SB Nation User Blog: lee3022

Reconsidering Steve Nash (edited)

lee3022 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:04:05 -0000

With Shaq apparently traded to Cleveland for a $5.5M savings for Phoenix and with Phoenix needing further relief (They still have $73M on the books) and not likely to be a contender in Nash's remaining years the Blazers are primed to get the championship point guard they need and offer ~~$11M~~ $7.5M more in cap relief (plus luxury tax savings to Phoenix) while offering a young point guard in replacement:

The offer of our cap space ($7M) plus Steve Blake and Sergio gives them the opportunity to ~~cut Steve~~, keep Sergio and move Nash's salary and save about ~~$11.5M~~ $7.5M putting them below the luxury tax (and able to draw their share of others' luxury tax) for a much bigger win than moving Shaq to Cleveland. We might need to move out of the 1st round to get the $7M space so the pick is traded for a next year's first?

I know these have been debated before but with extra 2nd round picks in play as well we might find tomorrow to be a golden opportunity. Is there any possibility? Would you want this to happen?

Portland sends:	2008-2009	2009-2010
Sergio Rodriguez	874,000	1,576,696
Steve Blake	4,250,000	4,000,000
Cap Space	~~7,000,000~~	7,000,000

Phoenix sends:
Steve Nash	12,250,000	13,125,000
Net Savings		7,548,304
~~Net Savings~~		~~11,548,304~~

These numbers are from Storyteller's excellent spreadsheet. Any errors are clearly mine in transcribing them!

Poll

Is dreaming of Steve Nash in Portland this year silly?

NBA History Made Yesterday by Blazers

lee3022 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:58:30 -0000

It is not often that we have gone through the doorway of NBA History so I wanted to mark this moment for all of us. Only an numbers guy would ever take the time to do so but you will find this interesting.

The Trail Blazers under Coach Nate McMillan have improved at least 9 games each season for the past four years. How often has that ever occured? I wanted to find out.

So I searched my favorite site for data: Basketball-reference.com to look at the records of each NBA franchise from the inception of the league (1949). I was surprised to discover the following:

The Trail Blazers improved from 21 wins in 2005-2006 season to 32 wins in 2006-2007. This has been done by nearly every franchise.

The following year, 2006-2007 they improved to 41 wins. This consecutive year improvement by at least 9 wins has been done in consecutive years by only 19 franchises and a total of only 30 times (Portland owning 3 of them).

This year last night's win brought the Trail Blazers to 50 wins assuring them of another consecutive improvement by at least 9 wins. This four consecutive season improvement by 9 wins has been done by only one other franchise - the Philadelphia 76ers (1972-1976).

No franchise has ever improved for a 5th consecutive season, so the record of 4 consecutive seasons was tied last night by the Portland Trail Blazers. That is history. With over 100,000 games played in NBA (ABA and BAA included) by current franchises this is a rare moment. Another marker to appreciate that we are living an unusual opportunity to watch a team develop.

Portland would need to improve an additional 9 games to reset the record to 5 consecutive seasons (somewhere between 59 wins and 62 wins) next year. Here is the question to debate: Can Portland make another 9-game improvement next year? And if so, what are your assumptions that allow that to happen?

Poll

What are Portland Trail Blazers' chances of another 9 win improvement next year?

Portland has no chance of improving another 9 games next season

19 votes

Portland has a 50% chance to improve another 9 games next season

148 votes

Portland has a 70 % chance to improve another 9 games next season

28 votes

Portland is a lock - no doubt they will improve another 9 games next season

19 votes

Portland has a 90% chance to improve another 9 games next season

18 votes

I hate polls and refuse to participate in this one

16 votes

248 votes | Poll has closed

Houston loses in Chicago

lee3022 — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 04:03:52 -0000

Houston loses in Chicago

Beware the Bull - Thanks Chicago!

