I've been reading a lot about expectations lately (all year, in fact) and most especially how some fans have unrealistic expectations. It got me thinking about how close many NBA games. So I took it into my head to examine our record in close games against San Antonio (as an undisputed winning, veteran, model team) and most especially examine what the press quotes are in these close games.

For this diary, let us define "razor thin games" as those that either finished in OT or were settled in regulation by 3 points or less. In examining this:

1. What is Portland's record?
   
2. Is our propensity for close games higher than others?
   
3. Assuming these games are essentially a coin flip, are we too hard on ourselves in a loss...
   
4. And are we too jubilant in a win?

So, the data.

According to what I can glean from ESPN.com, San Antonio has played in 14 razor-thin games and has a record of 8-6. Meanwhile, Portland has played in 16 razor thin games.

Already, this is intriguing: I don't regard that Portland, with its "immature" team, to show a significantly higher number of close games--irrespective of record--than the vaunted San Antonio. We like to say that good teams close out other teams and have a "killer instinct." Maybe, I guess, but it sure seems like San Antonio failed to close out as many games as Portland.

Let's move on. Portland's record in those 16 razor thin games was a phenomenal 13-3. Whoa! That's a significantly better record than San Antonio. Who has the killer instinct now? Sure, many of those games were during the winning streaks... but let's look at games after February 1. During that time, Portland's record in razor-thin games is 5-1. Still awesome! Not only does Portland not have a greater propensity for razor-thin games but they won far more of them than San Antonio.

Now, let's look at the press. Here are some quotes after the wins:

"Opponent was frustrated, needed to make something happen and we did it, our defense was better and we scored,"
"Intensity, six or seven guys played well"
"Able to get it, wasn't easy, patient, calm, believed in ourselves,
"They're a hot team, we're maturing, very confident,
"Luckily I was able to get it down, Portland made more plays,
"Defensively, we had no answer, tonight we got outscrapped, Toronto wanted it more, we've got to win these games, moral victories don't help too much"
"Perfect execution, made another big shot, Portland's bench outplayed us,"
"That's a very good Portland team, very well coached, disappointed with 1st half effort,"
"Cleveland rode a wave and got the win,"
"Made an unbelievable comeback, Offensively we were ragged and needed our guards,
"This was a tough game,
"We've got to fight through, Portland won but we had our chances down the stretch, we have to stay focused, I really don't see what Chicago could've done differently."
"Portland wouldn't be denied a win, we were fortunate tonight, we've got to grow up,"
"We've got a lot of guys who can make shots, we continue to improve, Aldridge made some huge plays,

Now some quotes after the losses:

"Defensively, we had no answer, tonight we got outscrapped, Toronto wanted it more, we've got to win these games, moral victories don't help too much"
"Perfect execution, made another big shot, Portland's bench outplayed us,"
"That's a very good Portland team, very well coached, disappointed with 1st half effort,"
"Cleveland rode a wave and got the win,"
"Made an unbelievable comeback, Offensively we were ragged and needed our guards,
"This was a tough game,"

I don't know what I expected here... but it seems like this team expects to win the close games, appears a bit upset to be in close games, and is really hard on itself when it loses close games. This is a team that expects to win.

So what's my point?

My point is this: Portland's not going to make the playoffs but I resist this notion that it's a lack of maturity or a lack of "killer instinct." My take from this--though we're only comparing to one other team so take it with at least one grain of salt--is that what we're missing is consistency and player fit. For some reason, this team is not able to win as many games as San Antonio when they're not razor-thin and that says to me something more like fatigue, or not following marching orders, or just not able to execute every night. Or, perhaps, inconsistent lineups.

Is that "maturity"? The inability to win consistently in the non razor-thin games? To execute every play perfectly? Maybe. What "maturity" doesn't appear to mean is the ability to play or execute under pressure.

I don't know what the real problem is. You tell me. But I think this points to something that it isn't.

In any event, I think we need to pay more attention to how good this team has performed in close situations.

I like KP. I love KP. I've posted before how intersted I am in his secret algorithm of assessing talent. He's the reason why I love the Blazers.

But look, can we all agree--please--to stop with the following comments on every diary that's trying to raise discussion:

1. "Trust in KP."
   
2. KP has a plan and he knows what he's doing.
   
3. KP knows more than you do.
   
4. Just wait X-yrs and see what KP does.
   
5. KP knows who to draft and who to play for.
   
6. Etc.

I'm just sick of that. I'm sick of reading diaries and having to swim through unhelpful stuff like that.

Look, it's probably all true. It's at least mostly all true. But we're here to talk about the game and the team. We're here to discuss each other's opinions. Having to read "just trust KP" over and over again is not only really, really boring but it's also really, really unhelpful. You're just writing noise.

And on the flip side, KP is probably not infallible. As Exhibit A: I give you George Lucas.

Star Wars idolaters to this day defend the atrocities of the Star Wars "prequels" and the "genius" of George Lucas. Do you really want to turn into someone like: a George Lucas defender? If KP messes up as badly as George Lucas, are you going to your grave defending his decisions?

There's a great quote from a guy when someone was getting after him for changing his mind. He responded: "When the facts change, then I change my opinion. What is it that you do, sir?"

We're here to discuss facts and adjust our opinions... not listen to the KP Heavenly Choir.

I'll be honest, I got to thinking about this because of my Surge Mancrush--now brutally by the harsh realities of play (put me in the camp of "I'm not excited about either next year" with a little side dose of "Surge! DUDE! What happened to you this year?!"). We used to say that Surge and Roy couldn't play together because they both needed the ball.

So, here: we have a lot of statistical data about Roy and LMA. The question then: do they play better together or apart? I'm not sure what this all means but I'll lay it out and see what the BE Intelligentsia has to say about it.

In the 67 games the Blazers have played to date, NBA.COM shows Roy's average points as 19.6 and LMA's as 17.7. I ran through the game logs and did a quick tracking to see what happens to their averages:

1. If Roy's is above average is LMA's down? This might indicate that LMA gets bored when Roy starts taking over a game and can't contribute. (We might wonder about LMA's rebound totals and so forth but I'm not quite that ambitious yet.)
2. If LMA's is above average is Roy's down? The opposite condition of the above: it's the Zach Randolph "black hole" problem re-born.
3. Do both rise above average together? This might indicate that they feed off of each other.
4. Do both fall below average together? Now this is an interesting question because it casts doubt on the whole exercise. We might reasonably expect one player to pick up the slack when the other player is down and out and having a bad night. So we want a smattering of incongrouus averages from points 1 and 2 above, yes? Perhaps... but maybe not too many.
5. What happens when they go solo? This hasn't happened much but it's reasonable to take a look.

So here we go.

In the 67 games played, 9 of them have been "solo" games with Roy playing alone in 5 and scoring above average in each game and LMA going solo in 4 games and scoring above average in 3 of them. It's safe to say then that point 5 and the latter half of point 4 oare true: when one player is out, the other tends to pick up the scoring load. That's good I think we can all agree.

Now, in the remaining 58 games, an interesting trend occurs. Roy and LMA are congruent in beither above or below scoring averages in 44.8% of those games.

Both players score below average: 19.0%
Both players score above average: 25.8%

Roy and LMA are in opposition with each other in 55.2% of the games.

