I've missed this place for the last six weeks.  Dave was kind enough to unilaterally lift my banishment a couple of days early, apparently in order to give me a chance to comment on Bayless' trade.  I appreciate the gesture.

Follow me across the jump for my thoughts on Bayless' departure to gumbo-land.

Continue reading this post »

In the three years I have been hanging around BE, no subject has stirred more controversy than the PG position.  "PG Wars" have flared frequently and ferociously.  Every single PG on the roster has been the subject of controversy.  Each has had his supporters, each has had his detractors.

I have been no stranger to these debates.  More than anything else on this site, I have probably become known as a tireless, and frequently tiring to those who disagree with me, advocate for the potential of Jerryd Bayless. I post opinions about many other players and many other topics, but I always seem to return to Bayless.  The truth is, I can't help it.  My fellow fans here at BE, and the local media provoke me on a regular basis.

Bayless' Repetitive Critics and My Repetitive Responses

I read and hear the same criticisms over and over:  "he isn't a PG;"  "he just puts his head down and drives to the basket;"  "he can't shoot;"  "he is an out of control TO machine;" etc., etc.  I respond to each of these statements by pointing out the stats that strongly suggest that while these statements may have been true when Bayless first arrived, they are a less and less accurate description of his play.  You know the drill:  I point out his improved AST%, his decreased TO%, his best on the team improvement in his PER.  I point out that he shot 38% from 3 after the All-Star break and that he had a better TS% than Miller, or than Roy had in his second year.  Yada, yada, yada.

What I have noticed over time, is that my arguments seem to bounce off those who disagree with me.  It simply doesn't matter how much he has improved, it doesn't matter what the stats say, it doesn't matter how favorably he compares to other young PGs.  Most fans have simply made up their minds and don't want to be confused by arguments or facts that don't fit with their opinions.  After thinking about it for some time, I think what we have going on here is a case of confirmation bias.  What is confirmation bias?  Here, in part, is what Wikipedia has to say:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

In other words, once people form strong opinions about a subject, in this case a basketball player, they tend to only take in information that confirms their existing opinion.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist or to have studied sociology (like I did) to see how this would effect basketball fans in terms of their ability to evaluate young players.  If a young guy comes in and struggles, fans tend to develop a negative first impression that is very hard to shake.  If the player shows improvement, fans will tend to ignore the improved play and remember only those plays where the player repeated their earlier mistakes. 

Of course, confirmation bias cuts both ways.  I may be the one blinded by my early optimism about Bayless. Perhaps I only notice the good plays and conveniently forget the ugly turnovers.  It is partly because of my fear of my own bias that I started turning to the stats to try to "check" my own perceptions.  The more I looked at the stats, the more I compared Bayless to other young PGs, the more I became convinced that his potential was real.

Seeing What We Want to See

In the case of Bayless, we seem to have a classic case of attitude polarization.  We have all watched the same games and read the same reports, but we have come to very different conclusions.  Those, like me, who are optimistic about Bayless look at his excellent athleticism, exceptional work ethic, and outstanding ability to get to the line (6.7 times per 36) and we hope he will improve as a defender, shooter, and decision maker.  Those who are pessimists focus on his weaknesses and tend to underestimate the value of the things he does well and tend to minimize the fact that he has come so far in such a short period.

I think the perceptions of the local media guys is particularly interesting.  The newspaper guys:  Quick, Smith, and Eggers all seem to see some potential.  The radio and broadcast guys have been highly critical of Bayless from early on.  Jaynes and Vance have been unrelentingly negative. To me, this is a case of "old school guys" who do not like new style PGs.  Both Jaynes and Vance cut their teeth in the days of classic "pass first" PGs.  The recent rule changes eliminating hand checking above the foul line have changed the game.  It has put a premium on PGs who can penetrate.  Few can penetrate better than Bayless.  Mike Barrett became a close personal friends with Steve Blake and his family.  Blake's sister is a producer at 95.5.  I think all of these factors have tended to create a bit of negative group think at 95.5 regarding Bayless.

Of course, it doesn't really matter what the fans think, it probably doesn't even matter what the local media guys think.  There are only three opinions that really matter:  Nate, Rich, and PA.  My guess is that Bayless' fate as a Blazer will likely be determined in the next 30 days.  

If he gets the chance to stay, I fully expect him to continue marching along the development path he was on last year.  Imagine, if you will, a Jerryd Bayless who picks up where he left off in the Phoenix series:  shooting 40% from 3 pt range; posting a AST% of 28%, a TO% under 10, an AST/TO of 3:1.  Imagine him being able to spread the floor for Roy in the way that Blake did, while at the same time being a constant threat to take it to the rim and a powerful one man break in the open floor.  He doesn't need to be Steve Nash as a distributor, he just needs to be Steve Blake +; a guy who rings up 5-6 assists per 36 while sharing distribution responsibilities with one of the best playmaking SGs in the league.  Stop thinking about PG as a position, and start thinking about it as a set of functions that can be divided up among the perimeter players in any way that works.

Part 2 of my little PG series will be a discussion of how I visualize these functions being divided up between our perimeter players, assuming that we stick to the current roster minus Rudy.

I started writing this as a comment under Dave's Front Page evaluation of Bayless.  After working on it for four hours, it became clear that this was better suited as its own Fan Post.  I hope that those of you who vote to "Trade Bayless Now" in the poll will take the time to explain your reasoning in the comment section.  In particular, I would appreciate comments supported by evidence rather than dismissive assertions like the seemingly ever popular "he isn't a PG and never will be."  If you think that, please explain your reasoning.  Thanks, lets have a good respectful discussion.

Bayless seems to be a bit of a Rorschach Test.  Some look at him and see an undersized SG who doesn't seem to shoot very well.  Others see him as a scoring PG who appears to be developing a rare ability to get to the line with a rapidly improving ability to hit from outside.  Both takes have some validity.

On defense, some look at him as overaggressive and prone to committing silly fouls.  Others see a guy with outstanding speed, good strength for a PG, and a tough, hard-nosed attitude.  Again, both takes have some validity.

In order to sort out these conflicting views out, I think you have to break Bayless' game down into three parts scoring, distributing, and defending:

SCORING

This is the clearest part of the picture.  Bayless can score.  He was the teams second best scorer per 36 minutes in the regular season at 17.4 per 36, and he remained the teams second best scorer per minute in the playoffs.

Some discount Bayless' scoring as coming against weaker opposition.  Such criticism misses the point that a fairly high percentage of Bayless' minutes came in games where he started while Roy was hurt, or in the 30 games where he played more than 20 minutes.  In fact, Bayless numbers were better per minute in these 30 games than they were in the 44 games where he played fewer than 20 minutes.

Many have criticized Bayless for inconsistency.  Certainly his per game scoring fluctuated significantly, but these fluctuations were a result of huge variations in the number of minutes Nate chose to play Bayless.  Look at these numbers:  6 games DNP CD; 14 games less than 10:00; 15 games 10:00 - 15:00; 14 games 15:00 - 20:00; 19 games 20:00 - 25:00; 11 games > 25:00.  

These huge fluctuations in minutes reflect the changing roles Bayless was asked to play during the season.  He started out on the bench; then he started getting scrap minutes at PG; next he got minutes at back-up SG when Rudy was out with his surgery; then Roy was out for a few games and Bayless started.  Then Blake was out with pneumonia and Bayless moved to back-up PG.  Then Roy hurt his hammy, and Bayless started for a 10 game stretch.  Then Blake was traded and Bayless moved primarily to back-up PG after the All-Star break.  Then in the playoffs,  Bayless stepped up and played a lot of minutes at both back-up PG and some back-up SG, although he was usually guarding Nash or Dragic.

In fact, Bayless saw more fluctuation in minutes and role than any player with the possible exception of Juwan.  It is one thing to ask a savvy vet to adjust his role from one game to the next.  It is another to do that with a 21 year old who is trying to learn how to play the most difficult position on the floor.  I think any criticism of Bayless' inconsistency needs to be tempered with the fact that it is very tough for a young player to handle so many changes.

Part of the wide range of opinion about Bayless comes from the way he scores his points.  Bayless TS% was .534, which is quite strong for a second year backcourt player.  In fact, it is better than Roy achieved in his second year. However, this strong overall TS% masks a more complicated picture.  Bayless has a relatively low FG% at 41.4% and a 3 pt.% at 31.5%, which I think can fairly be described as decent for a second year player but far from great. The reason Bayless has a strong TS% is because he gets to the line 6.5 times per 36.  This is huge number, better than all but a handful of second year guards in the past two decades.

So those who focus on Bayless' low FG% think he sucks.  This opinion is further strengthened by the relatively high percentage of shots Bayless has blocked driving to the rim.  The flip side is that Bayless gets a lot of easy buckets which helps his overall percentage and gets to the line frequently.

The debate is further complicated by the fact that Bayless game is evolving rapidly.  Those who formed strong opinions early, hold their breath or yell at the TV every time Bayless shoots a jump shot.  On the other hand, Bayless has shown a lot of improvement very quickly.  I have frequently pointed out that Bayless shot 40% from 3 pt range for the last two months of the season.  He actually shot the best percentage of anyone on the team for those last couple of months.

So how should we make sense of all these conflicting views?  We know that Bayless can score.  We know that he is always a threat to get to the rim and the line.  What we don't know is if Bayless will continue to improve as a shooter.  If he does, he has the potential to become a dominant scorer.  If you take a player with Bayless' proven ability to penetrate and give him an ability to hit the stop and pop jumper, and an ability to hit 40% as a spot up 3 pt shooter, you have an extremely potent, triple-threat weapon.  Defenders have to back off to prevent penetration and that means the stop and pop jumper is almost always available.  Defenders who cheat off Bayless would be punished by his ability to hit the three and his potential to put the ball on the floor and blow by a defender trying to rotate out.

To me, the chances that Bayless will evolve into this kind of triple threat scorer are very good.  He has the physical tools to do it.  He has the work ethic and a burning desire to succeed.  He has a history of being a good shooter.  His dramatic improvement this season certainly suggests that he may improve significantly next season.  It certainly suggests it makes sense to hold on to Bayless to see if he takes that next step.

