Portland used 21+ seconds on the shot clock on 18% of their FG attempts last year. http://www.82games.com/0809/0809POR3.HTM I don't think "most of the time" is accurate, but compared to some other good teams, it sure was a lot. Lakers: 11% Denver: 11% Orlando: 13% Utah: 14% Boston: 16% Spurs: 17% But... Cleveland? They used up 21 or more seconds on 23% of their field goal attempts. Wow. Ed O.
Actually it's a joke. I don't have much to say on the job Nate has done one way or the other outside of the team's pace. I don't even mind the pace. I just think it is pretty odd that Nate talks about trying to push the pace when not one of his teams have been fast paced.
This is where I am, too... I don't claim to know enough about coaching to really know if he's doing a good job or not. There are too many variables. I also don't have a strong opinion on how much the team should run. We're a big team and so it makes sense to slow it down, but we're an athletic team so it makes sense to get out and run. Also, high scoring games are more fun AND better for my fantasy teams (since I invariably end up with Blazers). I am not married to an up-tempo team, but I (like LittleAlex) don't understand why Nate has been saying the same thing for YEARS about pushing the tempo and then failing to do so. I also don't understand why people keep believing him every offseason Ed O.
If we didn't need any improvement, then why did we lose in the 1st round of the playoffs last year? You can keep on preaching everything is great, but it's not. Rebounding does need improved, especially on the 2nd unit. The team does need more easy buckets. The team needs to take less shots from the perimeter. The team needs to improve on defense in several areas. Those are the facts. Pointing them out doesn't make you a bitcher, it makes you realistic. If you aren't able to identify and work on your weaknesses, you will never improve.
Sorry I'm late to the party; this took a bit of time to put together. Portland: 99.4 points per game (Pace = 86.6 possessions per game; League Avg = 91.7) 2 point field goals - 49.0% (2422/4939), right at the league average of 48.5% (2499/5149) 3 point field goals - 38.3% (596/1555), well above the league average of 36.7% (545/1486) Total offensive rebs - 1060, well above the league average of 905 Offensive rebounds that resulted in scores: ~493 (League average: 415.4) Turnover rate: .125 turnovers per possession (League average: .133) Portland's story: There are four offensive statistic contributing the offensive rating: effective FG%, Turnover%, Offensive Rebound%, FTs per FGA. Of those four, we are in the top 8 in 3 of them (eFG% - 8th, TOV% - 7th, OReb% - 1st), and 17th in FTs per FGA. The high offensive rebound count contributed to the slow pace (since offensive rebounds continue a single possession), and low turnover rate, while the high 3pt percentage and average 2pt percentage allowed Portland to have an average scoring year (99.4 vs 100.0 league average). How does Portand improve? 1. Keep the offensive rebounding high; you can't for a second consider a high OReb% a bad thing. 2. Increase the pace by running a little more. Adding four more possessions a game would increase scoring by 2 or 3 points. It may be tough to increase pace on paper with the OReb% as high as it is. 3. Increase FT per FGA. More slashing (Andre Miller, anyone?) means more 2pt FGs which is where the FTs come from. This is a cheap way of increasing scoring. 4. Go away from the 3pt shot. The percentage was good, but the number of attempts belies a crutch in the system. This is why Andre Miller is just fine; he'll increase FTs by slashing, and passing to the post. For a lark, here's Phoenix's stats. They had the 2nd best ORtg: Phoenix: 109.4 points per game (Pace = 96.0 possessions per game; League Avg = 91.7) 2 point field goals - 53.7% (2820/5250), blowing away the league average of 48.5% (2499/5149) 3 points field goals - 38.3% (553/1445), well above the league average of 36.7% (545/1486) Total offensive rebs - 900, right around the league average of 905 Offensive rebounds that resulted in scores: ~454 (League average: 415.4) Turnover rate: .144 turnovers per possession (League average: .133) Their story is almost the opposite of ours: a high-turnover gets a high ofensive rating with a high pace and blistering 2pt fg%. The low OReb is a result of the high FG%. If they lowered their turnover percentage, they'd be insanely efficient.
