LMAO @ this thread. Travis is a BENCH player..not a starter, and it seems like many expect him to play like he's our 2nd or 3rd best player. His role is to come in and score the ball and rebound, which he does fine. Does he take bad shots sometimes? Yes, but he ALWAYS seems to make up for it with a block, steal, or taking a charge. And yes, Trav is WAY worth it..open your eyes people and quit the freaking scapegoating, it is getting OLD and ANNOYING!
But you did answer the questions (below: Thanks btw.) If you would've said something like "it seems sarcastic and I didn't say those things", then no worries. But you said it was a strawman and you didn't want to answer the "45 questions". Once I put it in 1/2/3/4/5 format, you did. Again, no worries, you can respond to anything you want (and I won't report you to the FBI), but I took exception that you were kind of blowing it off by calling it strawman. That's all. Nope, only what I hear on the mikes from the timeout, which wasn't much last night. Is there any coach in the NBA (or analyst) who says take poorly-selected shots early in the shot clock when you're up in the 4th quarter? Personally and subjectively I think that's a fallacy. He's been blocked multiple times this year on that "unblockable, uncontestable" jumper. And just because you rise up doesn't mean you don't have a hand in your face. If it's open, that's one thing. There isn't really a reason to shoot that 2pointer I'm talking about with 4:31 left, other than in the Quick article this summer Travis said he falls in love with his jumper and takes it even when he knows he shouldn't. Another fallacy. In that same Quick article Travis talked about how Nate would pull him aside and say "That shot, Travis...that wasn't a good shot". But he doesn't seem to be able to understand that. That makes us different. I don't think there's an excuse to make boneheaded plays. I loved when he was aggressive, attacking the basket, getting to the rim, getting offensive boards when we needed them. The only reason he doesn't do that all the time is his love for his jumper, his inability to think about game situations when deciding to take it. When he's aggressive around the rim I love it. When he's attacking and passing the ball he's a great weapon. When he's 1-6 on shots outside 18 feet, I'd rather him not be shooting contested shots early in the shot clock. And if the coaches are letting him, that seems to be a good place to blame the coach. I just went back to look at this...Blake's doubled by Garnett and House in the middle of the floor. Travis starts dribbling to the sideline. LMA's open on the other side of the court, but Rudy and Greg are not looking at the ball. Poor play, and not totally Travis's fault. But even if "Travis is smart enough to know the ball has to cross halfcourt in time" he didn't have to dribble upcourt along the sideline and give it up with 21 seconds left on the clock. But for the sake of cordiality, I'll grant you that that wasn't his fault.
Travis is worth it because we don't have to rely on him... if he was playing Roy minutes and putting up Roy numbers offensively, but still being Travis, I think the question should be asked. But as a 6th man? He's fine. In a shortened rotation, he can play the 4; when Roy needs a breather on the court, he can make his own shot. He's a sparkplug guy. Ruben without the rape. Cliffy without the weed. He's there to be a bit wild and unpredictable, to make a difference off the bench. Did I scream like Braveheart when he turned the ball over at midcourt? Yep. But when he made that sick dunk (was he ever going to stop elevating?) all was forgiven. He giveth and taketh away, but usually there's more giveth-ing involved. So yeah, he's worth it until Batum is seasoned.
I guess I haven't answered OP yet. Yes, right now he's worth it for me to have on the team, and to play decent (~20-25) minutes. But the things I'm hearing scare me a little. "He's the only guy that can get a shot on his own except Roy". "He's able to take the shot with 2 seconds left with no conscience". Etc. With very few qualifications I'd agree with these. But is that the reason to keep Travis in at crunch time, where (charitably) he makes about as many mistakes that give up points as great plays that get them? In his own words he doesn't have the mindset to play control-ball like the Spurs, Pistons or Celtics do at the end of games. Or is it an excuse to change things to ensure our offense doesn't stagnate in crunch time to the point where we need an off-balance 22-foot 2point jumper from that guy? I keep going back to this: Forget Nate for a second. Would Gregg Popovich allow Travis to keep taking those shots? Pat Riley? Phil Jackson? Any championship coach of the last 10-15 years? Maybe it's all Nate's fault for not teaching him how to play the right way. I'd go along with that. My hate isn't against Travis the person, it's against the Ineptitude That Comes When Travis Doesn't Think.
Yes, he is worth it. Specially for the money he is getting. No, I wouldn't be sad if we traded him this off-season.
i'd like to see a little more kersey in his game and less clyde. by that i mean, make the hustle plays, get to the rim and finish. he did those things last night. yes he's a bonehead and is frustrating at times but right now we need him.
