So I seem to keep hearing the same questions being asked repeatedly about our current situation, one of which I wanted to clear up. To do this, I need a poll. So, would you be willing to blow it up the rest of the way and trade our All-star for multiple picks? Mind you, they probably wouldn't be great picks, mid to late lottery most likely. Don't expect Davis plus other youth, I'm not even sure the Bobcats would even trade Davis for LMA straight up. What we get is a moot point anyway, would you even be willing to consider it?

This may seem like a silly question, but after thinking about it I realized that it is much closer than expected. Both players have been playing very well in very small sample sizes, though Hickson has proven more from his Cleveland days, Lebron or no.

J.J. Hickson has been doing exceptionally well recently, especially when filling for Aldridge. After all, he out Griffin'd Blake in the Clippers game en route to 29 points on 13-19 shooting as well as 13 rebounds. He has definitely stepped up when needed most. He brings energy and toughness that helps make up for the hole that Wallace left when traded. It can't be ignored that he is in a contract year however. We still are not sure what happened during his stint with the Kings when his play dive-bombed. Personally, I am slightly worried that he let's his emotions affect his game ,ala Felton, to the point that his play may be somewhat unstable.

Luke Babbitt has vastly improved his play recently. He has certainly improved statistically, but the biggest difference is his confidence on the court. His shot is finally falling, he's showing toughness on the defensive end in the post and with rebounding. He is capable of creating a mismatch at both the 3 and the 4, either in the post or on the perimeter. It may be important to note that his future play on defense and hustle may depend on his shot going down. Hickson has a decent mid-range, but Babbitt would fit better next to either Aldridge or an offensively challenged Center. An interesting number per Hoopsdata, Babbitt has actually has a better DRR% of 27.4 to Hickson's 19.7. While what he's shown is under an extremely small sample size, his shooting and confidence cannot be denied.

Another important number would be Hickson's (Por) PER of 24.5 compared to Babbitt's 10. Then again, Hickson's Sac PER was 10 as well. Defensively, neither particularly stand out. Hickson has the athleticism to be provide weakside blocks, but still only .5 bpg compared to Babbitt's .1.

Obviously with such a small sample size, stats are likely heavily skewed so this will certainly be a very subjective argument. Not to mention that we are essentially comparing Hickson's now vs. Babbitts "potential". But, I thought this would be interesting considering it seems much closer than one would expect. What do you guys think?

FYI, I only have 2 options for the poll because this is not a debate who the back-up 4 should be out of all available, but rather which of the two you prefer.

Hey guys, I've been taking a statistics class recently and just got into variability and standard deviation. I'm not going to get deep into it, but basically variability is how much a data set can vary. Say, a player is averaging 15 points per game. However, his scores vary wildly from well over twenty to single digits. This would show high variability, or "spurtability". A player who ranged closer from 13-17 on average, would show low variability. Are there any NBA statistics out there to show streakiness or even, egads, "Spurtability"?

Obviously this wouldn't be an end all stat like PER, but it would be a good indicator for how consistent a player is. This would probably be done best with Standard deviation, which isn't the easiest statistic but can't be much worse than PER. You might even be able to combine this with the variability of minutes so that players with inconsistent minutes won't be penalized.

What do you guys think?

Great praise for Aldridge here, mostly because so little was said about him. For three spots for the F/C All NBA third team, out of Garnett, Horford, Bosh, Randolph, Love, Griffin, Duncan, Carmelo, Jefferson, Boozer, Noah, Scola, Millsap, and Iguodala, only LMA didn't need an argument for or against him.

 Also interesting that Dirk makes first team over Durant, of course he also said he wants to stick to the pg, sg, sf, pf, c rather than the typical NBA G, F, C. So, I think Durant will still likely take first team, but I wouldn't mind seeing Dirk get it.

With the emergence of Aldridge at the center position and the obvious fact that we are not competing for the championship this year, I thought this trade could be very beneficial for both teams.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=33vuqlt

No doubt Ibaka is a fan favorite, but with Green most likely being your long term PF (assuming contract issues are resolved), this trade would make the Thunder legit contenders. Not only is Camby a defensive threat and a rebounding machine, but would be a great mentor for both Green and Aldrich and a solid veteran presence for the rest of the team as well. He has said that he doesn't want to be traded, but wouldn't mind being traded to a contender.

Thoughts?

