You're being purposely obtuse. The thread was started based on 2016 decisions proving that Olshey is horrible. Then Stomp argued that resulting performance of the team is the responsibility of the GM. You can't find a record based stat that shows Olsheys teams have been horrible since 2016.
That Turner contract was the joke of the league. Analysts, reporter,fans and even Turner himself laughed at that decision. I STILL don't get the thinking behind that move. I can defend the rest of those decisions, they were ranging between a "C+"(Harkless) and a "D" (Meyers,Crabbe). Turner was graded as an "F" immediately. A total head scratcher.
you also can't find any basis for saying they have been the 3rd or 4th best team since 2016 either. Since then, they are 8-17 in the playoffs and have been swept in 3 of 5 series. In the close-out playoff series of the Dame/CJ era, Portland is 1-16 and have lost 14 in a row and nope....I'm not being obtuse, simply being a little more inclusive and thorough using the gauge you used. Olshey didn't show up in the GM's office in the summer of 2018; he'll have been in charge for a full 8 years in three months time. He'll have had 8 drafts, 8 off-seasons, and 8 trade deadlines to build a team. And when he showed up on the job, the Blazers already had Aldridge, Matthews, and Batum on board. They also had the 6th pick and a heavy scouting file on Lillard who is easily argued as the primary reason Portland has been in the playoffs for at least the last 4 years, if not the 2 years prior
so now, you move the goalposts away from the playoffs to regular season, and move the standard from top 3 or 4, to the top 7.5 teams ok then, Portland's average regular season record over those 3 seasons is 47.67 wins; in 2016-17, nine teams had 48 wins or better. In 2017-18, eleven teams had 48 wins of better. Last season, 13 teams had 48 wins or better. in other words over those last 3 seasons since 2016, an average of 11 teams have 48 wins or more, performing better than Portland. That means not only wasn't Portland in the top 1/4, it wasn't in the top 1/3. Now, it changes a little if you want to go by seed, then combining both conferences, it would be 15.5 + 5.5 + 5.5, That would put their average seed at 8.5 in a system that has 16 seeds. And if you wanted to extend that to the entire NBA then Blazers would be 8.5 on a 30 scale. Still not top 25%, but top-33%. Then you'd have to factor playoff performances and like I said, being swept in 3 of 5 playoff series is fairly negative. Since 2016, there have been 9 sweeps in the playoffs, and the Blazers have 3 of them. 8 different teams have appeared in the conference finals, and Portland was one of them, so there is that still, all things considered, if you're going by both regular season and playoff performance since 2016, Portland might not even qualify for the top third in the league, and if they do, it's right at the bottom. It's better than average for sure, but it's really not that impressive either and by the way, trying to look at something objectively is not whining. If I have flaws in trying to be objective, and I'm sure I do, then by all means point them out.
why do you continually manipulate stats to build your case? You use our average wins over 6 years and compare it to teams during a single season for them. That's some pretty good manipulations even for you. This forum continually cracks me up.
lol...to start with, I used average wins over three years, not 6, and I did so because another poster insisted I do: he told me to do it, so I did....I'm cooperative
Did he tell you to use the 3 year average against other teams single season results? Very odd way of doing a comparison and really not of any value. You want an apple to oranges comparison where it needs to be an apple to apple comparison to have much meaning.
1) Clearly using average wins is flawed and meaningless. Nice try. 2) Using seeds gives the same weighting to the Eastern Conference even though it is clearly inferior. I stand by my statement that the Blazers have been a top 25% team... in a small market. You have unrealistic expectations that you try to justify using fake news stats.
here was the "revised" parameters you set: regular season since 2016. That's 3 seasons. So explain to me why average regular season wins over those three years is flawed when that's the time frame you wanted? Initially you said Portland was "top 3 or 4" and it's obvious the only way you could get there is by basing it on Portland making the WCF last season. And you were getting there as a way to praise Olshey. When I presented a counter-argument to that, you immediately moved the goalposts from 'top-4-and-playoffs', to 'top-1/4-and-regular-season', and for just the last 3 years. personally, I think either standard is a dumb standard to judge a GM who has been on the job for 8 years
I'd pick @wizenheimer in a fight any day. He just embarrassed half the forum with ease. Well done, sir.
I'm not sure if you have this opinion or not but Riley has made mistakes as well. Many people on this forum believe it's the GM's job to properly predict injuries and not trade/sign for a healthy player who will get injured in Portland. Riley has had Oden, Bosh(iirc they're still paying that one insurance covers it but still a black mark especially has to be considered if one considers ezeli a black mark on NO) that former bulls center. Norris Cole. Dragic, while productive... Did he live up to that contract? Debatable. Riley has also been a poor drafter to the point of not even keeping draft picks. When he does draft.. for every Wade you have a Wayne Siemens or a Jarvis Fernando. Point is you can always look at another teams fanbase and find fans presenting facts to make their gm/owner or coach look bad. When really unless your name is James dolan or Michael Jordan. You're not bad. You're just not doing what the arm-chair experts believe you should be doing.
And who is this half of the forum that he embarrassed? I disagree as I don't see what the purpose was in comparing a 3 year average for Portland compared to a single season average for other teams as a valid comparison. I also noticed in his wins and payroll chart there are a lot of blanks in there. Without checking as it's really not that important I would venture a guess that the teams he omitted have less wins than Portland. That's called selective stats, but if you buy it then good for you. Here's some facts for you. Based on playoffs have been a top 8 team in the west for 3 years, top 4 team in the west for 2 years and a top 2 team in the west for one year in the last 6 years. Now if you prefer to see negative spin then wizen is your man. Me, I prefer to look at the positives in things and so does Lillard.
if there are many here who believe that, you should be able to name a couple...? by the way, how about signing players who are already injured....like Ezeli and Gasol?
I'm not his agent, but he adjusted to every adjustment and used the rules set up by everyone else and just owned all of you. You change this or that and he's got you. You disagree and he's got you too. Lol. @blazerboy30 @CupWizier everyone. Just owned. Please, cut your losses, man, and let it go!
I think you’re missing one factor in this, what did “others teams” not just on average as a like, but team by team. Like say they averaged The 7th best record, what did GS, Sac, LAL, etc, how did they do? Im not trying to form this as an argument, just as I think that would be a more, “complete”, look at how the Blazers have done vs other teams.
