Watching Batum try to get his shot off in the ways Rudy Gay has the ability to do would be a little comical. Batum only takes the highest % of shots, thus resulting in good shooting %'s (although Gay's FG% is still better than Nic's.) Not really close, bro MAYBE in the future, but that's looking less likely with each passing game.
Style points are cute, but don't really matter in real life. Keep throwing shit at the wall though, its funny
SMH.... Some people just don't get it. Those people think Love is better than Aldridge because of numbers, while clearly not seeing the talent disparity between the two This is just like that SMH....
Talent disparity? Both are among the best PF's in the league. One rebounds like his life depends on it, the other has a slightly better offensive repertoire. Not by much though. I'd say they're even considering how many times Love gets to the line. He's mastered the lost art of drawing a foul. One's been to 2 AS games, the other has been to 1. Both play in a small market. Quite the disparity.
Blah, blah, blah... Typical strawman argument. Why the fuck did you quote my post and then go off on some unrelated tangent about pace? I didn't mention the word pace once in my entire post. I was referring specifically to his rigid substitution patterns and refusal to exploit mismatches. BNM
Have you watched a single Blazers game this season? Seriously, how could anyone be so clueless, unless it's just some bizarre act to get attention. The team is 1-9 in close games for one very simple reason - Nate McMillan has not yet realized Jamaal Crawford is NOT Brandon Roy. The Roy ISO only worked when we had a healthy Brandon Roy. Roy is long gone, but we STILL get the same tired, easily defended, unimaginative 4th quarter ISO based offense with sadly predictable results; loss after loss, after loss. Tell us again how Nate has adjusted his coaching to fit this team. When the game is on the line, Nate reverts back to what used to work, and even though it's obviously not working, he's failed and failed miserably to even try anything new. 1-9 in close games. That's just flat out pathetic. I've NEVER seen any team so bad at executing with the game on the line. Yeah, Felton, Matthews and Crawford suck. That's obvious. So, why the fuck does the coach have them taking all the shots with the game on the line? Are we going to have to wait for them to be 1-19 in close games before he even attempts to make an adjustment? And now he's preaching about needing consistency. I've got news for you Nate, this team is as consistent as all fuck. Losing 90% of your close games is about as consistent as you can get. With the game on the line they suck more consistently than any team in the league. If it's consistency you want, congratulations, that's exactly what you're getting and will continue to get until you TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. You're 1-9 in close games. Don't you think it's time to mix things up a little? BNM
They fail in crunch time, but to me, it looks like they are actually trying to run some kind of play and failing. They are not running the designed ISO like they did for Roy. The Roy ISO was plain as day. Roy would hold the ball outside the 3pt line, the team would spread out, he'd wait till 6 seconds then make his move for the last shot. We're not doing that with Crawford, but rather, Crawford at times has had to force up some despearte crap because the play didn't work.
So it's an accident that a Nate team, which is typically last in the NBA at pace (89-90is), is suddenly Top 10 at 95.5? You posted that Nate would not change his style of coaching to fit players. Clearly he's done so this year. Just two weeks ago, I posted a quote by Marcus Camby where he said Nate is still beseeching them to run, but that none of them have the legs to do it, and also aren't rebounding consistently enough. Am I supposed to believe Nate hasn't changed a thing just because you posted it? Or, can I look at the available data, and see that clearly the offense has changed to try and utilize the players he has now. It's not Nate's fault that the team can't finish a fast break, is it?
Not sure if you've noticed, but Crawford is typically playing point now at the end of games, and Felton is an afterthought. Also, you mentioned Nate not adjusting, and clearly he has adjusted his offense to allow for a faster "pace". If your claim is that he's still running ISO-ball, well, that's simply not the case. In other words, it seems like you just made a bunch of things up based on your own biases, typed in ALL CAPS!! once in a while for emphasis, and then thought you could dismiss any challenges to your post by saying things like "do you even watch the games??". Argue with the stats, or continue to call them strawmen. Either way, I'm comfortable in what the stats show, which is that Nate has changed his coaching philosophy. Throw in comments by the players, and I'm wondering why your opinion should be taken seriously at all.
More stats Portland is 15th in fast break points/game this year. The only thing keeping this number from being higher is that the Blazers are 26th in FB efficiency, and it's not Nate's fault that the team blows so many lay-ups, is it? http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game Portland was 29th last year, 29th in 2009-10, and 29th in 2008-09. Seriously though, Nate hasn't changed his approach at all, other than playing at a faster pace, allowing more fast break opportunities, and making a PF the primary offensive player instead of a SG.