Winning with Rookies - A League Study

lee3022 — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 20:55:06 -0000

For many years I remember NBA coaches indicating in various ways that playing rookies meant losing and coaches just don't like to lose now so that the next coach will win. At the most 1 rookie might play (i.e. Tim Duncan) surrounded by savvy veterans. Otherwise a team blew up the roster and lost miserably. I began to wonder how the Trail Blazers are winning so many games with mega-rookie minutes and if anyone else is able to do that. I looked at the data through Friday, Feb 6, to compare:

Portland this year plays more rookie minutes than any other team except Memphis by a substantial margin. And, Portland is winning far more with substantial rookie minutes than any other team. Here are the top ten teams in rookie minutes as a percentage of team minutes and their records:

Memphis 36% rookie minutes 13-36 record
Portland 30% rookie minutes 30-19 record
Miami 23% rookie minutes 26-22 record
New Jersey 21% rookie minutes 23-27 record
Sacramento 19% rookie minutes 11-40 record
LA Clippers 19% rookie minutes 11-39 record
OKC 16% rookie minutes 12-38 record
Chicago 15% rookie minutes 22-38 record
Milwaukee 14% rookie minutes 24-28 record
Golden State 13% rookie minutes 16-35 record
Charlotte 12% rookie minutes 19-30 record
Indiana 11% rookie minutes 20-31 record
Minnesota 10% rookie minutes 17-31 record
All other teams are below 10% rookie minutes

So it seems that only Portland and Miami have winning records with high rookie minutes. Moderate use of rookies has been successful at Orlando (8%), San Antonio (9%), and Cleveland (6%). No other top-ten teams (by winning percentage) uses even 1% of minutes for rookies. It is small wonder that the league is becoming afraid of Portland. As this group matures and develops it promises to become the team that every team desires - combining youth, talent, culture and a winning mentality. Kevin Pritchard and Nate McMillan and staff have received early praise and, more recently, Coach Nate has heard stinging criticism for the use of players in the games. It looks to me as though we can have our cake and eat it too. We can win with rookies and early-career players and develop them with heavy playing time as well. A point to note: All five teams mentioned in this paragraph are anchored with superstars. Dwayne Wade, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, LeBron James and Brandon Roy all facilitate the use of rookies while still winning. Only San Antonio has an aging superstar in this group. I begin to think Portland, Miami, Cleveland and Orlando are the future class of the league (assuming they all keep their superstars and healthy as well). Obviously rookies are not the only young players on teams and there is nothing scientific in this study - only food for thought.

For me, personally, It gives me the feeling that I want to stand and applaud this terrific team and organization called the Portland Trail Blazers.

What are your thoughts? Do you see other areas to explore here or other conclusions to draw? Discuss freely....

The Oden Factor

lee3022 — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 07:16:37 -0000

The Question:

The recent excellent post by Dave responding to Henry Abbott has started all of us thinking about how to measure Greg Oden's becoming a significant factor on behalf of the team.

In my analysis of the games through 11/19/08 I found several measures that say he has definitely boosted the team. His effect is not seen in how many points or rebounds he gets or even his plus/minus. It is seen in improvement in overall team defense and overall team production and from production from the Center position.

Joel Przybilla is playing his best basketball. Why? Joel tells us why: He can finally be aggressive and risk some fouls because Greg is his backup. But even more so these two Centers are (one of) the best pair in the league on defense. They are intimidating. Teams that want to beat the Blazers have to hit outside shots. Perversely the Blazer perimeter defense has improved as well forcing them inside.

Data derived from NBA.com and ESPN.com box scores of each game.

Here is the analysis:

The interior defense is being measured by points in the paint, percentage of shots in the paint and percentage makes from 2-point range. The Oden Factor considers the 6 games Oden was out of the lineup or not playing significant minutes against the 5 games following his return to the rotation (Miami through Sacramento). I do realize that the Phoenix game is an anomaly to this study but the work was done before that game and should continue to play out with anyone except a highly motivated Shaq and Amare.

