Game Thread Game #18 - BLAZERS VS NUGGETS - NOVEMBER 23, 2021 - TUESDAY - 7:00 PM (PDT) TNT

[Fairly-Hard]

I’d be surprised if Portland didn’t look to upgrade from Zeller. Nance has looked good as a backup five but we’ve also played a stretch of teams who lacked size or were missing their bigs.

It's what I'm thinking. They could use a real solid backup that can give the same 10 mins that Zeller is giving but contribute at least a little bit. Cody Zeller just isn't giving much at all.
Did someone pick up Boogie yet? This is the kind of player I'm thinking of?

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Because Zeller is a backup and whatever we get there most likely will affect us only a little. Especially since Nance plays well as C it's not a big need.
When we talk about CJ we hope it's not a lateral move and it will change the way our team is constructed with Powell going to SG. We hope for more ball movement, better D etc

I disagree. It's a huge need. This team needs a solid Big as a backup.

 

[GDiama]

I disagree. It's a huge need. This team needs a solid Big as a backup.

Cannot be huge unless you donytrust your starters. You are exaggerating. What do you expect a 15 min player to give you? Be a difference maker and take us to contender status? Then this guy wouldn't be a backup but a starter. I don't recall many backup bigs in the NBA right now that have a huge impact (talking about huge need).

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Because his +/- isn't propped up by Dame?

So "propped up" that it's significantly higher?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Blows my mind how blind people are to the Nurk effect: defense.

I don't get it. What do people want from Nurk? We're at our most successful with him on the court. He's not cluttering up the offense and he's turbocharging the defense. But all we get is moaning about him.

 

[Scalma]

It's what I'm thinking. They could use a real solid backup that can give the same 10 mins that Zeller is giving but contribute at least a little bit. Cody Zeller just isn't giving much at all.
Did someone pick up Boogie yet? This is the kind of player I'm thinking of?

I like boogie but I don’t think he’s a fit for billups’ scheme, specifically defensively. Ideally they’d find someone more mobile. I really wish we had Nerlens Noel.

 

[Tince]

Took the NBA about three decades to figure out that three pointers are really good.

Is that true or are you flipping the cause and a effect? I don't know the answer.

Regarding Nurk. Are you suggesting his skillset a value is so unique that it could take the entire NBA decades to figure out just how good he is? Minus a few Blazer fans who it's obvious to.

 

[Tince]

Here you go. Plus minus per 100 possessions for various combos of Nurk & Dame:
2017 to 2021 | Nurk & Dame | Possessions 10,492 | Plus/Minus +867 | Per 100 +8.3
2017 to 2021 | Dame Only | Possessions 12,785 | Plus/Minus +303 | Per 100 +2.4
2017 to 2021 | Nurk Only | Possessions 1,316 | Plus/Minus -78 | Per 100 -5.9
2017 to 2021 | Neither | Possessions 8,652 | Plus/Minus -461 | Per 100 -5.3

- Almost 90% of Nurk's possessions are with Dame on the floor.
- Nurk & Dame is +8.3 per 100.
- Nurk Only is -5.9 per 100.
- That is a huge drop off BUT it is way too small a sample (-5.9 +/- 6.0 per 100 at 2 standard deviations).
- Baseline Neither at -5.3 per 100 but is mostly vs 2nd units while Nurk Only faces starters.

The biggest thing I see is that Dame drops a lot without Nurk. Dame & Nurk are +8.3 while Dame Only drops to +2.4. Large samples for both numbers. Also Dame & Nurk is going to be vs tougher opposition than Dame Only as the latter will have a larger portion vs 2nd units.

Awesome, great work! Somewhat in line with what other people are suggesting.

 

[Tince]

So "propped up" that it's significantly higher?
View attachment 42316

See bobf's post above for a larger, more significant sample size. Again, I'm not ripping on Nurk, but +/- is a pretty bad stat overall, let alone for a game or part of a season.

If Nurk gets traded or leaves this summer, do you expect him to show to be the all-star level player some feel he is or is it more likely he'll be unlucky and get a 4th coach who can't recognize how good he is?

 

[Tince]

I don't get it. What do people want from Nurk? We're at our most successful with him on the court. He's not cluttering up the offense and he's turbocharging the defense. But all we get is moaning about him.