DISTRIBUTION

Here, the water is even murkier.  Opinions about Bayless' potential as a distributor run the full range from "he will never be a PG," to "he is the PG of the future."  IMHO, there is plenty of ammunition on both sides.  If you look at per game stats, the picture isn't very pretty.  Bayless averaged only 1.5 assists/game as a rookie and 2.3/game this past season.  His +/- numbers are anemic and the second team seemed to struggle with Bayless at the point.

On the other hand, the trend and the per minute numbers show strong reasons for optimism.  Bayless averaged 4.3 assists/36 as a rookie, 4.7 assists/36 as a sophomore and 5.3 assists/36 in the playoffs.  These certainly aren't Nash-like numbers, but they are definitely headed in the right direction.  Steve Blake functioned as our starting PG for nearly 2 1/2 seasons while averaging 6.1/36 in 07-08, 5.7/36 in 08-09, and 5.1/36 this season.  By comparison, Blake averaged only 3.7 assists/36 in his second year in the league.  Bayless' TO numbers are also headed in the right direction:  3.6/36 as a rookie; 2.6/36 as a sophomore; and 1.5/36 in the playoffs.

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?  I think the answer depends on your expectations of a PG.  If you feel the team absolutely needs a traditional, pass-first PG who averages 8.0 assists/game, you don't like what you see.  On the other hand, if you look at the Blazers and see that our best player is Roy, who likes to have the ball in his hands for significant stretches of the game, and that we have Batum and Rudy who have both shown some playmaking talent, you may see the team as functioning well with an eventual Roy/Bayless backcourt.

Clearly, I am an optimist, but I am not blinded to the difficulty of the task.  Plenty of young combo guards have failed over the years.  Learning how to balance scoring and distributing in the NBA is tough.  None the less, I think the trend in the NBA is clearly towards scoring PGs like CP3, D Will, Rose, Rondo, Brooks, and Evans and away from traditional, pass-first PGs.  Part of the change is due to the new rule prohibiting handchecking above the foul line, which has placed a premium on PGs who can penetrate.  I think this change is also a reflection of the defenses in the NBA.  Teams need a PG who can score in order to provide spacing and in order to keep defenders from doubling other scorers.

I don't know if Bayless is going to make it as a distributor or not.  At this point he creates most of his assists by penetrating and kicking out for open Js, and by running the pick and pop.  He has shown some ability to drop the ball off to the bigs when teams rotate to stop his penetration.  He has shown some ability to throw the lob.  I hope we see a lot more of both in the future.

Part of the reason I am optimistic is the fact that Bayless Assist % is moving in the right direction:  18.2 as a rookie, 22.2 this year in the regular season, 27.2 in this year's playoffs.  His numbers are pretty consistent with the Assist % of many of the other top young PGs in their first and second years:  Rose 21.2; Evans 20.7; Curry 24.2; Brooks 20.4; Stuckey 19.6; G Hill 19.3; Jennings 23.4; Flynn 21.4.

I think these numbers demonstrate the need for patience with young PGs. It just takes time for guys to learn how to play the position, just like it takes young QBs time to learn how to play in the NFL.  It also suggests that trying to draft another PG is not the answer.  We would simply be starting the adjustment process all over again.  Many have pointed out the fact that Jerrett Jack has blossomed into a solid PG since leaving the Blazers.  Luke Ridnour has developed into a very good back-up, but it took time.  Aaron Brooks needed three years to bloom into a young star.  Stuckey is still developing in Detroit.  Mike Conley struggled in his first year and a half.

The need for patience is particularly strong when it comes to Bayless.  He was a one and done in college, who
was moved to SG because of an injury to the teams projected starting SG.  Bayless also got extremely limited minutes his rookie season, fewer than any other lottery pick.  This past season, more minutes resulted in better play.  Finally, I would reiterate my point about how Bayless' role and minutes fluctuated significantly throughout the season.  In many ways, Bayless is still a rookie as a PG.  Many of his minutes have been at SG or in three guard lineups.  It was not until after the All-Star break that Bayless got reasonably consistent minutes at the back-up PG position.

DEFENSE

Again, the water is murky here as well.  Dave did a good job of pointing out all the statistical numbers that seem to suggest that Bayless was at best a mediocre defender.  His Defensive Rating is 110 and his +/- numbers are nothing to write home about.

I have some real questions about these numbers.  Portland is notorious around the league for its struggles in defending the Pick and Roll.   Teams run the P&R against us all the time.  Portland is one of the few teams that switches on most P&R situations.  When Portland switches and the PG blows by Juwan Howard for a lay-up, my impression is that that basket gets charged to Bayless.  Is this the way it works?  If so, Portland's habit of switching makes it very difficult to evaluate the defensive performance of our PGs.  I hope someone who is more knowledgable about these matters will address this issue in the comments.

Anecdotally, I think Bayless has shown considerable improvement.  When Bayless was guarding Nash in the playoffs, he held Nash below his season averages in points, assists, field goal percentage and Nash was well above his season average in turnovers.  Compare Bayless' results to George Hill in the Phoenix/San Antonio series.  Nash completely torched Hill.

Bayless still fouls too much, but his foul numbers improved as the season went on.  I do think that his aggressive style demonstrates effort, and that his ability to put pressure on the ball does help slow down opposing offenses.  To me it is a refreshing change from watching Blake play well off of his man in order to compensate for his difficulty staying in front of anyone.

GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY, WHAT MAKES SENSE REGARDING THE FUTURE?

To me, there are enough reasons for optimism that it makes sense to give Bayless another season.  What we saw in the playoffs was tantalizing.  Bayless didn't play dramatically better than he had in the regular season, but a slight improvement and more minutes showed that Bayless can be a significant contributor for the team.   He still made mistakes, but he played a little more under control.  To me, it looked like a glimpse of next season with a more mature Bayless who is starting to get comfortable on the floor.  He is pressing less which is helping his shooting. The game is starting to slow down a little and his recognition and  decision making skills are starting to improve.

At a minimum, I  expect Bayless to continue to improve as a scorer.  That improvement and maturation will increase his value both to the Blazers, and as a potential trade asset.  Even if Bayless doesn't pan out as a future starting PG, he made be an outstanding 6th man scorer off the bench.

On the other hand, I think there is real reason for optimism that Bayless may make the leap at PG.  All of his numbers are headed in the right direction.  Giving up on him at the ripe old age of 21 seems profoundly short sighted.  It costs the Blazers almost nothing to give Bayless one more full season as a combo guard paired with Miller and Roy.  It would cost the Blazers dearly to bring in a young, proven PG who has more potential than Bayless.

Given these realities, the smart move is patience.  Let's see how Bayless develops as a scorer, distributor, and defender.  If the optimists are right, we will have our backcourt set until Roy retires.  If the pessimists are right, Miller has enough left in the tank to give us time to bring in another PG next summer.  The risk/reward ratio of such an approach seems extremely high.

Personally, I think the Blazers should largely use a three guard rotation with Roy, Miller and Bayless (note:  I originally wrote 3 guard line-up, which implies all three on the floor at the same time.  That is not what I mean.  I am advocating rotating the three players between the two positions).  I would like to see either Miller or Roy on the floor with Bayless.  I think Rudy is likely to be gone by next season.  Such a line-up would allow us to take advantage of Bayless' ability to bring the ball upcourt, defend quicker PGs, and score, without the downside of leaving Bayless as the only playmaker on the second unit.  It would allow Miller to spend some time on the floor with the second unit in the way Nate envisioned last year.  It would also allow us a look at a potential Roy/Bayless backcourt and would take advantage of the fact that Bayless is better suited to spreading the floor for Roy than is Miller. 

No doubt, there would be some situations where the Blazers would need more size on the court for defensive purposes.  I would like to see the Blazers acquire a defensive SG who can hit the 3 for use in these situations.  Martell might be able to fill such a role but his shooting is streaky and his handle is suspect.

Bottom Line: Getting more minutes for our second best per minute scorer is a net positive.  Allowing him time to develop, and allowing the team time to evaluate his long range future.  The cost is minimal and the potential reward is enormous.

Yesterday, it was announced that Brandon Roy would likely be starting in game six.  Most of Puddletown rejoiced.  The guys on The Game were almost twirling their fan towels in anticipation.

In general, this seems like an easy call.  Brandon, when healthy, is undoubtedly the team's best player.  If you are Nate, faced with an elimination game, and Brandon says he wants to start, it is easy to say "yes."  

My opinion is no doubt a minority view, but I have my doubts as to whether or not starting Roy is the smart move.

Follow me across the jump to hear my reasons and to discuss the issue.

Continue reading this post »

TNT's caught the scene well.  The billionaire owner sitting courtside, showing the obvious effects of his recent chemo treatments.  The arena sold out for nearly 100 consecutive games with fans decked out with signs and t-shirts supporting the embattled General Manager.  The commentators trying to make heads or tails out of the seemingly inexplicable situation.  Above all, TNT's cameras showed the results of Kevin Pritchard's efforts on the floor.

I hope Paul Allen was paying attention.  If his eyes, ears, and mind were open,  this is what he should have observed:

A cohesive team playing hard and executing well.  A team comprised largely of young players, but salted with three savvy vets.  A team whose foundational players, Roy and Aldridrge, are just now entering what should be their most productive seasons.  A team with four second year players Oden, Batum, Fernandez, and Bayless, who each have tremendous upside potential.  

In the case of Oden, his potential is nearly off the charts.  His PER, prior to his injury, was the 2nd highest of any center, and the 9th among all NBA players.  This as a raw 22 year old working to regain his athleticism and struggling with foul trouble to stay on the floor.  Kevin Durant aside, dominant centers are one of the rarest commodities in all of sports.  Potential Hall of Fame centers come along once or twice a decade, and when they do, the teams lucky enough to have them challenge for championships.   Anyone who second guesses the selection of Oden, is either ignorant about the history of the game or relying on hindsight. 

