Love what Ed has done this year, but let's be completely honest, it's time for Nurkic to start playing 30+ MPG. He's our third best player by a good margin. He completely changes the game on the defensive end. He's 8th in the league in defensive rating and is by a lot of statistical measures one of the best rim protectors in the league. Offensively, the Nurk/Dame pick and roll is probably one of the most consistent plays we have had all season. Over the last few months he's taking less stupid flip shots and crazy passes that lead to turnovers. When he gets the ball on the block, he's being more patient. Especially against guys smaller than him, he's almost an automatic bucket now. In March he is averaging 14/10 in 24 MPG. 24 MPG??? Are you crazy?? This guy is good for 20/12 per 36 every night. Even on some nights when Davis gets matched up against stronger guys and isn't as effective, Stotts's still opts to play Nurk his 25 minutes and not a second more. Against small lineups, Stotts takes him out altogether as though he's a liability. He can absolutely dominate in these small games even if it results in a three or two on the other end. In the playoffs we need our best players playing well to be successful. It's time to start treating Nurk like the third best player on the team. GIVE. THIS. MAN. MORE. MINUTES.
Nurk was in foul trouble. Stotts can't play him more when Nurk is fouling so much. In the 13 games this month including this one, Nurk has had 4+ fouls in 8 of them. It's not because of Stotts. Nurk has been in foul trouble consistently.
Since the All-Star Break, he has been phenomenal though. I don't think people realize just how good his been since the break. Per 36 Stats: 21.5PPG 14.9RPG 2.8APG 2.1BPG 54.5FG% This is the type of production I was hoping to get from him this season. If he'd be doing this all-season, he'd be a candidate for All-NBA 3rd Team as the Center.
I've watched the games. He's rarely actually in "foul trouble" (2 in the first, 3 in the second, 4 in the third). There's also a lot of opportunities to bring him back early in the 4th, but he never happens. It's just Stotts's rotations.
He is getting there for sure. But there are some games where he gets in fouls trouble and it brings his average down. Look at his minutes in March and April, he has plenty of games over 24 minutes.
He sits him from roughly 5 mins in the 1st to 6 mins in the second. Then from roughly 5 mins in the 3rd to 6 mins in the 4th. Rarely does he ever have to take Nurk out because he actually HAS too many fouls. Yes, this allows him to play more aggresively when he's in the game, but he's never actually fouled out of a game. Put him in at the 8 minute mark in the second and the 4th and that's 4 extra minutes a game. If he fouls out, he fouls out. Fouls are there to be used and he has only fouled out ONCE in the 68 games he's played this year. So stupid.
I'm ok with this. He seems to be effective in bursts and doesn't tire out. Just don't bench him like the BOS game and give him some leeway to make mistakes.
Fouling out =/= foul trouble. Tonight Nurk was able to stay out of foul trouble for the most part. vs Boston he was as well. vs Houston Nurk had 1 foul going into the 4th. Finished the game with 5 fouls. vs Clippers Nurk had 2 fouls in the first quarter, but logged 30 minutes. vs Detroit Nurk picked up 2 fouls in 3:37 vs Cavs Nurk had 4 fouls in 18 minutes. Guy has to stay out of foul trouble because Portland is at their best with him on the court. But until he stops picking up stupid fouls, Davis will eat minutes.
Here is what I never understood about foul trouble. Having 6 fouls means you can't play in the game anymore correct? So what is the difference between not playing because of 6 fouls, versus not playing because the coach is sitting you? I keep expecting this backwards logic to change one of these years but it never does. Coaches still stick to the 2/3/4 in quarters 1/2/3 rule and it boggles my mind. Here's a question, who fouls out more? The player, or the coach that sits him? If a player fouls out, whatever. Is a player more impactful if he played 26 minutes and ended with 4 fouls or if he played 30 minutes and actually fouled out? I guess that is the question.
Depends on the player. We've all seen Nurk be able to play with 5 fouls late in games and not foul out. But we've all seen Nurk also not be locked in and committ silly fouls which get him in foul trouble. Is the risk/reward worth it if you don't have a player like Nurk to close the game, because you didn't sit him down for a few extra minutes?
Is a bucket in the first worth less than a bucket in the 4th? Some would argue yes, but I don't think so.
Still 2 points but remember how people ragged on Aldridge as he always missed in the last few minutes of games.
