# Blazer ticket sales soaring!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

So much for all the doubters who said the youth movement would hurt attendance. The Blazers report that ticket sales are booming--in fact, they are better than they were while Wallace, Wells, Davis, Anderson, Rahim, Van Exel, and Stoudamire were still here!



> A funny thing is happening. The Blazers say they are finding that people are buying into this new wave of change, which is predicated on youth, character and the upside that each quality brings. The Blazers say their ticket sales -- from season tickets to group sales to mini-packages -- have all surpassed the previous four seasons.


http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1128423411265600.xml&coll=7

This is confirmation that Portland fans wanted a change--and that Nash, Patterson, and Allen did the right thing by gutting the team and starting over. It's a new era, and the fans are on for the ride.

Go Blazers!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Congrats that sales have gone from 1 to 10 tickets, that's a 1000% increase.

Awesome, anyone have access to their P&L sheets?

The numbers must be phenomenal.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

"ready or not here we come"

I actually kind of like it




I am liking Jack more and more ......... I like our team and how its put toegter. Anoter tweak or two and it may finally be balanced out roster wise.


 They used the "P" word............ potential


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Wait... the Blazers are saying that fans are agreeing with the moves they're making? They've got a little bit of self-interest going on there, so I read that with a large grain of salt.

And sounds like we've added a bunch of polite men with whom Jason Quick gets along. I bet Tonkin and Patterson have discussed it on the golf course repeatedly.

Unfortunately, the team stinks. And, as Nate said, "... there are only certain things that people are going to pay to see, and in this league, that's winning."

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I think you were on the phone Ed, when they tried to call you....


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I think Nate said it best in that article: "Our play. That's all," McMillan said. "Winning is going to have to be the selling point. Nothing other than that. Just winning. Because whether you are the only show in town or there are other things to watch, there are only certain things that people are going to pay to see, and in this league, that's winning."

I'm happy to see the spike in sales. but it's easy to forget that the Clippers and Warriors have seen sales spikes too in the past. after a few months of horrible performances attendance can plummet quickly.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

I think the biggest difference this year is that fans by-and-large don't have the jaded pessimism of the past several years. In the past we've largely known the key players and wished we had someone else instead. 

Still got Damon - dang.
Still got DA - there's one for the IR
etc., etc., etc.

Now, however, there is a sense of youthful optimism. While there is debate as to how the team will fare, it is a rare soul who thinks we are playoff bound. The biggest thing I see coming into this year, for fans in general, is that we have a team that is young, with clean records (police records that is - with a couple exceptions), guys that, at least at this point, seem to hearken back more to the Drexler, Porter, Kersey group of "good guys" rather than the Jail Blazer image that subsequently befell the team.

Now it is up to the kids to go out and play well, show improvement and do well for the community and, I believe, the community will stand behind them. 

Of course, if the team does not improve through the course of the year, those ticket sales may not be quite as lofty. However, if the team does improve, and especially if they do better than expected, expect tickets to become a more valued commodity next year.

Gramps...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't understand this. 

They start selling some more tickets and people jump up and down screaming 'It's just a mirage! Don't believe it!' 

It's a young team. They're going to lose a lot of games this year. I think it's great that people are coming back to the Blazers because they've proven they want to put a decent product on the floor and fans want to be part of watching these young kids blossom as NBA players.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

:clap: 

Certainly going to be interesting with the Demon gone!

:boohoo:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

To the extent there is truth in this report, it is good news indeed.

I would like to see reliable numbers for the past few seasons of pre-season ticket sales to be able to compare.

