I mean I don't even hate their rebuild.sbsat wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:Scase wrote:It doesn't, because as with most things he posts, it has an incredible slant that is conveniently ignored.
The Raptors in total have 4638 minutes played by players under 25. 2094 of those are Scottie alone.
The Blazers in total have 6333 minutes played by players under 25. The highest by one player on their team 1448, Toumani Camara.
He also claims :
While conveniently ignoring that RJ is 23, has 10 games more played, but also damn near 3000 more minutes played in the NBA.
Their 5 players under 25 are 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 (turning 25 this June). Average age = 21.4
Our 4 players under 25 are 20, 22, 23, 24 (turning 25 this July). Average age 22.25
All of this also completely ignores that Scoot, Simons, and Sharpe have arguably higher ceilings/potential than any of our young guys, save for Scottie.
So in total, they have higher ceiling/potential players, younger players, play a significant amount more minutes with younger players, and still have managed to be only 4.5 games back of us. Not to mention that as of the OG trade, the raptors while fielding a 26 year old, a 27 year old, and a 29 year old in the SL, managed a 12-18 record.
We lost with vets, and one that people consider all star/all nba calibre, and the argument was always "we can't field a lot of rookies cause it will hurt winning and the culture". All I was doing was calling that tired and false narrative out. His argument did nothing to dispute that, because as usual (and the reason he's on ignore) is that it was all half truths and massive biases.
I have no interest getting into back and fourths with him, it's never a discussion and there is never any concession when his points are just flat out proven wrong, it's always a shifting of the goal posts. So I got tired of it, and put him on ignore. I don't see much point trying to drum up an argument with someone I'm intentionally ignoring lol.
So TLDR; No, the narrative doesn't change, because of the usual lack of context and heavy bias.
I also should note, that I appreciate the discussions you and I typically have, despite them usually being differing opinions. I know your comment was in jest, which is why I responded to it, albeit, with perhaps a little too much sarcasm. So, sorry about that if it came off dickish. I'm totally fine with people taking jabs or poking fun, but in the end, I only care to have discussions with folks when they do it in good faith, his and the others on the ignore list, seldom are.
Man, you speak of a lack of context and bias but do not even see it in your own posts.Their 5 players under 25 are 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 (turning 25 this June). Average age = 21.4
Our 4 players under 25 are 20, 22, 23, 24 (turning 25 this July). Average age 22.25
You seriously are trying to argue about Portlands youth being on average 8 months younger than oursAll of this also completely ignores that Scoot, Simons, and Sharpe have arguably higher ceilings/potential than any of our young guys, save for Scottie.
So we have the best player of the bunch in Scottie.
Simons? How is Simons any higher ceiling of a player than IQ (who you ignored)
Sharpe? He is the same age as Dick and to be honest, Dick has started to shown he might actually be the better player and prospect of the two.
So that looks Scoot, who obviously has potential... but is also the most inefficient player in the entire NBA this year. No seriously - he is dead last (Killian Hayes level inefficiency). Sharpe? He is 13th last.
And that is completely ignoring Barrett, who as of now is better than Scoot, Simons, and Sharpe as wel.
So currently we have the best player (Barnes) and IMO the 2nd/3rd best players in IQ and Barrett. Portland is currently 100% living off potential (which is why they are 3-21 when Brogdan does not play).
But hey - at least they are playing Toumari Camara (57th pick) and Jabari Walker (57th pick) to get that average age down.
Anyone using portland is as some sort of model of a rebuild isn't being serious and debating in good faith
I liked Scoot based on the minimal prospect research I do. Shaedon as well has the tools but again, he has to put it together.
Other than that, it is just weird to try and act like because their (inferior) prospects are playing more than ours it somehow means they are doing it right? The fact that they are so bad when their vets do not play just shows that losing that much isn't good for anyone involved. There is a reason those teams who suck have a very, very, very hard time breaking out of that rut.
We won 48 games with Scottie as a rookie. Maybe if we won 28 games and he was on a garbage team he would not have developed as well. No one knows.
And to be fair that is where we are to. The gap between bottom dweller and playoff team is huge. It is really, really hard to make that jump.