LMA is up and Roy is down: 24.1%
Roy is up and LMA is down: 31.0% (a bit of rounding error here means it doesn't quite add up)

By the way, the trend towards opposition is accelerating in this latter part of the season. During the winning streaks, they tended to be in congruence and later on, when the team is not winning, they tend to be in opposition.

October: congruence=5, opposition=4
November: congruence=9, opposition=5
December: congruence=5, opposition=5 (solo=5, all Roy)
January: congruence=3, opposition=11
February: congruence=3, opposition=6 (solo=4, all LMA)
March: congruence=5, opposition=4

Note: I didn't look at wins and losses because I wanted to screen that out. Maybe that was a bad idea... you can let me know in comments. Also, I didn't look specifically at how much above or below average the players were... just that they were above or below. There were a handful of occasions where one could have declared a tie but I ignored that so I could get on with my pontificating below.

These data seem to suggest a couple of things:

1. It's troubling that these two pillars of the team are in opposition so much more often than they're in congruence. To me, it suggests that they can't yet share the ball. They're both down or in opposition with each other almost 75% of the time. I think this is more often than "one picking up the slack for the other" than might be desirable for consistent play, consistent team roles, and consistent winning.
2. Roy seems to be able to contribute more often when Aldridge is playing well than vice-versa. This helps defend Roy from the criticisms he sometimes takes for not getting involved early in the game. Roy getting other players involves is important for their performance, as suggested by these figures.
3. LMA, in turn, needs to get better at garbage time. When Zach was first being born as a Blazer player, we loved him for his garbage play: dude would vaccuum up balls and put them back for 2nd chance points... he didn't need no stinkin' plays! When Roy is taking the load, it does not appear that LMA has learned to contribute in other ways.
4. Both players pick up their scoring when their counterpart is out. Again, we should probably expect this--who else, after all, is going to score--but it's nice to see.

These sorts of player correlations are something it might be interesting to monitor as the team develops: who seems to contribute as part of the team and who needs to be a focus?

I welcome sharp criticism in flaws on this approach. I like to think about stats, what they reveal, and how to get better at them.

Sorry if this is a repeat... but man! I hate the new Oregon Life format. It's the least navigable thing I've ever seen. It's like they did a web design based on sites from the early nineties. What gives?

I was already getting virtually all my Blazers information from this site... now I'm just about all the way committed. Has anyone else complained about that or am I all alone here?

I just got back from working the MVC (Missouri Valley Conference) basketball tournament. (Btw, for you Ime idolaters out there who love success stories, Adam Emmenecker who was a walk-on is a hell of a great point guard and won MVP of the tournament... take note readers of KnickFan's excellent diary below.)

Watching these college kids play their hearts out for four straight days, playing heavy minutes, and beating each other up got me thinking. We are always, always, always complaining that our team doesn't drive to the basket enough. Barkley has been quoted so often about "dying by the shot" it's becoming cliche. I've seen Dave (rightly!) pull together stats showing our trend of jump shooting instead of driving and it regularly features in the "things to look for." Brandon Roy is constantly being praised for his ability to "get to the rim."

We love it when they take it to the basket.

Well, surely players aren't deaf to this. So why don't they drive more? The anwer is so simple--so simple and easy--that I think it escapes our notice more often than not. Driving to the basket often hurts!

I saw that first-hand from press row at the MVC tourney. Seeing guys collide from a few feet away is a lot different from seeing them collide on even a 74" plasma TV in high definition. I saw a guy chip his tooth. I saw a guy throw up after a blow to the stomach (and some poor guy took a Joel-like blow to the groin and had to be taken out). Another guy charged the basket, hit a defender in the mouth with his elbow/upper arm, ensuring that the defender is going to have surgery on his upper jaw bone and the guy driving had a large chunk taken out of his arm and had to be bandaged up to return.

So take this as the hypothesis: players tend to resist driving to the basket because it hurts.

Now, let's consider the practical ramifications of this:

1. Durability. Does driving to the basket result in durability concerns? Just like using up an NFL RB in "three yards and cloud of dust," continually asking, say, Brandon Roy to drive to the basket constantly results in a corresponding incureased injury risk (we can assume). This is data we might reasonably tease out. Can we run stats showing missed layup/dunk attempts (the majority of these, we can assume, were contested and involved contact; shooting fouls drawn (even better if we can get it on layup/dunk attempts but I'm not aware those stats are kept); and charges committed (certainly, this hurts). Pulling these together we could probably come up with a "harm per minute" stat or something that can be cross-referenced against games missed or perhaps even length of career. I presume that behavior probably changes with tenure, age, and prior injuries, which we might also be able to track.
2. Standard Operating Procedure. We generally assume that NBA players can "turn it on" when they want to and "get to the rim." I think this points to a subconscious acceptance of durability concerns that I tried to list out above. Players know that there is an injury risk on every drive to the bucket and behave accordingly to mitigate that risk. Well, what does that mean in terms of game play? If one doesn't constantly practice driving to the hoop (that is, attempting to "get to the rim" in a game), does one lose effectiveness in being able to do it? (I remember just knowing Darius Miles was going to get a charging call on offense sometimes pre-injury.) Do we find players who don't constantly drive ending up in a "use it or lose it" problem? This, I think, would be difficult to identify statistically. But here's my best try at it. I think one might be able to show effectiveness in being able to drive in comparing made layups/dunks against misses (and adjusting for fouls, which I think should be regarded as a "made" layup/dunk for these purposes). I speculate that players who constantly drive will have higher rates of effectiveness than those that do not. Similarly, I suppose that players with high volatility in attempts-per-minute in different games are likely to be "out-of-practice" and will exhibit lower overall efficiency in this sense.
3. Point Guard Gravity. We all like to talk about point guards and wish we had a fast-breaking team. Everyone wants a fast-breaking team. I theorize that there are point guards who, because they run, end up forcing the rest of their teammates into driving situations just as if they exert gravitational forces on the game and draw players in their wake. Ah... but here's the rub! (Thank you, Hamlet) I don't think we mean fast-break points when we talk about "getting to the rim." What we mean is, in a half-court set, someone who's going to do a wicked cross-over, dare the contact, and flat-out jump over someone on their way to a basket. So the point-guard gravity I want to try and measure for are those point guards who operate in the half-court and make leading passes that create the layups/dunks. Oddly, the first guy I think of--because I'm old-school Blazer fan--is Sabonis. Dude made passes to cutting players all the time. So I wonder if we can measure for layup/dunk attempts that were assisted (the measurement for that special kind of gravity) versus unassisted (indicating a thirst for contact that the NBA will probably beat out of a player over time). If we believe in rim attempts, than we want those players who bring that sort of gravity with them.
4. Wins. Finally, the only reason to go through with this, is to test the Barkley axiom: "you don't live by the jump shot, you die by the jump shot." If that's true, we should see teams expressing high levels of these sorts of statistics at the top of the standings. More importantly, we should notice them being at the top and staying there! If there truly are durability concerns, then we might expect to see teams "getting to the rim" and rising in the standings, only to later fall as those statistics fall off. Or perhaps, as the games intensify (that is, become more important), we'll see these statistics suddenly shoot up. Perhaps in the playoffs (or big rivalry games) players are more willing to take the risk of contact.

