His assisting was pretty consistent....just like Bayless's ability to draw fouls. His scoring was sporadic. His TOs were pretty consistent though.
I fully expect a vet SF at some point before the Trade Deadline and probably this summer (Please god let it be Battier). I don't expect Martell to suit up for this team at this point. I am one of those that thinks he might be done. Frankly I would rather work out a SF rotation of Rudy/Roy/Batum then ever see Outlaw there again. Also even if Martell recovers I expect Martell to be a net wash with some decent defense and the occasional 3 pt shot and random good quarters (Utah). Whereas with Outlaw I expect momentum killing plays and miscues. Martell sucks but he doesn't kill our team. Outlaw is probably a nice guy and I would like to see him be successful somewhere else. His late game miscues are absolute killers.
Yeah, he was far from a perfect player...but he was just 21 and getting his first real taste of the NBA. My point is not that he played flawlessly...far from it. Just that he performed much better in his first taste of real NBA minutes than Bayless did. And he's built on that. Yes, Bayless hasn't had that chance yet, but proven performance has a higher value than projected performance.
his late game dunks on KG's head are killers too. He has his plus and minus moments for sure, but in the end the stats consistently show him to be a cut above Martell. His TO's might stick out like a sore spot for you, but he gathers them at almost exactly the same rate as MW... maybe this is one of those absence makes the heart grow fonder things? I'm fine with disagreeing with you here, but I'll also note that not only are the stats in Travis's corner but for some reason Nate plays only one of these two guys in crunch time... and there is a new starter in town. STOMP
Fair enough. "Performed much better" is arguable though given the circumstances. I really like both players. I'm just not in favor of getting Sessions when we could have a similar breakout player already on our team, and at a much better price. Needless to say, we disagree on that.
Well, we apparently don't agree on whether we'd do such a trade. We do agree that Portland could have a "breakout" candidate in Bayless. I just don't think Bayless has a substantially higher ceiling while he has a much lower floor (if he busts). Considering that I think Portland almost already has what it needs to be a title contender, I think there's big value in establishing a point guard floor of "solidly above average" while still having upside at the position.
That's fair, but if we were to improve the PG position, I'd like a veteran. I don't hate the idea of obtaining Sessions, but like I established before, I'm not ready to give up on Bayless in any way. Oh, and I don't like what I see from Sessions's defense. I think Bayless will be a lot better in that department, but that's a different argument for a different day.
Well no question Outlaw had his shining moments on offense but not all of his mistakes counted as turn overs for him. From terrible, terrible shots (game 4 wasn't it?) to absolute disappearing acts on the defensive end. Also "not boxing out" isn't a stat but if it were Outlaw would lead the league. He regularly gets out rebounded by the other teams PG for god sake and he's a swingman 3/4? I'm not saying Martell has more talent I just feel he is less of a liability. Let's put it this way Travis skewed the results of many games but after our 2007/08 season he has been pretty bland with rare outbursts and has shown a knack to often dissapear. Martell would be a non-factor out there but the only mistake I consistently see Martell make was not shooting and over passing. Unfortunately, Outlaw showed he could do that too in the playoffs. I dunno I'm not a Martell fan but Outlaw's miscues always came at the worst times. He also saved our bacon with similar timing. I must have screamed "Oh god NO DON"T TAKE THAT SHOT OUTLAW!" 100 times last year and maybe 30 times he hit it and saved the day. I can't explain it perfectly but I feel like Jack Outlaw's impact on the game isn't measure well by most stats.
are they for anyone? you can feel that way, but the stats don't agree. Martell isn't very good... his rebounding trails Travis and his D is equally poor. Yeah, everyone hates on that Jack Outlaw guy. As you describe, your dislike for Travis's game isn't really fact based. Facts being what they are though, his TOs (and stats in general) aren't judged any differently then Martell's or anyone elses. He's averaged 1.6 TO's per 36 minutes for his career while Martell is at 1.5. So you might only seem to see Martell overpassing, but dude is turning the ball over at the same rate as the guy you think is a butterfingers. I don't know a better description of Martell's contributions then... "he has been pretty bland with rare outbursts and has shown a knack to often dissapear"... except I'd go with very rare outbursts. Dude isn't good on D, is a very poor ballhandler for a 3, and statistically is in a dead heat with Travis and Nic at shooting the ball which is supposed to be his calling card. Safe to say I don't expect much of a bump from his return STOMP
The Jack Outlaw was clearly a freudian slip on my part. I think that Outlaw's turn overs are much worse then you are making them out to be and that more things he does cause turn overs then are recorded. I watched virtually every game last season and the turn overs Outlaw had were worse then anything I saw from Martell in 07/08. That could be due to Nate McMillan over valuing Outlaw and correctly valuing Martell. That is Outlaw saw crunch time minutes that Martell never sniffed. Nate not having rose colored glasses about Martell might be his biggest endorsement. Nate had a virtual love affair with Outlaw similar to Jack. In both cases Nate seemed to have a blind spot for their game killing errors and I think that is why I got the two confused. I am NOT endorsing Martell I'm just saying Outlaw killed us Martell I don't think will be in the game to do the damage that Outlaw did.
