Conventional Wisdom 1: Reading sportswriters, bloggers, posters, etc. it's clearly evident that 90% of the point guards in the league are below average defenders. Go figure. Who's the benchmark "average" PG defender? Name the 50% of guards who are better, then the 50% of guards who are worse. Hint: the guy with the ball in his hand gets to make the first move (action), the defender has to catch up (reaction).

Conventional Wisdom 2: Everyone says there will be a lockout. Think about it: this means there won't be a lockout.

Conventional Wisdom 3: It's way cool to use initials instead of entire words, i.e. RG, instead of Rose Garden. This saves an entire syllable, which I could otherwise use to say "dear" in front of every utterance to my girlfriend.

I saw Allen, Miller, and Kolde, but no KP. Seems like weeks since we've seen Allen and KP in the same county. Anyone have background on Kolde? Is he just a good chess-playing buddy, Vulcan flunky/hanger-on . . . or does this guy wanna be GM?

Last night's win was fantastic for the short term, but I fear for the long term if KP is indeed getting pushed out. (plus, that would mean Canzano was right - egads!)

Andre has nice assist stats and throughout his career has been among league leaders. Brandon has darned nice assist stats for a 2 guard. Who's assists are more valuable?

My thinking . . .

Many (most?) of Brandon’s assists come on pick and pops to Aldridge, or a drive and dish to someone camped outside the three point line (ya think Blake might be missing that in LA?) Many (most?) of Andre’s assists come on lobs or pinpoint passes. The difference? Brandon’s assists don’t require player movement, and in fact may discourage player movement. Andre’s assists absolutely require player movement.

So . . . if you believe (as I do) that player movement is the key, and much more important that ball movement (hey, passing it around the perimeter is technically ‘ball movement’) is this team better with the ball in Andre’s hands or Brandon’s hands? My guess: as much as Brandon has said he likes to have the ball, we’re better off if Andre has it. Brandon needs to be on the receiving end of those Andre passes. And how often does that happen?

Assist me: Should Brandon, our best player, actually have the ball less often?

I posted this in Jan 2007 when there were fewer BlazersEdge followers. Thought I'd post it again to get new opinion.

****

I've never coached and my playing days went no further than park leagues and pickups, so maybe I'm missing something here. But . . . it seems illogical and counterproductive to bench starters when they pick up a second foul three minutes into the game, a third foul early in the second quarter, etc., etc.  Here's four reasons why:

1. Unless the coach has a crystal ball, he doesn't know how many minutes he can get out of a starter with fouls. How often have we seen a key player `in foul trouble' end the game with only four fouls and ten minutes less than ideal playing time?
2. A two point bucket is worth two points. It doesn't matter whether those two points come in the last minute of the game or the first minute of the second quarter.  Why `save' the production of key starters until late in the game? (I know, late game pressure introduces another factor here.) It always tougher to play from behind, but when a key player `gets into foul trouble' NBA coaches seem willing to play even or from behind in the hopes they can pull it out in the last five minutes. Why not keep the heavy artillery in there and make the other team play from behind and pull it out? Get those buckets, steals, rebounds, etc. as early as you can and put the pressure on the other guys.
3. How can a coach urge aggressive defense when a player knows he'll get penalized (benched) for being too aggressive and picking up a couple of cheap fouls?
4. A winning basketball strategy is partly about setting the agenda and controlling the game. Why cede that control to the refs or opposing team and allow them to disrupt your game plan, interrupt a player's rhythm, and potentially reduce playing time of your best players?

Michael Lewis, in his book Moneyball, had some examples of playing baseball `by the book' that are statistically illogical. His conclusion, as I recall, is that baseball managers don't want to be second guessed when they ignore `the book' and lose.  Sure, if a key player fouls out it will sometimes happen in a game you lose. But you're also going to lose games when you bench players with foul trouble. My vote: let logic rule.

Or . . . maybe it's as magic man Dai Vernon said: "The mind is led on, step by step, to defeat it's own logic." Maybe I'm missing the magic.

It seems all the rage to lust for a Banger PF. But to what benefit . . . and at what cost?

There are 240 player minutes per game. If the Big Bad Banger played only backup minutes to Aldridge, he’d get 10-12 minutes per game. That’s less than 5% of total player minutes. Is that a game changer? Or a season changer?

If we got The Big Bad Banger, doesn’t that mean Outlaw has to go? He’s getting a good portion of his minutes at PF. If all of Outlaw’s minutes go to SF, that means the 48 SF minutes are divided between Trout, Nic, Webster, and Roy (when Rudy’s at SG). Gettin’ kinda crowded. What’s the trade-off between the Banger’s Bangin’ and Trout’s ability to get his own shot?

Was Ike a Banger?

Would Nate play The Banger? He likes to go small and use players with firepower in the second unit. Is there such a thing as an available/affordable Banger with firepower?

Is The Banger an insurance policy? If Aldridge goes down, The Banger can’t match the offensive production. If Joel or Greg goes down . . . well . . .  hmmm . . . maybe this is starting to make some sense.