In the end, I puzzle over how smart it is to ask our players to constantly drive to the basket. I don't think we're masochists--we don't want them to hurt and suffer. But I think we don't fully appreciate how hard it is or what the risk is to the player to do this constantly. Part of the art of coaching, I think, must include an understanding of when it is appropriate and desirable to take on that extra risk to get those extra wins and when to allow your team to back off. Furthermore, I think it's equally important for teams to develop offenses that create points (and wins!) from plays that specifically don't look for contact with the defense. This is the only sensible way to preserve your lineup.

I'm happy to hear debate on this. I know there is some feeling out there because I remember people hoping Roy wouldn't play or would press to hard with his ankle (recently) and his heel (very early in the season). I'd love to see if we could statistically quantify this.

I've been thinking about this for quite a while before putting it into words... so bear with me and take the whole journey before you react.

"Confirmation bias" is a well-known and oft-cited phenomenon in the experimental sciences. It identifies the predisposition of the experimenter to prove his hypothesis with the data prematurely or inaccurately. It hits hardest those softer sciences that deal with surveys or psychological studies. For example, a devoted feminist might find preliminary data leading to suggest violence against women spikes on superbowl sunday (this is famously in error, btw). It might equally lead a fan who likes Sergio to see a Jack turnover as more evidence of a decision already arrived at.

Confirmation bias seems particularly relevant at this juncture in the season when we're starting to look harder at next year than this year. I see confirmation bias in every post that wonders why Jack was playing in the 4th quarter last night (who the heck else?). I see confirmation bias in every defense of Jack in the 4th quarter (for example, in Dave's recap he cites 3 assists--well, I watched the game and know at least one of those assists was a desperation pass after 20 seconds of dribbling against the clock where Outlaw bailed him out with a quick jumper; not the offense I think we want).

It exists in other places as well. Not to inject to much racism in the argument where it's not wanted but I often see someone suggest that we don't "need another white guy." The movie "white man can't jump" and Larry Bird famously suggesting that no white guy can guard him are other examples of a kind of confirmation bias: racial discrimination and prejudice.

So in summary for Part I, I think we--as fans--often come across confirmation bias based upon players who look like they can play, do things we like to watch, or confirm some kind pet theory we have of the way the game ought to be played (a fast pace or a half-court or heavy defense or whatever). We see that all the time here, and certainly saw it last night's press conference where someone with a confirmation bias against Jack and for Surge asked Nate the dreaded question, which only confirmed his confirmation bias about fans.

But that leads us to a more pervasive second kind of confirmation bias and what I really wanted to talk about: expert confirmation bias. Where the most brilliant minds in science suffer from this phenomenon (can anybody say Ptolemaic Epicycles?), certainly we should expect coaches, sportswriters, and even GMs to suffer from this as well. What does Nate see when he watches a game? How about Stephen A Smith or Bill Walton or Charles Barkley? Certainly, they know more about the game and their judgments are more considered. But it would be extremely naive to think that Nate doesn't see a defensive lapse from Surge differently from Jack's; or a failed free throw from Joel a little differently than Webster. Players playing for coaches have to bring more evidence to bear to defeat a predisposition than brand new player out of the draft. This is why I think Surge will probably always be a poor fit for Nate and why Joel and Raef might get limited minutes even should they badly outplay Oden. I think when we here "development" and "time" these terms are used to defend decisions made against evidence contrary to confirmation bias. Not that these aren't very relevant issues but, really, how much time and development is needed? Many times, I suggest, this time is longer for those at the positive end of the confirmation bias: players who look like they can play.

This brings us to Moneyball. For those of you who've read the work you know that it's about statistics overcoming confirmation bias. The book, chronicling the Oakland A's, is filled with examples of scouts and coaches and GMs who fail to assess players properly because they do or do not have that look." "He just *looks like a gifted athlete." Meanwhile, capable players are being passed because they look awkward or have an unimpressive physique. Granted, baseball doesn't command the kind of athletes that basketball does but the example is still extremely relevant.

So, we use statistical data to overcome confirmation bias, as any good fantasy owner knows. In this objective world, we can overlook glitzy performance and get at the brass tacks, no?

The basketball box score is nice because it's ubiquitous and universal. After that, I think we can all agree that it's a very poor assessment of a player's contributions. Animart1 has introduced us to the "fouls drawn" stat in Europe. We have steals that don't credit the deflection, rebounds that make no distinction between contested and uncontested balls, shots that are credited equally if wide open or not, judgment calls around assists, and no good measure of defense. Any time we use the box score to credit an argument, we're using a flawed system that can do nothing to contradict ingrained confirmation bias. That's why Oakland in Moneyball was successful: they used a more credible statistical system.

For all the controversey, the +/- point system is an attempt to get a more credible measure. I know people have lots of trouble with it, but I like very much the gesture behind it and what it's trying to do. Is there a better way?

That's why I'm so fascinated with KP's algorithm: presumably, he has a better way of assessing players. I often wonder what his system is. I often wonder about what his system has to say about Surge, Jack, Web and Joel. I wonder if his algorithm is in conflict with Nate, who seems a sure-fire kind of guy who trusts his instincts and gut while watching a player and would have little time for statistial nonsense. What does the system have to say about development and future potential? What is the score that "culture" brings to the argument?

And what do we do as fans? Well, to be good fans, I think we need to do what any good scientist does: look specifically for evidence contrary to your hypothesis. I try to watch for the good that Jack does and the defensive lapses of Surge. I think Dave and other Jack defenders need to look hard at not just the number but the kind of turnovers that Jack coughs up. (In reality, I'm in a place now where I don't think the Blazers have a good PG and it's pointles to speculate on one or the other.)

More to the point, we need to agree as fans what sort of evidence is required to recommend a firm conclusion. That's the conversation I'd like to have... can Blazer's Edge create a whole new Algorithm of assessing talent? It has worked in the baseball world and we have enough talent (and obsessive slavish devotion) to make it work. I think of the following:

1. Unassisted baskets. Good morning, Travis Outlaw! I want to know what players can command a basket when they wish and, more to the point, who operates outside of the flow of the offense.
2. Offense creation. What passes lead to open looks at the basket or free throws? Right now, assists is sadly lacking in generating these kinds of issues.
3. Careless / Dumbass turnovers. Sometimes, a TO is under pressure, sometimes the results of boneheadedness (I saw this last night a few times).
4. Pressured TOs. Who can handle the pressure?
5. Deflections. Something we already keep in some circles.
6. Fouls drawn (I love that... I'd also like to know if they're assisted or producede fully formed from the player himself.)
7. Box outs. That's at least as important as the rebound itself.
8. Help defense. Can we track that somehow?
9. Contested shots. Certainly this matters a great deal.
10. Contribution to an offensive set. Is it obvious when a basket is made as part of a play and can that be quantified?

These are just thoughts I have. If I could command a genie to give me the perfect box score, it would contain statistics like this.

So those are my thoughts. I'd like to see us in the BE community argue less about what we think we saw, less about the reported box score statistics, and more about what we should be looking for to come to firm conclusions. This is already a very intelligent site as blogs go... and I think it can get a lot better. In fact, if we can figure out a way to bring stats-keeping together on this website, we could change how the game itself is ultimately reported. It has happened in other places.

