SBNation.com User Blog: blacknoiseNW

Did Ichiro curse Seattle with a drought?

blacknoiseNW — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:18 -0000

Did Ichiro curse Seattle with a drought?

What a ding dong. No rain in Seattle is a BLESSING.

Claver - 7 pts/4 rbs in 15 min

blacknoiseNW — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:53:20 -0000

Claver - 7 pts/4 rbs in 15 min

He does it on 3-5 shooting, including 1-2 from three. What I found interesting was the way Claver was used - essentially as a stretch 4 - but often guarding the middle on defense. He didn't look out of place, but certainly wasn't the guy creating an automatic mismatch on the floor. He is a 15mpg role player on a depleted Spanish roster, but should find a few more minutes for the Blazers.

Pritchard new Indiana GM

blacknoiseNW — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:44:43 -0000

Pritchard new Indiana GM

Bird resigns citing health issues...Walsh takes over as President...

Dissecting the Champions

blacknoiseNW — Mon, 14 May 2012 05:45:24 -0000

Winners set the standard. Understanding the anatomy of the ultimate NBA winners ostensibly gives us a blueprint for roster construction - a design to apply to personnel decisions.

Understanding the anatomy of a champion is obviously challenging - but I take a simple approach to the problem here by using a composite stat (Win Shares) to gain insight on what level of overall performance represents a champion caliber roster. Win Shares is convenient - with data easily available from basketballreference.com for all my samples. As a composite stat, it isn't perfect - but it is good enough to draw some basic conclusions.

Technically, I could go back to the late 70's to build my sample size (Win Shares calculated the same way for all teams/players going back that far) - but that is more work than I wanted. So, I limited my analysis to NBA champions in the current millennium. The Lakers dominate the millennium so far - with 5 championships since 2000. How that might skew my analysis, I have no idea.

What we do know is that the average team Win Shares for an NBA champion is 59. The low was 50.6 (2000-01 Lakers) and the high was the 2007-08 Celtics at 70.2. Where it gets interesting is how a 10-player rotation accounts for those Win Shares. After the jump, I take a look at Win Share distribution per Championship team, and I compare that to the current edition of the Portland Trailblazers. Dave recently posed the question of "how long to relevance?". This analysis offers some additional discussion fodder for that very question.

Winners set the standard. Understanding the anatomy of the ultimate NBA winners ostensibly gives us a blueprint for roster construction - a design to apply to personnel decisions.

Season	Champion	Team Win Shares	1st Player	2nd Player	3rd player	4th player	5th player	6th player	7th player	8th player	9th Player	10th player
2010-11	Dallas Mavericks	52.7	11.1	9.4	6.4	5.6	5.3	3.2	2.9	1.8	1.8	1.7
2009-10	Los Angeles Lakers	53.6	11	9.4	7.8	7.7	5.3	3.9	3.4	2.8	1.4	0.6
2008-09	Los Angeles Lakers	60.8	13.9	12.7	6.9	6.3	6.1	5.5	3.7	2	1.6	0.8
2007-08	Boston Celtics	70.2	12.9	12.4	9.7	7.2	6.2	6.2	4.3	3.9	2.7	2.5
2006-07	San Antonio Spurs	64.4	13	10.6	9.6	6.8	4.7	4.1	4.1	3.1	2.9	2.2
2005-06	Miami Heat	52.9	14.4	7	6.2	4.8	4.8	4.2	4.1	3.6	1.2	0.8
2004-05	San Antonio Spurs	63.8	11.2	11	8.1	6.1	6.1	4.6	4.2	3.7	3.1	2.3
2003-04	Detroit Pistons	58.6	11.3	10.2	8.1	7.5	5.9	4.1	2.4	2.1	2	1.4
2002-03	San Antonio Spurs	57	16.5	7.7	6	5.2	5.1	4.8	4.2	2.5	2.2	1.6
2001-02	Los Angeles Lakers	60.1	13.2	12.7	6.9	5.5	5.3	4.3	4.2	2	1.9	1.8
2000-01	Los Angeles Lakers	50.6	14.9	11.3	6.5	5.1	2.6	2.5	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.1
1999-00	Los Angeles Lakers	63.3	18.6	10.6	9	5.7	5	4	3.2	3.1	2.1	0.7
	Average Win Shares	59	13.5	10.4	7.6	6.1	5.2	4.3	3.5	2.7	2.0	1.5

			Aldridge	Batum	Mathews	Wallace	Crawford	Camby	Hickson	Felton	Thomas	C.Smith
2011-12	Portland Trailblazers	31.3	7	4.8	4.8	3.5	2.3	1.9	1.8	1.7	1.1	1
2010-11	Portland Trailblazers		11.1	6.6	7.2	6.2

A couple of things to note about the above table:

Win Shares is normalized against minutes played - so the lockout shortened season compares to the full season stats for the champions.
The Blazer numbers are skewed by a couple of things - injury (LMA and Batum), trade (Wallace/Camby) and late season pickup (Hickson).
The Blazers don't look quite as bad when we use WS/48 (table below).

What this table tells us is that in a healthy season - Aldridge produces like a bona fide #1 (see his 2010-11 numbers). Batum produces like a cross between a #3 and a #4; ditto for Mathews.

Funny thing is - the WS/48 doesn't support the idea of Aldridge as a #1. In reality - he would be a perfect #3. A caveat here is that WS likes rebounding - Aldridge's particular weak spot. If Aldridge adds a couple of rebounds per game - he could get into that #2 territory for sure - perhaps even #1. Batum has been a remarkably consistent producer that could fill the roll of a 3rd - 4th player on a championship team. Mathews really regressed in 2011-12. In 2010-11, Mathews was a borderline #3. This season, he matched Batum in total production - but only because he played in every game.