Outlaw is clearly worth it. The entire package makes him a solid player...if he cut out the mistakes and negative plays, he'd be well above average. But his negatives are already factored into him being "merely" a solid player. His style may not make him an ideal starter for a championship contender, but as a reserve he's a pretty great luxury. Few teams have a scoring threat the caliber of Outlaw off the bench. I would be perfectly fine with trading him, but on the basis that he's a useful, valuable player and should bring back good value. The implication that we should just try to dump him (almost like an addition-by-subtraction proposition) is frankly ridiculous, IMO.
Agreed. I think that's the feeling I get from fans who want Travis gone -- that we'd be much better just without him on the team. He is what he is. Not a great ballhandler, will get caught napping defensively sometimes, but he's versatile, he can block shots, he can shoot the ball and actually has slowly.. slowly.. been developing an ability to drive the ball and finish. It's not great yet, but it's something you can tell he's worked on. He's not throwing up wild shots every time when he gets in the lane, as we saw yesterday when he posterized KG for a key bucket.
Outlaw is worth it. For his negatives of poor shot selection at times, he has an uncanny ability to just get the ball in the basket. He gets those critical dunks and odd jump shots and just sometimes throws it in the hoop. He should be the 8th or 9th man in the rotation but he can play multiple positions, and can score and sometimes play decent defense. I like him on the team and at his salary is a great deal.
For me it boils down to this: Is he a bigger positive than he is a negative? For the most part I'd say he does contribute more than he takes away, and until or unless we find another guy who can get his shot off no matter what, outside of Brandon, he provides a critical contribution for our bench.
Although he's improved his decision making, and is actually passing now, that string of plays in the second half re-solidified my opinion on him. Yes, he can be awesome at times, but he can absolutely destroy our team's chances of winning too. I think the series I'm thinking of were a foul, the ugly brick with a ton of time on the shot-clock, and when he dribbled it up court and basically left it there for Pierce. All mistakes that should not happen period, let alone someone playing as long as he has.
I'd say that the vitriol that Channing gets is far worse than that of what Travis gets (based on their roles, etc). I think Travis is worth keeping, but if we can upgrade at the SF spot (either Webster, Batum or a trade), I say do it.
thats what it was. You stated I held all sorts of opinions I never stated... BS is BS. first you admit you know jack shit about what Nate or any coach is saying to their players then you turn around and act like you do. You don't. Quotes are used to bracket something someone said not stuff you pull out of your ass. This is getting really tired. and if you're feeling your shot and coach has given you the green light to shoot when you're feeling it thats another. I've seen Travis hit contested shots and I've seen him miss wide open shots. I don't pretend to know (like you are doing) what Nate told him to do with Brandon out. I do know that I've seen Roy take the exact same sort of shot many times this year as the one you're bitching ad nausea about Travis taking. nice theory, but of course I've provided another much more logical reason. "another fallacy" could be the preface to all your guesses dressed up as fact Obviously Nate did let him as evidenced by Travis being the go to guy and Nate not taking him out when he makes plays you've deemed boneheaded and opposite of your wild guesses of what Nate wants to see. Again, I liked that Travis was aggressively looking for his shot inside and out going 7-14... heck with the rest of the bench going 2-7, I think it would have been boneheaded of Nate to try to reel him in. how gracious of you. Dude had a single turnover in 31 minutes and you're going to let it slide. He had the highest +/- on the club helping them to a victory over the champs while missing their best player. He made some mistakes on both ends of the court, but he also made plays, guarded a variety of Celts pretty well, and hustled throughout. It's amazing to me that after this thrilling victory any Blazer fan is looking for reasons to bitch about one of the main guys who got it done... thats what makes us different STOMP
I guess I'm amazing, then. What makes us different is that you just attempt to pick apart an entire post to attempt to show that I'm "bitch[ing] about one of the main guys who got us done." My hero-worship of Travis does not extend as far as yours does, if you cannot fathom that someone might not like how he plays the game, in the specific instances I pointed out. My answer to the OP question was "yes", and yet you still seem "amazed" when someone dares to post (using quotations, stats and observations) things that your gut feeling and man-love doesn't jive with. I've said in multiple posts in this thread that I enjoyed the win, and for the most part how he played. What I won't just let slide is the notion that he played well and consistently. He didn't, I posted why, and you seem not to be able to refute it without saying words like "strawman", "stated I held all sorts of opinions I never stated" (Post 54, para 1) Meanwhile, you use those super-scientific things like as your justification for why I shouldn't "bitch" about it. If we're talking about keeping actual quotes in quotations and playing Strawman Police, this is a ridiculous comment: There's a small difference that you're not bringing up. Travis is 55-165 (34%) on shots between 12 and 23'9 (Caveat: I had to pull from NBA.com and 82games.com to cobble this stat together, so I could be off on my math, but I don't think so) while Roy is 115-262 (44%) at the same range. That's kind of a big difference. When I use quotes, it's a generally a direct quote. You seem unable to show that anything I said is "pulled out of [my] ass". If it's tiring losing debate/discussions/arguments, I'd suggest picking arguments with people you won't lose to. It seems that would be easier. Now let's get down to your "much more logical reasons". 