Opponent average points in the paint w/o Oden = 40.0
Opponent average points in the paint with Oden = 35.6

Opponent 2-point FG% w/o Oden = 51.7%
Opponent 2-point FG% with Oden = 45.5%

Opponent ratio of 2-point shots w/o Oden = 74.5%
Opponent ratio of 2-point shots with Oden = 78.5% (see perimeter defense)

Team Defensive blocks from Center w/o Oden = 0.7
Team Defensive blocks from Center with Oden = 3.8

The perimeter defense has also taken a significant leap forward as measured by opponent 3-point shooting percentages. This reason for this might partly be the intimidating presence of the shot blocker in the interior allowing the perimeter defenders to play tighter.

Opponent average 3-point FG% w/o Oden = 41.2%
Opponent average 3-point FG% with Oden = 31.7%

These comparisons show a positive change with Oden in every defensive category except opponent offensive rebounds and the 17 OR by Chicago skews this significantly.

The interior offense has gained a boost from Oden as well as measured by points in the paint, shots from 2-point range & accuracy and rebounds of our shots taken. I also present the scoring improvement from Center

Team average points in the paint w/o Oden = 33.3
Team average points in the paint with Oden = 40.0

Team 2-point FG% w/o Oden = 46.7%
Team 2-point FG% with Oden = 47.9%

Team ratio of 2-point shots w/o Oden = 74.5%
Team ratio of 2-point shots with Oden = 78.5%

Team average offensive rebounds from Center w/o Oden = 3.0
Team average offensive rebounds from Center with Oden = 4.0

Team average points from Center w/o Oden = 4.2
Team average points from Center with Oden = 21.6

The perimeter offense has benefited also as measured by 3-point percentage.

Team 3-point FG% w/o Oden = 41.2%
Team 3-point FG% with Oden = 42.9%

The total offense has been steady at 99 points per game with and without Oden.

The total defense has been dramatically improved:

Opponent average points w/o Oden =100.0
Opponent average points with Oden = 90.2

Conclusion:

In my opinion Greg Oden has already made the team significantly better. He has improved nearly every aspect of the team while admittedly has more improvement to come. We are not sacrificing anything to play Greg as many minutes as his stamina can endure, while keeping Joel highly productive as well. Expect the coming months to add to this meager sample size and validate with even more improvement.

(With apology to the previous posters on this subject. This has taken me some time and presents a bit more data)

Poll

Do you agree with Henry or with Dave?

I think Dave is spot on and leaves Henry in the dust on this one

15 votes

I think they both have merit and neither is wrong

33 votes

I think Henry calls out our fanhood and shows us the error of our ways

2 votes

I don't answer polls

8 votes

58 votes | Poll has closed

NBA Refs are dirty - FBI

lee3022 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:59:46 -0000

The New York Daily News has published an interview with Philip Scala, recently retired FBI supervisor who uncovered Donaghy's betting scheme and headed the task force that investigated Donaghy's claims. Scala believes Donaghy told the truth, including about the NBA having other refs that are dirty.

Philip Scala, the recently retired FBI supervisory special agent in charge of the Gambino squad, which uncovered Donaghy's scheme of betting on basketball games he had officiated, said he believes the disgraced referee's claims that other refs were dirty.

This has been hashed about some before about believing or disbelieving David Stern's assertion that there are no other refs doing illegal gambling on NBA games. Since Mr. Scala is now retired he can presumably speak more freely about the investigation.

Scala said he was not merely offering his opinion of the disgraced referee, rather it was his informed assessment of his credibility after his unit - officially known as C-16 - conducted an exhaustive investigation.

What do you think happens next? Maybe a congressional investigation of the NBA? How can this not create a stir? Do you believe Donaghy now with Scala's support?

US Players abroad pay taxes to US

lee3022 — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:55:21 -0000

There has been much discussion about Josh Childress taking a contract in Greece this year including that his income is tax free. This may not be accurate. I assume Greece has waived local income taxes for Josh so this post will not address other countries' taxation. It will attempt to address the IRS regulations on US citizens working and living abroad and paying tax to the US.

