Why does Nate even bother to start him? He pulls him 5 minutes into every game. Batum is the third most talented Blazer (that's healthy) but he is only playing 15 minutes a game. I thought for sure with Webster's departure Batum would be getting starter minutes, because, ya know, he is starting. But Armon Johnson, Wes Matthews, Cunningham have all got more minutes so far this year. WTF?
It's Steve Blake over Andre Miller all over again. One of McMillan's weaknesses is that he out-manages himself. Rather than using the simple and obvious principle of playing your best players the most minutes, he attempts to play match-ups more than he should or create units that are more aesthetically pleasing to him. Some amount of in-game management and role-balancing is needed, of course, but I think McMillan takes it to an extreme, to the detriment of the team sometimes.
I think the last two games have been outstanding for young Nic. Nate has him looking over his shoulder and pressing because of his lack of minutes. This can only be a good thing because once Nate breaks down a player, they start to thrive. Look at all the other young raw but talented guys Nate has helped. Jarrett Jack, Sergio, Rudy, Bayless.....Nic will finally stop playing free and start playing within the Nate rules. Nic's biggest problem is that he likes to take shots away from Brandon. 17/8 is not a way to stay in the starting lineup with Brandon and LaMarcus. Just focus on defense young man. I don't care if you are left on the perimeter all by yourself chasing the other teams best player around. Just succeed hugely, or sit your ass on the bench.
...Check Luol Deng's or Carlos Delfinos's first quarter stats for he answer to this. I really like Batums game, but he was getting killed both games by guys that shouldn't be doing that to him. Deng is good, but Batum was making him Carmelo Anthony good by not fighting through screens and generally being a step slow. He'll get his chance, but his defense needs to be consistant, and it seems to me he may have been concentrating on the offensive side of the ball more so. Strictly the coaching staff sending him a message as far as I'm concerned.
Too bad the coaching staff doesn't send a message to the other 12-13 guys that are worse defenders than Nic.
This is why Roy's minutes have been limited since his rookie year, too. Because his defense is weak and McMillan wanted to send a message. Consistent defense gets you minutes. And no, I'm not saying that Batum is as talented as Roy. I'm saying that McMillan has no history of basing playing time on defense, unless the rest of the player's game doesn't make up for it. It's doubly silly with Batum, who's the team's best perimeter defender as well as having a solid all-around game. A couple of bad games means that the only guy who takes defense seriously (among the perimeter players) needs a message sent? I doubt it.
As soon as Nic was taken out yesterday the Blazers immediately went on a 7-0 run. Good call by McMillan Nic has been very bad the last two games. He's missing wide open shots and isn't playing anything resembling good defense.
At the same time, this is what I was talking about with Armon playing. When Armon plays, it indirectly takes minutes from Batum. Armon comes in, Rudy and Mathews slide up one position higher and Batum's minutes get cut. Nate has a hard job to keep people happy. But I guess maybe at the same time, Nate is saying to Batum that he needs to play better. Because the last few games, he has really struggled.
Well, to be fair, Roy's offense was consistent from the start and he can create for himself and others much better than Nic. I did not see last night's game - but if the reports on BE are to believed, he deserved to be benched for his defense. I think Nate has a history of basing playing time on role. JB never got the time because his defense was never as good as we hoped it would be and because his offense never progressed in the PG role, Armon is getting time because his defense is good and he plays like a PG, Roy's role was pretty much from the start to score and create for others - and he got the minutes. I suspect that Nate just coached to win, not to send messages. Nic was not getting it done on D and his offense was not something to write home about, in comes Wes whose defense and offense were apparently better - so Nate coached to win. I find nothing wrong with that.
So the next time Roy or Aldridge has a couple of bad games in a row, you advocate cutting their minutes way down? Again, Batum is not as talented as Roy (though he might be as talented as Aldridge), but common sense dictates that you don't start messing with your starters due to such a tiny sample size as one game and change. Starters, even the best ones, have variation in their play. Batum's first three games were stellar.
Okay, so if Roy is really struggling in the first quarter or two, you advocate apportioning his minutes to other players in order to "play to win?" Or, rather, would find nothing wrong with that? The silly part of this is not whether McMillan is playing to win or not, but that he's swinging so quickly on Batum. Batum played extremely well last season after returning from injury, started this season great and then had just over one bad game and McMillan has decided that Batum no longer gives the team the best chance to win. No concept of "small sample sizes aren't predictive."
You answered your own question right here and yes, Aldridge is more talented than Batum. Batum might have more potential, but he's certainly not as talented as Aldridge right now. When Batum is good enough to be asked to carry the teams offense by creating his own shot you might have a case.