Nicolas Batum is, simply put, one of the best draft selections of the past decade.  He is already an astonishingly versatile defender who can guard the 1-4 positions.  While his full offensive potential is still up in the air, it is already clear that he is going to be a force in the open floor and a quality spot-up shooter.  Those who laughed at the "Scottie Pippen" references last season are not laughing any more.  He has a long way to go to reach that level, but his ceiling is truly that high.  

Rudy Fernandez is not only a young, quality player with extensive international experience, he is also one of the best bargains in the NBA.   Having him on your roster for four years, at a little over $1 million per year, should put a smile on any owners face.

The jury may still be out on whether or not Jerryd Bayless becomes the Blazer's "PG of the Future."  What is no longer legitimately debatable, is whether or not he is going to become a quality NBA player.  If you look at what Bayless has produced on a per minute basis at this point in his career, he is in outstanding company.  Other second year players over the past two decades who have demonstrated similar ability to get to the line, and who roughly match Bayless' scoring, assist, and True Shooting % have all gone on to become solid starters and most have gone on to be All-Stars.

I would argue that the future championship prospects of the team largely ride on the development and health of these 4 players.  We know roughly how good Roy and Aldridge are (although a fairly high percentage of the fan base needs to be reminded about Aldridge on a regular basis), what we are not sure of at this point, is just how good these four guys will become and how well all the pieces will fit together.  We can't know, because the guys are so young, and because the nearly unprecedented number of injuries has postponed our ability to see all the players on the floor at the same time.   We have yet to see what I hope will be a the starting five for a championship run:  Bayless, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden.  We have not even seen what should be our current starting five Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Oden.  While we are fantasizing about the prospects, imagine this defensive line-up: Batum, Roy, LMA. Camby, and Oden.  That last line-up has enough arm length to reach from Portland to Eugene.

As impressive as the talent Pritchard has assembled is, I would argue that equally impressive has been the restraint he has shown in trying to fine tune the roster in the past year and a half.  Many have criticized some of KP's decisions: 1) his failure to trade RLEC last year;  2) the decision to pass on Blair in the draft, and 3) his subsequent attempt to sign Turkoglu, last summer. I certainly think these "failures" are worthy of discussion:

1)  Like everyone else. I was disappointed when RLEC was allowed to expire, however, I think the decision needs to be looked at in context.  The size of RLEC ($12 million) was so large that almost every trading partner wanted us to part with one or more of our young players in order to send over a a vet on a large contract.  Most of the rumors we heard suggested that Batum was the player most teams coveted.  How would you feel if Batum was wearing a different colored jersey and was posting a PER of 18 in that jersey?  KP should be given some credit for realizing what he had.  Overpaying for aging veterans is one of the quickest and surest ways to consign a team with outstanding young talent to long-term mediocrity.

2)  Hindsight on Blair is clearly premature.  The man with no ACLs has survived his first 1000 minutes in the NBA, good for him.  Had he gone down, everybody would be clucking with "I-told-you-so."   Let's see how his career turns out before we flagellate ourselves, or KP, for making a prudent decision to pass.

3)  Criticism over KP's attempt to sign Turkoglu is, IMO, probably the most valid.  The 5 year term of the offer certainly had a lot of potential for regret, particularly given that Hedo has gone on to have a relatively poor season.  But, given that we will never see Turkoglu play with the rest of the Blazers, I think there is a limit as to how much criticism can be made of a deal that was never consummated.  We simply can't evaluate KP's judgement in trying to sign Turkoglu, because we will never know how well he would have fit. 

The bottom line is that KP has been an absolutely stellar judge of talent and character.  Five years ago he advocated drafting CP3.  Four years ago he scored the two best players from the draft in Aldridge and Roy.  Three years ago he drafted Oden, and maneuvered to get Rudy, for cheap.  Two years ago he got both Bayless, who was expected to go between 4-8, as well as Batum.  Last year, he found Cunningham and Pendergraph in the second round, two guys who have shown that they have a good chance to develop into successful role players.

KP's acquisition of Miller, Camby, and Howard, only strengthens the argument.  In each case, he got savvy guys, who are good teammates.  Guys who had more left in the tank than many believed and who have shown great professionalism and continued desire to compete. In each case, KP has gotten these players at reasonable cost and for reasonable periods of time that preserve the team's long-term flexibility.

Simply put, judging by every reasonable criteria that is available to the public, Kevin Pritchard, has done a tremendous job as General Manager.  I am not saying he has been perfect.  I am saying he has been damn good.  Of course, it is possible that there are things going on behind the scenes that we don't know, however, wild speculation and office politics aside, firing KP looks utterly unjustified.

Please don't do it, Mr Allen.  Don't wash away all the good will that has been restored in the last four years.  Don't punish the person who is most responsible for turning around the team's fortunes on the floor and with the fans. Don't alienate the community.  Don't endanger the team's future success.  Don't damage your own investment as an owner and as a fan.  We wish you well in your recovery.  We appreciate your commitment to excellence and your willingness to back-up that commitment with tremendous resources.  Now that we are so close to the promised land, don't fire the man who has been most responsible for getting us here.  The Blazer's greatest opponent may be your own impatience.

What follows is a repost of a long comment to Dave in his front-page Mailbag.  The minute I hit post and saw how much I had written, I felt it was appropriate to repost this as a Fanpost.  Apologies if anyone is offended.  My point is less about giving Dave a hard time, and more about trying to summarize the case for Bayless' season and future prospects being significantly undervalued by many were at Blazer's Edge.  I hope we can have some polite and intelligent discussion below.  If you don't have patience to read this whole post I hope you will at least read the last part where I summarize Bayless' performance since the Blake trade.  Thanks!

E tu, Dave?

I must say that I find your take on Bayless more than a little annoying. It is fine to disagree, but the manner of your disagreement seems to diminish what Bayless has accomplished and dismiss those of us who have been making logical, statistically backed arguments on his behalf. I don’t think it is fair to lump such arguments under the heading “Next Big Thing.” There is a difference between spouting opinions and attempting to provide fact based analysis.

I have been jumping up and down about Bayless since shortly after he was drafted, because I believe the league has moved in a direction that places a premium on having a PG who can penetrate and score, and because I thought PG defense was one of the team’s major weaknesses. I think it would be fair to characterize most of my posts last season as being about “potential.” You may be right that it is dangerous, or pointless, for fans to try to predict the future. I certainly would acknowledge that fans are frequently wrong in our attempts to prognosticate.

This season, however, I think my posts have taken a decidedly different tack: I have not been talking about potential, I have been talking about what Bayless has been doing on the floor. I believe that you and a host of other fans seem to significantly undervalue what Bayless has accomplished in difficult circumstances:

1) Inconsistent role and minutes: I believe it is fair to say that no player on the roster has seen more fluctuation in role and minutes than Bayless. He has gone from scrap minutes as the 5th guard; to back-up SG (when Rudy was hurt); to back-up PG (when Blake got sick); to starting SG (when Roy was hurt); to combo guard (when Blake and Rudy came back); and now back to back-up PG. He has played more than 24 minutes in 14 games; played between 12 and 24 minutes in 28 games; and played less than twelve minutes, or not at all, in 20 games.

2) Dramatic improvement: Bayless PER has improved more than any player on the Blazers, and more than any PG in the NBA, from 8.7 to 16.0. That rating places him 22 among all PGs in the league. Fifth among the bumper crop of young PGs drafted in the past three years. 20 of the 21 guys ahead of him are starters.

Bayless’ TS% has increased from a weak .485 last season to an excellent rating of .545, which is better than the .531 Brandon Roy accomplished as a 23 year old in his second season; better than the .533 rate of Andre Miller this season. Bayless’ TS% is better than D Rose, R Westbrook, or T Evans three of the four PGs ahead of him in terms of PER. On a Per 36 Minute basis, Bayless is the Blazers second leading scorer behind Roy.

Bayless ability to get to the line isn’t just good it is exceptional. He is averaging 7.4 FTA Per 36 Minutes of PT. I know that many dismiss Per 36 Minute stats, however, if you consider that nearly half of Bayless total PT this season has come as a starter, and if you look at the actual list of players who have accomplished this feat, you see that this is some rare and distinguished company. In the past ten years, among first and second year guards, only five players who averaged more than 15 min/game have exceeded 6 FTA/36: Dwayne Wade, Jerryd Bayless, Devin Harris, Vince Carter and Tyreke Evans.

Without actually saying it, you seem to suggest that you are highly skeptical of Bayless’ ability to become the teams starting PG. You suggest that the team should look seriously at Rudy or Nic as possible answers at the point. I think such a suggestion is extremely problematic.

I would argue that Bayless, even given his lack of experience as a PG, is closer to being a decent distributor than either Rudy or Nic, and closer to being a quality PG defender than Rudy is likely to ever become. Bayless isn’t a good distributor yet, but the stats certainly suggest he is better than many are giving him credit for:

1) Since the Blake trade, Bayless has averaged 5.2 Assists/36 minutes of PT: This isn’t fantastic, but it certainly isn’t terrible. It is very comparable to other young scoring PGs like Rose, Evans, Stuckey, and Flynn.

2) Bayless Assist% at 22.3 is in the same range as Blake’s (22.7) and Roy’s (23.8) and is far better than Rudy’s (13.5) or Nic’s (9.3). If we don’t have time to wait for Bayless to develop improved PG skills, what makes so many confident that Rudy or Nic could make that transition any faster. In addition, Bayless’ TOV% (12.3) is lower than Rudy’s (14.3) or Andre’s (14.4), and only slightly higher than Nic’s 10.6 which isn’t surprising given that Nic handles the ball significantly less.

3) Bayless’ line since the All- Star break has been impressive: Shooting 49% from the field and 7-15 from 3pt. range and over 87% from the line. He has scored 9.5 points per game on only 16 minutes per game. On a per 36 minute basis that would be 21 points and 5.2 assists per game.

I guess what I am trying to say is that people should discuss Bayless based on what he has actually done on the floor this year rather than on some preconceived notion based on his play last year. Bayless is a relatively green 21 year old who is just now being given consistent minutes at back-up PG. The rush to judgement seems silly.

