Hey. I've been reading the NBA preview magazines and I saw some interesting numbers from last season in the Sporting News magazine: 2: Losses for the Trail Blazers when leading by at least 10 points, tied with Orlando for fewest in the league. 18: Wins for Portaland last season when trailing by at least 10 points, the most in the NBA 10.2: Blazers' opponents fast-break points per game in 2008-09, the fewest in the league. How cool is that?
All that second stat says to me is that portland was down by more then 10 points 18 freaking times last season. I really don't think they can count on pulling off something like that again. I would take 10 less come from behind wins for a combination of 10 close victories and blowouts.
The stats are kind of interesting, and I think they at least show a resilient team if nothing else. I hope to God we aren't counting on coming back from 10+ points 18 times this year, because I don't think you can really bank on that kind of thing. The last stat (fast break points allowed) is pretty meaningless considering we had the second slowest pace of any team in the league -- speed up the tempo to league average and I doubt we end up holding that honor.
I'd like to see fastbreak delta. we gave up the least, but iirc we got the least as well. I think it was a net loss for us. I agree with those who don't like that we were down 10 in over 1/3 of our WINs and 1/4 of our games overall.
Actually, it came from having too many guys who were inexperienced, or limited role-players. For sake of argument, I'll assume you agree that Roy and LMA belonged on the floor. Where does that leave Nate? A choice between Sergio (inexperienced and wildly erratic) vs Blake (steady but painfully predictable). A choice between Batum (inexperienced) or Trout (not the brightest bulb in the chandelier; only effective when scoring). A choice between Oden (at best, a non-factor on offense; at worst, just a non-factor) and Pryz (leaving the team playing 4 on 5 on offense). Tell us, oh swami, who you would have started.
That's the "Roy" factor. Portland has been able to make those comebacks because Roy always saves his best for the fourth quarter. I'd rather we had leads going into the final frame, but it sure is nice to have a guy like Roy when you need him.
Actually, we were down by 10 way more than 18 times as was most of the league, but we came back to win 18 of them.
Our slow starts gave me heartburn all season. There was a point when we were constantly falling behind by 10 in the first half and then wake up and start playing. Why dig ourselves a hole? This team is so talented and intimidating, I think if we worked on getting a quick start and put the hammer down on the opposition, many non-playoff teams will just quit. Then we get to rest our starters and get some easy wins.
Didn't we also have five or six 30+ point wins last season? When we had everything clicking, we were something to behold.
It would be interesting to see how many times the Blazers were down 10 points, and also to see how that number stacks up against the rest of the league.
The slow starts drove me up the wall also. I was really encouraged at the end of the year when we were crushing teams, and the slow starts seemed to diminish a bit. I agree with the resting of the starters. An added bonus to that is also keeping the bench players happy(ier, anyways) by getting them more minutes.
The Blazers teams of the late-80's/early-90's often fell behind by 10+ points and came back to win. While the best teams don't often dig themselves such a hole, good teams can manage to fall behind and put together the runs to bring themselves back into position to win. The Blazers used to do this a lot. I've seen it in other sports, as well, with teams like the 49ers or USC football.
If the offense isn't clicking with Blake at PG, he pretty much does what he always does--stand and wait for three point opportunities. He might give it to Roy a little quicker, hoping Roy can fix things. If the offense isn't clicking with Miller at PG, he'll take the ball into the post himself, or take it into the middle and look for the outlet dish/score, or push the tempo. He'll aggressively change up the way we approach our offense and hopefully find something that works. Just a fundamentally different way of managing the game from the PG position. If slow starts continue to plague this team, it'll probably be because Blake is the starter. Which won't be for long.