I also wonder how much losing these new and returning fans will take before drifting off. I would think that good hustle and likeability will stretch that timeframe out.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Fork said:


> I don't understand this.
> 
> They start selling some more tickets and people jump up and down screaming 'It's just a mirage! Don't believe it!'


if you are referring to my post or Ed's, I'd like to point out that your post is the only one featuring exclamation points. Ed isn't the "jump up and down screaming" kind of guy, and I only get that worked up over midget wrestling, and then only if there is lime jello and shaved Siamese kittens involved. 

like I said, I'm happy the Blazers are selling tickets. it's more fun to watch games when there are people in the arena, and more profitability will likely make us more likely to pay for better players. I know I'll be more likely to buy tickets myself just because Stoudamire is gone. 

but fans of other bad teams can certainly tell you that they have seen this phenomenon before. people like me will forget about Damon just like they did Kemp or Rider. at that point it'll be all about the wins.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

theWanker said:


> I only get that worked up over midget wrestling, and then only if there is lime jello and shaved Siamese kittens involved.


Things I didn't need to know about the Wanker.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> It's a young team. They're going to lose a lot of games this year. I think it's great that people are coming back to the Blazers because they've proven they want to put a decent product on the floor and fans want to be part of watching these young kids blossom as NBA players.


Portland's got a lot of people who like NBA basketball, and there's certainly a lot of things to be excited about with the current roster.

But whether the spike (assuming there is one) in ticket sales will survive an extended period of losing this year (assuming there is one) is a question that will be interesting to see answered.

If Portland wins 30 games with this roster and then keeps the same team next year, would you expect the ticket sales to go up, or down? An argument could be made both ways.

Ed O.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

If the returning fans are anything like me they're excited that they won't be seeing spitting, obscene hand gestures, and acting like fools when the refs make a call. I know some people are thinking that's a lot of wins to give up to get a polite team but I don't see it that way. 

I really believe we are building something special. I don't expect to have a great record or make the play offs this year but I think these kids are going to work their booties off, gel as a team, and leave everything on the floor. I see them losing most of their games in the last few minutes due to lack of experience but not getting blown out every night. This is going to be a learning year and next year we're going to see them winning more of those close games and I think there's a good chance they make the play offs 2006/07 season.

Plus we get to see a running offense where our guys are just going to wear other teams out and that is the funnest basketball to watch! 

I'm very optimistic about this team and I haven't felt that way for a long time.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Spud147 said:


> If the returning fans are anything like me they're excited that they won't be seeing spitting, obscene hand gestures, and acting like fools when the refs make a call. I know some people are thinking that's a lot of wins to give up to get a polite team but I don't see it that way.
> 
> I really believe we are building something special. I don't expect to have a great record or make the play offs this year but I think these kids are going to work their booties off, gel as a team, and leave everything on the floor. I see them losing most of their games in the last few minutes due to lack of experience but not getting blown out every night. This is going to be a learning year and next year we're going to see them winning more of those close games and I think there's a good chance they make the play offs 2006/07 season.
> 
> ...


I think the learning curve will be a lot smaller than most do, because it's not like we have a roster full of Chris Andersens, Joe Wolfs and Winston Garlands.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Well there goes my theory about character pertaineing to casual fans...The ones who actually account for what 85% of attendance.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

arenas809 said:


> Congrats that sales have gone from 1 to 10 tickets, that's a 1000% increase.
> 
> Awesome, anyone have access to their P&L sheets?
> 
> The numbers must be phenomenal.


 please behave better

Regards.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

This is good news, it just might not be as good as some people are thinking. Adding more of x(tickets sales) to y (already sold tickets) only shows more total sales if the starting point of y is the same. So four years ago, the blazers started the sales season with thousands more seats already sold, so if they sold 500(random number) then that might have been good, but that same 500 would be bad now, since there are so many fewer seats already sold from the past.

Example - If I add 5 beads to a bucket that already has 195 beads in it, the new beads added is less then if I add 25 beads to a bucket that has only 75 beads in it. However, I would rather only add 5 beads to 195, since the total number of beads we have is more.