Total production isn't the whole story, of course - and the WS/48 table sheds a little more light on the issue:

Season	Champion	Team Win Shares	1st Player	2nd Player	3rd player	4th player	5th player	6th player	7th player	8th player	9th Player	10th player
2010-11	Dallas Mavericks	52.7	0.213	0.218	0.116	0.12	0.1	0.093	0.104	0.177	0.074	0.132
2009-10	Los Angeles Lakers	53.6	0.22	0.16	0.188	0.143	0.098	0.085	0.096	0.093	0.12	0.084
2008-09	Los Angeles Lakers	60.8	0.223	0.206	0.143	0.123	0.146	0.184	0.138	0.083	0.098	0.034
2007-08	Boston Celtics	70.2	0.265	0.207	0.177	0.15	0.156	0.164	0.256	0.127	0.093	0.128
2006-07	San Antonio Spurs	64.4	0.23	0.246	0.185	0.201	0.125	0.144	0.079	0.111	0.125	0.163
2005-06	Miami Heat	52.9	0.239	0.134	0.164	0.124	0.176	0.104	0.085	0.08	0.085	0.096
2004-05	San Antonio Spurs	63.8	0.245	0.24	0.141	0.168	0.111	0.157	0.114	0.145	0.128	0.13
2003-04	Detroit Pistons	58.6	0.198	0.16	0.141	0.134	0.179	0.124	0.171	0.115	0.137	0.13
2002-03	San Antonio Spurs	57	0.248	0.134	0.172	0.13	0.096	0.102	0.141	0.117	0.109	0.091
2001-02	Los Angeles Lakers	60.1	0.262	0.199	0.154	0.134	0.153	0.091	0.113	0.059	0.142	0.118
2000-01	Los Angeles Lakers	50.6	0.245	0.196	0.13	0.107	0.078	0.067	0.119	0.077	0.088	0.085
1999-00	Los Angeles Lakers	63.3	0.283	0.202	0.17	0.161	0.124	0.093	0.104	0.083	0.082	0.093
	Average Win Shares	59	0.239	0.192	0.157	0.141	0.129	0.117	0.127	0.106	0.107	0.107

			Aldridge	Batum	Mathews	Wallace	Crawford	Camby	Hickson	Felton	Thomas	C.Smith
2011-12	Portland Trailblazers	31.3	0.169	0.127	0.104	0.111	0.069	0.1	0.147	0.042	0.067	0.105
			71%	66%	66%	79%	54%	85%	116%	40%	63%	98%

The percentages shown in the last row show how far below or above the Blazers were relative to a comparable slot on a championship team. Hickson was good in his limited time - good enough to outproduce Felton's entire season. Dang. Wallace was decent - good enough to be a fourth wheel. Batum is grossly under-appreciated as an asset and potential starter on a championship-caliber team (editorializing here, sorry). Crawford was deplorable. Downright awful. Thomas wasn't good enough. Craig Smith was.

2011-12 was Aldridge's best season a 0.169 WS/48 - well below the #1 or #2 average. As noted above, however, WS isn't favorable to Aldridge because of the weight given to rebounds. Aldridge could bump his WS/48 with a reasonable increase in rebounding (double digits would be nice). The Mavericks and 2009-10, 2008-09 Lakers were lead by Power Forwards (Nowitzki and Gasol) - and their WS/48 for those seasons should be what Aldridge is shooting for (low .200's). Filling in a roster around Aldridge will require adding legitimate #2/#3 players to the rotation. Batum could potentially be the #3. His high WS/48 of .181 was good enough, two seasons ago - but that was in limited minutes. At age 23, Batum hasn't hit his prime - and only needs a 19% increase in production to hit that solid #3 territory. Doable, considering his history, age, and skill set.

A #2 is still necessary, however (not to mention #4, #5, #6, #7. PG, SG, SF, C - three of those four spots is a candidate to add a #2, if we hypothesize that Batum can play either SG or SF. The Blazers do not currently have an on-roster candidate to develop into a #2 - that person has to be acquired either via the draft or via Free Agency. Mathews wasn't very good in 2011-12. However, he was good enough in 2010-11, almost good enough to be a #5 (almost a starter or 6th man). If Mathews and Williams can be the 5th and 6th guys - that would be a plus. Hickson is a wildcard. He is an RFA - so the path to acquiring him is relatively straightforward (same with Batum). However, can he maintain a .147 WS/48? Big question. Plus, he would have to do that playing alongside Aldridge. Babbitt has potential as a rotation contributor. Nolan Smith? Maybe.

The Blazers do have a lottery pick - and potentially two lottery picks. Expecting either to be above average contributors right away is asking a lot. The top picks are all very young. Retooling through FA will require the following:

1) retain Batum as the #4 or hope he emerges as a #3.

2) retain Hickson as the #5; hope he keeps that position and develops into a solid 4.

3) Sign a new #1 or #2 type.

4) Sign a new #3 or #4 type.

Deron Williams would represent a #3. He is not a #1. He might be a good enough #2 if there is a good enough #1 on the team - but the Maverick/Laker examples show that the lower PF leaders are backed by very good wings - better than what Williams has been in his career. Goran Dragic is a #3 or #4. Beyond those two, are there any UFA's that could help this team retool by filling a distinct need for a top player? Ain't gonna happen. The players just aren't there. Those players aren't there in the draft, either, unless the Blazers score the top pick.

Really, the only way for the Blazers to retool is to hope for internal development of players like Aldridge (emerge as a #1); Batum (emerge as a #3); Hickson (emerge as a #4); Mathews & Williams (emerge as #5 & #6) and then sign Deron Williams, Dragic or Nash and have one of those three become a #2. Although there is precedent for a team retooled with declining players to have those players all simultaneously rebound to previous glory days (Garnett/Pierce/Allen), it would be a major stretch to ask 5 players to all hit new heights at the same time.

Bottom line is that the Blazers are searching for a replacement to Brandon Roy and Greg Oden - the two guys that along with Aldridge would have formed a legitimate championship core. Roy was that good. Oden showed flashes. Aldridge would have been perfect as a complement to those two. However, now the Blazers face the task of finding out if they have anything to build around (you don't build around #3's and #4's - you build around #1's and #2's - but only if you already have both).

I don't think the Blazers need to commit to a total rebuild (acquire prospects or tank to acquire prospects) until we find out what kind of players will come out of this draft and offseason. I think we are one year away from a rebuild decision.

Batum and Salary - a Comp

blacknoiseNW — Sat, 12 May 2012 07:29:23 -0000

Batum and his pending Restricted Free Agency (RFA) is a hot topic here on Blazersedge, and projections of reasonable offers are all over the board. Recently, a short discussion with Oden Mad, Oden Smash! and Magnum sparked the question of how to define value. Oden Mad, Oden Smash! proposed that only a small handful of players in the $8M-$11M salary range "earn" their contract. It is a market value question - where I counter that the proper question isn't whether a small number of outliers (higher than normal production for a given salary range) defines "value" - but rather the question is how much bang for the buck is necessary for a salary that individually consumes 20-25% of the available cap?