Speaking for others, the posts I've read here appear to want a few things from him:

1) Greater decision making
2) Finish stronger around the hoop
3) Consistent effort when his shot isn't falling or he's being scored on
4) No passive agressive social media posts putting himself above the team

I'm with you that Nurk does provide some productive minutes and has the ability to do things nobody else on this roster can. I don't think he's awful (like some), but I also don't think he's above having flaws that are discussed either. Nobody on this roster is.

 

[Cugel]

Let’s see how nurk does against a much more athletic Holmes tonight.

 

[Scalma]

 

[GDiama]

My takeaway from this is CJ needs to be benched for Simons.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

It's what I'm thinking. They could use a real solid backup that can give the same 10 mins that Zeller is giving but contribute at least a little bit. Cody Zeller just isn't giving much at all.
Did someone pick up Boogie yet? This is the kind of player I'm thinking of?

Orlando's not using RoLo, and he can probably be traded in December.
At this point we should consider waiving Zeller. Both parties can do better.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

My takeaway from this is CJ needs to be benched for Simons.

And then Little benched in favor of CJ.

 

[MickZagger]

I don't get it. What do people want from Nurk? We're at our most successful with him on the court. He's not cluttering up the offense and he's turbocharging the defense. But all we get is moaning about him.

We want prime Vlade Divac. Is that too much to ask?

 

[wizenheimer]

Took the NBA about three decades to figure out that three pointers are really good.

I'm assuming that was a little bit of sarcasm, but it got me thinking:

I'd wonder, since almost all basketball development starts early in high school, and in a lot of cases much earlier...I wonder if it's simply taken that long for all the levels below the NBA to develop three-ball offense. It wasn't going to happen overnight and I know for sure, having played in high school and citi-league, that most of those lower level coaches didn't believe in the three-point shot. They thought it was a sucker's bet

that would have been prevailing sentiment until those 'established' coaches started consistently losing games to coaches who embraced the three-point shot

I'm not just alluding to shot mechanics or offensive schemes. It would have to be coaches encouraging the shot...allowing their player to take those shots without guilt as long as if fit the flow of the offense

I can actually see that taking a couple of decades to matriculate to the NBA. Of course, I could just be seeing stripes on a lion because I want to

I tell you what though...in the NBA right now there needs to be a little more guilt about chucking up three's. It's a tsunami of crazy shot selection
**********************************************

which segues into something else connected to the three-ball: the vanishing big man. Since I'm in a wondering mood, would all-time great bigs like Kareem or Moses or Hakeem be #1 options today? I can see a role for a big like Bill Russell; a guy who rebounds and plays great defense while not demanding usage. Or a Dave Cowens like C hustling all the time while possessing a perimeter shooting game. I guess if Jokic is MVP then somebody like Walton would have a similar role. When I think about it, those all time greats would probably still be great in any era. But not so for the lesser C's like a Kevin Duckworth, or maybe even an Artis Gilmore. What about Sabonis?

 

[wizenheimer]

Awesome, great work! Somewhat in line with what other people are suggesting.

bobf is our resident stat guru....he's got algorithms for every hunch

I hate him though when he proves me wrong

 

[KSF-ERIC]

We need to keep on winning before the Warriors and Jazz game. We know we can’t beat those teams.

We blew out 73-9 Warriors. We have better team than that team.

 

[bobf]

I'm assuming that was a little bit of sarcasm, but it got me thinking:

I'd wonder, since almost all basketball development starts early in high school, and in a lot of cases much earlier...I wonder if it's simply taken that long for all the levels below the NBA to develop three-ball offense. It wasn't going to happen overnight and I know for sure, having played in high school and citi-league, that most of those lower level coaches didn't believe in the three-point shot. They thought it was a sucker's bet

that would have been prevailing sentiment until those 'established' coaches started consistently losing games to coaches who embraced the three-point shot

I'm not just alluding to shot mechanics or offensive schemes. It would have to be coaches encouraging the shot...allowing their player to take those shots without guilt as long as if fit the flow of the offense

I can actually see that taking a couple of decades to matriculate to the NBA. Of course, I could just be seeing stripes on a lion because I want to