1-6 on shots outside 18 feet (and 3-10 on non-dunks) doesn't seem to be the place that shows you're "feeling your shot" (Post 54, para 4). It seems to me (in a subjective observation-guess way) that Travis isn't playing a whole lot differently than last year in his shot selection in the 4th quarter, except that some of the 22-foot 2's he shot last year are becoming 3's. But Travis says he didn't have the Green Light last year: Perhaps Travis has turned over a new leaf. Perhaps in the last 6 months he's reversed course and actually playing like his coach told him to. It'd be nice, right? But let's look at history, shall we? Travis takes 86% of his shots outside of 12 feet. Roy takes 66% of his shots outside 12. That, combined with his own quotes from the Quick article, tell me that not only does he probably not have the Green Light, but that Nate has a history of not pulling him for still chucking from last year, and isn't doing it this year. Sorry if that doesn't jive with what you want to hear. Saying this is a strawman may relieve you of being able to acknowledge it. And BTW...our opponents shoot 65% of their shots from outside 12. We disagree here. Obviously this is a style point, but my contention is that Travis wasn't shooting well from outside (if you made the argument about Blake, I'd probably concede that since he was having a great shooting night. Travis wasn't close) and kept firing from outside. On non-dunks he was 3-10. Not much different than what you're saying Nate was boneheaded for going away from. And the shot wasn't one of his clock-running-out-making-my-own-shot specials. It was with a lot of time left on the clock. I'm not inside of his head, but from his quotes and history my feeling is that he wanted his "wet" jumper to go through the net, rather than having a good team possession. He wanted to be like Carmelo Anthony. And when he does, Nate doesn't pull him. Nothing I've seen, heard, heard reported has shown me that he thinks otherwise. Obviously, I'd like to see it if it exists. Travis has good plays and bad plays. He is wildly inconsistent for a 6th-year vet getting 27 mpg and a lot of 4th-quarter minutes. Using the +/- stat that you brought up (in a "whole season" rather that "one game sample size" mode) he's negative. For each game that you say he "guarded a variety of Celts pretty well" I'll anecdotally as well say that he got torched by Mike Miller, MacGrady, Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, etc. b/c he can't seem to remember his man might move. Anecdotally you can say it's a wash. But when he's on the floor, we're -6 over the course of the season. When he's not, we're +132. And keep in mind, he plays more than half the time. You seem to not like that I can use all of the factoids, stats, quotes and observations to "bitch" about his play, whether the team wins or loses. I just choose to point out things that in the ecstasy of the win most won't. If that bothers you, ignore me.
at what we're paying him, yeah - he's absolutely worth it. he does make some bad decisions but he isnt a starter and is in there to make things happen - its just part of the package....
if travis didnt make boneheaded plays and turnovers and such he would be a damn all star. as is he is a nice scoring option off the bench. i dont see what the problem is.
good grief you have so many comprehension problems your post is just a jumbled mess. My complaints about your use of quotes around "unblockable, uncontestable" is because no one (let alone I) said or implied what you quoted. It's just you being full of shit. and then you blast off into fantasy land that I shouldn't be picking arguments with people I lose to and continue attributing all sorts of ridiculous views to me whatever dude... STOMP
STOMP, I respect your opinions and generally agree with what you post, but I don't know what's happened over the course of this thread to you. If you'd like, I'll spend a bunch of time writing out specific responses to specific claims you make, and quote them post and paragraph like I did in my last post. If you're going to claim "Fantasy Land" and "Whatever dude..." and "full of shit", it's not worth either of our times. You seem overly sensitive about the views you've taken in trying to call me out for Travis bitching. When they're tossed back at you with quotes, factoids, stats, observations, etc. rather than the anecdotal stuff you may be used to dealing with from others, it seems that you turn into someone who's lazily saying "your post is a jumbled mess" and "you have comprehension problems". That seems to me to be close to the "no attacking other posters" line this site tries to maintain. Are we going to talk about you and me, or about Travis? I'd rather do the latter.
