For all the bitchin about Travis Outlaw makin mistakes on the floor...

A player who was consistently as good as Outlaw's "high level" would be a no-doubt starter in the league. A "reliable" bench option would not make the mistakes Outlaw makes, but also wouldn't give you the great plays Outlaw does. I think Outlaw is a pretty good reserve, even for a championship-caliber team. He can be a difference-maker, or he can be unproductive...that's why he's on the bench.

A wildcard like that can be a very useful reserve.

 

The problem with this analogy is that I think we have a good approximation of the "expected value" of Outlaw, which is his PER. His career PER has been right around 15, which is league average for a starter. His inconsistency in attaining that PER makes him a non-ideal starter to me, but his "average value" makes him a pretty valuable reserve, as far as I'm concerned.

 

This is true, yet I still keep seeing Outlaw's name as the centerpiece of trades trying to get Gerald Wallace or Butler to Portland?!? Like he's supposed to be a nice tie in with expiring contracts to break deals with teams who can get better from other teams?

It's like the only time I hear glowing reports on Outlaw's upside is when his name is trying to be sold in a trade idea? Which Outlaw are we talking about....there can only be one real slim shady....lol

 

Here's the thing, I don't mind Travis getting minutes when he's playing well. But for every good play you get out of him, you get ridiculously crappy ones. If he's playing smart, making passes and not forcing his shot, keep him in Nate like you already are. But when he's off, he needs to get yanked a bit sooner IMO.

As far as Minstrel's thing about him being a bench player and us not having starting-player production expectations of him, Travis is playing almost 2/3 of the game. I don't care if he comes off of the bench or out of the crowd, I have decent expectations if you're going to be playing that much, especially as a 6th year player. I understand that nobody's perfect, but I think we can have players playing (not so much right now with the Roy/Webster injuries) that don't have as blatant of negatives as he does, that really ruin a team's chance for winning. It's not just a missed shot, or an errant pass that bugs me, it's the wasted possessions. He's gotten better at passing rather than just being a pull-up jumper magnet, but he seems like he's replacing those mistakes with decisions that put our team in a position to fail. Not that anyone on our team outside of maybe Pryzbilla, Batum, and at times Roy and Bayless are doing that great on D, but I'm also not really happy with his play there. If his main weapon is his athleticism, I feel like he could harness that a bit better to be more efficient defensively. Again, I don't hate Travis Outlaw, I hate that he makes poor decisions in spurts that ruin the chances of success for the Blazers. Obviously when he's on, he's absolute money, but I feel like I'm seeing less and less of that this year, and I'd rather go with Webster/Batum, and potentially a few minutes of Roy/Rudy playing wing together than participate in the Travis Outlaw development anymore.

 

He needs to play less; specially when he missed his first three. After he usually starts off cold, he makes mental mistakes. That's when coach needs to take him out. Should have done it sooner.

Also, Rudy needs to go back to the second unit with Sergio, its blatantly obvious that they are more effective playing together. We need Martel back soooooooooooo bad. Start him at the 2; Nicholas at the 3, and I think we'd have a better, most "gooder" time.

 

Thank you.

Travis can stay trapped in the corner against the Magic, leaving Roy with no where to go and having to heave up a 3 pointer and missing it, blowing the game for us... and Travis would not get a turnover for it.

Bonehead moves don't mean turnovers.

 

But that's the point. He's playing so much because we only have two small forwards, and one of them is a rookie who's much, much more inconsistent on the offensive end. If Aldridge, Diogu and Frye were injured and Shavlik Randolph were playing starter minutes, would we criticize him for being an awful starter? He's not a starter...he would be pressed into that role out of lack of other options. Right now, at small forward, we can play Outlaw or Batum. Batum impresses me on defense and with his offensive potential...but his actual production this year has been terrible after the good start.

Outlaw is playing 2/3rds of the game because the team has no other options. Playing Batum 1/2 the game or more would not be beneficial, IMO. Neither Roy nor Fernandez has the size to play small forward, and I don't think it would be wise to mess with Roy, as well as he was playing, by shifting his position.

The team is weak at small forward. If the team had a really good small forward (like, say, Gerald Wallace) then Outlaw would play a much reduced role. Essentially, if you don't like Outlaw playing 2/3rds of the game, who do you feel should soaking up his minutes?

 

At the same time, there is something to be said of being productive with the few minutes you have, or more minutes you have. When you have a chance to play more minutes, step up, not step out. It still doesn't explain why he passes up a wide open shot for a dribble drive contested pull up jumper. It still doesn't explain why he leaves good 3 point shooter open in the right hand corner time after time after time. These are mistakes that can be rectified mentally, but he continues to make them. The only thing that pisses me off more is when the guards on the team cheat on the screen and leave the PF isolated on a PG. If I notice it, and I am just a fan, shouldn't the guys who are on the team, have figured it out, say years ago?

 

I really don't know what that means, to be honest. Players don't magically become better when injuries force them to play bigger roles. Saying "step up" may sound good (good, tough rhetoric...no excuses, not even lack of talent!) but if they could have "stepped up" and become better players, they already would have since it means more fame and money. Outlaw is what he is...an athletic player who can be really good or make mistakes. If he weren't mistake-prone, he'd be a much better player. But he is mistake-prone. I doubt he wants to be...if he knew how to eliminate them, I'm sure he would have by now.

Outlaw is productive. He's just not extremely productive. That's why he's a reserve and paid like one. Him playing starter minutes isn't ideal but happens because the team has a weakness at small forward.

 

I don't believe that for a second. You have watched enough basketball to watch players step up and elevate their play when a star goes down. There is nothing magical about it. It is all about a player recognizing they aren't a role player when a major player goes down, and taking a heavier load on for the team. An example is last year when we faced Denver and Roy was out. Martell and Outlaw both stepped up and scored in the 20s. That is stepping up. Getting 2 fouls in your first 2.5 minutes and ending up with 4 points for the game (which is worse than a normal bench outing) is laying your team out to dry.

 

No. I've seen players randomly have career games. I've seen the vast majority of players who replace stars be far, far worse than the players they replace and no better than they ever were. Picking out the random exceptions as the norm is silly.

That's quite magical, suddenly transforming into a better player because their label changes. Let's call Shavlik Randolph a "superstar" and play him 45 minutes a game. Hopefully, he'll "recognize that he's not a role player" and perform much better.

Changing a player's role doesn't change their ability. Outlaw is still the same talent he always was.