I've actually been pretty critical of Batum recently, not because of of his shooting or defense, but for his ability to take over a game. We've all seen the flashes of briliiance, but we've also seen him stand patiently in the corner for 20 min. a game. Mostly frustration came from reading up on his pre-NBA career. I never realised how much scouts loved his game, not only his defense, but his shooting (midrange mostly), his passing, penetration and even his post play. But just as much as they love his physical game, they harped on his lack of aggressiveness. Even on a team where he was obviously the best player, he would defer to lesser players and go stand in the corner. When he had the ball, he did very well as a point forward, but often passed when he should have finished himself.

Then I realised that we don't need him to be Durant with Turk's passing. With the help of Dave's excellent post on Roy, I realised that we don't need an MJ, we need a Pippen. His aggressiveness is still an issue, but that will come with time, but it makes him fit very well with Roy. He doesn't need the ball in his hands, but can be very effective whether on or off the ball. And "passing too much" isn't such a problem when he has 4 other great players around him that can all finish and/or shoot.

As I thought about this on my way to work, I thought of Bayless as well. The jury is still out on whether Bayless can become a "true" point guard, and yet it seems that everyone agrees that we dont need a true point guard to fit alongside Roy. The general consensus on the pg we need, is to be willing to defer to Roy, able to knock down the open 3, have good defense, not be completely inept at driving the lane, and be able to pass to the open man/kick out.

The pro Bayless Bedgers generally say that his ast% and TO% is both well improved in his second year. Also he was shooting 40% from 3 during the playoffs and shot 40% as well in college, indicating returning to the mean. Anti Bayless Bedgers point out the low 3 pt % during the regular season and that the playoffs were a small sample size. Not to mention his shot just looks flat and people tend to be skeptical of an ugly shooter keeping a high %. They also mention that while his passing has improved, non-existent to bad isn't a great improvement and just fails the eye test. When he comes in, the offense stagnates, end of story.

All of these are good points, but as for me, I tend to believe the eye test. You really have to factor in that he's been swapping roles the entire season though. Given time and experience at the one, as well as a year or two under Miller, I think he will be more then capable manning the starting spot. His 3 pt shooting may never reach 40%, but we don't really need it to. 35% would be enough to keep his man from clogging the lane, and it' should be easily attainable for Bayless. His defense will come in time as well, he has the fire and physical tools to be very good. Only his short arms are a problem, but in my opinion,  staying in front of your man is more important than steals. He might have a little difficulty early on his first year starting, but Roy is the main playmaker, everything we get out of Bayless is a bonus, just like Batum.

I managed to get all this way without even mentioning his ability to get to the rim/line at will. If Batum is the calm presence on one side of Roy, Bayless is the fire and intensity on the other. His ability to get fired up a roar for even mediocre finishes is huge in the intangibles department in my eyes. And even if he doesn't get his team mates going from that, you know the rose garden will. I hope with time, the team will learn to feed on silencing a road crowd as much as lighting up a home crowd.

I feel that Roy, Oden and Aldridge are pretty cemented in the Blazers future, so I'll move on to the bench.

Has anyone else noticed the subtle change our second unit has taken? Out with fiery scorers like Sergio, Outlaw and (likely soon) Rudy. Now we bring in solid role players like Wesley, Cunningham, Johnson and Camby. No longer are we building a whole second unit to attack the opposing team, much like the Suns. Now we have solid backups that may not win you a game themselves, but definately won't lose you the game either (like the L@kers for example). Now that we have proper roles in place, this roster can easily be cut down to an eight man rotation for the playoffs. Even with a full blown unit of Johnson/Williams/Wesley(Babbit)/Cunningham/Camby, Johnson can actually RUN a team (not a trait our backup 1's have had for a while) so this unit would still be acceptable.

Anyone noticing a theme? Put it ALL together and this team just isn't built to win 73 games in the regular season, it's built to win 16 games in the Playoffs. We've got tons of size, athletisism, a superstar wing, an amazing glue guy, not one but two post presences, and excellent role players all around. If that's not a team built to win in the playoffs, I don't know what is.

I have been researching psychology recently and ran into an article regarding hot and cold streaks in basketball. In the article in mentioned that Thomas Gilovich, Robert Vallone, and Amos Tversky interviewed the Philelphia 76ers in 1985 and found that players estimated they were about 25% more likely to make a shot after they made one than after a miss. In one survey, 9 of 10 basketball fans agreed that a player "has a better chance of making a shot after having just made his last two or three shots than he does after having just missed his last two or three shots." Believing in streaks, players will "feed the hot hand"  and the coach will bench the player who misses three in a row (Apparently Nate does not believe in streaks).