Incidentally, $10M represents 17% of a $58M cap, but close enough.

Magnum posted the question of being able to look at a comprehensive list of players in a given salary range and evaluating value based on the list.

Here you go (after the jump). The salary list, with exception notes, is based on 2011/2012 data courtesy of Storyteller's Contracts. Also courtesy of Smirnoff 100 + xEnergy Fruit Punch.

I limited the list to salaries between $6M and $10M, taking a few liberties wherever I pleased. I personally chose this range because I feel it represents both the appropriate player comps and Batum's likely future salary (don't see him getting $11M a year).

The average salary of the following list is $7.9 million (42 players). There aren't very many players in that range that one could say are clearly better than Batum.

Incidentally, $10M represents 17% of a $58M cap, but close enough.

Magnum posted the question of being able to look at a comprehensive list of players in a given salary range and evaluating value based on the list.

Here you go (after the jump). The salary list, with exception notes, is based on 2011/2012 data courtesy of Storyteller's Contracts. Also courtesy of Smirnoff 100 + xEnergy Fruit Punch.

The average salary of the following list is $7.9 million (42 players). There aren't very many players in that range that one could say are clearly better than Batum.

(salary in millions)

Hinrich: 8.1

Marvin Williams: 7.5

Rondo: 10.045

Allen: 10

Tyrus Thomas: 7.3

Diop: 6.9

Rose: 6.9 (going to be $15.5)

Varejao: 7.7

Walton: 5.9

Kid: 9.6

Odom: 8.9

Marion: 8

Haywood: 7.6

Andre Miller: 7.8 (highest paid player on the team this season)

Afflalo: 7.6

Harrington: 6.2

Galinari: (2012/13 = 9.5)

Stuckey: 8.5

Villanueva: 8

Prince: 6.7

Jefferson: 10.2

Biedrins: 9

Scola: 9.4

Dalembert (6.7*)

David West: 10

Barbosa: 7.6

Deandre Jordan: 10.1

Mo Williams: 8.5

Caron Butler: 8

Peace: 6.7

Conley: 6.6

No Miami Heat players between 6 and 10

Udrih: 6.9

Kwame Brown: 6.7

Drew Gooden: 6.2

Beasley: 6.2 (highest paid player on the team)

Gerald Wallace: 9.5

Kris Humphries: 8

Carl Landry: 8.5

Ariza: 6.7

No NYK players between 3 and 12M

Perkins: 7.1

Jameer Nelson: 8.6

JJ Redick: 6.7

Glenn Davis: 6.3

Thaddeus Young: 7.5

Gortat; 6.8

Hill: 6.8

Childriss: 6

Frye: 5.6

Felton: 7.6

Wesley Mathews: 6.1

Salmons: 8

Marcus Thornton: 7

Stephen Jackson: 9.2

Calderon: 9.7

Bargnani: 9.2

Devin Harris: 9.3

Millsap: 8.1

Blatche: 6.4

Blazersedge Mock Draft 1.0 - #11 Pick

blacknoiseNW — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:39:45 -0000

This will be a democratic draft, voted on by members of Blazersedge. Based on feedback, we can do updates once a week until draft time.

The #6 Poll is posted separately, but with the same list of players. Please vote your preference for where a player should be picked. Please vote your preference and expectation for who will be available at #11.

The list of players is based on the assumption that Davis, MKG, Beal, Drummond and Robinson are the top five picks.

This will be a democratic draft, voted on by members of Blazersedge. Based on feedback, we can do updates once a week until draft time.

The list of players is based on the assumption that Davis, MKG, Beal, Drummond and Robinson are the top five picks.

Poll

#11 Pick

Jared Sullinger

34 votes

Harrison Barnes

20 votes

John Henson

11 votes

Perry Jones

25 votes

Damian Lillard

32 votes

Tyler Zeller

23 votes

Kendall Marshall

146 votes

Terrance Jones

21 votes

Terrance Ross

9 votes

Jeremy Lamb

32 votes

Other

12 votes

365 votes | Poll has closed

Blazersedge Mock Draft 1.0 - #6 Pick

blacknoiseNW — Wed, 09 May 2012 19:58:34 -0000

This will be a democratic draft, voted on by members of Blazersedge. Based on feedback, we can do updates once a week until draft time.

The #11 Poll will post separately, but will likely have the same list of players. Please vote your preference for where a player should be picked (6 or 11).

The list of players is based on the assumption that Davis, MKG, Beal, Drummond and Robinson are the top five picks.

This will be a democratic draft, voted on by members of Blazersedge. Based on feedback, we can do updates once a week until draft time.

The #11 Poll will post separately, but will likely have the same list of players. Please vote your preference for where a player should be picked (6 or 11).

The list of players is based on the assumption that Davis, MKG, Beal, Drummond and Robinson are the top five picks.

Poll

#6 Pick:

Jared Sullinger

35 votes

Harrison Barnes

149 votes

John Henson

9 votes

Perry Jones

23 votes

Damian Lillard

28 votes

Tyler Zeller

3 votes

Kendall Marshall

46 votes

Terrance Jones

4 votes

Terrance Ross

1 votes

Jeremy Lamb

25 votes

Other

20 votes

343 votes | Poll has closed

Batum's Mom Detained by Immigration

blacknoiseNW — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:16:47 -0000

Batum's Mom Detained by Immigration

Might explain tonight's game, a bit....

Adande: Kurt Thomas Has Advice For DeMarcus Cousins

blacknoiseNW — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 09:36:29 -0000

Adande: Kurt Thomas Has Advice For DeMarcus Cousins

ESPN.com's J.A. Adande, covering the Portland Trail Blazers vs. Los Angeles Clippers game on Sunday, asked veteran Blazers forward Kurt Thomas for his thoughts on the developing brouhaha involving Sacramento Kings big man DeMarcus Cousins. Cousins was sent home by Kings coach Paul Westphal for allegedly demanding a trade, something Cousins denies doing.
-----------------------------
If the Kings wanted to look after Cousins' best interests they would find a way to get him to Portland so he could be around Kurt Thomas, the steadying locker-room presence on the ninth stop on his 17-year NBA journey.

