Required reading -- Dave from Blazersedge: Figuring it Out

Discussion in 'Portland Trail Blazers' started by Nikolokolus, Nov 30, 2009.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 1 of 2
  1. Nikolokolus

    Nikolokolus There's always next year

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    30,704
    Likes Received:
    6,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I woke up, made my coffee and sat down to do a little light reading and instead got my mind blown -- well not really, but it's the best prescription I've seen yet for what ails the Blazers.

    http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/11/30/1178742/figuring-it-out

    A-freaking-men.

    And there's the crux and the primary reason I've thought it was high time KP start trading some of this young talent for older well established roleplayers whose main calling cards are defense and playing efficient, compact, unobtrusive offense and filling holes as needed.

    And this is the part that really summed it up best for me, too many chiefs, not enough indians on the roster and it's well past time for Nate to restore order by hushing the roleplayers who seem to think they are entitled to something more than filling a role on this team.

    I hope KP and Nate are listening.
     
    Nikolokolus, Nov 30, 2009
    #1
  2. Mediocre Man

    Mediocre Man Mr. SportsTwo

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    Messages:
    44,783
    Likes Received:
    27,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is it that I get mocked so much when I have been saying all those things for 2 years, but Ben is required reading? :lol:
     
    Mediocre Man, Nov 30, 2009
    #2
  3. Nikolokolus

    Nikolokolus There's always next year

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    30,704
    Likes Received:
    6,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that was Dave, and I think you get mocked because you bulldog the "Nate is an Assclown" meme (not that I totally disagree). Oh wait, I suppose that was a rhetorical question?
     
    Nikolokolus, Nov 30, 2009
    #3
  4. VenomXL

    VenomXL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    9,847
    Likes Received:
    3,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    It was Dave that wrote the piece, not Ben.

    Edit: Doh, beaten to the punch.
     
    VenomXL, Nov 30, 2009
    #4
  5. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    What happened to that short burst where Miller was given the reins?

    Simpler solution: go back to the three-guard lineup. Nobody has pointed it out, but all of our disastrous losses have come with Webster in the starting lineup. And it's not like Roy's performance has been improved since he was moved to his preferred spot. If anything, it's gotten worse. (And his worst performance of the three-guard-lineup period was against Monta Ellis, a SMALL SHOOTING GUARD, not some bulky SF.)
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #5
  6. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    This misses out the glaringly obvious: Brandon Roy has to speed the fuck up. I don't share the common belief that Nate is just blowing hot air when he's been saying that he wants the team to run. I think he really does. Now, it's true he also wants to be too controlling. But he has tried to change that, and I think trying the 3 guard lineup was part of that. And I happen to think it worked fine, AND allowed Miller to start (good for Greg) AND kept his most trusted TA (to continue the education analogy used in the post) to stay on the floor. But Roy just REFUSES TO RUN. He asks for the ball and then walks...it...slowly...up...the...floor. It drives me completely insane.
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #6
  7. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hold on a second....we're pinning the last couple of losses on WEBSTER?

    In 5 games since starting again:
    14 ppg
    6 rpg
    50% fg
    49% 3pt
    40% FT :(
    .8 blk
    5 PFs...total.

    On the year, his PER is 14 and his PER against is 10.

    Yeah, let's blame Webster.
     
    BrianFromWA, Nov 30, 2009
    #7
  8. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Instead of inventing radical lineup ideas, can we not just at least attempt to start Miller, Roy, Webster, LMA and Oden a couple of times? You know, the best at each position?

    But as I've stated a couple of times, a lot of heartache could probably be solved by going really radical with the lineup. But that won't happen.

    Start Miller, Rudy, Webster, LMA, and Oden. Run the snot out of the other team. Then let Blanky and Roy come in and do their damage against backups. Everyone's happy, except people who want Roy to start.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2009
    BrianFromWA, Nov 30, 2009
    #8
  9. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    Not we, me. Since I take it you're not joining me.