There is certainly room for discussion on whether or not Bayless will develop into an effective distributor. It isn’t certain one way or the other. There is a lot of reason for optimism and at least a bit of patience. Let’s see how Bayless does for the rest of the season before we go discussing trade proposals for other young PGs, who are not any more proficient, or for journeyman who do not have any where near Bayless’ upside potential.

Now that the team has made its trade, there is a natural impulse to say, "what's next?"  On the front page, people are already speculating about long term roster moves.  The sidebar has its usual trade suggestions.  Let me suggest that what comes next is evaluating where we are.

We need to see how Camby fits in.  We need a better look at Rudy and Batum coming back from significant injuries. Removing Blake is going to have a significant impact on the backcourt rotation.  We need to see how players respond and how they fit together in different combinations. 

Many posters are clamoring for consistency from our young players.  That seems unrealistic given that guys roles and minutes have been changing from week to week with all the injuries and guys coming back from injuries.

Bayless is a prime example.  He started the season as the fifth guard playing spot minutes.  Then he moved to back-up SG when Rudy got hurt.  Next he played SG and PG when Blake got pneumonia.  Then when Blake and Rudy came back, and then Roy went down he saw his minutes and role change yet again.  He has had exactly one game as the back-up PG, and folks are once again saying he is not a PG.  Given that he dished three dimes in eleven minutes, this claim strikes me as pretty absurd.  The bench guys were great in the first half and not so great in the second half, and numerous folks seemed ready to panic.

Prior to his thigh injury, Bayless had a stretch were he scored in double figures for nine out of ten games.  Nate responded to this burst of consistency by pulling Bayless from the starting line-up and reducing his minutes.  If we are going to expect consistency from the young players, doesn't it make sense to expect some consistency from the coaching staff?

It seems to me that we should all just sit back and watch carefully to see how the rest of the season unfolds. Whether Roy can go, or not, will have a significant impact on expectations and performance, but in any case we need to give guys time to develop chemistry if we are going to expect consistency.

In particular, I think any speculation about future roster moves is premature before the play-offs.  We need to see how these guys perform under pressure before we can intelligently discuss additional roster moves.

...... make lemonaide.

This season has certainly provided the Blazers with a bushel basket of injuries.  For the past month, the team has been reduced to survival mode.  We were down to eight or nine guys and it was definitely time to hunker down, man-up, and watch each others back.   The team did very well under the circumstances.

Now, I think we are entering a new phase.  With the return of Steve and Rudy, and the imminent return of Nic, the Blazers for the first time are about to have a full compliment of perimeter players.  The team has options.  Conventional wisdom would have the team trade away some of its perimeter depth for another big man to step into the breach until next season.  Everybody knows we are unlikely to go far in the play-offs without a big man. 

Unfortunately, every GM in the league knows we need a big man, and the available supply is painfully small and the cost is likely to be frighteningly high.  If a good deal comes along, a deal that is in the Blazer's long term interest, that does not sacrifice the future for the present, I have confidence that KP will take it.  In the mean time, I think it is time to make a virtue out of necessity.

 The Blazers need to use their wealth of perimeter players to create mismatches.  We need to experiment with different line-ups that should allow us to outrun almost any team in the league:

Aldridge at the 5:  Instead of complaining that LMA is not a low post beast, why not take advantage of his strengths?  LMA is one of the fastest PFs in the league.  When he is moved to the 5, the mismatch is huge.  We need to take advantage of LMA's speed in transition.

Batum or Webster at the 4:  Both guys should have a definite speed advantage over most PFs in the league.  Both guys are athletic, both can run the floor, both can finish at the rim.

Rudy, Batum, or Webster at the 3:  all three guys can run.  Rudy is deadly on the spot-up three in transition.

Rudy, Bayless, or Roy at the 2:  Rudy and Bayless would both love to run.  Bayless is faster than most 1s, he has a definite speed advantage over most 2s.  Roy may not like it, but he can do it.  If he sees the team being successful, he will develop a greater appreciation of a transition game.

Miller or Bayless at the 1:  I think,  Miller is the key.  He is the guy who can orchestrate the break.  He is the guy who can throw the half-court lob.  He is the guy who can facilitate a secondary break by hitting LMA coming down the lane or hitting Rudy spotted up for a three.  Miller can teach this team how to get easy buckets in transition.  Bayless is great at the one man break.  He puts his head down and hits his afterburners.  He looks ugly sometimes and gets his shot blocked occasionally, but he finishes a good percentage and gets to the line frequently.  With practice, I think he can learn to do a better job of involving teammates. 

We all know the limitations of a speed game.  You have to rebound the ball before you can run.  If everybody is running, who is going to keep the opponent off the offensive glass?  Nate can work on a variety of different rebounding schemes.  The key is to keep the other team guessing and off-balance.

Another bit of conventional wisdom is that teams that rely on a transition game never advance very far in the playoffs. This may be true, but ask yourself this, is Portland going to win playing bigger teams straight up?  I don't think so.  In a playoff series, other teams are going to pound the Blazers senseless.  They will be scoring in the paint while Portland is depending of jumpers and Brandon's isolation game.

We don't need to run all the time.  We can run in certain situations against certain teams.  When we are getting pounded inside, rather than trying to match the other teams strength and size, we can go small and try to force the opponent to match our speed.  If we are at a mismatch on the defensive end, we need to press our advantage at the offensive end.

The Blazers are never going to become a predominantly running team with Nate as coach and Roy and Oden as two of our centerpiece players.  However, learning to run situationally would give the team a very valuable arrow in its quiver.  We all know that Portland is overly reliant on jumpers and Brandon's isolations.  Learning to run would give Portland an alternative way to try to score when the jumpers aren't falling and teams are aggressively doubling Brandon.

So what do the rest of you think.  Now that we have some of our perimeter depth back, should the Blazers make a concerted effort to develop a couple of speed line-ups to try to push the pace?  What line-ups do you think will be most successful?  What strategies will be most successful for getting into the open court and not get crushed by the opponent's offensive rebounding?  How can the team best incorporate some running with their current half-court attack?

Have you checked your calendar lately?  In the next two weeks, the Blazers are going to be getting Steve, Rudy, and Nic back.  For the first time, the team will have its full complement of eight perimeter players.  On one hand, it is great to see help on the horizon, on the other, this is sure to create another round of PT controversy.  Coming on the heals of months of controversy about our PG rotation, this isn't likely to be pretty.  

Nate has had trouble dealing with four guards, now he will have five (plus Mills).  Equally important, Nate's primary way of dealing with the problem, which has been to play a lot of 3 guard lineups, is likely to become less attractive as the team adjusts to having both Nic and Martell for the first time.  Given our lack of a true center, playing a real SF, rather than a 3 guard line-up, is one way to improve our rebounding and defense.

So what should we do, and is Nate likely to strike the right balance?  Follow me across the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Last night was pretty special for me.  I was sitting on my couch with my wife, so sick from a cold that I forgot to change from the Newshour to the game.  I came to my senses at the start of the second quarter.  

You ask, what made the night so special?  It wasn't the great victory over the mighty Kings.  This was an overly close game against a lesser opponent.  It wasn't even the fact that Nate came to his senses and started Miller and gave Bayless some run.  Bayless has gotten minutes before.  Bayless has scored before, in fact this was his third game with 14 points, so far this season.  Bayless didn't really do anything he hasn't done all season.  

What changed is that he got to do it with the game on the line.  He was put in a pressure situation, and he responded with the same kind of performance we have seen all season:  efficient scoring, 50% + shooting, an outstanding ability to get to the line and decent ball security. What made the night special for me was less what Bayless did on the floor and more the broad acceptance he received from fans, broadcasters, coaches and teammates.

Bayless is going to make a ton of mistakes, but I think it is pretty clear to the majority of folks that he is going to be a good player and potentially an outstanding player.  There are of coarse, a few holdouts out there (AK are you listening?), but most are starting to catch on to what some of us have been saying ad naseum for over a year.

After the game, as I stared sniffling and sleepless at my ceiling, I got to thinking about my experience as a Blazer fan, in general, and as a Bayless Believer, in particular.  Why do I care?  Is it simply the narcissistic arrogance of wanting to be right?  There is no doubt there is an element of that.  We all like to win arguments; we all like to feel vindicated in our judgments.  But I think there is more to it than that.   Follow me across the jump to read my thoughts.  Maybe a little sentimental or sappy, but it is the holiday season.  I know it is long, but I hope you enjoy the journey and that it may help you to reflect on your own experience as a fan.

Continue reading this post »

As a fan, I have consistently supported Nate.  My position has been pretty simple,  "Nate is getting good results, and he seems to have good rapport with the players, so who am I to complain."  I'm just a fan, and I am sure Nate has forgotten more Xs and Os than I've ever known.  Whatever complaints I might have about the rotation or the team's style of play were outweighed by the team's overall improvement.   Whenever I felt the urge to grouse, I tried to restrain myself with the knowledge that Nate had earned "the benefit of the doubt."

Last night's game was excruciating, the type of game that inevitably provokes a chorus of complaints about the Coach.  Generally, I hate the kind of bandwagon fans who start hurling accusations at players and coaches at the first whiff of trouble.  I prefer a bit more patience and a bit longer view.  In a long season, bad games happen.  In general, my observation would be, "limit the damage and move on."

However, when I woke this morning, and started replaying in my mind the high definition ugliness I witnessed on my TV last night, I found that my usual restraints were missing.  If this had just been one lousy game, I could dismiss it.  But as I thought back over the past couple of months, I realized that my confidence in Nate has been steadily eroding.

I'm not at a point where I think Nate should be fired, but I am at a point where "benefit of the doubt" has turned into doubt.  Follow me across the jump to my list of concerns:   

Continue reading this post »

UPDATE:  I think this thread has generated a fair amount of thoughtful discussion in it's first 150 comments.  I would like to add a couple of thoughts and clarifications about my OP:

1)  Several people have criticized my OP as being disrespectful of Steve, and looking back, I think their criticisms have some merit.  My tone was a bit snarky in places.  Steve deserves better; he has been an integral part of the teams dramatic improvement over the past two plus seasons.  He is a good guy and a solid player.  As my OP points out, his production has declined significantly (from 14.4 last season to 9.1, so far, this season), and I think that is a topic for legitimate conversation.