Each year the Blazers have been loosing ticket sales and long term packages, and last year they allowed long term ticket holders out of extended contracts. Well, some of those people who opted out are buying t ickets now, but that is not a net gain, in fact, it could be a net loss. Without the numbers, we just don't know.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

thylo said:


> This is good news, it just might not be as good as some people are thinking. Adding more of x(tickets sales) to y (already sold tickets) only shows more total sales if the starting point of y is the same. So four years ago, the blazers started the sales season with thousands more seats already sold, so if they sold 500(random number) then that might have been good, but that same 500 would be bad now, since there are so many fewer seats already sold from the past.
> 
> Example - If I add 5 beads to a bucket that already has 195 beads in it, the new beads added is less then if I add 25 beads to a bucket that has only 75 beads in it. However, I would rather only add 5 beads to 195, since the total number of beads we have is more.
> 
> Each year the Blazers have been loosing ticket sales and long term packages, and last year they allowed long term ticket holders out of extended contracts. Well, some of those people who opted out are buying t ickets now, but that is not a net gain, in fact, it could be a net loss. Without the numbers, we just don't know.


I was under the impression that preseason ticket sales are the highest they have been in the last 4 years, not that new ticker sales have been higher, but the total....

Maybe I need to re-read it.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

People are buying more tix at this point in time this year vs. the same point in time any of the previous 4 years. The only direct conclusion we can draw from that is that people are more interested in watching the team now than they have been at the same point in time any of the previous 4 years. But without more data, we can't draw any sound conclusions as to WHY people are more interested in watching the team now vs. previously.

Is it because most/all of the 'trouble-makers' are gone? Is it because Sebastian is poised to establish himself as a starting NBA PG? Is it because of the additions of Steve, Juan, Charles, Jarrett, Martell, and/or Sergei? Is it because of Nate? The return of Luuuuuc? Is it because people really liked what they saw from Travis, Viktor, Joel, and/or Ha late last season? Or maybe people hoping to see more from Ruben and/or Theo? Reduced ticket prices? Better packages? Rose Garden improvements? Better giveaways? New primary sponsor? New unis? Point is, there are a lot of things going on w/ the Blazers and/or the Rose Garden that might be contributing to improved ticket sales. And more detailed data is needed to tell us which of them are resonating the most among those buying the tix.

That said, whether or not the current rate increases, decreases, or remains flat over the course of the season will largely depend on the team's W-L record. Right now, the Blazers are like that shiny new car that catches everyone's eye: Shiny, sleek body styling with clean lines and an aggressive, low posture. Built for speed, and ready to roll. Unfortunately, the excitement will wear off quickly if the engine doesn't deliver the performance implied by the styling. And you can bet that the NBA's equivalent of "Car & Driver" will be getting their test drives in early and will be publishing their reports widely.

PBF


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Hap said:


> I think the learning curve will be a lot smaller than most do, because it's not like we have a roster full of Chris Andersens, Joe Wolfs and Winston Garlands.


I think it's going to be a very good year if people can be patient about the record. The only reason I don't think they'll make the play offs is because the west is so stacked right now but teams like Memphis, Dallas, Phoenix, etc. are on their way down because of trades and aging and our guys are only going to get better. Considering that if they gel they could potentially be together for a decade. I see a lot of wins in our future.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Spud147 said:


> I think it's going to be a very good year if people can be patient about the record. The only reason I don't think they'll make the play offs is because the west is so stacked right now but teams like Memphis, Dallas, Phoenix, etc. are on their way down because of trades and aging and our guys are only going to get better. Considering that if they gel they could potentially be together for a decade. I see a lot of wins in our future.


Amen, sistah.

:wave:

PBF


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

ProudBFan said:


> Amen, sistah.
> 
> :wave:
> 
> PBF


Hi PBF! I was just telling Gramps how much I missed you and E on the ESPN board. PapaG is posting again and so is Gramps (once in a while). Hey, does Wallace/Wells Rules ever post anymore? I liked his cynicism.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Spud147 said:


> Hi PBF! I was just telling Gramps how much I missed you and E on the ESPN board. PapaG is posting again and so is Gramps (once in a while). Hey, does Wallace/Wells Rules ever post anymore? I liked his cynicism.


