SB Nation User Blog: upper left corner

It is all about the Blazer's sophomores

upper left corner — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:55:05 -0000

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

Fifteen years from now when we look back at this era of the Blazers, I think we will see that the future of the team rested on the shoulders of our four sophomores. At this point, we know who Roy and LMA are, we may not know exactly how far they will develop, but the general outline is there for all to see.

What is less certain is the development of our four sophomores. If everything goes well, and all four reach their full potential, the Blazers are likely to be a dynasty. Batum, Rudy and Bayless can each answer a huge question mark for the team:

1) Batum: Nic could become our lock down perimeter defender, the guy who can slow down Kobe and LeBron and the other future superstar perimeter players (Durant?). Offensively, he could be as limited as Battier, or he may exceed Prince. If he does, he will provide a scoring compliment that will make it nearly impossible for teams to double LMA and Roy. Batum's success will mean success for both Roy and LMA. He doesn't have to ever become a 20 pt scorer, he just needs to be a constant threat, a guy who can score opportunistically and who can find his open teammates.

Chance of becoming a top perimeter defender and solid spot-up shooter: 85%

Chance of becoming a good scorer and play-maker in addition to the above: 60%

2) Rudy: he could become a top flight sixth man. A guy who who is such a good shooter that you dare not leave him open for a second. The kind of player who is an assassin off the bench with his ability to get open and hit the three. Think of Rudy as our potential Reggie Miller. The other team knows he is going to shoot the long ball and tries to stop him, but he is so good working off screens and shoots with such a quick release, you just can't keep him from getting his shot off.

The question with Rudy is that it is unclear whether or not he can add other components to his game besides the long ball. So far, Rudy doesn't seem to have enough size and strength to get to the rim very often. He is not good enough off the dribble to get enough separation to shoot a high percentage from mid-range. A few pounds of muscle certainly wouldn't hurt. A better handle would help as well.

Given his lack of strength and his, mediocre by NBA standards, lateral quickness, Rudy is unlikely to ever be more than an average defender. Rudy is 24, and has been a pro for 6 years. He is much closer to his ceiling than the other three sophomores. To my eyes, Rudy has less potential to become a truly outstanding all around player than the other three. However, because of his extraordinary potential as a shooter, his flare for the game, and his relentless energy without the ball, he is an extremely valuable commodity. Great shooters are a rare commodity. Great shooters who understand when to shoot and when to pass are even rarer. Rudy didn't set the rookie record for threes by chance. Rudy's potential ceiling as an all around player may be lower, but he is, by far, currently the most skilled of our sophomores.

Chance Rudy becomes a quality sixth man, providing energy and outstanding spot-up shooting off the bench: 90%

Chance Rudy becomes a top sixth man, and an all-around scorer off the bench: 50%

3) Bayless: By far the most controversial of the four. Some see him as nothing more than a undersized SG with a broken shot. Those with this view want to trade him as quickly as possible. Others see him as "the point guard of the future," a sure fire bet to devour the league. My own take, expressed ad nauseum, is cautious optimism.

Bayless played a total of 600 minutes last season. His season stats are poor, but I think the season stats are misleading. They include a high percentage of garbage time minutes, a fair amount of minutes at the SG, and even a fair number of minutes where Bayless effectively played the SF role in a three guard line-up. During the one stretch of fairly decent minutes where he actually played the point, his PER was over 15, his FG% was 48%, and he averaged about 4 assists on 20 minutes of PT.

Regardless of whether or not you regard Bayless' performance last season as a case of the glass being one third full, or two-thirds empty, we should not forget who this guy is. Bayless was a McDonald's All-American. He was recruited by Lute Olsen to be the PG at PG University. He was expected to be drafted between 4-8 in last years draft, and it was a minor miracle that he dropped to us at eleven. Most evaluators believe that if he had waited till this year, he would have been top 5. If we had just gotten him, we would be salivating.

How he got to be so controversial is interesting. Many of the complaints and negative evaluations of Bayless that get thrown around come from those who preferred Sergio's game. These folks naturally looked at Bayless with a built in negative bias. Fortunately, there is pretty strong evidence that Bayless is viewed differently by team management. Sergio is gone. The team did not trade up to grab another PG in the draft. KP singled out Bayless as a guy he thought would make a huge leap over the summer. Bayless was invited to return to the Team USA development squad with the big three. Obviously, Bayless is still viewed as a truly outstanding prospect by those who know the most.

If Bayless finds his shot, he is going to become a multi-threat offensive force: able to penetrate at will; strong enough to finish a high percentage at the rim; able to stop on a dime and elevate for the jumper off the dribble; able to shoot a decent percentage when left alone on the perimeter: or able to drive past a recovering defender. Roy described defending Bayless in practice as being like defending D Wade. Think about that comparison for a minute. As a defender, Bayless has the strength, speed, and aggression to, at least, become an above average defender. I think it is just a matter of time on the court.

The real question with Bayless is can he learn to run a team? And, assuming he can, how long will it take? This is the caution part of my cautious optimism. Some guys figure it out, some guys don't. Bayless does not appear to be selfish, nor uncoachable. He is smart and a relentless worker. To me, I think he has a good chance to succeed, but it makes sense for the team to not put all of its eggs in Bayless' basket.

Chance Bayless becomes an effective multi-threat scorer and above average defender: 75%
Chance Bayless becomes the above and becomes an adequate distributor: 65%

4) Oden: Why save Oden for last? Because Oden is by far the most important. If one of the other three fails to live up to their potential, the Blazers will have a significant role to fill, but the teams future success will not be endangered. Oden is the fulcrum on which the teams future will be determined. If Greg becomes the dominant rebounder and defender we all hope he will be, and if he develops one or two good low post moves to compliment his put-backs, the Blazers will be challenging for titles for as long as the big three are wearing Red and Black.

It is pretty simple: dominant big men are the rarest commodity in basketball, and because of their position on the court, they are involved in a huge percentage of plays. If Greg becomes dominant, everything else will become easier.

Chance GO becomes at least a 14 and 12 center, who is a defensive force: 90%
Chance GO becomes a dominant scorer on top of rebounding and defense: 60%

Is the glass half full, or is it half empty?

upper left corner — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:36:39 -0000

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.

Whistles and Wins: Cause and Effect

upper left corner — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:17:05 -0000

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.

Where is Dave's vaunted restraint?

upper left corner — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:57:02 -0000

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.

Dazed and Confused

upper left corner — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:11:30 -0000

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.

Last minute thoughts about what the Blazer's need

upper left corner — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:06:31 -0000

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.

Totally Predictable (in fact I did) and Not the Least Bit Discouraging

upper left corner — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:21:37 -0000

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.

What 50+ Wins Looks Like

upper left corner — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:24:50 -0000

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.

Taking Stock and Getting to the Point

upper left corner — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:16:34 -0000

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.