2)  Several thoughtful defenders of Blake have suggested that Blake is making the team better in some intangible way that is not showing up in his individual stats that are the primary focus of my OP.  This seems possible.  Blake's non-adjusted +/- stats are the best on the team.  Non-adjusted +/- is a notoriously fickle stat because there are so many uncontrolled variables that can have a huge impact on these numbers.  Generally it is considered unreliable unless the sample size is very large, but it is a possible explanation.

3)  In general, I think we should all keep an open mind on this subject.  Those of us who have doubts about the three guard line-up should wait and see what unfolds on the court.  Maybe the defensive concerns we have are overblown.  We will know more when the team plays a few games against better quality opponents.  Maybe Nate sees this is a transitional line-up.  On the other hand, Blake's defenders need to keep an open mind as well.  His production has taken the biggest decline of anyone on the team, if this trend continues, his role may need to be adjusted.  You can give him credit for past service, and you can give him credit for team success, but at some point, he has to bring it on the floor.  You can't keep a guy with a PER below ten in the starting line-up indefinitely when you have three guys who are more productive sitting on the bench.

4)  Trout's injury occurred a few hours after my OP.  Obviously, his absence is going to effect the rotation.  Let's see how Nate handles this challenge and let's see how the team responds on the floor.

BOTTOM LINE:  I think these developments all bear watching.  Maybe the team will keep winning maybe not.  Maybe Blake's play will improve, maybe not.  Let's keep our eyes on the scoreboard and the stats for a few more games and then revisit this topic when things become a bit clearer.  Again, thanks for the quality discussion. 

Is it Blake's efficient scoring?  Well no, his PER is at 9.6, which is absolutely atrocious, worse than any player on the team besides Howard.  The other candidates for minutes:  Bayless 20.6;  Martell 15.0; Rudy 14.9; Miller 13.3

Is it that Blake's outside shooting is desperately needed?  Well no, Blake is shooting at a 40% clip from three, but so is Rudy, so is Travis, and Martell isn't far behind.  Even Bayless has shown an improved outside shot making over 40% of his jumpers and his lone attempt from 3..

Is it Blake's lock-down defense?  OK, I am being a bit snarky.  No one is likely to label Blake a good defender.  Some might argue that he is the best we have at the point.  Blake's Defensive Rating of 102 is a single point better than Miller's and 3 points better than Bayless' , but whatever edge he has over Miller and Bayless is, at best, slight.  In particular, Blake tends to struggle against quick guys who penetrate.

Perhaps it is Blake's solid distribution skills?  Well surprisingly enough, Blake is the fourth best assist man on the team so far this season.  <strong>Assists Per 36 Minutes</strong>:  Miller 6.0; Roy 5.2; Bayless 5.0; Blake 4.2; Rudy 3.2.   Yes, you read that right, Bayless has more assists per minute than Blake.

Maybe it is Blake's ability to snag a few rebounds?  Well, no.  Blake is the worst rebounder of any of our perimeter players:  <strong>Rebounds Per 36 Minutes:</strong>  Bayless 4.3; Roy 4.3; Miller 4.1; Webster 4.0; Rudy 3.9; Blake  3.2.

Certainly, it must be because Blake makes so few mistakes?  Well um, er, no.  Blake has a higher Turnover Percentage than either Miller or Bayless:  Bayless 14.2;  Miller 16.0; Blake 16.2

I realize I am being a bit provocative.  Blake is a solid player and he has played a significant role in the teams success over the past two seasons.  However, Nate is the one who said that the players would determine who got minutes by their play on the floor.  Judged by the very preliminary stats I have just presented, I think it is clear that Blake has not earned the minutes he has received.

To me, it is clear that those minutes should be split between Rudy, Webster, and Bayless.  All three have been more efficient and effective than Blake.  If Nate wants to stick with a three guard line-up, Rudy seems like the obvious choice alongside Miller and Roy.  He can help spread the floor like Blake, but he is a more dynamic scorer, and he has better size to defend the two.  If Nate wants to return Roy to his natural position and give the team stronger defense at the three, Webster is the obvious choice. 

Bayless has been the team's most improved player, so far in his limited minutes.  His PER and TS% have both jumped dramatically to 20.6 and .664 respectively.  Furthermore, the stats suggest that while he is still a work in progress, his distribution skills are improving.  His Assist Rate per 36 minutes is up to 5.0 and his Turnover Rate, while still having room for improvement, has actually been the best of the three PGs.  Bayless has been the teams most efficient and effective scorer off the bench.  To me, this is a case of, "if it is working, don't mess with it."  Bayless has earned the back-up PG minutes even if Nate abandons the three guard line-up.

Nate should stick by his own motto that "minutes are earned."  By that standard Blake's minutes should be significantly reduced. 

All stats are taken from Basketball Reference.Com   http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2010.html

I know you are probably thinking Brandon Roy, with a current PER of 21.06.  You would be wrong.  The highest PER on the team through last nights game with a PER of 27.52:  Jerryd Bayless.

Yes, you read that correctly, Jerryd Bayless, who struggled last season with a PER of just over 8, has a current PER of 27.52.  Obviously, this stat doesn't mean too much when he has only played 23 minutes in two games. It does however, suggest that folks should take a look at their assumptions about Bayless.  We have heard it endlessly from Bayless' detractors, "He will never be a Point Guard.  He is nothing more than an undersized Shooting Guard, who can't shoot."

Follow me across the break to discuss what Bayless is doing, and what it might mean for the team.

Continue reading this post »

Note: After posting this Sunday afternoon, I couldn't sleep Sunday night, so I decided to expand on some of my thoughts about expected improvements. I added a 3A and a 3B, as well as 4A.  Thanks. 

Conventional wisdom in sports is often more about trying to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong, rather than taking the risk of being right.   What I mean is that most sports writers and commentators are inclined to look to the past to predict the future.  

This tendency is very much on display in numerous articles making predictions about the upcoming NBA season (for example, read the ESPN series which polled nearly 50 "experts.").  LA and SA have each won four titles in the past ten years.  So the vast majority of analysts are ready to pick one of these two to come out of the WC next year.  In the East, Boston won two years ago, Cleveland had the best record last year, and Orlando made it to the finals, so each has their advocates.  Certainly, this point of view makes a lot of sense.  These are five good teams with proven talent and a record of accomplishment in the playoffs.  It makes sense to pick these guys as the odds-on-favorites to do it again.  However, in the real world last years winners are not always next year's best teams.  How many expected the Magic to win the East?  Almost no one.  Who predicted that Denver would make the WC Finals? Almost no one.  Sportswriters rarely have the courage or insight to predict that a team will win until it already has.

This brings us to our beloved Blazers.  The conventional wisdom is that they will be good, but that they will not win in the Playoffs until..... well until, they win in the Playoffs.  Need I point out that this sort of reasoning is rather circular?  ESPN's panel of experts predicted the Blazers to finish third behind LA and SA in the regular season.  But not one person predicted that the Blazers would win the WC.  By contrast, one pundit each picked Dallas and Denver to win the West.

Marc Stein, who publishes the ESPN Power Rankings, was even less generous.  He ranked the Blazers ninth in the league, behind the big three from the east, and behind not only LA and SA, but also behind Denver and Dallas in the west. 

To me, this kind of thinking is both short sighted and cowardly.  I think the Blazer's championship window is open, now.  That doesn't mean that I think they will win this year. It does mean that I think they have a reasonable, if small, chance.  It does mean that I think the Blazers will be among the league's elite this year and in the mix come next spring.  I see LA and Cleveland as the favorites, but I think the Blazers have as much chance as the second tier of Boston, San Antonio, and Orlando.  Make the jump to read my reasons why:

Continue reading this post »

Bayless' critics seemed to be emboldened by SL and by the Miller signing.  The number of dismissive and even ridiculing comments has just spiraled out of control.  Are these comments justified?  Was Bayless' performance in SL so bad?  Is the Miller signing an indication that Bayless is on his way out of town?  My answer to all of these questions is a resounding "NO."  I acknowledge that there are very real questions about Bayless' future and legitimate concerns about his game, but we seem to have a collective case of jumping to conclusions based on very little information.  Let's discuss this after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

I have read several references to RLEC in recent days.  Those who feel strongly that the team needs to make a move, and make it now, seem to be arguing that waiting to use our cap space until closer to the 2010 trade deadline is analogous to last seasons failure to make use of RLEC. Basically, the argument is something like this,  "don't talk to me about all the bargains that are going to be available as the trade deadline approaches, I heard that line last year and nothing happened.  Get a deal done now!"

I see your point, and I feel your pain, but there are several reasons I think the current situation is different than the situation last February.  Let's break it down and discuss after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

Quick has said KP is dealing with "failure."  Canzano has said this summer has been a "disaster."  Fan anxiety is at record levels for the KP era.  What are we to make of such hyperbolic language?  Are those who defend KP, "blind homers"?  Have the team's aspirations for a Championship taken a big hit?

Let's discuss after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

It is time to take a break from all the endless speculation about the draft, free agents, and trades.  Let's talk about something that really matters:  the development of the teams outstanding collection of sophomores.  I would argue that the development of these four guys is a lot more important to the teams future than any single player we may acquire with our cap room. 

What follows started as a response to Dave's front page piece.  It just got too big to post in that thread.  I realize that it is generally bad form to duplicate front page material in a Fanpost, but I have been thinking about making a post along these lines for some time now.  Hope you all understand, and hope this provokes some good discussion.  In particular, I am interested in hearing other peoples takes on the chances that our sophomores will grow up to be the big men on campus.  More after the jump

Continue reading this post »

Crazy days here at B Edge.  Half the inmates are on the verge of calling for KP's head.  At least half seem to be upset at the prospect of Turkoglu in black and red. 

Has KP suddenly lost his touch?

