Sorry if ANYONE thinks I'm diminishing their youth... I think it's awesome what they're doing with all of their young guys, whether they're the youngest or second-youngest. I just take issue with the, in my estimation, overstatement about them being the youngest. Ed O.
Neither. I think both are right based on their definitition of "team". As has been shown in this thread, some people consider the team to be the players that have played, practiced and traveled with the team. Others consider the team to be the complete 15-man roster regardless of participation. Again, I don't see what the big deal is. Depending on the definition of team, we're either the youngest or second youngest team in the league. Even if Raef technically makes us older than the Warriors by one definition, I sure wouldn't trade rosters with them. Nor, would I argue with any Warrior's fan who claims their team is younger than ours. It's simply not worth the energy. So, if by your definition of team, the Warriors are younger than the Blazers, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to bend to your will and accept your definition as the only one that's plausible. BNM
It's not just my definition. Do you think any non-Blazers fans refer to them as the "youngest team in the NBA"? Do you think that anyone accepts the general proposition that there are any number of "youngest teams in the NBA" at any given time in any given NBA season? Ed O.
Excuse me, I meant your preferred definition. I've heard announcers on national telecasts refer to the Blazers as the youngest team in the league. Probably more out of ignorance than differing definitions. Actually, I don't think it matters. I thought I made that clear. BNM
this post at BE (through a Warrior's blog) is much more revealing than average age basically, Memphis is the youngest team, the Blazers close behind.
Here are some comparisons between Goldenstate & Portland. (My #'s slightly differ from those of GOD's posted a few weeks ago, maybe a few had b-days as well as a few minor trades) Average Age of Active Roster: Goldenstate: 24.13 Portland: 24.67 (includes Raef, Webster - Blake's b-day is in two days) Average Years of Experience of Active Roster: Goldenstate: 2.87 Portland: 3.47 (counting Greg as a rookie) But it's far more telling when you break down who's actually on the floor... Average Age of Active Roster per minute played: Goldenstate: 25.28 Portland: 23.8 Average Experience of Active Roster per minute played: Goldenstate: 4.09 Portland: 2.62 Overall Record: Goldenstate: 20-37 Portland: 35-20 Stat I found most impressive is that Portland ROOKIES play 29.67% of the total minutes... wow.
I'm confused. Your very post shows that we are the youngest team in the league without Raef. And even if we're the 2nd youngest team in the league by a very small margin, it's still something that is impressive about our team. It's really unbelievable. We play 4 rookies and our two top scorers are only in their third year. Only one rotation player, Steve Blake, has played in the playoffs. Can you find any team in the last 10 years that fits that? It's really remarkable what we've accomplished and what an amazing upside we have in the coming years.
Well....I don't see Raef as a human entity, I see him as a contract. I seriously doubt he'll ever play a game in the NBA again, and he hasn't contributed one iota of ANYTHING, on or off the court, all season. I see Martel as a human entity, that is present, relevant, and will play again in the NBA. Therefore, by my own definition, the Blazers are the youngest team in the NBA.
I can't think of any team in the last decade, no. And all of what you typed is true. I don't think that excluding Raef makes sense, though, and so unless one is going to qualify the statement, I find "youngest team in the NBA" to be inaccurate. Ed O.
Assistant coaches are part of the team. They give the rest of the team their presence and help the players in a variety of ways. You keep reaching and reaching but unfortunately for you, nothing is there. It's fine that you have a different point of view but you no longer make sense when disputing others'.
Its not really baffling logic here. Raef LaFrentz hasn't played a minute this year, he's the oldest player technically on contract, but he hasn't played so what is the point in figuring him into the team age? Ruffin has played a total of 2 minutes or something like that. Outside of Blake, Joel and Outlaw no one else who actually gets burn is over the age of 25.
Would it save you thought then if people added "per minute basis" to the youngest team in the league statement? When implying that were the youngest team in the league I think most people actually are speaking of the playing rotation, not who sits around and collects a paycheck and doesn't have anything to do with the team except for monetary purposes.
I wouldn't say its an out. More like realistic expectations. This is a league won by veterans, name the last time the youngest team in the league (on a per minute basis) was a top seeded playoff team?
So pretty much Ed thinks we should count Raef against our age and a majority of our posters think we should not count Raef. I think I lean a little bit toward not counting Raef, since the only thing he is to us is a contract. I guess its close to Francis to where we are paying his contract but he isn't contributing to the team (or with the team).
So, if you're going to insist everyone else qualify their statements about the Blazers being the youngest team in the league, shouldn't you also qualify your statement: I find "youngest team in the NBA" to be inaccurate by adding: by my preferred definition. This is quite silly. Do you really think everyone else is going to stop calling the Blazers the "youngest team in the NBA" just because you want them to and started a thread about it in an online forum? BNM
You guys can do whatever you want. I'm just telling you that it makes you look like homers, redefining terms and bending over backwards to call them something they're not. Ed O.