I tell you what though...in the NBA right now there needs to be a little more guilt about chucking up three's. It's a tsunami of crazy shot selection
**********************************************

which segues into something else connected to the three-ball: the vanishing big man. Since I'm in a wondering mood, would all-time great bigs like Kareem or Moses or Hakeem be #1 options today? I can see a role for a big like Bill Russell; a guy who rebounds and plays great defense while not demanding usage. Or a Dave Cowens like C hustling all the time while possessing a perimeter shooting game. I guess if Jokic is MVP then somebody like Walton would have a similar role. When I think about it, those all time greats would probably still be great in any era. But not so for the lesser C's like a Kevin Duckworth, or maybe even an Artis Gilmore. What about Sabonis?

I wasn't being much sarcastic. If the league assessment of a player is totally at odds with analytics I'll take analytics. Of course it won't be because the league widely uses analytics. But a certain GM cough cough has been at odds with analytics (Evan Turner, the Tolliver/Hezonja/Bazemore etc. team) and I knew those were bad moves. Of course I realize the BBall analytics tell only part of the story and are flawed. Mainly because while box scores are stable and low variance, they mostly only tell the offensive story, and plus/minus regressions while they capture pretty much the whole story are too high variance and suffer from correlation problems like above where 90% of Nurk's minutes are with Dame so the regression has trouble telling who get's what share of the plus/minus pie. And Nurks 10% without Dame is too small a sample to reliably separate them.

As far a 3-pointers, I believe it took decades mainly because of what you said - it was viewed as "a suckers bet". I remember watching games and when a player took almost any 3-pointer early in the shot clock he "settled for the 3”. Sure the 3-point offenses have improved and more players can shoot the 3 now, but it was always are great shot.

I agree with your point though that it can be taken two far. You can use analytics to divide shots into, at the rim, mid-range, and 3-pointers and sure enough mid-range sucks. Not by a little bit. By a lot. But that's on average. If you become Morey-obsessed with the idea you will try to shoot only 3's and layups without regard to if it's an open shot. An open 2-pointer might be like a free-throw for some players.

I think the new foul rules are pushing 3-pointers down a bit in terms of relative efficiency, since drives are less productive, getting fouled less, which allows defenses to focus a bit more on the perimeter. So that's probably a good thing. A bit more balance restored.

And yes, I do think those elite centers of the past could still easily flourish in today's NBA.

 

[wizenheimer]

without Nurkic, the Blazers would likely be 30th in the NBA in defense again. Now, they are only 26th right now so that doesn't seem like much of an endorsement, but it means the Blazers would have a negative net differential without Nurk, and that would have them headed for the play-in, at best, or the lottery

but more than the overt defensive numbers is that Nurkic is central to Portland being a really good rebounding team. Nurkic is 2nd in the NBA in defensive rebounding rate. He's led Portland to the #1 ranking in the NBA in defensive rebounding rate. I'm pretty sure that doesn't show up directly in team defensive stats, but it pretty damn important to minimize opponent possessions and keeping them from converting 2nd chance points; that's good defense

Nurkic is 2nd in defensive rebounding, 10th in offensive rebounding, and 3rd in overall rebounding rate. Personally I think that's as important, if not more-so, than defense. So yeah, the people constantly hammering Nurk for one reason or another need to soak their heads in something cold

***********************************************

Nurk's disappointment with his offensive role in understandable. His FGA's have dropped more than 4 a game from his Nurk-fever days under Stotts. And his touches have dropped by 11-12 a game. When your touches drop 20% and your shots drop 36% you're likely not going to be a happy camper.

the problem is the addition of Powell and the 'emergence' of Simons. I've mentioned it before but those two guys added to the Dame/CJ dynamic means the 4 of them take around 67% of the shots and usage. And the three guys not named Dame are not real good at passing the ball. That issue has been worsened from Nukic's POV by the Blazers playing Dame off the ball more. If Dame doesn't have the ball, Nurkic's involvement will be less. A simple solution, at least a partial solution is to NOT play Dame off the ball when Nurkic is on the floor. Have Dame bring the ball up an initiate the offense. He'll make a point of finding Nurkic. The other three ball-handlers need to do a better job as well

 

[handiman]

Van Gundy is probably too old school to be flattered by pretty garbage time buckets. Coaches don’t think in terms of the flash and care more about the substance.