    Okay!
    I blame him because of his effect on the team. You can have super-duper stats and still make the team suck. (Of course, my argument is on pretty shaky ground because Webster also has a very good +/-, but I won't let that stop me.) Webster is not a good basketball player. He tries hard, he gets some nice blocks and steals and throws himself on the floor, and he can get on a tear from three. But he's a ball-stopper (or at least long-pauser) and if he EVER tries to create, it's disastrous. His mere presence on the floor dumbs down the entire team. His sole positive is to stretch the D, but Rudy could achieve that, and is a better player. Webster is making me miss Outlaw (who made me miss Batum).
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #9
  10. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    Too radical!

    You know what? I actually agree (because Webster is a lot more use in a running game, where thinking is less required and his athleticism is a real asset). But if Roy's nose is out of joint now...

    But hey, if McMillan really thought his job was in jeopardy, he should try it. At the very least, it would be sending a message to Roy that he needs to speed the fuck up.
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #10
  11. hasoos

    hasoos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,418
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Exactly. I went through the starting lineups for pre season and regular season, and only twice in pre season did Miller and Roy start together as the starting back court with a legit SF at the 3. The Blazers lost one and won one. They have never tried it in the regular season. The only lineup they have tried, included Blake at the 2. What exactly is the problem with removing Blake from the starting lineup? WTF?
     
    hasoos, Nov 30, 2009
    #11
  12. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, I'm not so much with you on this.

    You admit he has "super-duper" stats. You admit he has a good +/-. (Both of these are small sample sizes, though, so I'm not necessarily hanging my hat on them). But you say that he's "not a good player" b/c:
    "His mere presence on the floor dumbs down the entire team", yet "Webster is making me miss Outlaw"? I showed you how he's holding opposing SFs to a PER of 10, and you say his "sole positive is to stretch the D"?

    Last two bad losses +/-:
    UTH:Roy -22, LMA -23, Blake -22....Webster -5, Oden -2.
    MEM: Roy -10, LMA -2, Blake 0....Webster +3, Oden -1

    Perhaps he does "dumb down the entire team" by his mere presence. I don't think so, but since it's subjective I won't attempt to refute that. I'd respectfully suggest, then, that we start the best PG we have to attempt to overcome that.
     
    BrianFromWA, Nov 30, 2009
    #12
  13. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    Actually, I don't. What I said about super-duper stats was general and not about him.

    Funny that you should say that...

    First hat-hang.

    Second hat-hang.

    Re: Per. You didn't show any such thing. The best you can say is that opposing SFs have had a PER of whatever when Webster's in the game. (Or in games in which he's played, depending on how accurately they track.) There is no way in hell they're tracking the PER of opposing SFs only when Webster is guarding them. And even if they were, that wouldn't mean that "he is holding them" to that, because defense is a team game, and Nate's defense in particular involves a fuck of a lot of switching.

    Re: +/-. I'm a big fan, I really am. But even its biggest fans say you can't read anything into it unless you have over a season of data. I'm more bullish than that, but single game stats? Please.

    Best is a relative measure. Miller is better at some things (passing, posting up) than Blake. He's a worse shooter and, at this stage, a worse overall defender than Blake. Miller would suit Webster in a lineup without Roy. So that's why I like your Miller/Rudy/Webster small-man combo. But Miller/Roy/Webster, not until Roy stops sulking and starts playing a bit more like Rip Hamilton and a little less like Kobe-lite.
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #13
  14. Natebishop3

    Natebishop3 Don't tread on me!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2008
    Messages:
    94,071
    Likes Received:
    57,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Better solution: Bench Blake, Start Miller :)
     
    Natebishop3, Nov 30, 2009
    #14
  15. BLAZER PROPHET

    BLAZER PROPHET Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    18,725
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Occupation:
    dental malpractice claims adjuster
    Location:
    Portland area
    Because with you we have to always consider the source. :ghoti:
     
    BLAZER PROPHET, Nov 30, 2009
    #15
  16. GrandpaBlaze

    GrandpaBlaze Predictions Game Master

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    8,086
    Likes Received:
    9,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    I'd be fine with that - as long as the three guards are Miller, Bayless and Roy. At least it would be something different to try.