Gosh when will people see the light and Realize the more the merrier and bbb is the right place for everyone?


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Gosh when will people see the light and Realize the more the merrier and bbb is the right place for everyone?


It's not you Schilly... it's me. :brokenhea 

Everyone is so well behaved and polite over here. And they don't venture inappropriately off topic. I just have a tough time controlling myself... it's almost like I have to act up! Maybe I'm just craving attention and bad attention is better than no attention. 

On the other hand, the ESPN board does not have dancing bananas...

:banana: :gbanana: :bbanana: :vbanana: :rbanana:


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Spud147 said:


> It's not you Schilly... it's me. :brokenhea
> 
> Everyone is so well behaved and polite over here. And they don't venture inappropriately off topic. I just have a tough time controlling myself... it's almost like I have to act up! Maybe I'm just craving attention and bad attention is better than no attention.
> 
> ...


Would it make you feel more at home if we started an ***flake thread, Spud? (Let's see if that gets by the board censors.) 

As far as Wallace/Wells_Rules, he posts here as Sodapopinski and he's still his same irrepressible self. He does have to tone down the swearing a bit though.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

e_blazer1 said:


> Would it make you feel more at home if we started an ***flake thread, Spud? (Let's see if that gets by the board censors.)
> 
> As far as Wallace/Wells_Rules, he posts here as Sodapopinski and he's still his same irrepressible self. He does have to tone down the swearing a bit though.


Ah yes, the infamous ***flake/Buttnugget thread... I feel more comfortable already! :cheers: 

I've seen Sodapopinski's post and didn't recognize him! Where's the rage? See the politeness and good behavior of the board his killed a little part of him! :dead:


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

More than anything I believe any increased ticket sales are due to McMillians reputation and the confidence the community has in him. A distant second would be the good citizens we have acquired.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Blazer management can thank the Laker game at the end of last year. 

Personally the fact that I wont have to watch Damon encourages me to buy a ticket. 

Whatever the reason, it's great news. Hopefully the crowd will be rocking. We could end up having a decent home record on fan support alone.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I usually go to 6 to 10 games a year, this year, I think it will likely be closer to the 10 games. I don't go to more then that because I just don't enjoy the it enough unless I buy real expensive tickets, and I just don't have that much money. I get almost the same amount of enjoyment watching on tv with friends, I I look to be doing a lot more of that this year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I think the learning curve will be a lot smaller than most do, because it's not like we have a roster full of Chris Andersens, Joe Wolfs and Winston Garlands.


There's never been a roster that bad, Hap. That ours isn't the worst roster of all time is not saying much.

What we DO have a roster full of is mid-level prospects with little experience... a ton of swing men... very little outside shooting... little size in the front court...

Ugh. I gotta stop reminding myself of how bad this team is.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> There's never been a roster that bad, Hap. That ours isn't the worst roster of all time is not saying much.
> 
> What we DO have a roster full of is mid-level prospects with little experience...


we also have young guys who aren't that bad (Zach for starters) and 2 recent lotto picks (even if you think that Nash "picked them too high"), who'd get more than a "mid level" prospect level reference..another guy that would've most likely been a lotto had it not been for his contractual situation in Russia..

and on top of that, sometimes certain posters here almost come off as tho if the blazers roster had been someone elses, they'd think higher of the team.



> a ton of swing men... very little outside shooting... little size in the front court...


size in the front court is overrated. Outside of KG (who's not an inside player really), Duncan and Nowitski, there isn't much real "size" in the front court in the NBA that the Blazers have to worry about. 

Really, where's this "size" we have to deal with in the front court?



> Ugh. I gotta stop reminding myself of how bad this team is.
> 
> Ed O.


