The "SF Problem"

Every year we have had 3 players or so who "Could" be productive there. There is a big difference between actually being productive, and having the possibility of being productive. I acknowledge that maybe a SF might have a breakthrough year. But I am not going to hold my breath over it, because that has been the case for about the last half of a decade.

 

We do not have a problem at SF - especially when you realize that we have a SG that will get more minutes in Rudy - which will necessitate playing Roy some minutes at SF - and Roy is very good in this position as well. Think small-guards have a problem containing Roy with the ball in his hand creating? It's just as big a problem or bigger for small-forwards.

The only thing I do not get is this love-fest for Webster who has, so far in his career, been a below-average player year after year. I doubt Webster will see many minutes and will probably be trade-bait - with Batum, Roy/Rudy and some spot minutes from Travis at the 3 - Webster will see the floor only if he got a Steve Austin treatment on his leg.

 

The love he gets from some here is very odd... it's like these posters all heavily invested in his rookie cards and jersey. He has absolutely been a below average on both ends of the court despite having ample opportunity to shine.

Unless he improves dramatically over what we've seen before (the Steve Austin line is spot on), I expect him to be played under 10 MPG. To my eyes there is a clear hierarchy of their options... Batum, Travis, Webster. Batum is already the top talent and would presumably have the most room to improve. Travis is not only better at most every statistical measure compared to MW, he's also a better fit with the reserves as he gives that unit someone who can go when the clock is winding down.

But bottom lining it, much like the OP I don't see a problem at SF

STOMP

 

I really wanted Artest at the beginning of the summer.

I really hated the idea of Turkoglu.

Somewhere right in the middle of those two options I had "just leave SF alone and see what Batum does."

That's where we are, and I'm ok with that. I always felt a much greater sense of urgency about getting a better starter at PG than Blake. Thankfully Pritchard did that.

 

I guess my main thing is that the offense can not afford to have as many offensive holes as we had last year, because when you face a good defensive team, the more weapons on the floor, the better chance of being able to beat that pressure.

Last year with Joel and a non scoring SF on the floor was too easy for teams to cover, allowing them to double down on our major threats at will.

Miller will throw a wrench into it this year, becaues he won't just stand out at the 3 point line as a decoy. But it will work much better if either the SF or the center starts pulling their weight in the scoring column.

 

No one's saying the guy is a superstar in waiting. I know it's been argued ad nauseum of his PER or whatever, but the guy isn't a total scrub.
He's an unknown at this point and we haven't gotten to see him play with Rudy and Oden, and an improved LA and Roy yet.
Obviously the Blazers saw enough to offer him a four-year extension just last summer. I'd like to see what he's got and if he can make an impact after this pretty bad injury before totally discrediting the guy just a few years removed from HS.

 

I understand it, even though I don't share it. Webster has the "aura" of a shooter with athleticism. As an archetype, that seems to fit very well with big men like Oden and Aldridge and slashers who can pass like Roy, Miller and, later, Bayless. In terms of the platonic ideals of basketball, it "feels right" to have an athletic lights-out shooter on the wing to complement slashers and an inside presence.

Of course, the problem is that he's not really a "lights-out" shooter and what athleticism he possesses he's never been able to translate into NBA production. Martell Webster the concept is nice. Martell Webster the player is not very good. The difference between concept and execution.

 

I still think that we have a big SF problem, namely that we have Batum and no one else. Webster is a huge wildcard; even when he was healthy, he was below average. After a year off, what can we expect from him? I think it would be very optimistic to expect him to even be at the same level he was at pre-injury (and no, one pre-season game against a crappy Kings team doesn't count).

Outlaw is much better as a PF. At the 3, he's average to below average (a PER of 14 with poor defense). He pretty much can't start at the 3 on this team, limiting him to a role off the bench.

For me, the position is a big weakness. We have a solid starter (Batum) who probably won't deserve starter minutes next season, a player who is much better at another position, and a guy who hasn't played for a year and was never that hot in the first place.

 

I'm not sure I understand this statement. If Batum is a "sold starter," why will he probably not deserve starter minutes next season?

 

I don't disagree, but (to split hairs) the reason I don't see this as a problem is that we have good or very good or great players at the other 4 positions in the starting lineup (making Batum Option 5 out of 5), all capable of playing 3/4 of a game or more. Even if Outlaw's in at the 3, he'll never be Option 1 (he was at the beginning of last season before Nate got better at rotating Roy and Aldridge out separately), or even Option 2. Option 1 will be Roy or LMA (always one is in the game), and Option 2 is Rudy. Option 3 is Outlaw or Blake or Bayless. I see this as an okay situation, if not great.

However, in two years (2011-2012) IF Batum can deliver on adding to his game, this becomes less of a problem, because Batum will start getting 36 minutes a game and you can run a scrub in there behind him. The only reason it's a problem now is because none of them own the starter's minutes yet.

