Well, clearly "when Oden is on, he brings something this teams otherwise lacks". But that can be said about most players. The point is that Oden hasn't been "on" for enough samples to make it "obvious" that we are better with him, in general. I'll agree, though, that we are obviously better when Greg is "on". (but I can say that about almost everybody on the team)
I don't think the team suffers much of a drop-off on defense, or in terms of rebounding, when Oden is in versus Przybilla...with one important caveat: fouls. Fouls, beyond limiting Oden's time on the floor, are damaging. And Oden is certainly worse than Przybilla in that respect. Beyond that, though, I think Oden is a slightly worse individual defender but a better team defender (I think he closes off the lane to opposing slashers better). Przybilla is a slightly better rebounder, but both are elite. So Przybilla may have the very slight edge in terms of defense/rebounding, but Oden has a massive edge on the offensive end, IMO. Oden draws double-teams quite a bit, while Przybilla doesn't. Both are high-percentage scorers, but Przybilla's scoring comes almost exclusively from put-backs or broken plays. While Oden gets a fair number of put-back baskets, he's much better able to create his own offense. Oden is just a much bigger offensive presence, and I don't think the gap between the two players on defense is anywhere near as big. So, I think Oden is a better player than Przybilla. But consider that Oden doesn't replace Pryzbilla...he takes minutes away from Frye/Randolph, largely (and maybe a few from Outlaw). So, the question is really Oden versus Frye/Randolph, when comparing the team with and without Oden. And Oden is so much better than Frye/Randolph that it's very obvious (to me) that Portland is a much stronger team with Oden, even if it is arguable as to whether Oden is superior to Przybilla.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I do think you are understating Joel's defense by quite a bit. I think a great example of this was Joel's defense on Duncan. Joel did an excellent job on TD, but I think TD would have eaten Oden alive. However, the fact is that Oden still hasn't been able to consistently stay out of foul trouble. Which, I think, is why the wins/loss stat doesn't show that we are "obviously" a better team with Oden not being injured. When (not if) Oden reduces the fouling, there will be absolutely no argument from me that we are better with Oden. Oden is clearly a better player (when not in foul trouble) than Joel. We just don't get to see it very often.
But since we get both Oden AND Przybilla...don't you think the team is better with Oden than without? Unless you feel Oden hurts the team, isn't it better to have both centers rather than just one? That's what I meant. It's arguable which of the two is better...but I think Oden is without a doubt better than Frye, the player who gets minutes in Oden's absence.
Here I hoped to be involved in a conversation about the team's two-time All-Star, and instead it's another chapter in the (short) story of the Blazers' own version of the Invisible Man. Anyhow, Roy is acting how Rasheed Wallace should have been acting IMO when he was in Portland. The Blazers are very lucky to have a player with the combination of such talent and leadership at the head of this young and exciting team.
My gut tells me that Oden doesn't "hurt" the team, and that he does indeed make the team better. But our record doesn't necessarily prove that or back it up. I would need to see / do more analysis to convince myself that he really has helped the team play better. That's what I mean when I say it isn't obvious.
you might want to comprehend what I wrote instead of just what you bolded. When I said obvious to many here that leaves out the fraction of the fanbase that doesn't agree... Fez and Co. I (and others) disagree with them, but they do exist. Thanks to Jayps15 for shooting down the ridiculous "not based on any fact or truth" stuff. Here's some additional fun facts plus opinions to consider... The 15.2 Boards per 48 minutes Greg is averaging doesn't suck. I'm a big proponent of Bigs who can defend the paint and control the boards... having the Gregzilla tag-team available allows both to be aggressive and send a few messages... it also allows LA to leak out on the break and run his man ragged. Drawing fouls on your opponents is another good way to help the team win. Besides scoring points from the FT line, most teams lack the frontline depth that the PTBs enjoy. Greg goes to the line a whopping 12.5 times per 48 minutes... for reference Roy gets to the stripe 8.1 times and Joel 4.0 times per 48. Tell me Greg's effect on the game isn't significant all you want, I'm sticking by what I wrote. STOMP
dude, take some deep breaths before your panties get into a tighter knot. It's only a chat room. That was a nice little rambling session about something unrelated to the original statement that we are questioning. Go ahead and post your observations, and stick to what you wrote. It doesn't have much to with with your original assertion. I never said that Joel was a better player than Greg, but thanks for the irrelevant individual stats comparison. Your assertion was that the team plays better when Oden is available, NOT, "Greg is a better player than Joel". The team being better is measured by wins / losses, not trips to the foul line, not rebounding rate, not the ability of LA to leak out on the break, etc. Wins and losses. I posted a stat directly related to wins / losses. Jayps posted another stat directly related to wins losses. Both are valid, which means, that your original statement of "the team is better with Oden" is not obvious. Why would I tell you that? Why are you building a strawman? I said it isn't obvious that Greg makes the team better. I didn't say Greg's effect on the game isn't significant.