You need to stop repeating it over and over, so you think that means it's true, too.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Just like the Jazz were bad two seasons ago... who some projected to win less than 9 games

And those crummy Sonics from last year...

The season hasn't started yet and I don't believe anyone owns a real working crystal ball, let's not get into the politics of how bad or good this team is just quite yet.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Just like the Jazz were bad two seasons ago... who some projected to win less than 9 games
> 
> And those crummy Sonics from last year...
> 
> The season hasn't started yet and I don't believe anyone owns a real working crystal ball, let's not get into the politics of how bad or good this team is just quite yet.


Whats interesting...ED thinks we will win about 27 games and it is a disaster...I on the other hand think we'll win 30 games and feel pretty good about it.

Nothing against Ed at all but it's interesting how we both predict similar results, but have totaly different satisfaction levels from that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> You need to stop repeating it over and over, so you think that means it's true, too.


I think it was about this time last year (maybe a bit earlier) where you tried to convince me that the end of the 2004 Blazers season (where the team finished 4-6 in their last 10 and 1-4 in their last 5) was a "good" end to the season. That was, of course, the angle that the team took and it was the company line.

It was clear to me at the time, though, that the team's losses weren't "good losses", nor were they a sign of some kind of turnaround. They were an indication of a mediocre at best team... and very likely a bad one.

So at this point we're coming off of a 27 win season. Worse than anyone could have reasonably foreseen. And you're asserting (once again) that the team isn't going to be bad.

But when you have a "size is overrated" perspective, I can see how you might be a bit confused or--more charitably--off significantly in your analysis of the team.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Just like the Jazz were bad two seasons ago... who some projected to win less than 9 games


There are always "some" morons in every group of prognosticators. The Jazz were coming off of a 47 win season. That they won fewer games after Malone's departure isn't shocking, but neither is that they won 42 games.



> And those crummy Sonics from last year...


Seattle (coached by our own Nate McMillan) was coming off back-to-back mediocre seasons (40 and 37 wins, respectively). It's true that most people predicted them to get worse--and not better--last year. With a healthy Ray Allen and a different approach to the game plan, the team was better and won more games. 



> The season hasn't started yet and I don't believe anyone owns a real working crystal ball, let's not get into the politics of how bad or good this team is just quite yet.


Give me a break. Nobody needs to argue about how well the team is going to do, but this board is based on news, speculation, and predictions. Expecting people to have no opinions about how the team is going to do is silly.

I'm certainly not saying that predictions are always accurate, but most teams perform based on how they did last year, accounting for the changes that were made. For the Blazers, the 27 win base with the changes they made adds up to a lot of losses this year.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> More than anything I believe any increased ticket sales are due to McMillians reputation and the confidence the community has in him. A distant second would be the good citizens we have acquired.


Yeah, right. I'm sure Telfair, Outlaw, Webster, Pryzbilla, et al, have very little to do with the fans' interest in the team. After all, fans don't care about dunk shots, fast breaks, blocked shots, or fancy passes. What REALLY excites them is watching the coach stroll the sidelines in his tailored suits.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I'm certainly not saying that predictions are always accurate, but most teams perform based on how they did last year, accounting for the changes that were made. For the Blazers, the 27 win base with the changes they made adds up to a lot of losses this year.


I agree with Ed on this one. Right now, it's easy to get excited about this team with all the fresh faces (all the way up into the coaching ranks), "smart" players, young "talent", "hunger", "respect", "team-focus", and all the other buzz-words people are starting to associate with this team - combined with the annual "clean slate" they have right now, having yet to play even a single exhibition game together...

But at its core this is a very, very young & inexperienced team - one that even John Nash himself believes might be the youngest team (average age) ever in the history of the NBA. And that means there are going to be growing pains. And "growing pains" translates to losses, especially early in the season.