"This is a business," is what Thomas said he would tell Cousins. "You're not playing for just one team, you're playing for the 29 other teams. You've got to keep playing, keep your head. A lot of guys think it's all show. You've got to keep your head."
-----------------------------

ed: text updated, bumped to front page

Evaluating Oden's "Ligament" Issue

blacknoiseNW — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:40:40 -0000

What we know:

One of Oden’s four primary ligaments in one of his knees is affected by something that concerns the Blazers with concurrence from Oden’s camp.

Diagnosis was made by MRI

What we do not know:

Which ligament is affected

Which knee is affected

How the ligament is affected

To what degree the ligament is affected

Whether symptoms detected by MRI were confirmed by tests (place a knee in a position and test for laxity (looseness/stiffness), etc.) MRI is not a test, per se. MRI does not measure performance. Knee diagnostic “tests” measure performance (flexibility/stiffness/pain).

What we might know (gleaned from comments that are not authoritative or are ambiguous):

The affected ligament is “non-weight bearing”

Oden is asymptomatic (whatever is causing the concern causes no pain or instability)

Oden may or may not be cleared for limited basketball activities

McMillan anticipates Oden returning “soon”

Management does not expect Oden sooner rather than later, but does not rule Oden out sooner rather than later

What we can deduce:

Which ligament is affected

How the ligament is affected

To what degree the ligament is affected

If the notion of “non-weight bearing” has any credibility at all – it probably means that Oden has an issue with one of his Medial Collateral Ligaments (MCL). “Non-weight bearing” is not an anatomical term with regards to knee ligaments. However, we do know that the knee has two cruciate ligaments and two collateral ligaments. The cruciate ligaments are on the inside of the joint – and they are the primary stabilizing ligaments. Being on the inside of the knee means they are in direct line with the load-bearing axis (when a person is standing straight up, the force of weight passes through the cruciates to the bone below). The cruciates do not bear all the weight – but they are in that load-bearing path.

The collateral ligaments are on the outside of the knee joint – one on each side. When standing straight up, the collaterals would not be in the direct load-bearing path.

Of the two collateral ligaments (medial and lateral), injury to the MCL is by far the most common – and easily the primary candidate for any concern by the Blazers or Oden. The MCL is on the inside of the knee – the LCL on the outside.

*for the purposes of this exercise, I have disregarded the Patellar Ligament, typically referred to as the Patellar Tendon. If there was damage to the Patellar Ligament, it would probably have been referred to as a Patellar Tendon issue rather than a ligament issue. This is a strange fact in knee anatomy, where a specific ligament is actually called a tendon.

Severity of injury to the MCL is tested by measuring joint separation when pushing sideways from the outside of the knee (valgus stress) when the knee is straight (0 degrees flexion) and bent (30 degrees flexion). Incidentally, valgus stress is the most common means of injuring the MCL – but the tests will not cause injury. How much the knee joint separates at each flexion tells us something about the nature of the injury.

Per Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dept. of Rehabilitation:

Opening of 0-5 mm indicates a Grade I tear, 6-10 mm a Grade II tear and more than 10 mm a Grade III tear. The amount of laxity [looseness] in each position of flexion is indicative of the number of medial structures injured. Valgus laxity at 30 degrees of flexion but not at 0 degrees of flexion suggests an isolated MCL injury. Valgus laxity at both 30 and 0 degrees indicate injury to the MCL, posterior oblique ligament (POL) and most likely the ACL.

These are the types of tests that Oden would have been subject to at his Thursday physical. Ostensibly, those tests did not indicate damage to any of his ligaments that would preclude basketball activities (from Brigham & Women’s Hospital):

Pain: typically well-localized to medial aspect of knee

Palpation: localized soft-tissue swelling and tenderness over medial knee1

Range of Motion (ROM): Active and passive ROM of knee joint

Joint Mobility: patellar glides, femorotibial glides

Strength: hip and knee musculature; note quality of VMO recruitment

Sensation: may be impaired to light touch due to localized swelling

Girth measurement: to assess for swelling, atrophy

Special Tests: ligament stability tests, especially valgus stress at 0 and 30 degrees, Lachman, anterior drawer; McMurray

Posture/alignment: note any varus or valgus deformities at knee joints; knee hyperextension; weight bearing avoidance or intolerance on affected lower extremity.

Proprioception: if possible, assess single leg stance, compare to uninjured leg

Gait: note if antalgic, uneven stride; decreased stance on affected limb; cadence;

ask patient to increase speed to brisk walk and note further impairments; note balance and safety with locomotion; assess stair climbing ability. Note, if any, type of device(s)- cane, shoe lift.

Functional Outcomes: using the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)

Instead, we know that whatever is driving the current concern was detected by MRI. MRI detects lesions – or tears in the ligament. Based on the assumption that Oden passed the tests described above, the MRI may have detected lesions less than Grade I. This is consistent with reports that Oden is asymptomatic. Whatever the MRI discovered – it wasn’t severe enough to be detected by tests or cause pain, instability, loss of function, etc. Also, MRI is about 90% accurate – meaning that diagnosis of small lesions less than Grade I may be a simple case of erring on the side of caution.

What it means:

Oden’s rehabilitation/recovery to date has been with regards to his microfracture surgery and the reestablishment of articular cartilage. We have no reason to believe that this process has been anything but a success.

Small lesions in MCL ligaments can be treated with therapy and will repair

The chance that Oden will play this season based on this diagnosis is high.

If we see Oden on the court with a knee brace – we will know more.

If we find out the terms of Oden’s contract – we will know more.

What we know:

One of Oden’s four primary ligaments in one of his knees is affected by something that concerns the Blazers with concurrence from Oden’s camp.
Diagnosis was made by MRI

What we do not know:

Which ligament is affected
Which knee is affected
How the ligament is affected
To what degree the ligament is affected
Whether symptoms detected by MRI were confirmed by tests (place a knee in a position and test for laxity (looseness/stiffness), etc.) MRI is not a test, per se. MRI does not measure performance. Knee diagnostic “tests” measure performance (flexibility/stiffness/pain).