We'll have to agree to disagree. And it didn't answer the question--Aldridge is not as talented as Roy, so should he get the Batum treatment? Roy is not as talented as other players, like Kobe or James, so why is he exempt from the Batum treatment? The principle of playing your best players the most minutes doesn't depend on whether all your best players are equally talented. It's that you let them play through local variation because they've already proven to be better players than the possible replacements and that history is a far better predictor of the future than the last 4-5 quarters.
If the Blazers had any other players that command double-teams, sure. Unfortunately, they do not - because that skill set is rather unique in the league. I think that Nate has what most coaches have - stars who will play long minutes just because you must have them in a modern NBA game and role players who will subbed based on play and matches. I love Nic - but if he is not doing what is needed and his sub (Wes) is getting the job done - I have no issues with what Nate does. I am certain that Nic will rebound from his short funk and will get close to the 30 minutes a game. In the first 3 games Nic averaged 28.5 MPG which is fine with me, in the last 2, where he did not play well, his play time was short. Nic will be fine and Nate is doing the right thing, imho. He is trying to win the games. I love Nic's game and potential, but he is not the star of this team and has a long way to go to get there - until he is a consistent lock down defender or a guy that consistently creates offense and commands a double-team, he is a role player. A talented role-player with great potential, but a role-player.
I already covered that part in my previous post. Aldridge is the teams second most talented offensive player and is asked to carry some of the load of the offense. Batum isn't capable of that and if he isn't knocking down wide open shots and playing piss-poor defense then it's time to sit on the bench, especially when Matthews is playing a great game.
Actually, they do. Both Miller and Aldridge command double-teams when made the focus, as both proved when Roy was injured. They're just not as good as Roy. But, in any case, I disagree with you. Even though the team does have other players who can command a double-team, it would still be silly to limit Roy's minutes after 4-5 bad quarters. That's a little too simplistic, IMO. Where is the cut-off for when a player drops from "star" to "role-player?" There is no cut-off, it's an unbroken continuum from greatness (with LeBron James defining one end of the continuum currently) to barely-in-the-NBA (Tolliver, perhaps, being a good example of that end). There's no specific point where a player becomes "not worthy of consistent minutes, has to justify his presence on a minute-by-minute basis." The principle the vast majority of coaches use is to play their best players the most minutes. By pretty much any accounting, Batum is one of the team's five best players at least. He should certainly be getting a larger minute allotment in accordance with that. I don't doubt that McMillan is trying to win the games. I simply think he's not going about it in the most effective way.
The main difference is if you take out Batum you can bring in Wesley who can play the same exact role as Batum. Take out Roy and Aldridge and there is no one that can step in and replace that production or even come close to filling their roles.
Just not as well. And there are plenty of minutes for Matthews even with Batum playing 30 MPG. It's not Batum or Matthews. When Batum plays 17 minutes, it's players like Cunningham and Johnson who get the minutes and they can't do the same things and are nowhere near as good.
They do not play the same position and can really sub for him, which is the point I am making. I think we have seen this pattern going forever in NBA teams, coaches letting their stars work themselves out of slumps. Of course, if they can not do so, they are no longer stars and we get the answer to the question of - what separates stars from role-players... Someone becomes a role player when he can no longer be counted to carry the team and be one of it's best players consistently. I honestly think that "play your best players" long minutes is right when there are no alternatives and the outcome of the games is not that important, if a team is bad and is developing it's young players - you play them more during bad periods, when it's trying to win to contend, as the Blazers are right now, this is less important. The fact of the matter is that when Nic plays bad, Nate brings Wes in and if he plays better - will keep him long minutes, if Wes does not play well - he will try something else. Let's look at these last 2 games, Nic had a negative game-score in both of them (bad), his offense was not there, his defense was not there. In the first, he brought Wes in, Wes did not play well (Game score 0.2) - and Wes, just like Nic, got only 17 minutes, last game, Wes had a good game, game score of 10 or so - and he got heavy minutes. Nate was coaching to win - and that's what I would like him to do with a team that can contend. This is not an expansion team, this is not a develop your players above all - Nic is a role player at this stage of his career on a team that wants to contend. Nate plays him the right way. BTW - if you look at Wes's game log you will see that the pattern works the same for him - he had a good 1st, 3rd, 5th games, big minutes, bad 2nd, 4th - short minutes.
Those players have been doing good things with those minutes too. This can go on forever but imo McMillan easily made the right call last night. Nic wasn't just struggling, he was terrible, and this was in the limited minutes he played in. If he's going to get picked off easily and lose his man on defense resulting in his player getting numerous wide open shots then he needs to sit. He's not good enough(yet) to get those minutes no matter what like Roy and Aldridge do. I'm also one that thinks this board hugely overrates Batum so that's part of my reasoning as well.