I was basking in the glow of Roy's all-star performance and it got me thinking about other loyalties I have to the NBA. For example.

1. Rick Adelman. I still have loyalties to that guy to this very day. I actively cheer for Houston when I see them play only because Rick coaches for them. I did the same thing when he was with Sacramento. I have a lot of loyalty towards that guy and I've followed his teams only because of his time with Portland.
2. Terry Porter. I really loved this guy. I still remember when he blocked that Jordan jumper from behind in that championship series that ended up coronating Jordan. I followed the Milwaukee Bucks only because he was with that team. I still hope he finds a coaching gig.
3. Ime Udoka. I'm happy that Ime ended up with the Spurs, although I wish he'd play more. I find myself looking up box scores to see how that dude is doing.

I suppose that the list goes on for many people for many different reasons. I suppose that's what's great about being a good fan of the game. You're aware of the ebb and flow of people and find a reason to pay attention to other teams. (Btw, I get a great sense of schaudenfreude when I see players I don't like do badly... are you listening Bonzi?)

Then it got me thinking about this team. How will I feel?

1. I'll follow whatever team Demopolous ends up going to. I think he's a great coach.
2. It seems clear to me that Surge will be with another team. He will probably flourish but I'm willing to concede he's a bad fit for the Blazers. I will feel envy if he makes the all-star game.
3. Webster and Jack will, I think, be gone soon. I don't know if they've inspired enough loyalty in me to actually follow them but I'll think kind thoughts on them. But I will not feel envy if they make the all-star game... only immense surprise.

One thing that is clear to me after watching the all-star game: our Blazers have a long way to go. Watching Roy play with Paul and Amare really clarified in my mind how much he's been carrying that team. It solidified in my mind how utterly replacable Jack, Webster, Surge, and perhaps even James Jones really are. AFter all, who in the NBA doesn't have guys like this?

Our team is going to change faces... and that's a good thing. We're so close to the team that we can't bear to think of other players playing. But really, we don't miss Ime that much; we don't miss Bonzi or Rasheed at all; Brian Grant's departure didn't end up being that big of a deal; we got over Kersey and Drexler and Porter all leaving the team.

In fact, I find myself hoping that KP does, in fact, pull the trigger in the 11th hour.

Last night's game was the first game I've gotten to watch start to finish in high-definition 42" TV. (Most games I get to watch on a 5" computer window.) I've read a lot about people really disappointed by the lost, ready to make some changes, something has to happen, etc.

I'm okay with the game. We lost, yeah, but I've been much, much angrier at other games.

1. Joel. Look, Joel was having a brilliant game. Me, personally, I think he should've been in the game. But Nate simply does not like him in the 4th qtr. Whatever Joel brings, Nate is not a buyer. We're going to have to live with that while we have Nate. I prefer having Nate and not Joel in the 4th to having Joel full time and no Nate. That's just it. (I worry that the same will be true of Sergio.)
2. Defense. Our defense was solid. After the first quarter, we held that team to low total shots, contested shots, forced some turnovers, and played some good D. More to the point, I tried to watch Webster closely and he played some very respectable D on LeBron. We held this team to 84pts and that's including LeBron's magic 3 pointers at the end of the game. That's very, very good. If the offense had shown up, this would have been a game featuring Taurean Green in the fourth quarter. Speaking of which...
3. Offense. I am absolutely not buying the offensive woes. In my opinion, we played a brilliant ofensive game. Do you know what I saw? Open shots. Over and over and over again we had wide open, clean looks at the basket. Our team took great shots. The issue was that they didn't go down. But what the heck do you want? Against what is touted as one of the better defensive teams in the league, we continually and routinely got wide, wide open looks. That's a great offense. So we had great defense, we had great offense... what are we complaining about? That the shots didn't go down? That's a bummer too... but this team has already shown that they can hit the shots. Sometimes a statistical anomaly develops and I can live with that. I'll take those same shots again next game and we'll absolutely blow that team out of the water.
4. Sergio's Shooting. You know, two of those misses were buzzer beaters at the end of quarters and both had a very decent chance of going down. Another couple were 3 pointers, which is a known defect in his game. Another two he was trying to hit layups, when we know his passing too frequently is a known defect. He is developing, and I'm okay with that for the time being.
5. Jack's Shooting. It sucked, agreed. Jack had a terrible game. Nothing new there... Jack has been bad for weeks. But something good did happen last night: never once did he turn the ball over by stepping out of bounds. That might be the first one this year. Development!
6. Outlaw. Every shot he took was, pretty much, clean. He took great shots. He even took some great passes. If anything, I think the degree of difficulty on his shots was too low... maybe that's why he wasn't hitting them.
7. We played not to lose. That's just crap. The last few possessions we had leading up to the final LeBron shot, the Blazers took three great, open, clean looks at the basket. They ran their offense well. Again, we ran into a statistical anomaly.
8. Rebounds. Good grief, we got offensive rebounds. Awesome! And I don't remember losing d-board after d-board. It was a great relief, that. I only remember being massively upset three times over second-chance points instead of 10 or 11 times, as has been usual of late.

I am very, very okay with the game last night. Our defense held up... all the way up to the final play. We saw LeBron will a team to victory, which is a treat for any true basketball fan. Like it or not, his three-pointers were beautiful looking shots and it's hard to hate that. The O got open look after open look... even a 45% clip turns this game into an absolute blowout in favor of the Blazers.

That's a loss I'll take. That it happened in the final seconds hurts, yeah. But they played a great game. That team, with that execution, wins the majority of games in the future.

There's a lot to love about last night's game.

(Assuming, of course, that hitting all their shots earlier this season was not the actual statistical anomaly.)

In order to amuse myself during the game, I invented a totally biased box score and kept it over the course of the game. It's meant to balance good plays with bad. So, here's how it works.

Good play: won a contested rebound, made a shot, great pass for an open shot (irrespective of whether the guy made it), drawn foul, steal/deflection, et. Anything I thought was cool. +1 point

Bad play: did not box out, dumb pass, unforced turnover, a total brick of a miss such as an airball, a really dumb shot taken early in the shot clock and contested (unless it's made), etc. Anything I thought to myself: "Self, you just witnessed crap!" -1 point

Stupid Play: Something that is just mindbogglingly dumb. -3 points.

Awesome play: *Something that is a privilege just to witness." +3 points.

So I tallied it all up, and here's the final total:

Steve Blake: +13 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 3, Good: 10, Awsm: 2)

Brandon Roy: +10 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 7, Good: 14, Awsm: 1)

Travis Outloaw: +9 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 6, Good: 12, Awsm: 1)

Joel Pryzbilla: +7 (Stpd: 1, Bad: 2, Good 6, Awsm: 2 [remember those early blocks?])

Martell Webster: +5 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 3, Good: 5, Awsm: 1)

James Jones: +5 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 3, Good: 5, Awsm: 1)

Lamarcus Aldridge: +3 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 12, Good: 12, Awsm: 1)

Sergio Rodriguez: -1 (Stpd: 0, Bad: 1, Good: 0, Awsm: 0)

Channing Rye: -3 (Stpd: 1, Bad: 2, Good: 2, Awsm: 1)

Jarrett Jack: -3 (Stpd: 1, Bad: 5, Good: 5, Awsm: 0)

Stupidest Player: Tie to Joel, Jack, and Frye.

