That's what I was thinking as well. Blazers have the advantage at 4-5, Clippers 1-3, and I think the 1-3 advantage is much bigger than the 4-5 advantage.
I can't see Portland's bench winning a playoff series. Clippers take it on the strength of a lot of Bron.
Congratulations, you found a bunch of players that played well when their teams were well out of the playoffs race and had nothing to lose by playing them. They all had their games but they didn't do well consistently, at least not consistently enough to help their team win games. Cook and Hawes also got more opportunities with injuries on their teams. But if we want to go off of these small examples, Webster can avg 20 PPG, Sergio is good for at least 5 asts, and Reggie Evans is good for a guaranteed 12 REB's a game. Hell, Hamed Haddadi tore up the Olympics, he's all-world, so he'll dominate, he'll beat out Greg Oden for ROY.
I'm not sure how this addresses a single point that I made. Where did I say I was extrapolating to per48 averages? If you're going to use a strawman argument, you should be less obvious. I explicitly said I didn't need them to be stars. You've got a good team. Somehow, I suspect that you're making an issue of my bench because you'd like to win in the voting. But the bench is not the most important component of a team. And my bench is fine; it has 3 players who should be good enough for limited minutes, which should be good enough for the playoffs, and in addition, it has enough hit or miss prospects (as you put it) to probably hit at least once.
I did address your argument man, you through boxscores at me that were meaningless IMO. Who cares what they did the last month or 2 of the season when their teams were out of the playoffs and had nothing to play for. They obviously couldn't trust them early in the year when they were trying to compete, with an exception for Cook since Wade was injured. He did decent but was very inconsistent with his play. Doesn't matter if you don't want them to be stars, your players still have to contribute off the bench or else that's at least a quarter a game that your team will drop off in production unless you plan on playing your starters 48 minutes. If you haven't noticed, most teams cut their bench in the playoffs to 3 people, with at least 2 veterans most the times. Teams with young benches usually are the ones that have problems in the playoffs because of their youngster's erratic play. Rookies or 2nd year players aren't exactly adapted to playing 82+ games a year after and are still trying to develop physically. In the playoffs, the intensity rises significantly and the play gets a lot more physical, with the refs letting more go. This is a big reason why young players don't do much in the playoffs because they're just not physically ready to compete at the level. Games are won by a team effort, you obviously need to have good starters but you also need a bench that will contribute, just compare these teams that go far in the playoffs every year, Mavs (during title run) had Stack, Dampier/Diop, and Terry, Spurs had KT/Elson, Manu/Finley, Jacque Vaughn, then look at Houston who had Luther Head, Carl Landry, and Aaron Brooks/Bobby Jackson. Houston has always been able to compete with everyone during the regular season but when they got to the playoffs, their bench was non-existent in the playoffs. So when they missed on those 3, they had to expand their starters minutes or try to find someone else. T-Mac and the starters ultimately ran out of gas. You do know the players farther down your bench are less talented or not ready to play, that's why they are there.
Um, you do realize Houston's problem in the last playoffs was not its bench, right? Please tell me you realize that without Yao, and without Alston for 2 games, the Rockets had no chance against Utah. By the way, it is a strawman argument when you make up something I said and then argue against that. In this instance, you implied that I was saying that because Chandler, Cook and Hawes were each productive in stretches last season, that they would be excellent players this season. That's not in fact what I said, nor is it an argument I need to make to prove their worth to the team. You seem to be of the mindset that although they played productively against NBA teams, some of which were fighting for playoff spots, that none of that production counts because their own teams were not in contention. Or because Cook was filling in for an inured starter? Who cares why they got the minutes? The fact is they produced decently when offered the minutes. How in the world do you go from there to claiming they won't be able to contribute off the bench? Do you honestly think that Chandler will come in for fifteen minutes and not score, not rebound, not pass, and not defend (ok, the last one might be true)? Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that young players cannot contribute in the playoffs. Weird how Farmar was the back up point for the Lakers, or Maxiell and Stuckey were the key bench players for the Pistons. That's two of of the final four teams last year getting key contributions from young bench players, and I haven't even mentioned starters. I could come up with counter-examples all day, but I really don't need that many to refute your argument. I don't know, I feel like I've made my plan clear ad nauseum at this point. If you want to somehow not understand it again, go ahead.
