I'm a little bothered by what I see as a hypocrisy in the Blazers community.  Not everyone is guilty of it, for sure, but I know that I have been at times, and I suspect I'm not alone.  This hypocrisy centers around fans booing every call that goes against Portland, throwing things on the court, chanting "These refs suck", and generally being belligerant and whiny, then complaining when Portland players concentrate on bad calls instead of overcoming them.

Continue reading this post »

Let me preface this by saying that I am an Ohio State Buckeye fan living in Oregon, so I have received a lot of Duck-centric coverage.  One thing that I have not seen, however, is an analysis of how playing at a neutral site will effect the Rose Bowl.

Continue reading this post »

Over the past couple of days I've heard much gnashing of teeth over Nate's proposed starting line-up of Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Pryzbilla.  People are up in arms and angry because it's been obvious that Miller is better than Blake and that Oden is better than Pryzbilla.  The most common arguments defending this arrangement are the fit, with shooting balancing driving.  I, however, believe that Nate is looking at his line-up in an unconventional, yet effective manner.   He is deliberately not playing all of his best players at the same time in an attempt to maximize the number of shots taken by offensively efficient players, which is one of the reasons that the Blazers had one of the top offensive efficiencies last year despite not getting fast break points.

Let's take the starting lineup that most fans want - Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden.  If you start them together, then you have four offensively talented players (sorry Nic), but you still only have one ball to split between them.  It's a waste of talent on that end.  When they go out, Rudy, Blake, Travis, Joel, and Martell come in, and start dividing shots among themselves, which gets ugly since there's not a real penetrator among them - only Travis can really create his own shot among that group, and if you put the ball in his hands, then you get a stifled offense, as he doesn't have the distribution skills necessary to run the offense through him.  There's no one in that line-up that really pressures the opponent.

On the other hand, Nate's proposed lineup of Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Pryzbilla puts two of our top 4 scoring options in a position to be assertive right away, with no need to call plays for the other three.  Then, when Miller, Rudy, Martell, Travis, and Greg come in, there are plenty of players to feature.  There is never a moment when the Blazers don't have two primary options to call plays for by mixing the line-ups this way. 

If you look at Nate's rotations last year, it becomes obvious that he doesn't have a traditional view of starting your best five players.  On the other hand, I do think that he tries to play his best players the heaviest minutes, no matter when they come in the game.  By not getting caught up in traditional basketball thinking, Nate gives this team the best chance to succeed.  It may be frustrating when the other team races out to a lead because we don't have our best line-up to start the game, but I've checked the rule book, and baskets scored in the first couple of minutes of the 2nd quarter count just as much as baskets scored just after the opening tip. 

Nate's rotation strategy is a whole-game view.  It's not a coincidence that this team specialized in coming from behind, like marathon runners that outlast sprinters in a mile-long race, because that's what Nate has set this team up to do.  He spreads his best offensive players out, instead of bunching them together, because that's the way he can maximize their shots over the whole game, which seems like a winning strategy to me.

I'm interested in seeing the chess match going on with Portland, Utah, and the other teams in the NBA.  It seems to me that Portland and Utah are natural partners in that Portland wants to aquire talent, but doesn't have big salaries to send back, and Utah wants to clear cap space and has big salaried talent (Boozer) that they want to move.  Supposedly any potential cooperation between the two in meeting both of their team needs will be a week away, since all of Portland's cap space is tied up in Millsap until Utah matches, but I don't actually believe that to be the case.

Portland's cap space is actually tied up until Utah comes to a decision whether to match Millsap or not.  If Utah and Portland agreed to a deal using Portland's cap space, then it would only take Utah saying they would match, and Portland's cap space would instantly be available.  Normally Utah would wait it's week to screw with Portland, but in this case they would be a willing partner because they need us to have flexibility in order to facilitate their own trade. 

Suddenly, the Millsap signing makes much more sense to me.  Previously it seemed like a waste since our cap space is taken up, and because Utah was sure to match, but now it seems like we've put pressure on Utah to work with us.  Even if Utah, for reasons unknown, decides not to match, we still have an asset in Millsap that we can trade after this year if we want to give us flexibility in improving our team in the future. 