Baddest Player: Lamarcus by a mile--learn how to rebound.

Goodest Player: Roy but with LMA and Outlaw right on his heels (at least LMA can make some shots)

Awesomest Player: tie for Blake and Joel but Joel got his basically on the first two plays of the game, then it was over.

What do you think of the Fizbin Box? (Yeah, I played D&D when I was a kid.)

I was watching the Spurs last night and had a couple of thoughts I thought I'd share. After all, despite people saying they're boring and any number of pejoratives, it's hard not to view them as a model franchise and certainly KP admires them.

1. Ginobili. Do you know who Brandon Roy is? Ginobili. Now look, before you start calling me a lunatic for comparing an all-star and MVP candidate to someone's sixth man just look at the game. Ginobili plays with that same deceptive speed, the controlled pace, the drive-and-kick and the drive-and-finish. It's eerie how similar the theoretical approach of those two players is. And ponder this: if Blazers had had Oden and LMA in the linup for 3 years and then Roy had joined the team, wouldn't his career trajectory have been radically different? Circumstances play a role (as well as amazing talent and godlike willpower) in creating an MVP. I regard Ginobili as a great player. There are far worse people Roy could be compared to.
2. Tony Parker. In looking at the Spurs as a team we would aspire to be, who is our Tony Parker? Is it Blake? No. Is it Jack? No. Is it Sergio? Well, I have to say he has the best chance of achieving it out of our 3 point guards. In JQ's excellent chat this week, he mentioned that Sergio may end up getting traded. That he wasn't a "good fit" with Nate. I think we can all agree on that. I'm a Surge man-crush guy but I have to say that, for the greater good of the team, we may end up letting him go. After all, we can't have all the talent. But I can't help thinking we're letting one get away in Surge. We can easily live without and replace Blake and Jack (okay "easily" is a stretch but they're not irreplacable). Surge, I don't know. I feel he may end up being someone's Tony Parker.
3. Duncan. It's hard not to watch Duncan and think LMA. Every time Duncan calmly hit one of those bank shots I think of LMA's feathery outside jumper. Duncan's got some great moves to the basket but at the end of the day I regard him as a kind of face-up player, which seems to be LMA's pursuit.
4. Barry. I watched this guy just sit on the sidelines and shoot 3's. If that isn't Webster, I don't know what is. At least, it's what Webster appears to be consigned to do. I wish he would do more. I'm puzzled by the guy. He's one who's reliability game in and game out I question. Ultimately, if he could give the Blazers some reliable, Barry-like 3pt shooting, I think we'd all be very happy.
5. Poppovich. I love stability at the coaching position. I love the predictability, the certainty, and the authority that comes with a long-term coach. For how much I'm puzzled about Joel and Surge, I'm no longer thinking of doing anything but keeping Nate long-term. I want him just like SA has had Poppovich for so long.

I think KP has openly admired San Antonio for a long time and I think these teams are being built upon similar lines. Watching SA now, I feel like I'm watching Portland's future.

I pretty much watch only the Blazers. Last time I actually watched the Celtics play a game was when Bird dropped 40pts or something on Drexler.

So I tune into tonight's broadcast and I have no idea who the commentators are. But he talks very nicely about the Blazers turnaround. He mentions Roy for the MVP several times. He recognizes LMA as a good prospect, Joel as "active," Sergio as a "clever passer" and Outlaw as one of the strongest bench players in the league (though he expressed surprise that Trout has 3pt range, which is kind of weird after the 4pt play the other night). Still, it was clear he had spent some time looking over the team and had nothing derrogatory to say.

And he's kind of funny. I learned about "tommy points." When Frye and Aldridge were on the floor he said "They've got a couple of string beans in for their big people... we should take advantage of that." Well, sure... again, kind of funny. They had a very laid back approach to the game, which was kind of refreshing after listening to Wheels on the radio and Rice on the broadcast.

He was fairly impartial, I thought, about the referee calling. I know a lot of people were pissed about it but honoestly, out side of a handful of questionable calls (and a couple of those in favor of the Blazers) I didn't have too much trouble with the refereeing.

There was one bad moment where the guy said "lollygagging" about 10 times in 30 second... but other than that, I didn't have much problem with the guy.

So I'm asking, what is it about this guy that got people so riled up? I'm honestly kind of surprised.

Sean

I like Sean's blogging--very thorough and nice flourishes with the text. But man, dude needs a little fire in his voice for the chat. He sounds like he's stoned.

Joel

It was nice to hear Jason's comments about the use of Joel in the 4th quarter. Hard to question the coaching that got us to 17-1 but I've also seen the Blazers getting just slaughtered on the rebounding. Where's Joel? The guy, after all, is shooting some great FT percentage. I wonder if the guy stiffens up on the bench (remember, his back is sore) and just can't play after he's sat for a while. Anybody else get that sense: once he sits he's sat?

Jack

Quick also seems to think that JJ's days are numbered as a Blazer. He's the "odd man out." Of course, being the Sergio-guy I am, I agree. He easily seems like the most replacable Blazer. It got me thinking about Sergio because Quick also mentioned that Sergio basically comes in to relieve Roy, implying what many of us thought: Roy and Sergio both need the ball and don't play well together. My take is this: they're both 2nd year guys and may not really know how to play without the ball at this point in their career. Neither have ever had to do that before. Today, I think the Serio + Roy = Oil + Water theory is probably true... but I think if they're really good players (they are) they can grow out of this in subsequent years. And they need to start playing together for that to happen.

Injuries

Quick said two things that I think are interesting from a basketball philosophy standpoint. First, that this team is really banged up and sore like a team in late spring. Yikes! I worry about that and have stated before that the team needs to learn how to easily win games so that they don't bang up. THe great teams seem to play great in spurts--just enough to win--and conserve their energy. We've gotta learn how to do that. But then Quick also said that he agreed with Barkley: they Blazers can't win and be a playoff team if they settle for too many jump shots. I don't think so. They've done exactly that recently. In fact, I'll go so far as to say they need to do that in order to become the kind of team that can survive a long, long season. I'll even go one step further, can the Blazers really rewrite how the NBA game is played? Everybody's commenting about how different this team plays, how they share the ball, how much zone they play, how many jump shots they take. Has the Moneyball statistical theories of KP come true? Are we truly seeing the NBA game reinvented in front of our eyes? Now that's an exciting though.

Stoked to see the Quick Chat... I love getting that inside info.

Okay, I'm calling on all fellow Sergio loyalists out there to reassure me.

I want that guy to be so good. I firmly believe he's ultimately the better point guard than either Jack or Blake.

But man, last night, watching him shoot those free throws hurt. That step backward on release; that lousy trajectory. And then, I have to watch those horrible, horrible air balls! Haven't we seen at least one of those every game for the last three games?

Then, I start thinking of his driving. He's great at that. He's great at penetrating. But he never, ever looks to score and that hurts him. Now I know... I have this secret worry that he can't really shoot the ball. I worry that his whole jump shot is this massive, moon-shot conspiracy level fraud.