What we might know (gleaned from comments that are not authoritative or are ambiguous):

The affected ligament is “non-weight bearing”
Oden is asymptomatic (whatever is causing the concern causes no pain or instability)
Oden may or may not be cleared for limited basketball activities
McMillan anticipates Oden returning “soon”
Management does not expect Oden sooner rather than later, but does not rule Oden out sooner rather than later

What we can deduce:

Which ligament is affected
How the ligament is affected
To what degree the ligament is affected

The collateral ligaments are on the outside of the knee joint – one on each side. When standing straight up, the collaterals would not be in the direct load-bearing path.

Per Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dept. of Rehabilitation:

Pain: typically well-localized to medial aspect of knee
Palpation: localized soft-tissue swelling and tenderness over medial knee1
Range of Motion (ROM): Active and passive ROM of knee joint
Joint Mobility: patellar glides, femorotibial glides
Strength: hip and knee musculature; note quality of VMO recruitment
Sensation: may be impaired to light touch due to localized swelling
Girth measurement: to assess for swelling, atrophy
Special Tests: ligament stability tests, especially valgus stress at 0 and 30 degrees, Lachman, anterior drawer; McMurray
Posture/alignment: note any varus or valgus deformities at knee joints; knee hyperextension; weight bearing avoidance or intolerance on affected lower extremity.
Proprioception: if possible, assess single leg stance, compare to uninjured leg
Gait: note if antalgic, uneven stride; decreased stance on affected limb; cadence;
ask patient to increase speed to brisk walk and note further impairments; note balance and safety with locomotion; assess stair climbing ability. Note, if any, type of device(s)- cane, shoe lift.
Functional Outcomes: using the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS)

What it means:

Oden’s rehabilitation/recovery to date has been with regards to his microfracture surgery and the reestablishment of articular cartilage. We have no reason to believe that this process has been anything but a success.
Small lesions in MCL ligaments can be treated with therapy and will repair
The chance that Oden will play this season based on this diagnosis is high.
If we see Oden on the court with a knee brace – we will know more.
If we find out the terms of Oden’s contract – we will know more.

Howard lobbying for the Nets??

blacknoiseNW — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 05:53:11 -0000

Howard lobbying for the Nets??

SportsCenter reporting this as "breaking news"...

Best article B.S. has ever written?

blacknoiseNW — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:11:10 -0000

Best article B.S. has ever written?

Via Truehoop: Brandon Roy Doesn't Shoot Enough

blacknoiseNW — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:13:19 -0000

Via Truehoop: Brandon Roy Doesn't Shoot Enough

(edited title so as not to imply this is Truehoop's opinion)

of course - it's based on data since 2006 - but hey - we knew already. Right? Right?

"Within the stipulated time frame, the top seven "undershooters" were Chris Paul, Brandon Roy, LeBron James, Al Jefferson, Joe Johnson, Amare Stoudemire and Vince Carter. Pretty surprising, right? All seven of these guys are known for their relatively high-usage offensive game (although Carter isn't anymore, for a variety of reasons), and yet they're considered the biggest undershooters according to Goldman's data."

Howard suspended for Blazer game

blacknoiseNW — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 01:56:16 -0000

Howard picks up 16th technical - automatic suspension for Blazer game

Myth of the Roy Isolation Offense

blacknoiseNW — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 06:33:31 -0000

Myth of the Roy Isolation Offense

Upon request - here is a link to a quick and dirty debunking of the Roy-isolation offense myth. The bottom line is that the maximum theoretical percentage of shots that could have been from Roy isolation plays is around 7% 15% of total shots/FTA. In that 7%15% you have to account for unassisted shots that weren't from isolation plays - such as those from the PnP where Roy drove or pulled up for a jumper.

Sources: Vince Carter dealt to Suns

blacknoiseNW — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:01:21 -0000

Sources: Vince Carter dealt to Suns

ESPN reporting a big trade, where Orlando reacquires Hedo?!?

Orlando in reactionary mode. Portland to follow suit?

What's The Best Statistic For Evaluating Player Value?

blacknoiseNW — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:43:43 -0000

Great discussion topic and research from blacknoiseNW.

Bumped to Front Page. Please click through.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter

Great discussion topic and research from blacknoiseNW.

Bumped to Front Page. Please click through.

-- Ben Golliver | benjamin.golliver@gmail.com | Twitter

Friday the 13's Truehoop content included a link to the following writeup by Zenon Zygmont:

Underrated Statistics and Underrated Players

Zygmont addresses a Tyler Cowen response to this question: "Which is the most underrated statistic for judging the value of an NBA player?"

Cowen doesn't actually address the question specifically, but rather says that we overvalue high-producing players on bad teams, and undervalue players contributing to good teams. The simple premise is that good teams keep good players, and bad teams let good players go.

Zygmont posts this axiom as :

Player statistics are tracked to separate a player from his teammates. This is necessary because we can see which teams are successful. What decision-makers need to do is determine which players were responsible for the team outcomes observed.

For such a simple, straightforward thesis - there is endless debate. Zygmont goes on to use Wages of Wins (which invokes the Wins Produced composite metric) to weigh in on the discussion.

He produces two top 10 lists: one for best players on losing teams, another for least productive players on winning teams.

Martell Webster made the second list. Chris Paul made the first one (along with Bosh, etc.) Zygmont goes on to the following conclusion:

Again, stats are supposed to separate a player from his teammates. And when we make this separation, we do discover that good players can be found on persistent losers. In other words, team outcomes are really not an underrated stat.

This is all just a set up, of course - for what really interests me. What stat really is the best for evaluating player value?

All sorts of stats are available for us, from PPG to APG to RPG to eFG%, TS%, and +/- to the composite stats such as the well-known Player Efficiency Rating (PER), Net PER, Win Shares (WS), Wins Produced (WP), Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP), etc. Each of these composite stats distills measurable statistics into a single number than then can be used to compare players. Each system uses weights contributing measurables differently - and some have better data quality than others.

Ultimately, the relative utility of a composite stat is measured by its correlation to winning. Add up all the WP for the players on a team, and does it account for how many wins were actually produced by that team?

This is a tougher question to answer than first appears - but not impossible. More to the point - it is the critical question to answer if you want to use composite stats in discussion on this blog. I tend to use composite stats in discussion for simple convenience. Individual metrics are unwieldy and prone to personal bias (not in interpretation of the individual stat, such as TS% - but in the tendency to use these stats in isolation). No player can be defined by a single statistic. We can, however, start with a composite statistic and then drill down to isolate individual player weaknesses/strengths. In terms of efficient discussion in an online forum, I favor this approach.

