Yes, but when we were behind - it was often by a small amount, a point or two or a couple of buckets, when we went down big - it was usually in the 2nd quarter (and you can do the exercise yourself by going over the game logs, as I did). Being behind by 1, 2 or 3 points in the first because Roy was conserving his energy is, honestly, not a concern. Being down big in the 2nd quarter and having to fight back in the 3rd and 4th is what we want to reduce. Notice, that Roy, played 36 mpg on average, that's 3 quarters - and he usually plays most of the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Look how much more we won the 3rd and 4th - my gut feeling is that Roy is smart enough to know that he can dominate and take a game over for 1-2 quarters per game - he is amazing, but he does not have unlimited energy - and because he did not trust his 2nd unit - he would coast in the first.
If the 2nd unit was "always down big in the 2nd", while we were only "down 1,2,3 points b/c Roy conserving his energy", why did we outscore teams on average in the 2nd more than we did in the first? I guess I'll have to go back through the game play-by-plays to see the scores at first substitution, b/c it doesn't quite make sense to me. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't jive with my memory of the games. I'll see what I can do.
Regardless of who dug us into the deep(er) hole, if we come out fast and secure a comfortable lead, many non-playoff caliber will teams will often give up. If they don't give up, they often deviate from their game plan and turn into 1 on 5 each time they go down the court, in other words they aren't a threat to come back.
Facts are that we were down by more points in the first than in the second, according to the numbers. Refardless of your reasoning, this is how it went down.
I like this lineup too. However, that starting unit would really rely on Webster for perimeter damage and, so far, Webster has been underwhelming. Also, Roy, Miller, Oden, and LMA are going to command shots. How do you satisfy everyone?
Webster is better at that than Miller, if he ever gets the ball. We need Miller like my Xeterra needs a boot.
Yeah, that would certainly piss a guy off. We paid him more than he's worth, and more than anyone else was willing to pay him. We let him be part of a very special group of players, nearly all have more talent than him, and all have worked harder than him over the summer and fall. He should STFU, lose the immature attitude, and learn what he can from Steve Blake about being a pro and running a team. Better yet, he should demand a trade.
One, he can't be traded until (iirc) December 15. Two, I'm not sure demanding a trade is the mature, "pro" move. Third, Steve Blake doesn't "run" a team. He makes safe passes to Roy and Aldridge and shoots open three well. That's fine, but that's not "running a team".
Good post. Made me think. Like you said, though, Oden is not the same player he was last year. Przybilla was generally better at not getting fouls while covering for Blake's sometimes atrocious defense against PG's. If Oden is more mobile this year, this advantage Przybilla had over Oden may go away. Also, we haven't had a center you could really run any kind offense through since Sabonis. Przybilla was the kind of center our guys were used to. So maybe it's not too surprising that our starters didn't use Oden very effectively on the offensive end. Anyway, it's a really good point, and a bad omen for Nate's starting lineup. It seems almost inevitable to me that Miller eventually starts, and your post only moves me further in that direction.
I actually believe that Miller will start eventually, but it would not be because of a bad omen for Nate's starting line-up - but because it simply takes longer to plug a guy like Miller into our starting line because it will require a bigger change of style that the team is just not polished with, yet. We finished last year much better than we started (and we started very well) - and I suspect the same will happen this year. The team will become less reliant on the jump-shots, and handle post play better. It might just be a little too early to expect them to transform at this point.
I don't see much I disagree with there, but what did you think about BrianFromWa's win share point? Why was the new projected starting lineup so bad last year? Why should we expect it to be better this year?
I think that what he (Brian) showed us was why Nate and company changed from Oden to Pryzbilla last year. I think that when they tried to run the offense through Oden last year it did not work very well, so in this regard (offense) - Oden was not an upgrade in the first unit over Pryzbilla, but, on the other hand, Joel played much better defense last year than Greg - and that's why they made the transition. What changed this year? You both touched on it - Greg looks like a very different player this year. He does not get into the same kind of foul trouble, he seems to be more prolific on offense. That's all there is to it, honestly. We have seen Greg play well in flashes last year - but I do not think we have ever seen him take over a game as he did against Denver for 7 minutes this pre-season. This, right there, is the big difference. He is better on defense and better on offense. It is time to start integrating him as one of the pillars of this team. Miller's acquisition might be the biggest change in play style we had so far this year, but long term - Greg playing as we all envisioned him when he was drafted is the biggest change long term. I also think that Greg can be super-efficient in the current style of the first unit - just by playing good defense and being a super-deluxe garbage man on offense, the team can be successful while they learn to integrate him more on offense. Miller is harder to integrate - because he is not effective as a long-range bomber instead of Blake and he needs to control the ball more to be effective. It is just going to take longer to get these guys to gel - because they will not be successful with Miller playing the Blake role, but they will be successful with Oden playing the Joel role. With time, I suspect these guys will adjust to both playing more through the post and more playing with Miller handling the ball more and Roy playing more off the ball - but it is a bigger change. When you go back to basic engineering principles - if you have something that works rather well, you put small changes in to refine it along the way. If something does not work well - you should just stick many different things out there to figure out what works well - and start the refinement process from there. I think what Nate is doing now is knowing they had something good going last year, and starting the refining process. On the first unit - it is slowly more post play with Oden, on the 2nd unit - it is more efficient scoring from the PG position in a fast unit with Miller instead of Sergio.
My guess is that the offense was predicated on the pick and roll, and Joel set picks much better than Oden did. Plus, Oden fouled a lot, leading to lots more free throws for the opposition. One reason would be that Oden will foul less and play better defense. Another could be that we might be less dependent on the P&R, incorporating "feed the post" more. Or, perhaps Oden will just be better at that role than he was last year. All three are likely.
The idea for drafting Oden was to have a post presence and defense. If he could do one of the two last year - I think they would have stuck with him - he IS the solution long term. But, last year, he had way too many turn-overs when they threw the ball to him in the post - and his defense was not as good as Joel - so they were smart enough to take a step back and recognize that they just need to get him back in rhythm, take the pressure off him - and let Roy and LMA carry us. It worked fantastically well, I think, and they seem like they are taking the long-term approach still - while competing hard at the same time. I like it.