Who's this imposter that's taken the place of my idol Surge?

So look, I just started actually getting to see the game on one of those websites that I think are illegal to talk about around here so I haven't had a chance to see a full season of the Surge.

Fellow loyalists, what's up!? Is he for real? Or are my hopes and dreams pinned upon the Ethereal Mist of Wishful Thinking?

If it is as I fear, then we are really in a lot of trouble from a PG standpoint. I like the amount of PG Roy is playing right now. I think we need a decent PG to play with him. I like Blake... but I dunno. Jack... man, until he can run the break... if Surge can't shoot, what're we gonna do?

Last night's win was huge.

I think there are times in a season where you have the chance to not only beat a team for that game, but utterly cripple them psychologically for the near term future. When that opportunity arises, you take it. Because not only do you get your victory; you benefit from those other losses as well.

Consider the game of Blackjack. There are always one or two hands in a session where you split aces, then split them again, then maybe double-down on a few of those so that suddenly what was your $10 bet now means you have about $70 riding on the next turn of a card. The importance of that one hand is now magnified far beyond what you originally expected, intended, or even wanted.

Last night's basketball game was like that. If the Blazers had packed it up at 14 down--like any other lopsided loss (or blowout)--the players say, "Yeah, it was just one of those nights." They move on. No big deal in the grand scheme of things.

But that didn't happen. Instead, the Blazers doubled-down. Then they doubled again. And Chicago called them.

Now a lot more than one game was on the line. Both teams were exhausted, investing everything they had in this game which was now too important for them to just give in.

Losing that game--once you've invested everything you had in it--is not just one loss in the standings. It makes you second guess who you are, what you're capable of, what your teammates can do, the system you're in... everything.

Last night, the Blazers just didn't win. They destroyed that team for at least the next week or so. It was a terrible risk because if they had lost instead, it would have lingered on. Now, losing the next game--losing any game in the near future--won't take away what they are clearly capapble of. But Chicago is in the opposite position. Every loss from now on reinforces the doubt that was created by JJ and B Roy last night.

That, my friends, is a killer instinct. And it's also the sign of a super-dense set of massive balls so great that small vortices break out in space-time around the waists of the players as they stalk the earth.

Love that about this team. Loved last night's win.

I wanted to talk about LMA. One defensive rebound? One?! In all of those minutes? Sergio matched LMA's d-rebounds in his seven minutes!

That's a problem. He's got to get a little Rodman in him. Or a little Joel. A little something. One thing that Zach gave the team was rebounding--he gave the team a lot of other things that they didn't want but his rebounding was huge. One could say that LMA needs a little Zach.

But the thing that really bothered me was the overall offense when LMA was the focus. We used to complain about the black hole of Zach when we would drop the ball in the post and wait to see what he would do.

Well look, everyone: the same thing happened last night.

I saw a lot of plays that were great with cutting and slashing players and great shots. And I saw some plays where they fed LMA in the post. And  w a i t e d . The thing that really bothered me then? LMA looked absolutely horrible passing out of the post--especially late in the game. I couldn't believe some of the turnovers and near turnovers he had out of the post--to Blazers that were standing around like statues I might add.

We would do well to remember that this winning streak started with LMA on the bench. And the offense woke up. In the game against Philly, I don't remember many post-ups from anyone in the fourth quarter. This is simply not a back-to-the-basket team. And I like that about them. One of the reasons Trout is so effective as a PF is because he doesn't do that.

Look: I love LMA. I think he's great. But the dude is very raw and we should recognize that.

1. He has got to rebound.
   
2. He has got to learn to pass out of the post. He's able to not pass sometimes and get away with it because of his freaky circus shots going in... but he's got to pass.
   
3. The team has GOT to shake the curse of Zach and continue to move when LMA gets the ball in the post. This team sometimes seemed grooved and trained to wait while the ball is in the post. No more of this!

I'm channeling my inner Wheels by trying to rhyme the title (and keep it in meter). It was great when he said something like, "Shout it out and tell a friend the winning streak is now at ten!"

So I read the little blurb about Taurean Green getting called back up after a short stint in the NBDL. Looks like he played very, very well. It also sounded like he may get sent right back with McRoberts but it did get me thinking.

Lots of discussion here about point guards. I like Blake's D lately and it looks like he has a place. Jack has been up and down and sideways all season long but everyone agrees that they love his scoring off the bench.

Well, for those of you who love his scoring, here's a news bulletin: that position is now filled and it's been taken by Travis Outlaw. The "Run, Forrest, run!" strategy with Trout is working out great and where does that leave Jack? Questionable shooting, questionable defense, qustionable passing skills.

Ahh... but if memory serves, Green is a shooter, a defender (a little something-that-rhymes-with-brick if I remember properly), and averaged 9.8 assists in Boise.

Hmm. I see potential that's plentiful... potent... and palpalble in pairing up Trout and Green. (How's that for a run of P's, Wheels?)

Now on to my Sergio man-crush. I don't know how this affects Sergio... but I still think he plays especially when Roy is not on the floor. I see a situation developing where Green and Trout come in like closers in the fourth quarter with Sergio and Blake playing most of the first 3 quarters. I can get behind that strategy. But that leaves Jack as the odd man out.

Prediction: Jack plays to trade deadline--just to see--then we start seeing a lot more Green.

Just read some Behind the Beat stuff by Jason Quick (http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2007/12/another_bold_coaching_move_by.html) talking about how great Nate's coaching has been lately. I agree.

I was openly questioning Nate's moves earlier this season... most especially when he benched Joel in favor of Channing. I implied I'd rather have Addelman. I implied that his substitution patterns made no sense. I said he was burning up the career of young point guards. I still have a Sergio man-crush and wish he'd get more minutes.

But man, JQ is right on. JQ says that Nate has been dictating the pace of the game and his defensive schemes have been brilliant. Accurate, accurate, accurate. I sort of half-heartedly recanted a bit after a few early wins but now, in the face of the streak, in how the streak was accomplished, in how polished everyhing has been--in short, how right Nate was and how wrong I was--I'm here doing a full 180.

Nate, if you're out there, let it be known: I am now swallowing a big mess of crow's feet raw, whole and unsweetened. And I'm happy to do it.

I'm going to sit in front of my computer listening to the internet radio feed and do my own damned job instead of yours. My job is to cheer. So that's what I'm going to do. My job is not to sit here and second-guess you. I don't know if I can refrain from that completely but at the very least you've earned the right not to have to listen to people like me chirp in your left ear constantly for the next while.

(Although, it'd be nice if you get Sergio more minutes than Frye.)

So if there are any more of you recalcitrant crow-eaters out there, let this diary serve as a kind of petition of support. Sign the bottom and let those signatures swell the pride of Nate, a better coach than we deserved earlier this season.

For years I've just loathed the guy. Now, with this winning--and with this team--I'm filled with an overwhelming euphoria of schadenfreude.

What's poor-man's grinch going to write about?

"Dang... no layoffs. I can't figure out anything rotten with Paul Allen 'cause he bought back the Garden, bought the Franchise contract, updated the arena... maybe I'd better put some Papparazzi photogs on the guy and catch him with Timberlake or Hilton or someone...