After the jump, I link to another Wages of Wins (WP-focus) article specific to the Blazers and discuss its implications. I then compare the quantitative basis for the article (WP) with WS to see if they agree.

-- Jump --

On July 31, 2010 - Burzin Daruwala posted the article Can the Blazers Move from Promise to the Promise Land? as part of the Wages of Wins Journal 2009/2010 team reviews series.

Burzin focuses on the discrepancy between the Blazers' regular season performance and their playoff performance from the last two seasons - seeking to determine if there is any particular basis for optimism or pessimism.

He uses WP for his analysis - which is where I get really interested. Not to sell Burzin's analysis short - I think his topic is interesting - but injuries make any positive conclusions pretty difficult. However, the WP data he posts from Andres Alvarez's automated WP site says some very interesting things about the Blazers:

Pendergraph is one of the 8 above average players on the Blazers.
LMA is not (2009/2010 regular season)
Camby is really good
Oden can be great
Batum is on track to be very special
Miller and Bayless weren't that good in the playoffs
Bayless wasn't that good in the regular season
Bayless and Miller weren't that good in the post season
LMA is a below average Center
Cunningham stepped it up in the post season
Fernandez may have been better in 2010 than anyone gives him credit for
Fernandez was really good in 2009
Fernandez, along with Webster, Cunningham and Camby - was one of the four best playoff performers in 2010 (but still below average)
Webster is a below average player

This WP composite is very interesting - it supports the LMA and Bayless naysayers, supports the idea that Roy was the MVP over Miller, supports the Batum propaganda, and lets us know that picking up Camby for Outlaw/Blake was an even better trade than we may have suspected.

Picking one particularly polarizing player as an example (looking at you LMA) - how does WP compare to other available composits? Both stats say that LMA is one of the primary contributors to wins - but WP says he does it based on total production, rather than effective production. WS says LMA is an above average player (.145 WS48 vs. 0.074 WP48). Both WS48 and WP48 set average at 0.100.

So which one is right (or, at least better?)

The calculation method for WS is here:

The calculation method for WP is here:

The answer is - they arrive at the same conclusion when compounding individual player performances and correlating those to team actual wins.

WP has a average difference of 2.5 calculated wins produced versus actual wins. WS has an average absolute error of 2.74 wins - basically identical.

The difference is how individual players are credited with contributing to the actual wins. LMA gets more credit in the WS system, less in the WP system. Miller gets a lot more credit in the WP system, and a lot less in the WS system. Roy is the top player in both.

Conclusion? A little more work is needed to find out why one system favors a player more than another system. The overall results are good - but I don't have a firm handle on the specific weights that benefit particular players. However, I suspect that WP values blocked shots and assists higher than WS - which would at least partially account for the one system favoring LMA (WS) and the other favoring Miller (WP). LMA's low blocked shots totals don't bring him down as much in WS, and Miller's assists totals boost him in WP.

espn worst newcomer

blacknoiseNW — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:11:49 -0000

espn worst newcomer

funny - Mathews doesn't get a single Worst Newcomer of the Year vote from ESPN pundits

Cunningham vs. Bass

blacknoiseNW — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:56:39 -0000

Brandon Bass has been a mainstay on Blazer fan wish lists over the past few seasons - and for good reason. Not especially tall, but strong and quick - Bass has a reputation as a high-energy bench player that can rebound, play some defense and make an offensive contribution with hustle plays and a decent outside shot - all at a position of need for the Blazers - Backup PF.

Bass is in his 5th year in the league, but it turns out we have a rookie aka Dante Cunningham that brings everything to the table that Bass does...

First - the Physical:

Bass: 6'8 250 lbs
Cunningham: 6'8 230 lbs

Bass comes in a little heavier, but they have remarkable similarities physically. Both are physical specimens and ripped. They are strong, quick and have good hops. Bass has a few extra years of muscle built into his shoulders. However, it was the physical similarities I noticed just now while watching the Lakers @ Orlando that prompted me to research this comparison in the first place. Relying on 82games.com because I don't have Synergy resources, I found some more interesting similarities and positive comparisons favoring Cunningham:

Peripheral Stats (read order Bass 1st; Cunningham 2nd):

Bass and Cunningham draw fouls at a similar rate (10.4 vs. 10.3%) and have similar passing ratings (1.1 vs. 1.4) and block ratings (4.9 vs. 5.3). Interestingly, Cunningham starts to pull away from Bass in terms of rebounding (player rating 19.2 vs. 24.6) based on 2009/2010 stats, so I went back to 2008/2009 for Bass to get numbers that reflected more of his potential contributions (2009/10 hasn't been a great season for Bass' minutes). However - Cunningham still compares favorably to Bass as a rebounder - even using Bass' much better 2008/2009 stats (24.8 vs. 24.6). Cunningham also has a better 'hands rating' (9.2 vs. 11.3) that is even more dramatic if you consider Bass' 2008/2009 stats (5.2 hands rating to go with a 0.3 passing rating).

Shooting Tendencies:

For context, Bass' and Cunningham's raw stats are remarkably similar this season (and for Bass' career):

Using Bass' career stats: 48.8% shooting vs. 49.9% (Bass is at 50% this season) leading to a 6.7 ppg career average vs. 4.1 ppg.

How these guys get their points is also an interesting comparison:

Bass Scoring by Game (2009/2010):

Scoring

By	FG.	FGA	FG%	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	FTM	Pts
Game	2.4	4.8	.500	.500	46%	7%	0.9	5.7

Dante:

Scoring

By	FG.	FGA	FG%	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	FTM	Pts
Game	1.8	3.7	.492	.492	86%	4%	0.5	4.1

and the details:

Bass

Shooting Details

Shot selection

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	64%	.429	51%	4%	2.6
Close	19%	.613	47%	19%	1.1
Dunk	10%	.938	40%	6%	0.9
Tips	7%	.250	0%	0%	0.2
Inside	36%	.627	41%	12%	2.2

Shot clock usage

Secs.	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
0-10	32%	.500	54%	4%	1.5
11-15	29%	.583	43%	2%	1.6
16-20	25%	.415	53%	12%	1.0
21+	14%	.478	27%	13%	0.6
Crunch	39%	.438	43%	13%	1.6