Assume for the sake of argument that each and every one of the players on this roster (of which there are currently 16) will eventually reach the peak of their potential. (The law of averages says some will never realize their full potential, but let's ignore that for a moment.) The key word there is "eventually". None of them are going to hit peak form at the beginning of this season. Heck, it's likely that very few of them are going to realize their full potential this season at all. And that doesn't even speak to them learning to play together as a _team_. It takes time for players to lean to do that, too. So between individual development and "gelling", it's likely going to take a long time for this team to begin playing truly competitive basketball.

I see a lot of losses for this team this season, especially early. And I think Ed is right to start with the 27 win mark and then adjust for the additions & changes that have been made this summer. I'm predicting 32 wins, but I'm also predicting that at least 2/3 of those will come in the 2nd half of the season as more of the Blazers players are playing closer to their full potential and have learned how to play together as a unit better. It _could_ be better, but it could also be much, much worse. The one thing I can guarantee is that this young team will make a lot of very exciting plays, as well as a lot of very dreadful mistakes, along the way.

So for me, this season will be a success if the team wins 100% more games in the 2nd half than they do in the 1st half (1/3 in the 1st half, 2/3 in the 2nd), and that their turnover ratio improves measurably in the 2nd half vs. the 1st as well. Those are the things I'll be looking for as indicators that the players are improving as individuals and are gelling as a unit. I don't expect a lot of wins, but I do think the growing they do this season will lay the groundwork for a much better record NEXT season.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I think it was about this time last year (maybe a bit earlier) where you tried to convince me that the end of the 2004 Blazers season (where the team finished 4-6 in their last 10 and 1-4 in their last 5) was a "good" end to the season. That was, of course, the angle that the team took and it was the company line.
> 
> It was clear to me at the time, though, that the team's losses weren't "good losses", nor were they a sign of some kind of turnaround. They were an indication of a mediocre at best team... and very likely a bad one.
> 
> So at this point we're coming off of a 27 win season. Worse than anyone could have reasonably foreseen. And you're asserting (once again) that the team isn't going to be bad.



you're making claims that I haven't said. I've never said that the team isn't going to be bad. Ive said that it won't be as bad (for as long) as some think.



> But when you have a "size is overrated" perspective, I can see how you might be a bit confused or--more charitably--off significantly in your analysis of the team.
> 
> Ed O.


ok, what size is there that we have to deal with?

the bigs are Duncan, KG and who else? 

Shaq? for 2 times a year? who's not even a PF?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> But at its core this is a very, very young & inexperienced team - one that even John Nash himself believes might be the youngest team (average age) ever in the history of the NBA.
> 
> PBF


average age of the 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers?

24.5 years old.

Average age of the current team (as of the end of this calender year)

24.3


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> ok, what size is there that we have to deal with?
> 
> the bigs are Duncan, KG and who else?
> 
> Shaq? for 2 times a year? who's not even a PF?


Duncan, Dirk, KG, Shareef, Amare, Brand, Lamar, Nene, Rasheed, Jermaine...

PBF


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What we DO have a roster full of is mid-level prospects with little experience... a ton of swing men... very little outside shooting... little size in the front court...
> Ed O.


Why is it when another team drafts someone with the 6th pick in the draft they are a high level prospect, but when the Blazers select someone with the 6th pick they are mid level? I don't understand your obvious bias. I would say Martell is a great prospect, the best there is at his position clearly. Both Outlaw and Telfair are very good prospects as well. I wouldn't say a guy who gets 20 points and 10 rebounds a game is a mid level prospect either.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Duncan, Dirk, KG, Shareef, Amare, Brand, Lamar, Nene, Rasheed, Jermaine...
> 
> PBF


Of those, realistically Shareef and Brand aren't really "size" issues (they're not much bigger than Zach, if at all). Lamar is a SF, Nene is overrated, and Rasheed and Jermaine are only 2 games a year.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> average age of the 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers?
> 
> 24.5 years old.
> 
> ...


if you go by average experience (not taking out the highest on each) the current team actually averages more experience than the title team.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> average age of the 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers?
> 
> 24.5 years old.
> 
> ...