On one hand, the ambivalence, and even anger, seems understandable.  Most of us went into the off-season believing that the teams top two priorities were an upgrade at the point and at back-up PF.  A few were advocating for more scoring from the SF position, but most were willing to develop Nic and Martell.  Furthermore, most of us were more concerned about improving the teams defense, rather than trying to improve its already efficient offense.

Given this context, it is not surprising that many have leaped to the conclusion that our once brilliant GM has suddenly lost his mind.  Spending all our precious cap space on a slow, 30 year old SF, who is at best inconsistent on the defensive end, doesn't seem like a very good idea.  I understand this reaction. 

Maybe a bit more humility would be advised

On the other hand, it is pretty surprising that so many B Edgers have been so quick to abandon the good ship, HMS Pritchard.  After all, KP has compiled a truly outstanding track record over the past three years.  It flat out amazes me how many fans are quick to substitute their own judgement for KP's.  Personally, I am happy to admit that KP knows a heck of a lot more than I do.  He has access to far more information than any of us.  He is the guy with the "golden gut" who has been so successful at identifying talent and figuring out how to get it to Portland. 

I may not know what the plan is, but I am sure that KP has one.  KP seems to be playing three dimensional chess when most GMs are playing checkers.  I don't want to get too carried away in my praise, KP puts on his pants one leg at a time, just like the rest of us.  It is possible that he can make a mistake, and it is even possible that he could make a very large mistake.  However, given his track record, doesn't it make sense to give KP the benefit of the doubt?  Rather than criticizing every move that we didn't anticipate, why don't we try to understand his strategy as the moves unfold?  Criticizing KP seems like the height of hubris.

What is the deal with Hedo?

As I mentioned above, Hedo seems like the answer to the wrong question.  We need defense and improved play at PG and PF.  My guess is that KP concluded that he couldn't really improve our PG situation through Free Agency.  The top three PGs are 36, 34, and 32 years old.  Given the every increasing number of uber-quick, young PGs in the league, those guys are extremely likely to struggle on the defensive end.

After thinking about it for the past couple of days, I think Hedo is an excellent example of KP thinking outside of the box.  If you can't find a traditional PG, then how about addressing a need for more play-making by acquiring a point forward?  If you throw out the position labels and start thinking about team needs, Turkoglu starts making a lot of sense in a hurry.  Team needs:

1)   Playoff experience:  more than the rest of the squad combined;

2)   An additional scorer who can get his own shot and perform under pressure;

3)   Reduce the teams over-reliance on Roy's isolation moves;

4)   An additional play-maker who can get easy shots for his teammates;

5)   A player who can run the pick and roll effectively:

Hedo is "Trout Plus."  He can score like Trout.  He can spread the floor like Trout.  He can take big shots like Trout; but he can also do much more:  he can bring the ball up court, he can drive to the hoop, above all, he can set-up his teammates.  Turkoglu has an extremely high BBIQ.  Unlike Travis who often stopped the movement of the ball, Hedo is a consummate set-up man.

KP:  "Above all else, Hedo is a player who will make his teammates better"

This is the money quote.  What does KP mean?  I think it is likely that he means the following:

1)  Hedo helps Roy:  by providing another ball-handler and scorer Hedo takes weight off of Roy and makes it harder for teams to double.  If Roy is handling PG responsibilities, Hedo can bring the ball up-court.

2)  Hedo helps Greg:  Hedo is going to get Greg easy scoring opportunities off of good passes and the side pick and roll.  D Howard is not much better in the low post than Greg, and yet he is scoring nearly 20 pts a game.  Much of the credit should go to Hedo.

3)  Hedo helps LMA:  opponents often sagged off Nic to double LMA.  They won't be able to do that now.

4)  Hedo helps Blake:  Hedo will draw much more defensive attention and more spot up shots for Steve.

5)  Hedo helps Bayless:  Bayless will have an easier time getting on the floor for minutes with the starters with Hedo able to shoulder some of the distribution responsibilities.

6)  Hedo may even help Batum:  Hedo may help mentor Nic on the offensive end and help him learn how to become our next generation point forward.

7)  Hedo will help Rudy:  by shouldering some of the play-making duties, Hedo may make it possible for the Blazers to play with Roy and Rudy together in the back-court.

The only players who will not be helped are Trout and Martell who are likely to see their minutes substantially reduced.  If Hedo is signed, Trout is almost certainly gone.  Webster is a big question mark, and the team really can't count on him until he proves the foot is healed.

All in all, I think Hedo is a brilliant, if unconventional, solution to many of the teams needs.  Yesterday on Wheels at Work, the Sacramento play by play guy said that he was certain that Turkoglu would put the team over the top.  I think that sounds about right.  If that is the future, we make look back at this as one of KP's best moves.

Dave, your write-ups are amazing, but I have to question your basic premise on your write-up to last night's game.

You seem to be arguing that the Blazers played a different style of play and that led to a difference in the way the refs called the game.  I think it is far more dynamic than the kind of linear cause and effect that your write-up suggests:

The tone of this game was far different because the Blazer big guys were not whistled for ticky-tacky, off-the-ball fouls that put them in early foul trouble.  The Blazers shot better because they were ahead rather than behind.  In each of the first four games there were almost no calls against Houston and lots of free throws for Houston.  The Blazers got behind and they got a bit tight.

In the fourth quarter, when Houston was ahead by four, how did the Blazers get back in the lead?  They didn't do it by being aggressive and taking it to the hole; they did it because the refs whistled Houston (Landry and Lowry) for several early team fouls which put Houston in the penalty early in the quarter.  The Blazers made five straight FTs to regain the lead.

I know it is very "uncool" to complain about the officiating.  Anyone who does so is immediately labeled as a whining homer.  I get that.  I also understand that a game like last night seems to automatically soothe the ruffled feathers of the fans who think their team is getting screwed by the zebras.  Everyone in Portland was up in arms about the officiating;  we get the benefit of a majority of the calls last night and suddenly every thing is hunky dory.

I'm not buying into the collective amnesia that seems to have settled over the board.  I suspect that this was a "make-up game."  Just like there are "make-up calls" in individual games, this looked like a "make-up game" in a series that has been called in a manner that has consistently put the Blazers at a disadvantage. 

I predicted last nights game in a comment I wrote yesterday morning. I will take the liberty of quoting myself at length:

"Officiating rarely determines the outcome of a game, but it does set the tone. In a series between two fairly evenly matched teams, that tone goes a long way in determining the outcome of individual games. When the tone is consistently set in favor of one team it goes a long way in determining the outcome of a series.

Portland has gotten almost no calls in the first quarter of every game. Houston plays more physical defense but has been whistled for fewer fouls in every game except in game two when their intentional fouls in the last minute overcame the foul disparity. Portland’s starters have consistently struggled with foul trouble, while most of the fouls called on Houston have been their role players. Roy is the only Blazer who has gotten to the line, and for every call he gets there is another play where there is substantial contact and no call. Yao leaves his feet, hammers people with his body and gets no call. When they do call fouls inside they assign them to anyone other than Yao.

The disparity is real. The reason for the disparity is harder to figure. Perhaps it is just the “star system” protecting Yao. Perhaps it is making a young team “pay its dues.” Perhaps it is part of a larger pattern of giving the benefit of the doubt to larger market teams. I don’t know. Generally, I am very reluctant to sign on to conspiracy theories, but given the history of the last twenty-five years and some of the treatment of small market teams like Portland, Sacramento, and Utah, I don’t think the possibility can be dismissed out of hand. There is a ton of dough at stake, and history has shown that the ratings are much stronger when large market teams are involved. Given the current economic climate, I think the temptation to “gently encourage” large market and marque match-ups is very real.

Again, I don’t know, and I am not pretending that I do, but it would be naive to not consider the possibilities.

Prediction: Portland will be treated fairly tonight and will win game 5. More games = more revenue. Balancing out the calls will make complaints seem unjustified.

I love the game, and I love the Blazers, but I think the lack of consistency in officiating calls the integrity of the league into serious doubt."

My prediction looks pretty good with the benefit of hindsight.  I would hypothesize that there is a large-market bias and marque match-up bias that are subtly and consistently encouraged by the league.  I don't think it requires a giant conspiracy.  I think a few subtle conversations and careful assignment of referees is all that would be necessary to introduce and maintain this kind of bias.

Over the last twenty-five years the results are consistent with such a hypothesis.  Look at who has won:  Chicago (6), LA (6), Boston (3), Detroit (3), Houston (2), Miami (1).  All are top ten markets.  The only exception is San Antonio (4) which is a somewhat smaller city but is from a the third most populous state in the country.

I realize that speaking the unspeakable will subject me to ridicule.  So be it.  I am not saying that I think the league is fixed.  I am suggesting that institutionalized bias based on financial incentives is a hypothesis worthy of discussion.

If my hypothesis is correct, the Blazers are likely to get hammered by the refs in Game Six.  Yao vs. Kobe.  Houston vs. LA.  The #4 market vs the #2 market, with 1.2 billion Chinese thrown in for good measure.

I hope I am wrong.  

We all know how our Fearless Leader rolls;  he is restrained.  He doesn't get too high, and he doesn't get too low.  He is reluctant to heap praise and even more reluctant to hurl criticism.

So imagine my surprise when I read his comments about our back-up PGs in his  recap of the Memphis game.  Dave pulled his seldom used rhetorical sledge hammer out of his back pocket and smacked both Sergio, and especially Bayless, around. 

Now I will be the first to admit that I am not a particularly objective observer to this debate.  Somehow I seem to have adopted the role as one of the prime Baylophiles around here.  I have done so less as a matter of any great admiration for the current state of Bayless' game, and more as a reaction to my constant concern that our PG defense is truly lousy and a hope that Bayless might be the answer.

In any case, I feel compelled to respond to Dave's broadside.  So Dave, what gives?  Usually you are quite restrained in your praise and your criticism.  Tonight is Bayless' first night in the back-up role, and you bash the Bejesus out of him??????

Bayless' spring is wound very tight under the best of circumstances. Tonight, he had to be feeling the pressure.   He had to know that he would be under a lot of scrutiny in his new role.  Being a point guard is about making decisions.  Thinking too much and trying too hard are not conducive to good decision making.

