# The Zach effect....



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Zach played strong tonight, put up some good numbers. How good? Lets lok at how the team did with him on the floor compared to Brandon Roys impact on the floor.

Ok broken down points per Minute (points per 48)
Zach In 40 minutes
Por 2.08 (99.6)
GS 2.38 (114)

Zach Out
Por 2.85 (136.62)
GS 2.23 (107.08)

Offensive efficiency is up as is defensive efficiency...When Zach isn't on the floor.

Roy In 38 minutes
Por 2.29 (109.89)
GS 2.16 (103.58)

Roy Out
Por 2.07 (99.2)
GS 2.40 (115.20)

Complete opposite as Zach. Portland is far more efficient with Roy on the floor than without.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Very interesting numbers. But, I still think without Zach this would not have been a game. Great to see a rookie have such a immediate impact.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Very interesting numbers. But, I still think without Zach this would not have been a game. Great to see a rookie have such a immediate impact.


I think what they show is that the tempo picks up when he is not in the game...I'd imagine more posessions, more time on the shot clock when shots are taken....Now at the same time at the other end I think it shows that he doesn't help much on D as the other team scores more frequently when I would gather the tempo is up.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> Zach played strong tonight, put up some good numbers. How good? Lets lok at how the team did with him on the floor compared to Brandon Roys impact on the floor.
> 
> Ok broken down points per Minute (points per 48)
> Zach In 40 minutes
> ...



But he's our 18 wheeler Schilly? He's our reason we are slowing it down and getting run out of our own building in the beginning of the first and third quarters. Pound the ball, slow it down. 

Actually before I get screamed at by Nate supporters, I will say that Zach played great tonight, and it's not his fault. It's just not a very efficient offense when you have both he and either Joel or Jamaal in the game. They should move Zach to center and play Travis at the 4, or utilize Zach and Raef a lot together. This team really needs to spread the floor offensively. It's a huge mistake to go the exact opposite of the rest of the league. This team will most likely be playing from behind early in games the entire season.



Even Barrett makes reference to what I've been saying in his post game blog. Says the team had an uphill battle the entire game because they got down so much in the first quarter, and that although Nate has preached about poundingthe ball inside the team showed it could get up and down the floor just fine. Said the Rose Garden was an exciting place to be, and people were standing on their feet. 


Repeat after me (the NBA is an entertainment business, and we want to be entertained)


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> Zach played strong tonight, put up some good numbers. How good? Lets lok at how the team did with him on the floor compared to Brandon Roys impact on the floor.
> 
> Ok broken down points per Minute *(points per 48)*
> Zach In 40 minutes
> ...


I do not know how you get your numbers and have no reason to question them, but I would like to know what the numbers would be if you project Roy out to 48 mins, and Zach down to 38 mins. Apples to apples when doing prob and stats.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



BIG Q said:


> I do not know how you get your numbers and have no reason to question them, but I would like to know what the numbers would be if you project Roy out to 48 mins, and Zach down to 38 mins. Apples to apples when doing prob and stats.


You are misreading the stats

1) Schilly converted all stats to points per 48 minutes

2) He lists that Zach played 40 minutes and Roy played 38 minutes


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



cpawfan said:


> You are misreading the stats
> 
> 1) Schilly converted all stats to points per 48 minutes
> 
> ...


----------



## tradetheo (Feb 24, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> I think what they show is that the tempo picks up when he is not in the game...I'd imagine more posessions, more time on the shot clock when shots are taken....Now at the same time at the other end I think it shows that he doesn't help much on D as the other team scores more frequently when I would gather the tempo is up.


when the tempo is up, that means more turnovers. we don't have the guys for an uptempo game, way to many rookies or 2nd year guys at very important spots when it comes to fast break points. Just look at the pg, 2 guard and sf spots. we have jack/dickau, roy/webster, then outlaw and miles. who do you trust out of all of them. I'd say none, even though roy is going to be great, but he shouldn't be expected to be an allstar the 2nd game into preseason.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



tradetheo said:


> when the tempo is up, that means more turnovers. we don't have the guys for an uptempo game, way to many rookies or 2nd year guys at very important spots when it comes to fast break points. Just look at the pg, 2 guard and sf spots. we have jack/dickau, roy/webster, then outlaw and miles. who do you trust out of all of them. I'd say none, even though roy is going to be great, but he shouldn't be expected to be an allstar the 2nd game into preseason.