Or he's caught onto the fact that Brown has one, and only one, overly rehearsed highlight dunk, and isn't impressed until Brown tries something new.

I'd wonder, since almost all basketball development starts early in high school, and in a lot of cases much earlier...I wonder if it's simply taken that long for all the levels below the NBA to develop three-ball offense. It wasn't going to happen overnight and I know for sure, having played in high school and citi-league, that most of those lower level coaches didn't believe in the three-point shot. They thought it was a sucker's bet

that would have been prevailing sentiment until those 'established' coaches started consistently losing games to coaches who embraced the three-point shot

I'm not just alluding to shot mechanics or offensive schemes. It would have to be coaches encouraging the shot...allowing their player to take those shots without guilt as long as if fit the flow of the offense

I can actually see that taking a couple of decades to matriculate to the NBA. Of course, I could just be seeing stripes on a lion because I want to

I tell you what though...in the NBA right now there needs to be a little more guilt about chucking up three's. It's a tsunami of crazy shot selection

The NBA 3-ball game only took a couple years to trickle down to the high school level, and many HS coaches endorse it while privately hating it. (Much like Poppovich.) It's pretty horrific when 10% shooters think they're the next Dame or Steph, but a case can be made that that's still their higher efficiency shot. But, by now, we're seeing the elite talent and teams being groomed in that system, rather than just emulating it, so I'd expect a Trae Young type, i.e. another once in a generation deep shooter, to come up every year or two.

 

[bobf]

without Nurkic, the Blazers would likely be 30th in the NBA in defense again. Now, they are only 26th right now so that doesn't seem like much of an endorsement, but it means the Blazers would have a negative net differential without Nurk, and that would have them headed for the play-in, at best, or the lottery

but more than the overt defensive numbers is that Nurkic is central to Portland being a really good rebounding team. Nurkic is 2nd in the NBA in defensive rebounding rate. He's led Portland to the #1 ranking in the NBA in defensive rebounding rate. I'm pretty sure that doesn't show up directly in team defensive stats, but it pretty damn important to minimize opponent possessions and keeping them from converting 2nd chance points; that's good defense

Nurkic is 2nd in defensive rebounding, 10th in offensive rebounding, and 3rd in overall rebounding rate. Personally I think that's as important, if not more-so, than defense. So yeah, the people constantly hammering Nurk for one reason or another need to soak their heads in something cold

***********************************************

Nurk's disappointment with his offensive role in understandable. His FGA's have dropped more than 4 a game from his Nurk-fever days under Stotts. And his touches have dropped by 11-12 a game. When your touches drop 20% and your shots drop 36% you're likely not going to be a happy camper.

the problem is the addition of Powell and the 'emergence' of Simons. I've mentioned it before but those two guys added to the Dame/CJ dynamic means the 4 of them take around 67% of the shots and usage. And the three guys not named Dame are not real good at passing the ball. That issue has been worsened from Nukic's POV by the Blazers playing Dame off the ball more. If Dame doesn't have the ball, Nurkic's involvement will be less. A simple solution, at least a partial solution is to NOT play Dame off the ball when Nurkic is on the floor. Have Dame bring the ball up an initiate the offense. He'll make a point of finding Nurkic. The other three ball-handlers need to do a better job as well

To me our defense looks significantly better this year, at least potentially so, but we haven’t ironed out all the kinks yet. Dame’s horrific start on offense also had to negatively impact our defense as the two are linked both psychologically and physically. I expect we won’t be anywhere near 26th by season end.