You do realize the Rockets played Utah the year before right? They lost the series in 7 because their bench only showed up for 3 of the 7 games. Why do you think the Rockets added more veterans in the offseason? Not only are Artest and Barry good but it gives them more experience on the bench with Battier moving to anchor their bench. Here's a quote from you: You are assuming these guys are guaranteed production off the bench, when realistically younger player are very erratic and kill your team more often than veterans do. You may seem to look at their stats productive but all were very inefficient. With all them shooting well below a 50% eFG and fouling quite a bit in their time on the court. That's how the other teams get into the bonus and get easy points from the charity stripe. Being a Jazz fan, I know how bad it hurts giving up so many free throws. I guess you'll also find it funny that you brought up some players that support my case. Jason Maxiell and Jordan Farmar are both players that have been playing consistently for their team 2 straight years and this was their 2nd time in the playoffs. Farmar also has been to the big stage before helping UCLA to the Final 4 before, so he's use to the lights. They also have proven ballhandlers/playmakers in the backcourt to play off of with Billups/Rip/Prince or Kobe/Fisher, while you got yet another young player Conley and Delonte West which compares nothing to those teams. All the guys I just named are efficient players that don't turn it over as much as Hedo and Yao. Farmar and Stuckey also both were very inefficient in the playoffs and gave their team minutes of good D and running the offense while the other players scored. On the other hand, you have guys like Yao and Sheed that need the ball fed to them and someone to kick the ball too to knock down shots consistently. You sure as hell don't have a Kobe, Fisher, Rip, or Billups to do that in the playoffs. The only players on your team that done anything or even been to the playoffs before are Yao, Sheed, and Hedo, while for me LeBron has been to the finals, Jermaine O'Neal ECF, and Jargon, Reggie Evans, Marbury, Mike Miller have all been to the playoffs more than once during their careers. Experience is a totally different factor when it comes around to playoffs and you don't have nothing after your frontcourt.
For this, you have to consider for both teams too, and Eric Gordon has just as much talent as any of his players after Yao, Sheed, & Hedo, yet no one is considering him as becoming great like you guys are trying to say about his players. Martell Webster has also improved every year in the league, so who says he can't be a top 6th man in the league this year also?
Eric Gordon hasn't even played yet, try making sense. We're talking about young players that have had at least one year in the league. Nobody's saying Martell can't become a top 6th man. EDIT: Are they?
Oden hasn't played a game yet either, yet people are assuming he's a stud already. He's saying his young players that aren't ready to play yet are hit or miss, while Eric Gordon is one of the few rookies with Beasley and Mayo that is ready to play in the NBA. Guys like Jason Thompson, D.J. Augustin, and Gallinari aren't even close to physically ready like Gordon. Gordon did more in college than Wilson Chandler and Daquan Cook ever did, those guys were projects coming out of college, while Gordon is someone that can contribute right away. It may not be the most efficient but he is also one of the best talent's in the last 2-3 drafts. You just said we weren't considering improvement, well if we consider improvement, that means Webster should be considered for improving too since he's only 21, a few months older than Wilson Chandler and Daquan Cook, and a year older than Hawes.
What the hell are you talking about?? Greg Oden?? Beasley?? Mayo? We're talking about Hawes, Cook, and Chandler! They've played in the NBA, they've proven what they can do.
They haven't proven anything yet, that's the problem. Anyone can play and put up numbers when they're on a crap team and are forced to play. These were all guys that couldn't sniff the floor when their teams were healthy or in the running for playoffs still. They were all part of a youth movement on lottery bound teams, his team is suppose to be in the playoffs, yet he has only has 3 proven winners. I have never seen a team as young as his go anywhere in the playoffs before, but I'm pretty young, so please brush me up on history if there is any team in modern history that has done anything being as young as his team.