How many rookies on that 1976-77 team, Hap? How many kids straight out of high-school with 1 or 0 years of NBA experience? This team may be slightly younger than the 76-77 squad (average age), but I think they are a lot less experienced than the difference in average age would seem to indicate.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> How many rookies on that 1976-77 team, Hap? How many kids straight out of high-school with 1 or 0 years of NBA experience? This team may be slightly younger than the 76-77 squad (average age), but I think they are a lot less experienced than the difference in average age would seem to indicate.
> 
> PBF


NBA rookies.

The 77 team has "NBA" rookies in:

Maurice Lucas
Wally Walker
Robin Jones
Johnny Davis
Dave Twardzik

(Of those, Maurice and Dave had played in the ABA before).

On top of those guys, they had these players with 1 year of NBA experience:

Bobby Gross
Lionell Hollins

So thats 7 of 12 guys (of which 6 were kind of important) who had 0 or 1 year of NBA experience. 

whether or not they had high schoolers isn't really a fair comparison. experience is experience, even if you're not playing in an NBA game, because you're playing in an NBA practice.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

The ticket sales have gotta be making Damon S. feel bad. Well, if anything could, they should anyway. Consider the recent stars/"bad guys" of the team:

After Rasheed and Bonzi left, ticket sales did not go up. Shareef and Theo made no impact on sales either way. Ruben Patterson, Darius, and Zach have stayed, and sales went up anyway. When Damon (and DA) leave? Sales finally go up.

So, here are some theories:

Everybody hates Damon/DA, nobody else's reputation really mattered
McMillan, Telfair and Webster are real draws
Whatever the new marketing is this year, it sure is a lot more persuasive
Employment is up, who cares who's on the team
All other entertainment options have gotten worse

One thing that is clear, however it goes, is that Damon was not a draw even in his hometown.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> NBA rookies.
> 
> The 77 team has "NBA" rookies in:
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to dig that up, Hap. I'm gonna give you some rep points for that.

But I think for the purposes of this discussion, you can count the ABA experience of Maurice and Dave as "experience" which therefore would take them off the "rookie" list for that team (but does it move them to the 1 year list or out of the "inexperienced" list altogether?). If my math is correct, that team had 5 players with 1 year or less of "professional" basketball experience, correct?

How many of the guys on this year's roster have 1 year or less of "professional" basketball experience? I count Jarrett, Viktor, Sergei, Ha, Sebastian, and Martell. That's 6. But even if you consider Viktor / Sergei's National Team experience as "professional", there's still 4 guys there with 1 year or less "professional" experience on this squad - pretty close to the 5 on the 76-77 squad.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Thanks for taking the time to dig that up, Hap. I'm gonna give you some rep points for that.
> 
> But I think for the purposes of this discussion, you can count the ABA experience of Maurice and Dave as "experience" which therefore would take them off the "rookie" list for that team (but does it move them to the 1 year list or out of the "inexperienced" list altogether?). If my math is correct, that team had 5 players with 1 year or less of "professional" basketball experience, correct?


in a nutshell. But for the ABA guys, I'd throw in Viktor and Sergei, who have played professionally for 5+ years (or there-abouts).


> How many of the guys on this year's roster have 1 year or less of "professional" basketball experience? I count Jarrett, Viktor, Sergei, Ha, Sebastian, and Martell. That's 6. But even if you consider Viktor / Sergei's National Team experience as "professional", there's still 4 guys there with 1 year or less "professional" experience on this squad - pretty close to the 5 on the 76-77 squad.
> 
> PBF


kind of my point earlier. Experience and size is overrated. Sometimes having players who know what they're doing helps more than a "vet" does. Look at Carmello with Denver (or Syracuse). Look at Wade with the Heat 2 years ago. 

Having a vet PG would've been nice, but considering who was available, what good would he have done?


----------