 

[Pinwheel1]

without Nurkic, the Blazers would likely be 30th in the NBA in defense again. Now, they are only 26th right now so that doesn't seem like much of an endorsement, but it means the Blazers would have a negative net differential without Nurk, and that would have them headed for the play-in, at best, or the lottery

but more than the overt defensive numbers is that Nurkic is central to Portland being a really good rebounding team. Nurkic is 2nd in the NBA in defensive rebounding rate. He's led Portland to the #1 ranking in the NBA in defensive rebounding rate. I'm pretty sure that doesn't show up directly in team defensive stats, but it pretty damn important to minimize opponent possessions and keeping them from converting 2nd chance points; that's good defense

Nurkic is 2nd in defensive rebounding, 10th in offensive rebounding, and 3rd in overall rebounding rate. Personally I think that's as important, if not more-so, than defense. So yeah, the people constantly hammering Nurk for one reason or another need to soak their heads in something cold

***********************************************

Nurk's disappointment with his offensive role in understandable. His FGA's have dropped more than 4 a game from his Nurk-fever days under Stotts. And his touches have dropped by 11-12 a game. When your touches drop 20% and your shots drop 36% you're likely not going to be a happy camper.

the problem is the addition of Powell and the 'emergence' of Simons. I've mentioned it before but those two guys added to the Dame/CJ dynamic means the 4 of them take around 67% of the shots and usage. And the three guys not named Dame are not real good at passing the ball. That issue has been worsened from Nukic's POV by the Blazers playing Dame off the ball more. If Dame doesn't have the ball, Nurkic's involvement will be less. A simple solution, at least a partial solution is to NOT play Dame off the ball when Nurkic is on the floor. Have Dame bring the ball up an initiate the offense. He'll make a point of finding Nurkic. The other three ball-handlers need to do a better job as well

Or we could run like we did last night and reduce his touches even more. He was still a +18 last night so I am fine with his 6-10 shots per game. He is still valuable.

On another note...... CJ with a + 28 last night....got to love that, right Wiz?

 

[Tince]

bobf is our resident stat guru....he's got algorithms for every hunch

I hate him though when he proves me wrong

Hahaha... I think it's awesome. He also posts data that doesn't support his original stance, which is the ultimate sign of maturity and open-mindedness. Very cool!

 

[wizenheimer]

Or we could run like we did last night and reduce his touches even more. He was still a +18 last night so I am fine with his 6-10 shots per game. He is still valuable.

On another note...... CJ with a + 28 last night....got to love that, right Wiz?

I gave CJ props last night in the game thread (twice) because for the most part, he was CJ instead of MeJ. He did go MeJ in the 3rd Q and that stalled the offensive flow. But he was good in the other 3 Q's

and by the way, I think individual game +/- numbers might be the single most useless stat around

 

[wizenheimer]

Hahaha... I think it's awesome. He also posts data that doesn't support his original stance, which is the ultimate sign of maturity and open-mindedness. Very cool!

ha!...as if maturity and open-mindeness have any business showing up here

 

[Pinwheel1]

I gave CJ props last night in the game thread (twice) because for the most part, he was CJ instead of MeJ. He did go MeJ in the 3rd Q and that stalled the offensive flow. But he was good in the other 3 Q's

and by the way, I think individual game +/- numbers might be the single more useless stat around

He did go MeJ in the 3rd. But it really was just the one possession where he over-dribbled that was stupid.

I also thought his defense was noticeably "solid" last night. Chauncey is making a difference. However much like the Blazers on offense, when the other team has good ball movement there always seems to be a shooter in the corner left wide open.

 

[wizenheimer]

He did go MeJ in the 3rd. But it really was just the one possession where he over-dribbled that was stupid.

I also thought his defense was noticeably "solid" last night. Chauncey is making a difference. However much like the Blazers on offense, when the other team has good ball movement there always seems to be a shooter in the corner left wide open.

I'm not sure how you'd gauge it thru stats but I really wonder if Portland's biggest issue in defending three's is their lack of perimeter length. I really believe rotating to shooters with length will be more effective than with smaller, supposedly quicker players

 

[1 Eye Jack]

It's what I'm thinking. They could use a real solid backup that can give the same 10 mins that Zeller is giving but contribute at least a little bit. Cody Zeller just isn't giving much at all.
Did someone pick up Boogie yet? This is the kind of player I'm thinking of?

Guess I’m in minority I like Zeller. Smart player who hustles and does all the little things that wins you games. I’m fine with him as backup. We jump on and off so much with players drives me crazy. He’s a backup guy who you can count on to make all the right plays, he’s not a starter and really 8-9th man off bench. Perfect come playoff time