The genesis of the issue is the exemption of certain income from US income tax (and state income taxes) for US citizens living and working abroad. There are several requirements for this exemption:

(Caveat: this is not professional advice. If you are affected you should discuss with your CPA)

1. A US citizen working abroad is still required to file a US Income Tax Return each year.

2. A US citizen living abroad must be a resident of the country he/she works in.

3. A US citizen living abroad is exempt for income tax on income earned abroad if the citizen has lived outside of the US for the entire tax year up to a maximum limit.

If you are a United States citizen with a tax home in a foreign country and you meet the bona fide residence test or physical presence test, you may exclude up to the maximum limit allowed for the taxable year.

Here are the two tests for living aboad:

a. You must be a resident for a whole year and

b. You must be a bone fide resident as defined below::

You must be a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period that includes an entire tax year. The characteristics which qualify you as a bona fide resident usually include establishing a home and settling in that country with some degree of permanence. An individual is not a bona fide resident of a foreign country if, the individual claims to be a nonresident to the authorities of the foreign country and his/her earned income is not subject to tax in the foreign country because the individual is considered a nonresident in the foreign country.

or you meet the physical presence test:

The physical presence test can be used by any United States citizen or resident alien. You must be physically present in a foreign country or countries for at least 330 full days during any period of 12 consecutive months. The 12–month period can begin with any day of any calendar month.

If one of those two tests are met there is still a limit on the exclusion:

Limit on Excludable Amount

You may be able to exclude up to $85,700 of your foreign earned income in 2007.

You cannot exclude more than the smaller of:

$85,700, or

Your foreign earned income (discussed earlier) for the tax year minus your foreign housing exclusion (discussed later).

If both you and your spouse work abroad and you and your spouse meet either the bona fide residence test or the physical presence test, you can each choose the foreign earned income exclusion. You do not both need to meet the same test. Together, you and your spouse can exclude as much as $171,400.

Most states have shadow tax laws which allow the state to tax any income that the US taxes for state residents. The definition for residency for states depend on the state and is beyond the scope of this post.

Finally if your income is subject to income tax you are also required to pay self-employment tax (currently 15.3%) on income up to the current limit of $102,000. Senator Obama's proposal to tax addition income above $250,000 would presumably include tax on foreign income as well. This excludes those countries that have an agreement with the US to collect social security type tax in their country but that would likely require that that country tax the income as well.

Your net self–employment income is generally subject to self–employment tax even if it is excluded for income tax purposes. However, if it was earned in a country that has a social security agreement with the United States, which is called a totalization agreement, it may be exempt from U.S. social security taxes, including the self–employment tax.

So for Childress to be told his muti-millions are tax free is apparently false and he will likely pay nearly as much or more than if he played in the US. This is because the employer half of the payroll taxes will be paid by Josh as well which partly offsets the small exclusion of income.

So here is my question: If you are a US citizen pro basketball player would you want to play overseas for a bump in income and avoid returning to the US in the off-season for more than 35 days a year? Having a shorter season does not seem so attractive if you have to stay there to me. Having to pay taxes at home while living abroad is also an equalizer. Do you think Josh's agents researched this question? Would taxes even matter in the decision to play abroad?

Why we will sign Petko and Batum this year

lee3022 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:38:37 -0000

The economics of drafting Europeans in the bottom of the 1st round has shifted dramatically in the past 5 years. Considering 1) European teams paying significantly more to players; 2) the dollar's drop against the Euro; and 3) the NBA rookie salary structure for 1st round picks there simply is not enough money to sign a European talent after he establishes himself in Europe. (Rudy is amazing to be willing to come anyway.) Both Kopenen and Batum will have to sign 4-5 year contracts in order to play in Europe next year (and get pretty good money). By the end of those contracts they will be getting 3-5 times the salary restricted for low 1st rounder (remember that the salary is the amount when they were drafted). So failing to sign both this year probably means we will not see them again. A side note: I believe 2nd round picks are not restricted in what we can pay so 2nd rounders are more valuable than low 1st rounders for Europeans. It is why KP does so well with this currency.