Three points:

1)  Sergio has been struggling mightily on defense.  Bayless is better now, and will improve with time on the court.  Over the past month we have seen several teams target Sergio.  Having him on the floor is a defensive liability that teams will exploit relentlessly in the playoffs.  If Bayless is less of a liability on the defensive end, he needs time on the floor now, to be ready to contribute during the playoffs.

2)  More than half the time Bayless is on the court, Roy is playing point.  Bayless is essentially playing SF on offense.  He goes and stands in the corner.  Given that his shot is under reconstruction and he is obviously not comfortable shooting from the outside, this doesn't seem like very good use of his skill.  Obviously he needs to find his outside shot.  The best hope for that is to give him regular back-up minutes so that he can relax a little.

3)  Obviously, this is a difficult time to make a change in the rotation, when every game counts and every mistake is magnified.  But the bottom line is that  Bayless needs time on the floor to gain confidence and to learn.  In my mind, now is better than later.  Next year the stakes will only be higher.  I think Bayless showed he can play during the time Blake was out.  He just needs to figure out what role Nate wants him to play. 

Both Bayless and Sergio have struggled since Blake returned.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that both have been feeling the pressure and both have failed to find a groove in very limited minutes.  Something had to be done.  Nate chose defense over offense; I think that is the right decision.  Give the kid a few games before you leap to conclusions.

I hate it when fans start whining and moaning every time the Blazers loose a couple in a row.  I also hate it when fans start grinding on Nate, if we loose, it means Nate has screwed up rotations, or he doesn't know how to teach defense.  You know the drill: blah, blah, blah.

All that being said, I feel compelled to WHINE.  I claim no great expertise in basketball, although I have been watching the Blazers since the days of Roland Todd and Geoff Petrie.  But, for the past two seasons, the thing that has stood out to me is the defensive struggles of Portland's PGs.  Time and time again, I have watched Blake struggle to stay in front of the quicker PGs in the league.  In order to keep from getting consistently torched off the dribble, he stays so far off his man that he can't pressure the ball, can't cut off any passing lanes, and can't contest jumpers. 

Sergio is option two.  His defense in years one and two was simply atrocious.  He has improved significantly, but he still consistently struggles.  I would rate his defense as about a toss-up with Blake's.  Blake seems to have better position, but lacks lateral quickness.  Sergio has somewhat better quickness, but is frequently out of position or caught leaning the wrong way.

The last two nights were like a spotlight illuminating these weaknesses.  First, Aaron Brooks drove by Blake with astonishing ease.  If Brooks had a better finish, he could have scored 40.  As it was he scored 20.  Brooks wasn't super efficient, but that had more to do with his outside shooting than anything Blake did to slow him down. 

Then last night, Parker torched Blake in the first half.  Nate barely even tried putting Sergio on Parker, a few possessions and it was clear that Sergio was not the answer.  In the second half, Nate tried Batum and then Outlaw, mostly to poor effect.

All of this poses a simple question:  where was Bayless?  Few would contest the observation that Bayless is the fastest and strongest of the teams PGs.  Sure he is green and would have likely been burned at least a few times.  But good grief, when you are getting killed, why not give the kid a shot at slowing Parker down?

At a minimum, last night seemed tailor made for Bayless' offensive repertoire.  Parker is not a great defender, and with no Duncan in the middle, why not see if Bayless can get to the rim?  Let Bayless push the pace and see if he can get some transition buckets or get to the line for some easy points?

I don't think any of this is rocket science.  Certainly, any observer of the team had to be asking the same questions.  I am sure that the Blake and Sergio fans take this as validation of their view of Bayless' readiness. 

Bottom Line:  Either I am badly mistaken in my observations of our three point guards, or my faith in Nate's competence is badly shaken.  Again, I am no expert, but am I that wrong?  Are Blake and Sergio playing better defense than I give them credit for?  Are my perceptions of Bayless totally off?  Or is our coach guilty of malpractice?  I have to believe my own eyes.  Last night marks the first time I have had serious doubts about Nate, as a coach.      

Most of the endless banter about trades revolves around which targeted player is better and what price would need to be paid to acquire the targeted player.  For instance, we repeatedly debate the relative merits of Jefferson, Butler, Wallace and Carter.  

All these conversations make sense on one level, but it seems to me that we should spend more time discussing what the Blazer's need at the SF position before we discuss the relative merits of the various players, or the wisdom of standing pat.  Here are a few thoughts:

1)  Improved perimeter defense:  given Blake's limitations as a defender, and Roy's propensity to coast a bit on defense, we need someone willing and able to defend.

2)  Spot up shooting:  because of the strength and size of Oden and LMA, and because of Roy's ability to get to the rim, most teams clog the middle against Portland.  Our SF needs to be someone who can shoot over the top.  This was evident with Jones last year, and evident again during Blake's absence.  For those like me who love Bayless' potential, this need for a SF who can hit from deep is doubly important because Baylless' strength is going to the rim.

3)  Ability to create his own shot.  If we are going to trade Outlaw, we need someone who can replace some of Outlaw's ability to get his own shot.  Trout's defense makes many of us crazy, but there is no denying that Portland tends to rely on his offensive skill down the stretch to give the team an alternative to Roy.

Other B Edgers may have see our needs differently.  Chime in, give us your thoughts.

Next, how do these needs effect our evaluation of various potential moves?

Wallace:  is probably the best defender of the guys being discussed.  He is almost certainly the best rebounder, but rebounding is already a strength.  On offense, Wallace is a slasher, and probably the least proficient outside shooter with a 3 pt  percentage of  only .250.  I see potential spacing problems with a starting five of Oden, LMA, Wallace, Roy, and Blake.  The team will be very dependent on Blake to provide outside shooting, this may make it harder to develop Bayless.

Butler: is probably the best overall player of the group, but he doesn't appear to be available and he is not a particularly good 3pt shooter with a career percentage of only .318.

Jefferson:  is by reputation a decent, but not great, defender.  He was a top defender during his NJ days but has seemed to fall of a bit during the past couple of years.  Whether he can regain that edge is key to deciding his value.  On offense, his overall shooting percentage is down, but he is having his best year from 3 pt range at .418 and is taking more attempts this year at 3.2 per game.  If he can continue to develop his outside shooting he could be a very good fit.

Carter:  Carter is clearly the most offensively skilled player of this group.  He has a career PER a little over 20.  He is shooting .390 from distance.  The question with him is three-fold:  1)  will he play good defense? I think so, True Hoop has a great story about Carter http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-38-202/What-s-Vince-Carter-Worth-.html.  The stat geeks seem to think Vince's defense is under-rated.  2) Is he too old?  I think this is the obvious risk, but think that the answer to this depends on how one evaluates Batum and Webster.  If you think Webster and/or Batum is going to develop into a high quality starter with-in the next couple of years, Carter may be just the ticket.  He will be ready to accept a reduced role as the young guys develop.  In particular, Carter could be a great teacher for the young guys especially Webster because they have fairly similar physiques and good shooting strokes.

I suppose this post is sort of silly, because KP is going to do whatever he is going to do before this post even gets dry, but hopefully any discussion this generates will help us gain insight into whatever unfolds today.  In KP, we trust.

Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I don't understand the game, but all the gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth (not to mention most of the media hype) over last night's game seems to miss the point entirely.  This outcome was ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE. If you will forgive me for patting myself on the back for saying something that is pretty obvious, I explained my thinking in a post on Wednesday titled "WHAT 50+ WINS LOOKS LIKE" :

1)  Elite teams rarely loose at home, no matter how good the competition:  elite teams (those winning over 60 games in a season) typically win over 85% of their home games during the regular season.  Occasionally, they will loose a game when they come out flat and the opposition gets hot.  When a good young team comes to town and national coverage is on tap, they are not likely to come out flat.  Even in the playoffs, home teams win over 75% of all games and blowouts are not uncommon.

2)  Good young teams have to learn how to win on the road, and they have to learn how to beat elite teams.  Portland is just learning how to beat NY and Washington on the road.  We are just learning how to beat good teams at home.  Occasionally, we can win against good teams on the road when we have a good shooting night and fresh legs like we did against Detroit.  Our chances of winning against a truly elite team, like Boston, on the fourth road game in six nights, were lousy from the start.  In my earlier post, I pegged  our chances at 1-10.

This game said little about the Blazer's talent level and future prospects and a lot about the context in which it was played:

3)  Besides the physical burden of four road games in six nights, the psychological atmosphere of this game did not bode well for the Blazers.  All the discussion about needing to be "tough" and "not being intimidated" had to make the Blazers tense.  Combine that with the big national spotlight and the memories of the Lakers game on opening night, and the Blazers had to have a lot of subconscious anxiety.  It is almost impossible to shoot well when you are tense, anxious,  and have tired legs.

So what happened?

The Blazers came out and played Boston straight up for a quarter and a half.  Their shots, not surprisingly, were not falling at a good clip, but they hung in there by playing decent defense.  Because the Blazers couldn't hit from the outside, Boston started packing it in and clogging the middle.  The Blazers couldn't hit from outside and couldn't drive, so they started putting up a lot of difficult mid-range jumpers.  This is exactly what happens when the Blazers look "ugly":  no ball movement, no player movement, lots of difficult shoots.  Boston started grabbing rebounds, leaking out their guards, and the Blazers looked bad.  

DON'T BE DISCOURAGED

There is a difference between loosing because your shots don't fall and because you do not know how to respond to the opposing teams ability to control the style of the game, and loosing because the other team clearly has better talent.  I would argue that this game showed the former, rather than the latter. 

This game demonstrated Boston's experience rather than their superiority.  They clearly know how to win.  They know how to play defense, and when the refs allow them to impose their style of play, they are darn tough to beat.  They found a weakness in the Blazer's rebounding scheme and transition defense and they exploited it relentlessly.  Portland's bigs got mugged all night going to the boards and when they tried to push back they got called almost every time.  Home cookin' is home cookin'; it tastes good to the home team.  This is one of my least favorite aspects of the NBA.  The game is simply not called the same way on both teams.  Star players and star teams get star treatment.  I wish the league wouldn't allow teams to play the way Boston does, but it is what it is.  Hopefully, we will get a few more calls when Boston comes to town. 