Wow. The list of subjects some posters object to is getting longer every day. Don't talk about injuries. (unless you are an MD) Don't talk about team dynamics. (unless you attend team meetings) Don't be critical of Oden. Don't compliment Roy. Cripes folks! This is an internet *discussion* board.
pot/kettle... can you tell me that your stuff here isn't one condescending swipe after another? It's like you're looking for a fight. my position that the team plays better with Greg can't be supported by individual stats in categories I've laid out as key to winning basketball??? Since when? Jayps had already shot your initial "not based on any fact or truth" assertion down in flames so I was giving some additional statistical support. That interior D and rebounding the ball helps produce wins seems pretty obvious to me anyways... umpteen interviews with HOF coaches helped form that opinion. Anyways, Minstrel was right that I was talking about this being obvious in the subjective sense of what most here seem (to me) to share... he was also right that I was talking about the club being better with Greg then without, which is something I'd also say about Joel and about 4-5 others on the team. see above STOMP
speaking of strawmen... geez If posters want to talk about team dynamics & speculate about what might be, I certainly won't be voicing an objection... I might wade in with my own guesses. Posters can also claim to understand the team dynamics in the locker room and pontificate on how it is and who is doing the talking. But if in fact they've never been in the locker room and are just talking out their ass regurgitating some discredited local blowhard's take, someone will probably tell them they're full of it. The world is going to spin and orbit regardless. We get all kinds here. The dreamers who want to believe every rumor, the sticklers for the details, the , the internet tough guys, and of course the heavily medicated. Various posters are going to clash just because of the different ways they enjoy the game. After all, this is an internet *discussion* board. STOMP
Speaking of which, I'd be at least curious as to where you place yours truly in that illustrious group?
I wasn't trying to list every possible one, mostly I was trying to end with a laugh. But of these options #2 would be my best guess... I want to know as much about whats what as possible while keeping the facts separated from speculations. STOMP
My point is that you are using indirect methods (individual stats) to try to evaluate if a team is better or not. I'm saying that the direct measure, wins/losses doesn't support the claim of "obviousness". No, he didn't shoot anything down in flames. He produced a counter example, which I acknowledged as a good data point. Which then proved my point, again, that we are not obviously better with Greg playing. We have reasonable, valid stats which suggest completely different things. That seems like the complete opposite of "obvious". I agree that with everything else equal, better interior D and better rebounding would help a team win. But, when you give Joel more playing time because Greg isn't there, then everything else is not equal. I said before that I think Joel is a significantly better 1-on-1 defender, and light-years better at defending the pick-and-roll. Add all those up, and it isn't completely obvious that our wins / losses would get better with Greg playing more. I guess I'm just confused. I don't see how something can be obvious, subjectively or objectively, if there are contradicting stats and easily viewable pieces of data, based on the direct measure of what you are comparing: wins/losses. As I stated before, my gut tells me that we are better with Greg playing, but it isn't "obvious".
I don't get into many discussions but when I do I like to go by my impressions and speculations. I speculate that the Blazers will challenge for the WCF to the seventh game.
Well, since I used the term "subjectively obvious," I feel compelled to defend/explain it. Subjectively obvious is an assertion of the form "It is clear to me..." while objectively obvious is an assertion of the form "Based on the logic and data, a coherent argument cannot be formed against this..." I think it is possible for STOMP to find it obvious to him that Oden makes the team better, despite the record. The record can be viewed as countering evidence, but considering it's such a small sample size, it's not going to be compelling to everyone. The record factoid could easily be due to quality of competition. Meanwhile, seeing how the team plays, visually, combined with the generally accepted fact that more good players makes a team better can quite easily lead to an "obvious" conclusion that the Blazers are better with Oden than without. It is obvious to me. Oden and Przybilla is a much better pair of players than Przybilla and Frye, and when I watch the team with Oden, the team looks much better. Therefore, I view the team's record without him to be a statistical oddity based on small sample size. There were seasons during the Shaq/Kobe run when the Lakers, in small sample sizes, had a better record when missing either Shaq or Kobe. I don't think anyone would look at that as credible evidence that the Lakers were better off without Shaq or Kobe.
Hmmm. I guess it is just semantics (objective / subjective). To me, it is a strange position to have something like: Despite valid data suggesting the opposite, it is obvious that <insert assertion here>. I am OK with you saying that Oden being out is a small sample size, but 14-7 isn't THAT small of a sample compared to how many games Oden has played minutes in. Both samples are equally small. It seems a little silly to dismiss one set because the sample size is too small, but use the other small sample to support the position.