    Of course, then you have the problem of Roy wanting to slow down the first team and Blake slowing down the second team - but then again, isn't that what Nate really wants? He can say "Run, run, run" all he wants but his coaching behavior says "Walk, walk, walk".

    Gramps...
     
    GrandpaBlaze, Nov 30, 2009
    #16
  17. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    Not enough three-power. Miller, RUDY and Roy.

    How would you know whether it's what HE wants or THEY want. He can't not play Roy. You assume that because he plays Blake, he's in favor of Blake slowing down play. But is that Blake or the fact that Blake is played with Roy? Did Blake slow down the Nuggets? I don't think so.

    I say:

    Starting lineup: Miller, Bayless, Rudy, Cunningham, Oden
    Play until Oden gets three fouls, then sub in:
    Blake, Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Przybilla

    Roy and Aldridge get ALL the shots, except a few kickouts to Blakey/Webster-y.

    Who's with me!!??
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #17
  18. jlprk

    jlprk The ESPN mod is insane.

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    30,672
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    retired, while you work!
    You need +/- per minute. Here it is for the season to date.

    0.452 D. Cunningham
    0.206 A. Miller
    0.173 S. Blake
    0.168 T. Outlaw
    0.162 M. Webster
    0.156 G. Oden
    0.113 L. Aldridge
    0.107 B. Roy
    0.087 J. Przybilla
    0.033 R. Fernandez
    -0.063 J. Bayless
    -0.234 J. Howard
     
    jlprk, Nov 30, 2009
    #18
  19. BrianFromWA

    BrianFromWA Editor in Chief Staff Member Editor in Chief

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Messages:
    26,096
    Likes Received:
    9,073
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "hat-hang comment" was based on the 5-game sample size of Webster starting recently. His PERagainst, which shows the efficiency of the defense he's been playing, is over the entire 19-game schedule so far. You said that "his sole positive is to stretch the D", and I used 19 games of data to (attempt to) show you that his D has been pretty darn positive as well.

    I did a play-by-play of Webster defending Carmelo Anthony that showed what Webster specifically held him to, play-by-play, second-by-second, and then compared it to Outlaw, Roy and Miller. If I can do it, how is there "no way in hell" that others can't?
    It was a flip reaction to your contention that Webster dumbed the whole team down. I don't like +/- for myriad reasons. But since you said you do, I showed how they "proved" that Webster and Oden played their ass off the last two games, while Blake, Roy and LMA, uh, didn't.

    I'll grant you that, even if I don't see it, you have an argument for Blake's D being better. I grant you that Blake's generally a better pure shooter than Miller. But if neither's shot is falling (as is the case right about now), there's a better use of those 60 mpg than presently utilized. And if Blake's shot isn't falling, he isn't doing much of anything better than Miller.
     
    BrianFromWA, Nov 30, 2009
    #19
  20. Rastapopoulos

    Rastapopoulos Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    41,908
    Likes Received:
    26,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballin'
    Because they've got lives?

    But, aside from the fact your little piece of evidence is a shockingly small sample size (by which standard Monta Ellis "locked up" Brandon Roy), are you taking into account whether or not Anthony has one eye on Oden or Przybilla waiting in the paint?

    Only if you assume (a) Blake won't break out of his slump ever, and (b) the opposing team will plan defenses around a non-shooting Blake.

    As soon as he zips his pants up, Nate will disagree with you.

    (Ooh, that was cheap. I almost feel dirty.)
     
    Rastapopoulos, Nov 30, 2009
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page