Nate and the coaches need to address our problems in transition defense.  This has been a consistent problem and the Celtics clearly put a spotlight on the issue.  Other teams are going to continue to try to exploit this until our guys get it figured out.  Our inability to control Rondo was, IMHO, the biggest concern coming out of this game.  

I would argue that Portland needs to beat elite teams at home, before they will have enough confidence to have much of a shot on the road.   If we get waxed when Boston and the L@kers comes to town, I will be far more concerned than I am now.

Remember, even elite teams loose on the road against other good teams.  I think Boston dropped seven of eight road games in the first three rounds of the playoffs last year.  It happens.  Last night does not mean that the Blazers are not a good team.  It means that they have yet to learn how to respond to a team like Boston and the way that the game was called.  There will be other nights when the shots fall, when the refs call a little more of the pushing, shoving, and grabbing. 

If nothing else, time will extract its revenge on KG and the Celtics.  The old alpha-dog is in charge until one day, when suddenly, the young dog stops being afraid and figures how to take advantage of the fact that the old dog has lost a step.  It will happen, be patient.  We will be the alpha team before you know it.

Winning fifty plus games has long been the standard for being a "good" team with a legitimate chance do some damage in the playoffs.  But what does a fifty win season look like?  What do the Blazers need to do to get to this level?

This next part is going to sound a bit weird, but stay with me. I have been thinking about these questions from the point of view of probabilities.  Think of one of those machines with a bunch of ping pong balls and a pattern of nails between two sheets of Plexiglas that demonstrate a random distribution bell curve (there is one at OMSI).  If you think about it, ping pong balls are a lot like basketballs, and rims are a bit like nails.  In other words over the course of the season, the teams shooting percentage in any given game will fall on a fairly standard bell curve.  Some nights will be better than others.  Some nights will be worse.  A lot of factors effect performance in a single game; the two most obvious ones are: 1) the quality of the opponent, and 2) whether the game is at home or on the road. 

The same can be said in reverse: the shooting performance of opposing teams will also fall into a bell curve affected by the quality of our defense and whether the game is at home or on the road.

Getting to 50+ wins is a matter of applied statistics.  To discuss how, lets break the season down into four parts and then consider each part separately: 1)  home games against teams below .500; 2)  home games against teams over .500; 3) road games against teams below .500; and finally, 4) road games against teams over .500.  Each of these four blocks includes 20 games with 2 extra games thrown in. 

1)  Home games against sub .500 teams:  Even bad teams usually win the majority of their home games against other bad teams.  The first step in getting to fifty wins is to reduce the number of these games that "get away."  Good teams do this in a number of ways.  They start blowing teams out (Chicago).  Even when they play poorly or their opponents shoot well they tend to find a way to win (Minnesota, Sacramento).  Usually they do this by being able to crank up their defensive pressure in games where they are shooting poorly.  They also have the ability to execute better when the game is on the line (Brandon). 

The goal here is to reduce the number of home losses to bad teams as much as possible.  Lets say 17-3 in this group.

2)  Home games against over .500 teams:  A sure sign that a young team is getting better is when they start winning against quality opponents on their home floor.   At first it starts with winning close games (San Antonio, Houston), over time it really becomes apparent when you start getting solid wins and blowouts against good teams (Miami, NO).

The goal here is to win a bit better than 2 out of 3.  Lets say 14-6.  Give the home team the extra home game and that gives us a total home record of  32-9.  Obviously the Blazers with an undefeated record at home are ahead of schedule on this side.

3)  Road games against sub .500 teams:  Every team will win a few games on the road against bad teams.  When you are shooting well and the home team is stinking the place up it looks easy (Sacramento).  The sign that a team is starting to be good is when you "win ugly."  This is exactly what the Blazers did against the Knicks on Tuesday.  We looked like crap for most of three quarters and still pulled out the W.  We did the same thing earlier in the year at Minnesota. 

Unless a team is really dominant, it is going to drop a handful of games in this category.  Sometimes the home team gets hot, sometimes your legs feel like lead, sometimes the shots just won't go in, sometimes you just can't get up to play another sub .500 team.  The goal here is to win a solid majority of these games.  Lets say 60%, or 12-8. 

So far the Blazers have 4 wins (MN, Sac, NY, Wash) and 1 loss (GS) in this group.

4)  Road games against above .500 teams:  these are the games that fans get all excited about and then get all depressed over when their team looses, which is most of the time.  The truth is that you are not going to win a majority of your road games against quality teams, even if you are very, very good.  Even a 60 win team is going to loose 22 games.  Most of those will come on the road against good teams.   This is why home court advantage is so important in the playoffs.  I don't know the exact figures (I hope somebody will look them up and post them in the comments), but I would estimate that the home team wins at least 75% of all playoff  games.  The same must be true in the regular season.   It is probably a bit lower for teams just above .500 than for the truly elite teams.

Let's say that the win percentage for these games is 35%.  That would give us a record of 7-13 for these 20 games.  Chalking up the extra road game as a loss,  translates to a total road record of  19-22 

So far the Blazers have 3 wins against these teams (Miami, Orlando, Detroit) and 5 losses (LA, Phoenix 2, Utah, NO).  This is above pace.

SUMMARY:  This projection leads to a record of 51-31.  So far the Blazers are ahead of schedule in all four areas.  Given the difficulty of the schedule that is truly impressive.  Barring injuries and fatigue, made less likely by the Blazer's depth, the Blazers are clearly on schedule to exceed 50 wins.

This analysis should also temper expectations about tomorrow night.  The Blazers chances of winning on the road, against the defending Champs, on the fourth game of a road trip, can't be more than 1-10.  Don't despair if our guys loose or even if we get blown out.  It doesn't mean that we aren't good and it doesn't mean that we won't soon be among the elite.

Personally, I am waiting to see how we do on our home floor against Boston, Cleveland, and the L@kers.  I think we have to beat these teams at home before we can expect to beat them on the road.  Success at home will breed confidence

I have had fun going through this little exercise in applied probability.  I hope you guys find it interesting.  

By the end of the week the Blazers will have played 25% of their games.  I think this is a good time to take stock of how the team and its individual players are doing.  I am not a huge stat freak, but stats can often help confirm general impressions or suggest that maybe we need to take a closer look.  Hollinger's PER (player efficiency ratings) are probably as good of place to look as any.  Here is the link:  http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?&action=upsell&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2fhollinger%2fstatistics

I think the best way is to look at the player rankings by position.

Player, PER, Position Rank

BRoy, 23.50, 4

Rudy, 16.86, 16

Blake, 15.15, 26

Sergio, 13.46, 35

Nic, 18.01, 8

Trout, 14.23, 23

LA, 18.09, 16

Frye, 12.13, 54

Oden, 18.35, 10

Pryz, 18.43, 9

Not surprisingly, Broy is our top ranked player and Rudy is an outstanding backup.  At center, Gregzylla is an outstanding combo with both being in the top ten amongst all centers in the league.  The most surprising stat is the fact that Nic ranks #8 out of all the SF in the league.  Trout is a respectable, but not outstanding 23rd.  LA's ranking of 16th among PFs confirms what most  us have noticed that he has been playing a bit below expectations prior to Sunday's breakout against the Pistons.  The stats confirm what many have pointed out, the position of greatest potential concern is PG.  Blake is at 26 and Sergio is at 35.

Given Batum's outstanding performance and the imminent return of Martell, I think it makes sense to leave Nic in the starting line-up.  The rest of the starters are used to him, and he is good at contributing without taking many shots.  I suggest bringing Martell into the second unit at the 3.  He played well with Rudy in his one exhibition game.  As Martell's stroke and conditioning return, Nate will have to think about who we wants to play in the fourth, and whether or not he wants to move Webster back into the starting five.

Trout can slide over and take most of the back-up minutes at the 4.  He may have trouble with some larger 4s, but he did well against most of them last year.  Playing alongside Pryz will help compensate for his weakness on the boards.  Fry, who has the lowest ranking of any of our rotation players, can move to the bench and and fill in in spots at #3 center and #3 PF.  

Playing Trout and Webster with Pryz, Rudy, and Sergio on the second unit will increase fire power and speed.  This group should push the pace and try to wear down the other team.  

This brings us to the PG position.  Portland has three PGs and none of them have a complete game:

Blake: good ball handler, good decision maker, good passer, good spot-up shooter, average defender, lousy off the dribble, below average at creating his own shot.

Sergio:  good ball handler, highly creative but still learning to make good decisions, excellent passer, average defender, below average driver, lousy finisher at the rim, average spot -up shooter, below average at creating his own shot.

Bayless:  we haven't seen enough of JBay to really know what we have.  We can speculate based on college, summer league, and a few minutes of garbage time, but we don't really know much.  Good ball handler, very limited experience as a true distributor, decent passer but will no doubt make a lot of mistakes early on.  Floor vision is unknown.  Spectacular off the dribble, able to finish and or get to the line.  His history suggests that he will be good at creating his own shot and at least decent as a spot -up shooter.  He is very quick and aggressive on defense.  Probably, JBay will ultimately be the best of the three at on ball pressure and keeping his guy out of the lane.

Maybe Blake is good enough.  Maybe Sergio will learn how to shoot and drive to the basket.  Maybe JBay will become a competent enough distributor and spot-up shooter to complement his other strengths.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.

If the Blazer's are going to make a trade, I think this is the spot that needs the most attention.  My hunch is that JBay stands a good chance of being the long term solution as the starting PG.  BRoy's unusual skills seem like they could cover for a lot of JBay's limitations at this point.  However, Nate hates mistakes and JBay will no doubt make a ton of them.  Sergio is obviously a good fit for the second unit.  He is  the best at pushing the tempo and he and Rudy play so well together.  KP and Nate are the ones who are watching JBay at practice.  They obviously know what they are doing and I will go along with whatever decisions they make.  I am curious to here others responses.

By the way this is my first Fanpost.  I have been commenting for a while, but this is my maiden post.  Any Rec's would be appreciated.  Sorry for rattling my tin cup.