According to the article, it isn't true. When studying detailed individual shooting records of the Nets, Knicks, Celtics and Cornell University's men and women's team, all were equally likely to score after a miss as they were a make. A typical 50% shooter averages 50% after missing three as well as after making three consecutively. Larry Bird made 88% rom the line after making a free throw, and 91% after missing one. Obviously streaks do occur, but more than people typically expect in random sequences. In any series of 20 shots by a 50% shooter (or coin flips), there is a 50-50 chance of 4 baskets in a row occuring, and quite possible of a streak of 5 or 6.

This is where my fancy Blazersedge training comes in handy. Using critical thinking, I can surmise that a well respected psychologist that speaks of basketball purely in statistics and external observation most likely has little to no experience actually shooting the basketball. Now I am no professional player, I haven't played for even a minor community college, but I think my experience can show a different viewpoint.

Every basketball player (at least every competitive basketball player) has had one of those days where the hoop just looks like an ocean. I'm not even really a 3 pt shooter, prefering to slash and post, but even I have had days like those. I recall the occasional day that the ball just doesn't seem to want to touch the rim. Not only just spotting up from three, but dribbling to step back to the three, turn-around fade, fall-away fading sideways, step back to the NBA three, all hitting the bottom of the net. Only when fading from the NBA three did I lose my accuracy to the point of missing. 

It seems to me that our form is rarely exactly the same, but on certain days your muscle memory is spot on to the point where you automatically shooting much more accurately. This point is slightly mired by continuously shooting well while on the move.

NBA players are not necessarily the same, 3 pt specialists focus on keeping  their form so picture perfect that form becomes less of an issue. A "streaky" shooter may be more likely than some to get "hot" but also much more likely to get cold and stay cold. I remember reading about Andre Miller practicing his post shots almost mechanically, and would repeatedly score the same way (important for muscle memory). But when a net got stuck up and practice was paused for a moment to pull it down, he missed twice in a row before fine-tuning his shot again.

Due to the mechanical nature of an NBA player's shot, a 50% shooter might really be much more like flipping a coin than it seems from our personal experiences. Even floaters, layups, and fadeaways are so practiced and natural that only an altered shot could be considered abnormal. There is an exception to every rule however, and Martell Webster would be a good example. He has a picture perfect shot, but is very streaky regardless. This can be caused by a number of reasons. Possibly lack of confidence from coming off the bench, becoming cold while on the bench, not recieving the pass at precisely the optimum spot, or most likely, a combination of many factors.

So I ask the most scientific minds I know on the subject, are shooting streaks purely random sequences or is there truth in the fabled "Hot Hand"?

It seems pretty obvious to me that our management (or any for that matter) does not feel the need to tell the fans exactly whats going on at any time. It annoys me that whenever something happens that people aren't sure exactly whats going on, they assume it's something shady and we all know what happens when we assume right? (makes an ass of u & me) In fact, the more management said about the situation, the more people assumed they were lying. Anyway, I just wanted to throw out a possible scenario and see what you guys think.

Sometime before the draft (or possibly the trade deadline), Kevin Prichard and Paul Allen are discussing strategy. With our situation, PA rightly emphasizes the need for veteran players over young talent. KP looks at hims and says, "You know, you are absolutely right, our core is looking good, they just need time to mesh, and injuries permitting, they should excel. I've been thinking it over for a while and it seems that my job here is done, I think it's time for me to move on."

 The reason I believe KP would want to move on is that he is a draft specialist, he loves making something out of nothing and really turning a team around. Dave has repeatedly said that perhaps our most important sign of transition from a young talented team to an elite veteran team is boring drafts. Well now we got one and everyone is in uproar. I will continue.

PA nods at KP's words and says "I thought this day might come, we are very sorry to see you go, and would love to have you as long as we can, but we will wish you luck wherever you might go. KP replies "thank you, and I don't want to look like I'm abandoning the organisation, so I will finish out the draft and see if I can make something good happen." PA says, "that sounds great, we'll go through some organisations to look for your replacement, but we will do everything we can to keep it quiet.

Unfortunately that didn't work out, and once it was shown that PA was "going behind KP's back to look for a replacement" everyone assumed (there's that word again) that he was being fired underhandedly. Management continued to ignore the media about the topic, and when forced, merely stated that they had talked and reached an agreement to go separate ways. Naturally everyone assumed this was just a smoke screen.

