Memphis Grizzlies News: Jones injured, ESPN overlooks Memphis

Photo by Joe Murphy/NBAE via Getty Images
Photo by Joe Murphy/NBAE via Getty Images /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
5 of 5
Next
Memphis Grizzlies
Photo by Brandon Dill/Getty Images /

1. ESPN overlooks Memphis…again.

The statement “ESPN continues to overlook the Memphis Grizzlies” is kind of like the statement “Wear a mask”, “Black lives matter”, or “Anybody who thinks anyone other than Ja Morant can win the Rookie of the Year award is just kidding themselves at this point”; it’s almost redundant due to its repetition, incredibly clear to anybody with a good set of eyes, and yet still needs to be said from time to time, just as a friendly reminder.

So, as your friendly reminder, ESPN continues to overlook the Memphis Grizzlies.

This time, the “National leader in sports” has done so through their own “continuity rating”; an almost completely meaningless rating, which the site made up (and I know a thing or two about completely meaningless ratings sites just randomly make up).

The continuity rating seeks to point out who’s going to have the easiest time in Orlando, due to having the most similar roster to their normal active roster. However, it doesn’t really achieve this goal. Between the Blazers ranking above Memphis on the list despite three players not playing in the bubble, or the Lakers ranking 10th, even though without Avery Bradley or Rajon Rondo the team is left with no starting-caliber point guard, there’s just a number of flaws in the system.

Next. Winners and Losers: Memphis Grizzlies vs. Miami Heat. dark

Perhaps the biggest flaw in its design is that ESPN are accounting for minutes played by players over the last two seasons, but many teams in the bubble saw their rosters flipped over during this past summer’s offseason. It may have been more effective to just take total minutes from this season, but then teams like Memphis might actually rank higher on the list than Los Angeles, the New Orleans Pelicans, or the Orlando Magic–and we just couldn’t have that, could we.