"... And they've not laying anyone off... I can't figure out yet how to blame Global Warming on the Blazer management but I should check on that for later...

"What's going on? No drug possessions, no strip clubs, no booze, no ladies, no posses... Joel sounds like a Canadian so even if he did do something he's just too nice to attack...

"Oh my God. There's... there's nothing bad happening! What am I going to do? My little job of rubbing sand and glass slivers in the open wounds of peoples attempts to put some joy and hope in their lives is in trouble. I'm... oh my God... I might be irrelevant in a world where nothing bad is happening!!

"Gotta search the internet harder! Must find pain! Must find little old ladies to write about! Must brush up on Marxist philosoph!! Must invent more stories out of imagination!! I have to do something...

"I'm melting... I'm melting..."

With every Blazer win I see that peddler of misinformation, character besmirchment, sensationalized half-truths, and wicked insinuations vanish a little bit more like the sinking memories of a bout of food poisoning from the local Jack-in-the-Box.

It must be hard when your entire body of work is designed solely around creating outrage and guilt around issues. If there's one thing that history has taught us, it is that the good things survive and most ugliness is forgotten. "Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all ye know and all ye need to know" (Keats for you non-English majors out there.)

So each Blazer win with this team turns the volume down on the Canzano bleating until, one day, we'll notice that we're hearing nothing at all. And that's when the new era will truly begin.

I loved last night's game. Listening to that game is going to rank right up there with the Phoenix comeback in the early 90's as one of the best games I ever witnessed.

That got me thinking: it's never going to be better than right now. Why? Because the best team to possibly cheer for are over-achievers. That is, a bunch of guys taking on the world--guys who have no right to do well--and win. It's the story of Rocky. It's the story of the Miracle on Ice. It's not necessarily being an "underdog"--that's not what I mean. It's more about a bunch of guys playing to the maximum of their capabilities and beyond.

That's what's great cheering for Portland right now. That's why I watch. Because later, when these guys are expected to win, it's not going to be as much fun. It's the difference between cheering for the Yankees--who should win because of the money involved--and the Oakland A's, who win despite the money.

The wins will never be as sweet, the glory never so good, and the excitement never so palpable as right now.

No one can logically feel like Trout and Webster and Joel and these other guys have any chance of winning in the whole thing. We assuage each other with promises of "long term plans" and get a countdown from Dave to the playoffs of over a season. But man, I watch the games and follow the Blazers for stuff like last night. Because I still feel like heart and will and (I'll say it after being hard on Nate earlier this season) good coaching can still overcome physical talent and have a place on winning franchises and even championship teams.

So yeah, I watch right now today because I'm daring to dream and I'm daring to hope. And last night fed that a little bit. And it makes me hungry for more.

I am (sometimes) the admitted king of overreaction. So, here I am reacting to the most recent LMA injury. But consider:

1. He's diagnosed with Plantar Fasciitis, a notoriously difficult problem to overcome and sometimes chronic.
   
2. He missed the Olympic workouts because of a bad heel, perhaps related?
   
3. He missed time with a weird heart malady in the spring, though supposedly cured.
   
4. He missed time in the beginning of last year with the shoulder surgery.

I love LMA's game. Love it. Love his jumper. I think he has worlds of potential. But so did Fred Taylor (RB in the NFL). This is a pretty impressive list of injuries for a guy who's barely been in the NBA for a full season's worth of games (and that not even including the second season of the playoffs).

So I'm asking, at what point does the injury risk of LMA outweigh the potential of LMA?

The answer to that question is crucial. Right now, his stock is amazingly high. We could conceivably discuss him in terms of the biggest trades in the league. Maybe even Kidd; maybe even Kobe. Certainly a another very talented PF.

I sometimes feel like Blazer fans have a sense that they have to "pay their dues" and suffer through a few seasons of losing to "earn" a championship. I say BS. There's nothing preventing a few lightning trades and making a viable team immediately if the circumstances are right. I see what a veteran like James Jones can mean and I wonder what a truly great veteran could do with the youth around him.

So the question above. What would be a reasonble trade for LMA? And for those of you who claim that it's too early to call LMA inury prone, what would put you over the top? Another couple of weeks to an ankle? Another bout of plantar fasciitis? Do you who want to wait worry about waiting too long to admit the truth and losing the trade value that LMA might have?

Reactionary? Perhaps. But I think it's worth talking about.

So, look: here I am in the wastelands of the midwest and got to see the Blazers on TV for the first time this season. (Alas, it sounds like many Comcast subscribers might be in the same position.) Despite looking forward to the game all week, I fell asleep sometime in the 3rd quarter and woke up for the final 3 minutes. So given all that, here's what I saw that was different from pouring over box scores and blogs.

1. James Jones looks mean! And I love it. I mean, I look at that guy on TV, with that scowl, and I'm thinking, "Dang!" Loved watching that guy play. If Martell can turn into that, great. But I love what he brings... it's something no other Blazer has.
2. It hurts me to watch Blake. Because I was a Blake believer. Watching in the first half, all I saw was the guy refusing to take some early shots and unable to penetrate. From the stat line, looks like he might have come around in the 2nd half but I didn't see it.
3. Sergio has Brady Hair. You know, I'm a big Sergio man-crush guy but I can't say I could've picked him out of a lineup. Then I saw him, and I thought was watching a skinny Peter Brady on the court with that curly hair. Hurt my man-crush a little bit.
4. But my Sergio Man-Crush has actually intensified. This Sergio thing is turning into a red-state / blue-state issue it seems to me. Put me on J Quick's side with Dave (apparently) and Nate on the other because I loved what I saw from the Surge. He did everything that it appears to me that Blake cannot. And you could tell the difference in the guys who were playing. They were moving faster, they were expecting the ball more, everything worked. My take on this issue is that they've decided that Roy and The Surge can't share the court. Maybe... maybe it could also work like Iverson and Carmello. Who thought that they could share the court? But reading JQ's thoughts on The Surge and seeing him play, there's no question in my mind. Nate and Dave can bleat about blown defense all they want (I saw a steal caused by Sergio at the end of the first half and he didn't look that bad to me) but the guy brings something to the team that no one else has.
5. Is Roy's body language kind of weird? I don't know what I expected from Roy... but he seemed kind of pissed out there. Kind of like Martell would look last year a little bit. Like he's mad and detatched all at the same time. Like he wishes this year didn't have to happen. Whatever ineffable feeling it was, I didn't necessarily like what I saw. Which sux because his play was fantastic. I couldn't believe some of the moves he put down. (I guess his finesse floater look better when they actually go in!)
6. Trout is Forrest Gump. Man, dude has some skills but even my un-trained eye could see the gaffes. It reminds me of F Gump playing football when the play was: "Run, Forrest! Run!" It's like we need to get Trout to do one thing, expect only one thing out of him, and send him out to do it. It hurts to watch him try and do more than one thing. I don't know what that one thing is (it might be shoot every time he touches it, which explains the Surge's diminished assists this year). It reminds me of Dennis Rodman, though. Rodman was like that: he did one thing and one thing period. That's what we need to look for from Trout.
7. Shaq ought to be facing charges. For what he did to Joel. That was criminal. I can't believe I'm not reading more about that. If that had been even a moderately well-known player in a big market--say Big Ben--the press would be screaming. Joel has taken some ABSUE with the charges and the fouls and he keeps coming back. That's impressive. Mark me up for a Joel man-crush as well. But James Jones might be number one right now.
8. Jack looks great. Coming off the bench that is. I've gone from dreading him with the ball to loving it. This really suits him. I find myself hoping he's a Blazer for a while in this role.
9. LA's shot is SWEET. But everyone's right, I wish he'd draw more fouls.
10. For televised games, they should start earlier. Man, I can't tell you how I was looking forward to the game. But I get up at about 5:00am. Very, very difficult to stay up to see the game (I'm accustomed to falling asleep to the dulcimer tones of Wheels on the internet feed.) I might have to take the day off the next time they're on national TV and caffeine up for the game.