 

Auxiliary question:

Is butterscotch the root of all evil? Discuss.

(AP: New York). NBA Commissioner David Stern was quick to react to reports that the Portland Trail Blazers will auction #1 draft pick Greg Oden's tonsils on Ebay. Stern, in a prepared press release, said the Oden tonsil sale could "wreak havoc" on the league's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the league's luxury tax.

The Blazers reportedly are setting a $25 million minimum on Oden's Ebay tonsil listing, but expect to receive bids topping $30 million, a figure that would match the recent buyout of Stevie Franchise's contract. Blazer wunderkind GM Kevin Pritchard would not confirm the Ebay listing, but said the franchise will pursue "creative avenues" to fix the Blazer's financial model and pursue the "no tonsils" Blazer culture." Pritchard declined to comment on the effect the tonsil auction might have on the CBA.

The league's CBA is designed to discourage excessive salaries through fiduciary penalty. But, as Commissioner Stern said, "What happens when the Lakers auction Kobe Bryant's ego for $50 million? After that, Dr. Jerry Bust (Lakers owner) can exceed the cap by a similar amount and effectively not pay a dime of luxury tax."

Although Oden's tonsils have not yet been listed on Ebay, sports memorabilia collectors are announcing their intention to bid. Fred Barrow, a dot.com millionaire from Amarillo, said he would be active in bidding. "I might mount `em on my wall next to the endangered species. Or if they're big enough I must just use `em for croquet mallets." Barrow, who made his fortune from the cheapwheelbarrows.com website, offered this advice to those who might bid against him, "Don't play leapfrog with a unicorn!"

Mildred Rabb, a wealthy dentist's widow from Boise, is evidence of how rapidly the auction fever can spread. Ms. Rabb describes herself as a pudgy 62-year-old woman who is boring as butterscotch. She's already contacted the Sacramento Kings and expressed an interest in bidding up to $10 million dollars for one year of Ron Artest's craziness. "I'd like to be colorful," Ms. Rabb said. The King's Geoff Petrie seemed open to the deal.

Perhaps the best indication that Oden tonsil auction fever is rampant are unconfirmed reports that the San Antonio Spurs are considering auctioning three days of Tony Parker's Hollywood wife, Eva Longoria. Reports are that bidding might start as high as one billion dollars. Said Greg Popovich of the Spurs, "I think that gets us Kevin Garnett."

Many hardcore Blazer fans hope for dramatic off-season roster changes. I'm not sure that will happen, and I think that's okay. Here's my predictions:

Zach won't be traded.

Magloire won't be signed.

Outlaw will be signed and be effective off the bench.

Ime will be signed and play a key role, either as a starter or off the bench.

Martell might stay, or might be thrown into a minor trade. Either way, I don't see it as a defining moment.

With a 6(ish) draft pick, the Blazers select a SF who will be a pretty decent  starter within a couple of years.

With our second round picks we end up with one guy who's pretty good off the bench (perhaps after stashing him in the Euro league for a season or two).

Not too exciting, eh? But I think we end up with a good team: 3 legitimate scorers in Zach, LMA, and Roy, perhaps a 4th with the SF draft pick; A steadily improving Jack; Ime for slowing down guys like Kobe and McGrady; Pryz off the bench for defense; Outlaw for some bench scoring, energy and shot blocking; Raef  (I think he can be important) for some outside offense and weak-side defense; Jones for energy; Sergio for a change of pace.

Folks, this ain't a bad team. Absent injuries, I think it gets us into the playoffs next year.

- Munky

Roy has turned into the go-to guy at crunch time. I don't think it's a stretch to compare him to Dwayne Wade's ability to make the bucket and/or get to the foul line. Hokay, it's a bit of a stretch, but you get my point. He has the strength and the savvy. Roy can get to the foul line 10+ games a night.

Why not have Roy start the game driving the key (or posting up)?

Here are the potential benefits:

Start the game with the possibility that Roy gets the other guys in foul trouble early.

Start the game (and every quarter) with the possibility that Roy can help put the other team into the penalty with 6 or 8 minutes left in the quarter.

Establish early that we're playing in the paint.

Get our guys some decent shots. With Roy driving, he'll get a few assists with Zach shooting 15 foot chip shots when the defense collapses. Same with the other guys, getting them shots within range.

Eastablish early that we aren't taking long jumpers with 3 on the shot clock. (Which, btw, is torching Dixon's FG%)

Take some pressure off Zach. Everyone seems to think he'd be a better #2 guy, and I agree. He'll get his stats on relentless garbage buckets (which is a Moses Malone type compliment), and if he isn't getting double/tripled teamed all the time he'll score.

- Munky

I'm a (gracefully!) aging boomer. As I've matured, I've gained a new appreciation for immature women. But I digress . . .

I've been a Blazer fan since the first season, and I was ecstatic that the Blazers had the best record among the three expansion teams (remember the Buffalo Braves?)

I remember a certifiably loony acquaintance who wrote a book titled `The Life and Times of Sydney Wicks'. Mercifully, it was never published.