Time moved on, and KP "leaked" that he knew about the organisation looking for a replacement GM. Really, he probably didn't believe that people actually thought that PA would fire him, especially without telling him and considered it kinda funny. Next came the Keep KP rally that was disrupted by a mysterious caller. I think it likely that this was in fact Pritchard, telling him he appreciated the sentiment, but it was unnecessary. Finally on draft night a security guard (of all people) overheard something (probably on the lines of, good luck with the draft, and I'm sorry you'll be leaving after tonight) and told everyone that "KP is being fired on the night of the draft!" So much for security, I guess he's never heard of OPSEC.

I believe it's fair to say that there absolutely no reason KP should be fired basketball wise, and after his classy speech (don't blame the organisation or Paul Allen he says) do you really think he would do anything personal that would get him fired?

I'm not really sure how Penn's firing would have to do with this, most likely for a separate reason. Possibly he already had the ESPN job lined up and wanted to go there. With Penn gone, KP was more likely to think about leaving as well.

It's very possible I overlooked something, but regardless of the reason, I believe it would be best if we all moved on and looked to the future. KP did a lot of great things for us, but we all know PA is always looking to get the best and I think he will steer us in the right direction.

GO BLAZERS

(sorry for the lack of a poll, but no updated browser, and this isn't my computer. I will try to add one later.)

To start off with, don't get me wrong, but as much as I love his game it's not likely he is going to be on this team longer then he is contractually obliged. I'd love for him to be a spark off the bench through many championship runs, but hard to imagine him staying in such a limited role for so long.

On that note, while watching the suns game and seeing their "los suns" uniforms I had to think, how perfect of a fit would he be on the suns? The suns are already basically my second favorite team, Rudy with Frye running with Nash would pretty much solidify that. Admittedly, their offense is already dangerous, but with the combined 3 pt shooting and passing of Nash/Fernandez, plus Amare and Frye, you simply cant guard that much of the court at once.

Of course, I can't think of a real trade that either team would be that interested in, maybe a sign and trade Amare/filler/picks for Rudy/LMA. I think that would work well for us, Amare is only 26, and playing like the best PF in the NBA right now. I don't see the Suns taking this though, looks like they are going to pay him the max. Only if they firmly wanted to let him go, they could get more from us then most teams. A three team trade would be most likely, try to get a defensive, 3 point shooting small forward like tayshawn prince or similar. Anyways just a thought, not like I want to be rid of the guy, but I think he would be much happier playing in Phoenix, just like Frye.

Speaking of which, anyone having Jermaine O'Neal pains with Frye? I'm just glad he found a role he fits and is excelling, just didn't fit our team. Not unlike Travis.

Jerryd Bayless, PG/SG, Trail Blazers (0.4 percent owned): His 29 points in 29 minutes Thursday night, including 16 in the fourth quarter, will undoubtedly garner Bayless attention, but he's been on my fantasy radar for weeks in turnover leagues, especially given the uncertainty surrounding Andre Miller's future with the team. Forget the 29 points, look at the combined 17-for-22 from the stripe in his past two contests, which is where he really provides value. Think DeRozan's free throw attempt/turnover ratio is impressive? In that 15-day span, Bayless is averaging four makes on 4.8 attempts per game, with just 0.8 turnovers, joining DeRozan as the only widely available guard who helps you in free throws with fewer than a turnover per game.

Slight difference from the 6 TO's a game during summer league earlier this year.

Nate is stubborn. This is one of the top four statements of BE, along with Blake/Outlaw sucks and Roy's selfishness (good one). But is Nate really stubborn? Maybe in some ways, but this is not the same team from last year.  I would say there is four main changes from last year, A healthy Oden (last year really doesn't count), Webster, Batum's injury, and last but not least, Andre Miller.

I don't include Travis Outlaw's injury because it is still recent. Hopefully Cunningham can step up, I'm hoping this will help us become less reliant on one man shows in the 4th. I'm still going to miss that instant offense at times.

Greg Oden has quickly made it clear that he is just as important as Roy is to this team already (some might even more so). A defensive big man seems like he should be plug and play, but Oden is dominating just being on the court. To take true advantage of this the blazers, Blake and Roy especially, have to do something they've never had to do. Post pass. This will take some time to get used to (LMA doesnt really count), they are already starting to get some aspects of it, but I will be happy if they are fully comfortable by post season.

Batum and Webster go hand in hand. Webster is about as much plug as play as you can get, he is an excellent role player. He's stepped it up on the defensive end and, while inconsistent at the moment (rust), he's ready to go lights out at the drop of a hat. The problem is, Batum was our glue guy last year, those fast break swats got the crowd going like nothing else did. He is not easily replaced.