 

I agree with everything you wrote. However, I must point out that Martell Webster, the player, is still only 22-years old (and basically missed all of last season with his foot injury). He could still evelove into Martell Webster, the concept (as described above). Martell's problem has never been his shooting mechanics. It's always been his confidence - something I think will improve with age/maturity and playing on a contending team surrounded by other players who are confident in their own abilities.

I was expecting Martell to have a breakout season last year. He came into camp in awesome shape, seemed more aggressive and looked absolutely fantastic in that one preseason game (who didn't?). With the addition of a low post scoring threat in Oden, and James Jones departure, I expected Martell to be our leading 3-point shooter. I know his percentages haven't been great in the past, but they haven't been that bad either - and his 3FG% has increased every year. So, I fully expected him to be our starting SF last season, average 14 - 15 PPG and shoot 0.400 from 3-point range.

Obviously, that didn't happen due to the injury. And, it remains to be seen how well he will recover from the injury and not playing competitive basketball for almost an entire year. So, I admit my expectations are tempered, but I am also not ready to give up on Martell completey. If he plays well, it makes Outlaw even more expendable. If he doesn't, he's young, cheap and easy to move.

BNM

 

I am sure that his self confidence was an issue - but I would argue that Martell's biggest problem was his inability to create a shot for himself, handle the ball effectively and move laterally/change directions with the ball.

I honestly have nothing but hope that he will turn to be that great player that his "NBA body" and "Shooting mechanics" lure us to fall in love with - but I have to say that I doubt it very much.

The reason is, to be honest, is that Batum, younger than Webster is - has already shown that "it" factor that can make you look at him and say "Yeah, his offense needs work and he clearly needs to develop strength because some players just over-power him - but, by golly, when he is a bit more experienced he can be a real headache for the opposing team".

Batum is longer, seems just as fast as Webster, his long ball shooting percentage in his rookie year is the same Webster's average and he seems to have more of a handle and much better lateral quickness and ability to change direction.

Nothing will make me happier than a healthy Webster coming in, shooting lights out consistently and playing good defense while giving Batum some real competition at the SF position - I just doubt it will happen.

 

Travis had scoring averages of 5/6/10 basically his first years in the league. Martell's are 6/7/11. Not really a big difference at the same age

 

That was poorly written. By "starter minutes," I meant 30 or more, something like what Blake got. Unless his offense really improves, I don't see him making that big a jump next season. Consequently, his backup will have a bigger role than a typical backup has. I'm not very confident that either Webster or Outlaw can fill that gap well.

Fair enough. We will have a very deep squad, our backup guards should be amongst the best in the league. That does make me more confident about a rusty Webster as a backup 3. I also forgot to mention Rudy, who will no doubt get some minutes as a 3.

 

Webster's age is a point in his favour to some extent...he's still pre-prime. But his very poor rate of improvement chills the enthusiasm over his age, to me. The ages of 23-26 (the ostensible start of a player's prime) tend to yield lesser gains than ages 18-21. Considering Webster's lack of improvement over those years (not counting, of course, last year's lost season), I'm unconvinced that he has quite a bit of improvement ahead of him.

Sergio Rodriguez is in a similar boat to me. He's still young...but his inability to improve over key formative years undermines the value of that.

The ages of Webster and Rodriguez make improvement at least possible without a pure miracle (a player who is already 26 or older has nearly no chance of jumping to a completely new level of performance), but their development paths don't suggest that major improvement is likely.

 

Ah. Well, I'm not sure if he will get 30+ minutes, but I wouldn't be adverse to giving him such minutes. He's not productive on offense, but he's efficient. He moves the ball well, makes good decisions and knocks down open shots. On offense, he's definitely a minor role-player so far, but not one that inhibits the offense. In that sense, he's somewhat equivalent to Blake, who has received "starter minutes." The real difference is that Batum is a true asset on defense. Combining an efficient (even if not difference making) offensive game with a strong defensive game is sufficient (in the lack of better options) for true starter minutes.

On top of that, I do expect Batum's offensive game to improve, due to skill improvement, experience and added confidence. With how he played last year and expected gains on offense and defense, I'd feel comfortable penciling Batum in for 30 minutes a game. I don't expect him to be an impact player in 2009-10, but a solid starter (a 30+ minute player who doesn't hurt you).

 

There is something to be said for players who show up and show that they are ready to play organized basketball. Those first few years, Travis did not show that. Webster showed more, but was still limited. Even Batum had to be limited as to what he could and could not do. That is why when I saw Dante Cunningham in summer league, I was a bit excited. He knows how to play organized basketball. He knows how to play defense. He has some basketball IQ.

 

I think this is pretty accurate for time for all 3 players. I believe McMillan has said that the starting position is Batum's to lose.