It seems like there are at least two ways to improve: to change what you're doing and to do what you do better. If Portland were a veteran team, I could see how the only way to improve would be to change what they're doing... after all, 54 wins is great but a first round loss is unacceptable to a team that's near its ceiling. The Blazers, though, should improve almost across the board in terms of individual capabilities. This makes improvement as a team possible even if they use the same system. Players should defend better, players should shoot better, and players should execute better overall... simply because they're maturing physically and intellectually. I think there's actually something to be said for stability for a young team: letting players focus on improving their games within a context they are familiar with sounds like an easier process than improving themselves as they learn a new offense and whatever... Ed O.
I don't think anyone is saying that Portland doesn't need to improve anywhere. They do have areas where they need to improve. But pinning problems on offense, one of Portland's greatest strengths, and using that as a criticism of McMillan is silly.
All but one of these were due to the players Nate had to work with. Out of starting Blake, Sergio or Bayless he choose Blake. It's hard to fault that choice, since the other two players were actually worse. Since he pretty much was forced into playing Blake the pick and roll defense suffered. Mostly because Blake was not fast enough to get around the pick in time, nor strong enough to follow through the pick. I blame the players for this, not Nate. See the reason one above for the FTA issue. Both Brandon and Outlaw's game includes a fade away mid-range jumper that is pretty money. Since those are the two guys who took those shots, I am not going to complain about Nate running plays to their strengths. If Nate had plays designated to get Sergio 3 point attempts, or counted on Batum running the offense then I think you could rag on the coach. There are two things I feel Nate did that bothered me some. I don't claim to know the reasons for them, but it sure seemed like a mistake. 1.) He seemed too married to his rotation. He would pull guys out of the game even if they really had it going. 2.) He tended not to force the other team to adjust to his game plan. It seemed like he was reactive instead of proactive. The Houston series was a pretty decent example. Once it became obvious that Portland could really not match up physically with Houston, why didn't they try to go small for stretches of the game? There may very well be a good reason, but I have to believe forcing Yao to check LA or Outlaw would cause match up problems for Houston. Sure there would have been a disadvantage on the defensive end, but keeping both Yao and Scola away from the basket on offense would have been very nice. Other then these two things, I honestly don't know what more Nate could do with the personnel at hand.
i think it's been established that nate's "pushing the pace" means look for a fast break, and if it's not there, sit on the half court game. Also consider if we had won just one more game, we would have played against NO or Utah, i'm too lazy to look this up. Granted, you shouldn't be the champions if you can't beat all the teams. But I think it would be nice to polish up a few things here and there. More offense from Batum and less fouls from Greg. Miller vs Blake, I could go both ways... Miller would help create on the second team. If Greg can bring his fouls per game down to 5.2 or less, I predict we get 56+ wins.
Or the opposite may be true. One of the reasons SOME teams slow down the pace and run through the clock quite a bit is to expose the D. Basically you're forcing the opponent to play concentrated defense for the full 24. If there's a slip-up then you get an easy basket. One could make the case that transition basketball offers the same opportunity but the flaw is that you don't get transition basket opportunities every basket and your team sucks it up at rebounding if you send a man early. At least with a slower game you get the opportunity for an easy basket every possession.
Very well said. Those were my problems with Nate as well. FTRH, Failure To Recognize Heat. Rudy must have had an asbestos jersey on in game 4, otherwise it would have burnt off his back.
lastly children, as a coach you need to learn how to deal with the media and various fan outlets. No matter who the coach is or how well your team is playing, somebody has a deadline and will be filling it by ranting about the decisions you made. Sports writers are generally cynical, lazy, and self loathing... accept that they're going to be critical of you because thats their job but you can also sway things in your favor with them with by relaying personal anecdotes dots for them to connect into their latest "reports". Keep your focus on the real task at hand and just be glad you're not them. That goes doubly for the white noise generated from blogs and chatsites. If you're going to be living in the public eye as a coach, some guy living in his parent's basement and flipping burgers professionally is going to call you a dummy daily... so what? Tomorrow you can still try to do your best with what you've got working a job you love and are richly rewarded for doing. Eat right, exercise regularly, and study hard... every day as your opportunity to improve. Good luck! STOMP