Dante

Shooting Details

Shot selection

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	74%	.441	97%	2%	2.4
Close	18%	.606	70%	12%	0.8
Dunk	4%	.857	83%	0%	0.2
Tips	4%	.571	0%	0%	0.2
Inside	26%	.638	63%	9%	1.2

Shot clock usage

Secs.	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
0-10	31%	.544	71%	2%	1.2
11-15	23%	.605	100%	5%	1.0
16-20	30%	.426	87%	4%	0.9
21+	16%	.345	90%	7%	0.4
Crunch	45%	.398	88%	5%	1.3

The data isn't perfect - but it does tell us a few things:

1) Bass takes more shots closer to the basket, but doesn't necessarily score more effectively (eFG%/Blk'd%)

2) Cunningham shoots more jumpers more effectively - but within the flow of the offense (much higher assisted %)

3) Bass creates his own shot more (lower assisted %)

Overall

What this quick comparison does tell us is that the Blazers already have a "Bass-type" on the roster that in all likelihood will be an even better player. Dante's peripheral stats are as good or better, right now (Bass did draw more fouls in 2008/2009); Dante rebounds as good as a happy Bass; Dante shoots better (other than FT's); Dante passes better, turns the ball over less and blocks better.

Cunningham is arguably better than Bass - right now - and there is certainly no way you can make an argument for Bass over Cunningham when you compare salaries ($4M vs. $400K).

I like Brandon Bass' game - but the Blazers do not need him to get his game.

Bass is in his 5th year in the league, but it turns out we have a rookie aka Dante Cunningham that brings everything to the table that Bass does...

First - the Physical:

Bass: 6'8 250 lbs
Cunningham: 6'8 230 lbs

Peripheral Stats (read order Bass 1st; Cunningham 2nd):

Shooting Tendencies:

For context, Bass' and Cunningham's raw stats are remarkably similar this season (and for Bass' career):

Using Bass' career stats: 48.8% shooting vs. 49.9% (Bass is at 50% this season) leading to a 6.7 ppg career average vs. 4.1 ppg.

How these guys get their points is also an interesting comparison:

Bass Scoring by Game (2009/2010):

Scoring

By	FG.	FGA	FG%	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	FTM	Pts
Game	2.4	4.8	.500	.500	46%	7%	0.9	5.7

Dante:

Scoring

By	FG.	FGA	FG%	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	FTM	Pts
Game	1.8	3.7	.492	.492	86%	4%	0.5	4.1

and the details:

Bass

Shooting Details

Shot selection

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	64%	.429	51%	4%	2.6
Close	19%	.613	47%	19%	1.1
Dunk	10%	.938	40%	6%	0.9
Tips	7%	.250	0%	0%	0.2
Inside	36%	.627	41%	12%	2.2

Shot clock usage

Secs.	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
0-10	32%	.500	54%	4%	1.5
11-15	29%	.583	43%	2%	1.6
16-20	25%	.415	53%	12%	1.0
21+	14%	.478	27%	13%	0.6
Crunch	39%	.438	43%	13%	1.6

Dante

Shooting Details

Shot selection

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	74%	.441	97%	2%	2.4
Close	18%	.606	70%	12%	0.8
Dunk	4%	.857	83%	0%	0.2
Tips	4%	.571	0%	0%	0.2
Inside	26%	.638	63%	9%	1.2

Shot clock usage

Secs.	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
0-10	31%	.544	71%	2%	1.2
11-15	23%	.605	100%	5%	1.0
16-20	30%	.426	87%	4%	0.9
21+	16%	.345	90%	7%	0.4
Crunch	45%	.398	88%	5%	1.3

The data isn't perfect - but it does tell us a few things:

1) Bass takes more shots closer to the basket, but doesn't necessarily score more effectively (eFG%/Blk'd%)

2) Cunningham shoots more jumpers more effectively - but within the flow of the offense (much higher assisted %)

3) Bass creates his own shot more (lower assisted %)

Overall

Cunningham is arguably better than Bass - right now - and there is certainly no way you can make an argument for Bass over Cunningham when you compare salaries ($4M vs. $400K).

I like Brandon Bass' game - but the Blazers do not need him to get his game.

Advanced Statistics and Player Evaluation

blacknoiseNW — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 06:09:36 -0000

This is a post to highlight a paragraph extracted from the APER article over at Hoopdata.

Consider this, all ye armchair statisticians:

Another important thing to note in regards to advanced statistics is that statistics do not measure ability, at least not exactly. Statistics measure performance, and in a sport as context heavy as basketball, performance is not always going to be 100% reflective of ability. When you're in a team-oriented offense like Phil Jackson's with a ridiculously good sidekick like Pau Gasol, you're probably not going to be giving everything you possibly can every night (I'm talking effort level, not contribution), simply because the offense doesn't require you to. From an ability standpoint, I don't think you'll find many people who think that Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, or Chris Paul are noticeably better than Kobe Bryant (even when you don't include defense in the conversation). But from a performance standpoint, in terms of what those players provide to their teams in their roles? I think if you look closely, it's more than reasonable that over the course of an entire regular season, the other three are required to do more for their teams than Kobe does. It's not quite fair that he is penalized for that, but that's why you always have to remember that statistics are about performance, not ability. And on that note, while PER and APER have their flaws, they do a pretty good job of measuring that.

and elsewhere in the article:

People may still be unsatisfied that Kobe ranks so far behind the likes of Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, and Lebron James, but the fact of the matter is they create a lot more of their own shots than Kobe does. And even Brandon Roy, who some consider to be far beneath Kobe as an offensive player, last season created more of his own shots, scored with a higher efficiency, had a higher assist rate, and a lower turnover rate.

It is safe to say that Brandon's ability transcends his bulk production - but I also think it is safe to say that he has a fair amount of league-wide respect for his ability, hence his All Star appearences.

Ultimately, however, this post is a self-reminder that any statistic we use to support our arguments must be considered within context - and context can be extremely complex to understand. The complexity comes from the almost infinite variables that shape each player uniquely. We do have enough similarities to compare apples to apples, but those apples are Fujis and Granny Smiths - similar fruits of completely unique species.

We will never be able to compare Golden Delicious to Golden Delicious, no matter how hard we try to simplify our definitions.

Therefore, we are much better off using statistics to understand winning trends and then finding players that contribute directly to that winning trend. Instead of arguing this point guard is better than that point guard, we should be focusing on "that player produces x, y and z - and x, y and z win games". When you focus your analysis on production, rather than player roles, you are much more likely to field winning combinations because your player evaluation isn't based on indirect measurables such as wingspan - but more on assists, TS%, etc.