More stats Portland 6th in NBA in scoring. 24th in 2011, 21st in 2010, 16th in 2009. Portland 4th in NBA in scoring margin (#1 in Western Conference) - 12th in 2011, 12th in 2010, 5th in 2009. Portland 16th in NBA in points in the paint. 19th in 2011, 30th in 2010, 18th in 2009. Nate hasn't changed a thing, though.
Yawn... All those numbers, yet you have steadfastly refuse to address the ONLY stat that matters. The Blazers are 1-9 in close games and haven't won a close game since opening night. I already explained why Nate's refusal to change his 4th quarter offense to match his new personel has lead to this abysmal "stat". Margin of victory doesn't mean shit when one 44-point blowout home win over Charlotte trumps nine straight losses in close games. So, please tell us how Mr. Flexible has adapted his coaching style in anyway that will reverse this pathetic trend. For christ's sake, after NINE STRAIGHT HOME LOSSES isn't it painfully obvious that Nate's 4th quarter offense isn't working as well as it should be? That running an ISO based offense with the game on the line just doesnt' work when you don't have a player that excels in that situation? And if it isn't working (and it isn't), why has he refused to change it? BNM
I consider the 1-9 stretch a statistical anomaly. Looking back on past seasons, here are Nate's teams in games 5-points or closer. 2011-12 - .100 (30th in NBA) 2010-11 - .586 (8th in NBA) 2009-10- .542 (14th in NBA) 2008-09 - .600 (7th in NBA) 2007-08 - .700 (1st in NBA) He's been top half in the NBA, and with a winning record, for the previous 4 years. 3 of those 4 years saw the Blazers in the Top 8 in the "close game" category. One of those years saw the Blazers lead the league in "close game" winning. It's an anomaly. If you're the type willing to fire a coach, based on the "ONLY stat that matters", when it historically hasn't been a problem, I'd say that say more about your own use of statistics than it says anything of mine. Also, NINE STRAIGHT HOME LOSS? I assume you meant "close loss". This trend will self-correct, IMO. In the meantime, the past 4 seasons, with multiple injury problems and player rotations, Nate has proven he can win close games. http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/win-pct-close-games?date=2008-06-18 I offer that Nate's coaching in close games, with all of the injuries, has been remarkable and borderline elite. Would you dump LMA if he had a rough stretch?
Are you really this blunt? Who do you see missing from the rosters those years that is gone this year?
Outlaw/Roy/Miller, primarily. Nate won close games with all three of them, and won close games missing two of them many times. The past shows Nate wins close games, and he largely does it without superstar players. Calling me "blunt" when I'm just pointing out stats that directly counter what I view an uninformed opinion is about par for this board, though. Question ... if your coach has consistently proven he can win close games, and has done so with one All-Star over time, and also without that player, is it the coach's fault that the team is losing close games now? Seems like a rather stupid opinion to me, and it flies in the face of available data.
How many practices has Nate had this year? Not sure how one implements a new offense with almost no practice . . . but with no GM and heads needing to roll, Nate is an easy target. BTW-I like Dallas' offense with the game on the line. Give to Dirk and clear out. If I am a Dallas fan I would be so pissed if mavs lose that game to the Blazers. So after that game your going to have chants to either fire Nate or fire Rick. But that is why NBA coaches get the big bucks and we get nothing playing armchair coach . . . they can't fire us and the whoever the next coach is, also sucks.
The stats I posted about 'close games' and Nate were a surprise to me. With all of the hand-wringing about ISO-ball, and how you can't win down the stretch with it, one would think that the Nate Haters would applaud a more diversified approach to closing games, even if it means a 1-9 record. Of course, the cynic in me says that some people just need to consistently bitch about the coach, and will find any reason to do it, even if the statistics show it to be a ridiculous opinion. I pointed out Dirk's ISOs at the end of games in another thread, or perhaps even earlier in this one. I forget, because nobody had much to say about it in a negative manner.
Are we allowed to throw out the 25-point loss to PHX, then? Let me know on what stats/games we can and can't use on this board. I'd hate to use any more that blow up your opinions.
Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could. The Roy ISO offense worked when we had Roy. Now we don't; and surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. This was EXACTLY my point. Nate has not changed his 4th quarter offense to match his current personnel. He merely plugged Jamaal Crawford in place of Brandon Roy and seems to expect the same results. Jamaal Crawford is NOT Brandon Roy, and the stats you posted prove it. 1-9 is NOT a statiistical anomaly. It's a fact and a significant sample size and nine close loses in a row is a significant trend. Either Nate needs to change, or he needs to go. 1-9 in close games is simply not acceptable under any conditions. BNM