I've been reading consistently in comments by BEdge members that they have been disappointed by Oden's lack of quickness on the defensive end, and Bayless's lack of court vision.  Mostly Oden's quickness has been either been written off as being a result of his injury, or an indictment of his athleticism.  Similarly, Bayless's court vision is mostly written off as an attitude thing - he's looking to score, rather than distribute.  While both of those hypothesis are potentially correct, I would like to explore an additional theory for both of them:  They are rookies.

First, covering Oden's quickness:  Being a football fan, I know that young linebackers often seem a lot slower than experienced players, despite testing faster in shorts.  That seemingly contradictory set of facts is explained by the reaction time and anticipation level of the experienced player being far superior to the rookie.  They know the defensive schemes, they know their role, they know the abilities of most of the opposing players, and there aren't too many situations that they haven't seen before. 

Oden is like that rookie linebacker, who has to think as he plays instead of simply reacting to a situation.  This hypothesis is backed by the fact that Oden's "quickness" seems to change from game to game, progressing and regressing almost nightly.  The only thing really changing is the opposing team and players, and the offensive schemes that the opposing teams run.  Oden has to think about his role vs unfamiliar players and schemes, and that makes him look slower.  Additionally, the lack of anticipation and reaction time also probably contributes to his fouling, as he's a half-step slow in getting to a spot.

Similarly, Bayless has a reputation as lacking in court vision, especially compared with Sergio.  That may have some element of truth, but it may also be explained by the fact that Bayless is a rookie, and that he does not know our offensive schemes nearly as well as Sergio or Blake.  Sergio and Blake not only know where they are supposed to be, but they also know where the other players on the team are going to be, and that allows them to make passes that make it appear as though they have eyes in the back of their head.  Bayless still has to become experienced in running some of the schemes in game situations, and has to learn to anticipate what his teammates will do.  That will come easier with experience.

I look forward to watching Bayless and Greg grow in seasons to come, as their weaknesses become strengths, simply by adding years of experience. 

Though the Jazz game tonight has serious playoff implications for the Blazers, and is probably the most important game we've played this month, I personally probably won't be as rabid about it as I normally am.  The reason?  Carlos Boozer (who will be known as Loozer for the rest of this post) is missing.

I don't know about the rest of you, but Loozer is the NBA player I detest more than any other.  I grew up a Cavs fan, and when he got added to the team as a 2nd round pick, he quickly became my favorite player, even on a team that had Lebron.  He hustled, scored, and was good to the fans, even working the phones for the Cavs calling season ticket holders to say thanks.  When he was in his 2nd year, he campaigned both within the Cavs organization and in the media for the Cavs to decline to excercise their team option, so that he would be free to resign with the Cavs for a salary that was closer to his true value.  He promised that he could be trusted as a man of his word, and if the Cavs did him that favor, he would resign with them quickly.  Loozer was the benevolent, blind Cavs owner's favorite player, and the owner, Gordon Gund, ordered the GM to decline Loozer's option so that he could reward him for exceeding expectations.  Loozer quickly signed with the Jazz, and Gund was so distraught that he put the Cavs up for sale.  I realized that I was mistaken in my previous assumption:  Loozer was not my favorite player, but actually an oversized, misshapen troll. 

Ever since moving to Portland, games against the Jazz have had special meaning, because they were games against Loozer.  Do you have any players that you hate so much that the game becomes extra sweet when the Blazers win, and ruins your mood when they lose?  Does Lamar Odom make you shout obscenities when he throws Brandon Roy to the floor?  Kevin Garnett on all fours, barking at our rookies, give you an ulcer?  Bruce Bowen undercutting and fouling away?  Rasheed Wallace for treating Portland fans like dirt?  Shaq for all of the battles with Sabonis that he inevitably came out the victor?  K*be just being K*be?  Someone else I haven't thought of? 

If there is particular animosity towards a player that I have missed, I'll try and edit the poll.

Ooh, I found him!  He's the guy we have now!

Seriously, I think Nate McMillan is the perfect coach for this team, but I've heard a lot of whining about how he doesn't do this and should be fired for that.  I've even heard that he doesn't trust rookies, despite the fact that 3 rookies get regular minutes, including a 19 year old non-english speaker whom everyone else was already giving a ticket to Boise. 