Know what, though? It was fun watching this ball club. A lot of fun. Makes me wish I were in Portland. I feel for all you guys on the Comcast issue. No one should have to go through what we exiles do out here in the Midwest (out here, the cable companies don't even carry NBA ticket so there's no prospect ever of seeing the Blazers).

Despite the fan unrest over Sergio Man-Crushes and Joel's playing time, I think the biggest disappointment has been drum roll:

The Buffet of Goodnes.

I actually had huge high hopes for this guy. Certianly he had been mishandled by New York (who hasn't) and now we can have not one but two LA's to fit into our team.

But behold, Frye has been about as underwhelming as it comes. So underwhelming and invisible, it's hard to find comments about him. (At least Sergio is active enough to generate criticism... we really don't get even that much from Frye.)

The reason I'm interested in the Buffet is this: I love the fact that Pritchard et al have this system that evaluates talent in new and interesting ways. I have this notion that we're the best at evaluating talent, uncovering gems, and will put together the best collection of players ever seen in the NBA. But consider: what does it mean about our evaluation system if we can misjudge Channing Frye so badly?

Maybe the guy rebounds and does better later on. Maybe he does better if he gets in a better position (though I remember Uncle Cliff doing spectacularly well in his youth filling in for Kevin Duckworth). But if this trajectory continues, I've gotta say the Zach Randolph trade is going to go down as one of the worst in history. We give up Zach--admittedly with problems--but in return we get to buy out a contract at $30M plus and the Buffet?

I love the fact we saddled Boston with Telfair. But it looks like we get slapped right back with Frye. Moral of the story: do not believe high draft-pick pedigrees. There is a reason teams want to get rid of these guys.

I hope the Buffet's trajectory improves.

And here's hoping James Jones turns out to be the awesomely stabilizing force we need. I'd love to see Outlaw on the bench with lots of Travis Man-Crushers agitating for playing time out there.

So I've noticed a few fans puzzled about the use of Joel this season. Of course there's the fan agitation around Sergio.

And I'm still concerned.

But I think it's worth pointing out that one of our best players last year--Ime Udoka--is having trouble getting playing time with San Antonio. He'd certianly be playing big minutes for us.

Couldn't help but notice that Jamaal Magloire didn't get any playing time last night. Somehow, I think he'd be getting some real burn with the Blazers.

It's a cold blast of reality to see these players that we respected going elsewhere and unable to crack the lineup. I've gotta think Webster, Frye, Outlaw, and gasp even Sergio would have trouble finding time on good teams elsewhere.

But I'm still puzzled about Joel.

(With apologies to Kierkegaard).

A lot of people have pointed out that the Blazers seem a bit scared in the last couple of games. I agree and worry specifically about doubt creeping into Outlaw and Webster.

Here's my take: we--meaning the fans and the coaching staff and the management--need to give the team space to develop. But what that means is consistency.

Premise: the team must have a defined plan and regular player rotation (with specific minutes) that is allowed to evolve over a time period measured in weeks and months rather than hours and days. Let me state what I mean in each capacity:

1. The Fans. I was ready to dump Nate in a fit of ire over the Joel benching and Sergio constraints after something like Game 2. I was wrong. As fans, we're jumping all over their backs after a couple road games after a magnificent home stand. When we praise Webster one game and get on his case the next, when we demand changes at the coaching level of the game plan... all this leads to a system of doubt and impatience. Yao Ming had a horrible first season. Jordan didn't win for a while. Other examples abound. But those programs were tenacious about sticking to the plan. We have to understand the plan, cheer for the plan, and allow for it to fail.
2. The Coaches. I am aggrieved to learn that Nate is contemplating scrapping the up-tempo style and demoting Sergio. I think he's being a bit overly reactionary. I think his juggling of minutes is hurting his players and affecting their ability to embrace their roles. Allowing a young team to develop means watching them fail--over and over again--until they get it right. Just like watching the karate kid on that stupid stump practicing his crane-kick (or whatever). We as fans are part of that problem (especially me) by calling for his head when we don't get immediate wins. But the hard truth is this: if we don't allow them to fail now, THEY WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER develop! And we can look forward to more years like this.
3. Management. I think KP and co understand this principle. I sense no panic from them. They're not trading. They're demanding things of anyone. They're being nothing but supportive in the press. I hpoe KP is talking to Nate every single day and tempering his reactions after being hounded by us (the fans and the media) second-guessing the plan and complaining about the losses.

I don't mind seeing the losses. I mind seeing the fear.

More to the point, I really, really "mind" having the sense that the players are not being allowed to develop--which means fail!--because of an overly short leash held tightly by fans and coaches.

I remember listening to games on the radio in that awful, awful spring of 2006. The only reason I was listening to those games in the 3rd and 4th quarters was to hear about the new players and how they did. I was hopeful for them. I wanted to see them learn and develop. I watched the summer league on a bad internet feed this summer for the same reason. We, as fans (and coaches!) need to embrace that philosophy. We've got to stop demanding the wrong thing (wins) and instead demand the right things (developlemnt). We've got to be able to say after Philly, "Ha! Bet they learned something in that one. Let's see the killer instinct in the next game or the game after that when we have them down by 25 in the 2nd half." (and we had them down by 25 in the second half, which is awesome!)We've got to be able to say after the Washington game, here's a perfect example of a box score looking good but a win going the wrong way. Here's a second game where full court pressure broke our point guards, let's see how they deal with that over the next few weeks. THE WRONG REACTION IS TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON THE POINT GUARDS! That shouldn't happen until they demonstrate that they CAN'T get it and CAN'T learn and that's something we can't figure out on such a short time frame.

We can help that here. I'm not demanding wins this early part of the season. I want to see them grow. I never, ever want them to feel like we don't have confidence in their future.

I've been reading the stuff about Sergio with interest. I'm glad to see that his thumb is fine and that Nate seems willing to play him tonight.

I'm incensed over the easy contempt Nate showed when he said "we know things that fans don't see." I'll give him that from a locker room standpoint. But the idea that fans can't be students of the game is incredibly ignorant given the recent success of Theo Epstein and "Moneyball-style" player evaluation in recent years. In this, Nate reveals himself as very old-school in the Michael Lewis sense of evaluating by gut and feel.

In any event, I'm curious about this: I'm trying to think of other situations where the fans and the coach were at great odds over a player. And how did those situations end? I'm having trouble coming up with any outside of some quarterback controversies in the NFL and maybe Reggie Bush in New Orleans when the Deuce was still running.