So layoff Bayless and put him in the starting lineup, already. His arms are long enough.

This is a post to highlight a paragraph extracted from the APER article over at Hoopdata.

Consider this, all ye armchair statisticians:

Another important thing to note in regards to advanced statistics is that statistics do not measure ability, at least not exactly. Statistics measure performance, and in a sport as context heavy as basketball, performance is not always going to be 100% reflective of ability. When you're in a team-oriented offense like Phil Jackson's with a ridiculously good sidekick like Pau Gasol, you're probably not going to be giving everything you possibly can every night (I'm talking effort level, not contribution), simply because the offense doesn't require you to. From an ability standpoint, I don't think you'll find many people who think that Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, or Chris Paul are noticeably better than Kobe Bryant (even when you don't include defense in the conversation). But from a performance standpoint, in terms of what those players provide to their teams in their roles? I think if you look closely, it's more than reasonable that over the course of an entire regular season, the other three are required to do more for their teams than Kobe does. It's not quite fair that he is penalized for that, but that's why you always have to remember that statistics are about performance, not ability. And on that note, while PER and APER have their flaws, they do a pretty good job of measuring that.

and elsewhere in the article:

People may still be unsatisfied that Kobe ranks so far behind the likes of Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, and Lebron James, but the fact of the matter is they create a lot more of their own shots than Kobe does. And even Brandon Roy, who some consider to be far beneath Kobe as an offensive player, last season created more of his own shots, scored with a higher efficiency, had a higher assist rate, and a lower turnover rate.

We will never be able to compare Golden Delicious to Golden Delicious, no matter how hard we try to simplify our definitions.

So layoff Bayless and put him in the starting lineup, already. His arms are long enough.

Wanna know what's wrong with Roy?

blacknoiseNW — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:23:30 -0000

Look no further than his 82games.com shot profile 2009/2010 vs. 2008/2009. Brandon's inside attempts are down 12%, with his inside scoring down to 3.9 ppg from 7.0 ppg. Brandon is scoring slightly more from outside this season, and more of that outside scoring is coming off an assist (a LOT more). For all the bitching and moaning about Roy not being a team player or playing off the ball enough - the stats say this is an arguable point (his assisted percentage is down on the inside shots - but so are the shots). Roy is also making his outside shots at an equivalent rate.

The big thing for me is that the criticism of Roy as a selfish player is completely irrational and baseless, relative to 2008/2009. Assisted percentage is up to 41% from 33%; passer rating is up; assists per 48 min are up. Roy is not the problem.

Shot selection 2008/2009

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	66%	.465	35%	2%	10.3
Close	31%	.578	27%	8%	6.0
Dunk	2%	.933	64%	0%	0.7
Tips	1%	.579	0%	0%	0.3
Inside	34%	.601	30%	7%	7.0

Shot selection 2009/2010

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	78%	.462	48%	1%	10.8
Close	19%	.549	18%	20%	3.1
Dunk	2%	1.000	80%	0%	0.6
Tips	1%	.500	0%	0%	0.2
Inside	22%	.583	26%	17%	3.9

Just for giggles, here are Andrew Miller's charts:

Shot selection 2009/2010:

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	68%	.316	52%	4%	3.6
Close	32%	.625	37%	10%	3.3
Dunk	0%	.000	0%	0%	0.0
Tips	1%	1.000	0%	0%	0.1
Inside	32%	.633	35%	10%	3.4

Shot selection 2008/2009

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	59%	.407	29%	4%	6.0
Close	41%	.584	31%	13%	6.1
Dunk	0%	.000	0%	0%	0.0
Tips	0%	.500	0%	0%	0.0
Inside	41%	.583	31%	13%	6.1

Miller isn't going inside as much, either - and his outside shooting is atrocious.

Shot selection 2008/2009

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	66%	.465	35%	2%	10.3
Close	31%	.578	27%	8%	6.0
Dunk	2%	.933	64%	0%	0.7
Tips	1%	.579	0%	0%	0.3
Inside	34%	.601	30%	7%	7.0

Shot selection 2009/2010

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	78%	.462	48%	1%	10.8
Close	19%	.549	18%	20%	3.1
Dunk	2%	1.000	80%	0%	0.6
Tips	1%	.500	0%	0%	0.2
Inside	22%	.583	26%	17%	3.9

Just for giggles, here are Andrew Miller's charts:

Shot selection 2009/2010:

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	68%	.316	52%	4%	3.6
Close	32%	.625	37%	10%	3.3
Dunk	0%	.000	0%	0%	0.0
Tips	1%	1.000	0%	0%	0.1
Inside	32%	.633	35%	10%	3.4

Shot selection 2008/2009

Shot	Att.	eFG%	Ast'd	Blk'd	Pts
Jump	59%	.407	29%	4%	6.0
Close	41%	.584	31%	13%	6.1
Dunk	0%	.000	0%	0%	0.0
Tips	0%	.500	0%	0%	0.0
Inside	41%	.583	31%	13%	6.1

Miller isn't going inside as much, either - and his outside shooting is atrocious.

Making the minutes work

blacknoiseNW — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:58:10 -0000

Hypothetical distribution of minutes. Plenty of room for one or two minute tweaking. Blake takes the most obvious hit. That doesn't hurt the Blazers. Bayless, Rudy and Martell all beneft from Blake's reduction in minutes. Outlaw doesn't get an inordinate amount of burn. Also, all teams actually average more than 240 mpg game, but this spreadsheet does not account for overtime or 6 players on the floor.

		Roy	LMA	Oden	Prz	Outlaw	Rudy	Webster	Miller	Blake	Bayless	Cunningham	Howard
5	48		4	24	18								2
4	48		28			16							4
3	48	8				5	10	25
2	48	25					15			2	6
1	48								28	12	8
	240	33	32	24	18	21	25	25	28	14	14	0	6

		Roy	LMA	Oden	Prz	Outlaw	Rudy	Webster	Miller	Blake	Bayless	Cunningham	Howard
5	48		4	24	18								2
4	48		28			16							4
3	48	8				5	10	25
2	48	25					15			2	6
1	48								28	12	8
	240	33	32	24	18	21	25	25	28	14	14	0	6