Blazers

I've been meaning to watch the Blazers live for about a month, and I finally got the chance last night. They were playing on TNT against a gutsy Bulls team, who entered the game winner's of 3-of-4 since firing Scott Skiles.

In those four games, the Bulls beat similarly bad teams (Milwaukee, New York, and Charlotte) and lost to one good team (Orlando) in OT. The Bulls desperately needed a change and got something in the Skiles firing, and since then they've been playing committed basketball, so it made for a pretty good test for the Blazers.

I thought the Blazers would roll over...they won their 13 in a row and were now playing a back-to-back on the road against a rebounding Bulls team. But Luol Deng went down and the Blazers won 115-109 in OT. Sucks for the Bulls, but it again make the Blazers hard to figure out.

How is this team 20-13? They won 13 in a row over pretty good teams--including Utah twice, Denver twice, Toronto, New Orleans, and Golden State. Bill Simmons wrote a typically over-stated and generalized column explaining their success and related it to the Spurs pseudo-dynasty and the Celtics 27-3 sprint. He called it Chemacterillity and got some support from Jason Kapono, who is suddenly the authority on NBA team success?

Simmons groups the Spurs, Celtics and Blazers together in their Chemacterillity and explains that it's the "Moneyball" of the NBA. I personally think the Blazers are a good but not great team, and that while the Celtics and Spurs get along, you can account for their success because of two people: Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett. The NBA has been and is a Player's League and I think the superstar accounts for a whole lot more than Kopono's camaraderie test. Getting along helps (Hello Pistons in 04), but every team has to have a Duncan/Garnett/Shaq/Jordan to get the job done. In Simmons' defense, at least the three organizations aren't overpaying for wannabe superstars right now.

Either way, besides the Randolph-Frye trade and buying-out-Francis, I still can't figure out why the Blazers are at least good and a whole lot better than they were in 06-07.

The only two observations I felt solid about were:

1) How successful their players were in college:

Aldridge, Texas, Elite Eight in 06
Steve Blake, Maryland, Final Four 01, Nat'l Champs 02
Channing Frye, Arizona, Elite Eight 03,05
Tuarean Green, Florida, Nat'l Champs 06, 07
Jarrett Jack, Ga. Tech, Runner-up 04
Greg Oden, Ohio St., Runner-up 07
Raef LaFrentz, won 123 games at Kansas with Paul Pierce

2) That they are coached by the great Nate McMillan, who somehow got the Super Sonics to win 52 games in 2005, take the Spurs to 6 games in the playoffs, and earn Jerome James $30million over 5 years with the Knicks.

College success does not mean much in the pros (how you doing Mateen Cleaves?), but it's a pretty safe indicator of success on big stages and while the NBA is a Player's League, the same coaches do end up winning (Jackson, Reilly, Brown, Popovich).

I think it's really fun the Blazers have been so good and I think McMillan is a top-5 coach in the League, but I don't know where they end up in the next 3-5 years. Are Roy, Aldridge, and Oden max-out players? Do they keep two and let one go? Does Outlaw fit into the long-term plan as mid-level, long-term contract?

As of right now, I think this team will crumble against the Spurs, Suns, Mavs, Pistons, and Celtics. They do not have a Superstar yet, so they can join the Raptors, Jazz, and Nuggets as Playoff fodder for the big dogs. They can beat the Bulls on any given night and lock up a 4-7 seed in the West, but if Roy-Aldridge-Oden emerge as Superstars, they could be in place to make some serious noise.