Nate does an all-right job at X's and O's, as evidenced by the fact that Portland was one of the leaders in the NBA at scoring after a timeout last year, but I think the biggest contributions he makes are in the mental make-up of the team, and the way he and Pritchard work together.  Portland has so many talented players jockeying for minutes that when Martell Webster comes back, all 12 men on our gameday roster (Bayless, Batum, Blake, Frye, LMA, Oden, Outlaw, Pryzbilla, Roy, Rudy, Sergio, & Webster) would be starting for at least one other team in the league.  Despite the fact that there are so many young, emerging, talented players on the team, McMillan has been able to get them to buy in to his system, compete with each other in practice, and find both minutes and a regular rotation for his players so that they know what to expect going into the game, and know their roles. 

McMillan also has worked just as hard on developing the players' leadership abilities.  With some, like Brandon, he obviously had a lot to work with all ready, but he's also nurtured that ability without being threatened by it, and without losing control of the team.  He's obviously been helped by the fact that the Blazer's have tried to accumulate high character players, but I feel he doesn't get enough credit for his own role in enthusiastically supporting the acquisition of those players.

McMillan is also a very capable teacher.  I forget who it was, but one of the national NBA writers mentioned that they had been going to camps for years, but never had seen as much instruction regarding basketball fundamentals as seen at the Blazers training camp this year.  Obviously that has something to do with the overall youth of the team, but it also has to do with the fact that McMillan wants to teach, and recognizes what makes good basketball.  The biggest beneficiary of this teaching, to my mind, has been Travis Outlaw; since Nate joined the organization, Travis's basketball IQ has at least doubled. 

One final thought in my ode to Nate:  I love the fact that he's been so strategic in his mixing of players, where he doesn't just start his 5 most talented players, but instead looks for the right blend of players and talents.  It's true that Rudy, Travis, and (for now) Greg come off the bench, even though they are among the 5 most talented players on the team, but Nate has been able to make that work, and get those players to buy into their roles.  Nate has shown how flexible he is in trying to have players on the floor that complement each other, while at the same time maximizing the total minutes of his most talented players.  Despite the fact that Outlaw and Rudy aren't starting, they are 3rd and 5th in minutes per game on the Blazers according to NBA.com (Outlaw at 29.4, Blake at 29, and Rudy at 28.7).  Overall, Nate has shown creativity in his rotation, and instilled a sense of pride in the Blazer's white unit that really shows when they come onto the court. 

I love Nate as a coach of this team, and I wouldn't trade him for any other coach.  He's a young, talented coach that is taking this young, talented team in the right direction.

I have often seen fans euphoric that Portland is a team that doesn't often complain to refs, and also fans who hate players that constantly talk to the refs.  I understand the concept; a lot of people were raised to respect others, and the complaining seen on a typical NBA court doesn't look respectful.  People here are proud of their "good boy" Portland Trailblazers, because not complaining usually is equated to showing character.  I am wondering, however, if not complaining hurts the Trailblazers competitively.

Complaining to the refs can be a way to focus them on what you want them to see.  If you are being fouled in the same way on every other offensive possession, you want to let the ref know so that he can look out for it.  Even if you aren't being fouled in the same way, it can't hurt to have the refs attention when you have the ball; most fouls get called on the defensive player.

Fouls are also a fairly subjective thing.  Refs make decisions based on their impression of what the position was, who initiated contact, and to what degree the contact influenced the play.  There are a lot of judgements in those calls, and players would be hurting their team if they didn't do the best they could to get the refs to make judgements in their favor.

The Blazers complain to refs less often than any other basketball team I have ever seen.  The Blazers also get consistently worked over by the refs.  Those two things are probably related.

Complaining works; that's why it's such a popular option, not only among NBA players, but among people in general.  There's a reason why "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" is a more popular saying than "the squeaky wheel gets replaced and thrown in the junk yard where it becomes a hatching place for millions of mosquitos every time it rains".

Warning:  The following poll will annoy Douglast, as it has more than 5 options, none of which will completely describe what he is thinking.  Apologies in advance.