organizational cultures, city appeal, and other factors that last for decades. The past core of players directly influences how the team is able to build the next seasons roster. To some of us that stuff is interesting. If its not interesting to you feel free to leave this thread, there are literally a million other posts you can go read without trolling through mine.
The simple answer this is to laugh. I would really like to quote Billy Madison here. lol. The past core of players don't affect the current core on the court. That's a joke. Funny, too. Well done. It was a valiant effort. But, in the end, this stat is meaningless and only used to garner emotion.