When the Nets got to the finals with a 2nd year player starting (KMart), a 3rd year player starting(ToddMac), and 2 rookies coming off the bench (RJ, Collins).
Kenyon Martin and RJ were both big time talent stars coming out of college, while none of his guys are more than simple role players. They also had J-Kidd in his prime to orchestrate the team, Conley isn't no Kidd because Kidd is one the top 10 best PG's in the last few decades IMO. 8 of his players have less than 2 years experience, Nets didn't quite have that if I remember that team right.
jray, you make some good points, but they're obscured by your frustrating and ultimately ineffective debating style. first off, let's refresh on what a strawman argument is- it's when you pretend your opponents have said something they haven't, and you argue against that point. You said Jefferson was a big-time star coming out of college, and that justifies his presence on a finals team, whereas my players lack an ability to contribute in the playoffs. KC pointed out that many of my players were selected higher than RJ. That's not a strawman argument, he's refuting an actual point you made. An actual strawman argument is the one you keep making, where you seem to be countering the argument that no one's making that Webster is on par with my guys as a reserve. Or the one where my bench guys are supposed to have starter-level abilities, or be more than role players. Or the one where Conley compares to Jason Kidd. 2ndly, you made the point that young players in general lack this ability to contribute in the playoffs. I named some players that have done so, only to have you then claim that they were exceptions because of a bunch of criteria that you implied you've been using all along, including the presence of an all-star backcourt. I'd like you to cite one instance of you having stated this before- otherwise, how the hell am I supposed to debate with you the relative merits of my players when after I'm done refuting your points you then shift your stance and say your new stance was your original one all along? 3rdly, you don't address at all my actual argument that it doesn't matter how my top three reserves got their minutes. Or how putting up numbers on a crap team with starters minutes means that they're unable to put up lesser numbers on a better team, in lesser minutes. For what it's worth, I am considering improvement- and I view these "playoffs" as happening in our virtual world after next season. 4thly, it's a pretty tricky ledge you're on with your Eric Gordon nuances. Much of what you say about my players applies to him, and he's a much more important component of your team than any of my players. Again, you're claiming he's an exception because he's NBA-ready. Do I need to go find rookies how were described as NBA-ready who floundered their first year? Gordon being successful is as much a crapshoot as any of my players. We'll only know for sure at the end of the actual season. The reason I took so many rookies is because the probability of one being successful increases with the number I take. Unless my math is wrong- it's like flipping a coin once versus flipping it 4 times. Flip it once, chances of failure/tails versus success/heads is 50/50. Flip it four times, the chance of having 4 failures is 6%. You can adjust the original percentage how you like. The chances that just one of my rookies is successful next year are better than Gordon's. The chances that Gordon performs better than Chandler or Cook are abysmally small, IMO. I'd like you to note this is the first time I've said anything negative about your team. Lastly, regarding my other players, you note that "you have guys like Yao and Sheed that need the ball fed to them and someone to kick the ball too to knock down shots consistently. You sure as hell don't have a Kobe, Fisher, Rip, or Billups to do that in the playoffs." I'd actually say Sheed knocks down shots pretty consistently- that's why I got him. At least 3 of my starters are good outside shooters (I don't know about Conley), and defenses still have to worry about Yao in the middle. Furthermore, we obviously disagree in our assessments of West and Conley. I'm of the opinion that there's usually tremendous improvement in a point's second year, and I think West makes a pretty good point on his own, anyway. So are they Kobe or Billups and Rip? Of course not. You seem to be saying I need to pair Sheed and Yao with one of those combos, which is pretty ridiculous IMO. Should I have had 2 top 10 picks and 4 in the first two rounds? Would that be the only way to beat your team?