Andre Miller is the biggest change here, you can not insert a point guard of that much difference and not expect things to get a little mixed up. Andre and Steve are different in about every way possible, and those are our quarterbacks. In fact lets try that route.

Imagine this is a football team that loves to play run heavy, give our star running back the ball and let him work. Sure our quarterback isn't great, but he he has no problem handing off the ball and can put daggers into the other team with the occasional play action pass deep. He may not be the accurate pocket passer threat, but he was instrumental to the win total of the team last year.

The fan base doesn't like his lack of ability to control the game from the pocket and in the off season the team picks up a tried and true, veteran quarterback. He is very accurate, but doesn't throw the deep ball well. The team has a great supporting cast in his receivers, but they are used to the deep ball, and have problems adjusting to close routes.

Opposing defenses key on this lack of deep game to sag inside and put more people in the box which gives our star running back far more difficulty, not to mention having far less touches. Suddenly our fan base is calling our running back selfish for not being as efficient running routes and going away from his strength. The coach seems to be trying to getting the new quarterback integrated with the team but starts the inferior quarterback because he works with the team better. For this of course he is called stubborn.

Interesting problem our football team is having. This can go on and on, but while there is no doubt there is more talent on the team, it doesn't seem to mesh as well. Is it hard to imagine that there are games early on that this team cant seem to put it together, even on certain teams it should have beaten? The bottom line is that this team is still learning a new system and needs time to put it all together. Whether Miller starts or comes off the bench, the team will put it together, but there will always be bumps in the road.

I may have gone a touch off topic, back to Nate. This is a lot of change to go with, but Nate is stubborn right? I distinctly remember him saying that he would in fact like to run if he was comfortable with the point guard running it. but too much change all at once isn't good. That brings us to Blake (remember that other quarterback?). He is our time machine, our glue guy. Nate hopes when he is on the court the team can return to playing without over thinking the new system. Andre may be out playing Blake, but Nate doesn't look at it in an individual perspective. The greatest sum of parts doesn't necessarily create the greatest whole. To put in in layman's terms, Nate is trying to keep change in a gradual pace. He doesn't want to just turn into a running team, he want a hybrid team. He wants a team that can both run and slow the pace down when needed. And of course always be able to defend.

Nate will never be a coach that lays it all out to the public. We need to read between the lines rather than just yell START (insert any player not currently starting) and call for Nate to be fired. Believe in Nate, Believe in Roy and Believe in their connection. This team will get it done.

The Blazers currently hold the league best 6 win streak, the last four in five days on the road. This is an accomplishment no matter which way you spin it. The concern is that every one of these teams were either just plain bad, old, tired, broken, or a combination of the four. Not only that, but most of these games were much closer then they should have been, especially in the first quarter. So the win streak must be a fluke right?

I've had much of the same worries until I read prof.mike's comment in Rope-a-dope: "They have only been doing enough to win. Monday let's see how much better they play with better competition." I remembered then that this team has an unfortunate tendency to play to the level of their competion.

I can hear the gears turning from here... "But a veteran team would have put these teams in their place!" The thing is... they did. Maybe not emphatically, they may have stumbled but they finished. Last year they had difficulties finishing against teams that that they should have been able to beat, the Bobcats for example. The fact that they beat them this year on the wrong end of a very long road trip while struggling to find their roles and their stroke is impressive.

This may not be the leap out of the gate that everyone expected, but it is a sign of evolving into an elite team.

Hello everyone. This is my first post, I never really felt the need to post but hopefully no one else makes my mistake.

I am currently in Japan and have finally been following the blazers again the last couple years (I know, a true fan watches even in the worst scenarios. Someone get a rope.) So I got the international league pass broadband thinking hey, besides a few blackouts, I should FINALLY get to see most of the season. Easily worth the 130 dollars or whatever it cost.

So imagine how happy I am when I finally get off work to come see the first game after what seemed to be an infinitely long off-season and find all four games blacked out due to national restrictions. So I wait my hour or so waiting for tech support to find out why I wasn't warned that Japan was outside coverage. Finally he says that I was warned about blackouts and posts this.

http://www.nba.com/schedules/international_nba_tv_schedule.html

Right. Apparently for my money I get to see a total of one... let me say again ONE blazers game this season. Hopefully anyone considering buying ILPBB will see this and be able to know exactly how much blazers they are getting for their money. I would have been far happier giving the money to the blazersedge kids.