Hard nosed, defensive minded legit 7'ers are not exactly a dime a dozen, especially ones that are great teammates and on extremely reasonable contracts. Millsap is purely a hustle player, albeit one with a great knack for rebounding. His offense is every bit as limited as Joel's (key difference is Joel knows it), his defense is nowhere near as good, and his rebounding is only marginally better. Add to that he's undersized and he isn't exactly a hot commodity at the salary we're offering. Joel is a much better center than LaMarcus, unless it's a match up against another team with a center that plays on the perimeter. That won't happen every night, though, so you can't plan your rotations around it. Aldridge doesn't need a backup. He's our iron man and our most well rounded player at both ends of the court. All he needs is a physical guy to spell him for 5 minutes each half. Oden is the weak link in the front court, as far as a guy that needs someone (i.e. Joel) there to help carry the load for the foreseeable future.
probably most of the board watches every single game, and we all have our opinions. Supporting statistical data gives weight to an opinion. Feeling that Travis uniquely benefits from unrecorded TO's seems a bit out there. Anyone is free to hold whatever opinion they might, but I like to side with the stats/data as much as possible. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. STOMP
Millsap is as limited offensively as Joel, but he doesn't know it? Where the hell does that come from? Millsap shot over 53% from the floor while scoring 13.5 ppg... how is that "limited"? Joel IS a limited player offensively who knows his role... Millsap is not at all limited as a power forward. Calling him purely a hustle player demonstrates that you don't know that much about Millsap. Sorry. Aldridge doesn't need a backup? He's an "iron man" at 37 minutes a game last year? I don't really know how to respond that. Sorry. Ed O.
And Joel was shooting 80% much of the season... So what? Joel knows when to shoot and when not to shoot, sticking to the high percentage shots. For Millsap, someone who relies on putbacks, 53% is good but not great. Whenever I've watched him play, I've been very unimpressed by his game outside the paint. It works in Utah because Okur is usually away from the basket. That won't be the case if paired with Pryz or Oden. What's not to understand? He was out there every night, playing heavy minutes, and only getting brief breaks each half. He often didn't come out until a few minutes into the 2nd quarter... That leaves very little room for a backup PF to have an impact.
Well, it leaves at least 11 minutes a game. I don't think that a guy playing 37 minutes a game is an "iron man", especially since he's missed time with injuries in two of his first three seasons in the NBA. Ed O.
I'm suggesting that not all Turn overs are created equally. Crunch time Turn overs are worse then first quarter turn overs. A turnover, followed by a defenisive miscue, followed by a bad shot (a common pattern for Outlaw) does much more damage to momentum then Martell simply dissappearing during a game. Look I'm not trying to convince you of Martell's brilliance, I'm just saying that Outlaw's incredible scoring ability seems to get people to overlook how brutally bad his defense, boxing out and turn overs are. If I could trade McMillan for Poppovich I would. As it stands McMillan has some crazy attitudes towards some players. Some he clearly undervalues (Rudy) others he clearly overvalues (Outlaw). If you are unable to see how Outlaw had the lion's share of critical miscues well I won't be able to convince you as TO's aren't weighted towards signifigance in a game. I contend that Turnovers that kill momentum are not equal to a turnover that has minimal impact on game flow. Not everything can be accounted for by checking a stat sheet as I'm sure you are aware. What I'm saying really isn't that out there or else we would have kept Jack, who also had a proclivity for unusually devastating turn overs. It's sort of the anti-thesis of clutch decision making like Roy has. Oh well I guess we can agree to disagree.
http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR10C.HTM Aldridge as a Center has a PER of 21.1 which is pretty stellar he allows a PER of 19.3 for a net of + 0.8 PER Joel on the other hand has a PER of 13.6 and gives up a PER of 17.6 for a net of - 4.0 PER http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR14C.HTM Aldridge is BETTER as a back up Center as compared to Joel, as his offensive abilities more then make up for his lack of skill at defense. Aldridge would be in a backup role to Oden obviously and wouldn't usually have to face starting centers. What's more if he had Milssap as his PF instead of Outlaw/Frye he would most likely play even better and have a higher PER as he wouldn't have to compensate for the complete lack of defense of Frye/Outlaw and the rotations and mismatches that caused. LMA/Millsap is >>>>>>>>>>>> better then Joel/Frye or LMA/Outlw or Frye that is the point. Joel is tradeable like it or not he is the most desirable piece we have to offer ina trade. If we don't then we will have two backups playing limited minutes for more money then the starters they are backing up AND we will still have holes at 1 and 3. Trading for an upgrade at the 1 or 3 makes infinitely more sense then keeping Joel for overpriced insurance. Obviously you ONLY trade Joel if Millsap is signed and not matched by Utah.
Really, I remember times almost every game where I wish we had somebody like Milsap to eat all those minutes that Frye and Outlaw played at PF. You have to remember Outlaw was out there a lot as a 4, getting thrown around like a rag doll in a tornado while trying to fight for position in the key.