I remember thinking Glickman and Inman were geniuses. I still think that.

I remember Bill Walton saying, after the Blazers drafted him, that he'd have enough money to buy a tie (or was it a shirt?) I remember running into him while he loitered at a health food store on Macadam and, strangely, he didn't strike me as being that tall. (I must have been wearing elevator shoes that day).

I remember every game having an attendance of 12,666. I remember going to lots of them, and the best seats were from scalpers an hour before game time.

I remember the closed-circuit overflow at the Paramount. You'd have to be there to know what a kick it is to watch a game on a movie screen with 3000 Blazermaniacs.

I remember living in San Francisco during the championship season, when fellow basketball fans thought I was psychic because I knew exactly when Ramsey was going to substitute.

I remember the 50-10 start. To this day, I don't think there has ever been a better NBA team.

- Munky

The Blazers did a heckuva job trading Telfair while he was still viewed as having 'potential'. Another season with the Blazers and we couldn't have peddled him for a strawberry slurpee.

Should the Blazers take a similar strategy with Outlaw or Webster and bundle one of those two with Magloire to get a key long term player?

My take: I think there's some risk that both players have a ceiling of about 15 minutes per game. Outlaw, despite his jaw-dropping athleticism, has a low basketball IQ. And I fear the best upside for Webster is to become a one dimensional Microwave Martell that coaches insert in hopes that he can light it up with a few threes.

But then I'm the guy who didn't think there was much upside for Jermaine, so what the heck do I know?

The Blazers finish with 34 wins, ahead of Memphis, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Charlotte.

Magloire isn't traded (unless it's for another expiring salary). Aldridge gets more minutes than Magloire or Pryz in the second half of the season. Magloire tries to be a pro about his reduced minutes, but gets a bit grumpy. Pryz is a good soldier, biding his time until next season. Unfortunately for Pryz, the Blazers draft Spencer Hawes. (I'm rooting for Durant).

Roy is ROY. Aldridge is a surprise #2 in the voting.

Nate dabbles with an up-tempo offense late in the season. Pritchard say the Blazers will be running more next season, leading to speculation that Randolph and/or Jack will be traded. Neither will be. Nate says the starting point guard spot is up for grabs next year.

The Iverson/Carmelo duo is a bust in Denver, as they play barely over .500 the rest of the season and make an early playoff exit.

Phoenix has the best record in the NBA and beats Dallas in 7, despite a monster performance by Nowitzki.

Miami picks up a key player (I don't know how, they have so little to trade), Riley returns to lead the Heat to the finals. MVP Dwayne Wade is amazing, prompting fans to say "Michael who?"

Phoenix beats Miami in the finals, despite more heroics by Wade. The Nash/Amare pick and roll is devastating. Shaq admits the Big Diesel is now a Ford Taurus.

George Karl is fired, replaced by Adelman. Mitchell gets canned in Toronto, replaced by Iavaroni. Sacramento fires Musselman. Petrie resigns, prompting speculation that he will replace the Blazer's Patterson. Patterson gets a one year extension.

Jordan figures out a way to bail out of Charlotte.

Blazer fans spend the summer fantasizing about 110 points per game.

BlazerMunky drinks beer and gets a great tan. Babes squeal in delight.

I've never coached and my playing days went no further than park leagues and pickups, so maybe I'm missing something here. But . . . it seems illogical and counterproductive to bench starters when they pick up a second foul three minutes into the game, a third foul early in the second quarter, etc., etc.  Here's four reasons why:

1. Unless the coach has a crystal ball, he doesn't know how many minutes he can get out of a starter with fouls. How often have we seen a key player `in foul trouble' end the game with only four fouls and ten minutes less than ideal playing time?
2. A two point bucket is worth two points. It doesn't matter whether those two points come in the last minute of the game or the first minute of the second quarter.  Why `save' the production of key starters until late in the game? (I know, late game pressure introduces another factor here.) It always tougher to play from behind, but when a key player `gets into foul trouble' NBA coaches seem willing to play even or from behind in the hopes they can pull it out in the last five minutes. Why not keep the heavy artillery in there and make the other team play from behind and pull it out? Get those buckets, steals, rebounds, etc. as early as you can and put the pressure on the other guys.
3. How can a coach urge aggressive defense when a player knows he'll get penalized (benched) for being too aggressive and picking up a couple of cheap fouls?
4. A winning basketball strategy is partly about setting the agenda and controlling the game. Why cede that control to the refs or opposing team and allow them to disrupt your game plan, interrupt a player's rhythm, and potentially reduce playing time of your best players?

Michael Lewis, in his book Moneyball, had some examples of playing baseball `by the book' that are statistically illogical. His conclusion, as I recall, is that baseball managers don't want to be second guessed when they ignore `the book' and lose.  Sure, if a key player fouls out it will sometimes happen in a game you lose. But you're also going to lose games when you bench players with foul trouble. My vote: let logic rule.

Or . . . maybe it's as magic man Dai Vernon said: "The mind is led on, step by step, to defeat it's own logic." Maybe I'm missing the magic.