Both show huge upside and both are raw in experience. Both can be worth having on the roster by the end of this year (getting some playing time).

So the real question to me is do you want to keep these guys or toss off Paul Allen's $3M purchase of each of these draft picks? It would appear that error on the side of keeping the player makes more sense. Especially if there is indeed a trade this next year (likely a 2 or 3 for 1 trade). We also have the ability to waive Raef (hate it if we do) and still keep his salary cap value going into next year. With Greg healthy there will not be minutes for him I would think. That would free up a roster slot if absolutely needed.

Fan Hatred and its fallout

lee3022 — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:38:28 -0000

A number of posts recently have indicated that the repeated success of a team is guaranteed to generate hatred nationally from other fans. I have been thinking about this and believe there are some nationally hated teams that share some characteristics we should consider.

1. Teams with owners (Cuban, Dolan and Buss) who habitually buy and trade players without regard to the luxury tax and fail mostly to develop their own players. This is seen as a competitive advantage that other teams cannot achieve and therefore resent. The Blazers in our dark days were in this category as well (Allen) which contributed to the focus nationally on the off-court troubles of the Blazer players.

2. The extensive coverage of large-market teams in Chicago, LA and New York areas has raised the focus nationally on these teams - especially when the teams do not merit such coverage by their current record.

3. Bandwagon fans across the country who adopt a big-market team in the good years and flaunt this to others around them who root for the home team. You can see this phenomenon with the baseball Red Sox and Yankees. Until the Red Sox won their first World Series they had few fans sporting their gear in other ball parks while the Yankees often had as many fans in another ball park as the home team. After Boston won that ratio began to reverse and after last year's championship Boston became the new 'darling', particularly among Yankee haters. The water cooler talk becomes obnoxious.

1. There are likely more you can add here. What are your additions?

Winning championships does not in itself generate hatred. San Antonio has won more than anyone this last decade and my perception is that their fans are gracious and they are not hated. When we play San Antonio my feelings are more of fear for their talent than anger over their success, Utah has been successful as has Phoenix but and others but not hatred on the scale of LAL, NYK or CHI.

Being in large markets does not in itself generate hatred. New Jersey Nets and LAC do not seem to generate much emotion nationally even when NJN were in the conference finals.

2. Another question is do we want to revert to the fan behavior that led to the ugly national hatred? How do you feel? Is hatred of the Blazers really inevitable?

Poll

3. Do you think fans can influence national perception and should we reassess our attitudes?

I don't think fans have anything to do with being hated so I don't want to change a thing

8 votes

I think local fans are part of the perception of national hatred and I still don't care

15 votes

I do agree that fans influence the national media and hatred and I think we should each pause to consider ourselves and work to generate graciousness to losers

33 votes

56 votes | Poll has closed

Was Arthur promised #12?

lee3022 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:02:56 -0000

Hello - This is my first post here but longtime poster on Blazers Edge and a KU alum. The question posed above might be of interest here given the normal interest we all have in our team's draft process. The support for the question comes from a leading NBA draft journalist and evaluator:

Today Jonathan Givony wrote on Draftexpress.com :

-A few teams we spoke with this weekend were wondering about the whereabouts of Darrell Arthur. The Kansas power forward reportedly canceled workouts with the Clippers (#7), Philadelphia (#16), Toronto (#17) and Indiana (#11) after working out for Seattle (#4, 24) and Sacramento (#12). Arthur has not hired an agent and is reportedly conducting all his business through his mother and AAU coach, although he will surely stay in the draft. One NBA team we spoke to had a hard time figuring out where he was and whether or not he’ll be showing up for their workout, as he did not bother to cancel or notify anyone of his plans. There were talks of a potential back and/or hamstring injury, leading some to question if anything funny is going on. He was reportedly 100% healthy when he worked out for Sacramento on Friday. Arthur’s camp could not be reached for comment.