Granted, it is a limited sample of game data, but even with increased turnovers, the opposing team is scoring less points than they were with Zach in the game


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Not only is this an absurdly small sample size of one game, it's an even MORE absurdly small sample size of, effectively, the 13 minutes of game that Zach didn't play in. Even smaller when you consider the fact that what this really measures is the time when Zach was on the court and Roy was not and vice versa. That's probably a total of 5-6 minutes. Over the course of that amount of time, ONE extra basket will swing the points per 48 number wildly in one direction or the other. 

Now, consider the fact that Roy fouled out with 2 minutes left in the OT period, with the game tied, and the Blazers were outscored by 4 from there out...those twoi baskets account for the difference in their per 48 minute stats. Look at the lineup in that last 2 minutes: Zach, Outlaw, Rodriguez, Dixon and Dickau. You blame the guy who was left to fend for himself with that crew of losers? Are you serious? 

I understand people hate Zach and want to shine a bad light on him...and maybe he deserves it sometimes...but this isn't one of them. Your numbers mean nothing considering what actually happened in the game.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

could it also just be that it's easier for these kids to play playground ball because that's pretty much what they've done their whole life? therefore, a team that hasn't had much time to practice is going to play that style better. 

a grind-it-out low post offense requires precision that comes with practice. everybody has to know their position, how to swing the ball, how to handle double teams. not terribly surprising that our team, in only their second game with 7 new players, doesn't seem to do that as smoothly. 

I'm not saying that Schilly's necessarily wrong. I am saying that it's a little early to know one way or the other, given that the low post style Nate wants might take a little time for younger players to get down.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> could it also just be that it's easier for these kids to play playground ball because that's pretty much what they've done their whole life? therefore, a team that hasn't had much time to practice is going to play that style better.


you aren't suggesting they played playground ball when zach was out, are you?

they played crisp ball when he was out (unless zendon hamilton touched the ball. good god, thats painful basketball).



> a grind-it-out low post offense requires precision that comes with practice. everybody has to know their position, how to swing the ball, how to handle double teams. not terribly surprising that our team, in only their second game with 7 new players, doesn't seem to do that as smoothly.
> 
> I'm not saying that Schilly's necessarily wrong. I am saying that it's a little early to know one way or the other, given that the low post style Nate wants might take a little time for younger players to get down.


how long are we going to wait before we realize zach isn't exactly a good fit for this team? till after he's traded and his new team "makes the playoffs"? 

ball movement stops when he's in the game, and the offense becomes stangnent.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Hap said:


> you aren't suggesting they played playground ball when zach was out, are you?
> 
> they played crisp ball when he was out (unless zendon hamilton touched the ball. good god, thats painful basketball).
> 
> ...


I'm not a big Zach defender, but you have to have a low post presence and Zach is it.

I would argue that the reason we fell behind last night is because Magloire coughed up the ball more times than a lottery selection machine. Magloire may be rough and tumble, but Milwaukee fans will tell you straight out he's not really an offensive machine. Unless you use the other definition for offensive.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



yakbladder said:


> I'm not a big Zach defender, but you have to have a low post presence and Zach is it.


he is, but he's also a player that teams know most of the time he's going to try to score, even if he's going 1 on 3. I can live with his so-so defense, it's his inept tunnel vision on offense that bothers me (dickau gets that sometimes too). Passing is a lost art.



> I would argue that the reason we fell behind last night is because Magloire coughed up the ball more times than a lottery selection machine. Magloire may be rough and tumble, but Milwaukee fans will tell you straight out he's not really an offensive machine. Unless you use the other definition for offensive.


I'm already tired of Magloire on the team. Joel, for all his faults, accepts his limitations. Jamaal seems to think he's much better than he is. The team slow to a crawl when Jamaal is in the game, along with Zach. At least Joel can intimidate players with block shots, and cover (zach's) ground quickly


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



yakbladder said:


> I'm not a big Zach defender, but you have to have a low post presence and Zach is it.


Phoenix and Dallas had a low post presence last season?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Through 2 games....

Zach in Per minute, per48 in () 
Portland: 1.94 (93.12)
Opponent: 2.19 (105.12)

Zach Out
Portland: 2.43 (116.64)
Opponent: 2.24 (107.52)

Now compared to Roy (used due to similar playing time)
Roy in
Portland: 2.12 (101.76)
Opponent: 2.08 (99.84)

Roy Out
Portland: 1.87 (89.76)
Opponent: 2.30 (110.4)

Ok now what it means...To me, it shows that Zach while putting up great numbers doesn't make the team as a whole more efficient...at either end of the floor. Brandon's presence on the other hand boosts the teams efficiency at both ends of the floor.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



cpawfan said:


> Phoenix and Dallas had a low post presence last season?


actually, Dallas did. Dirk may still have his reputation, but it's not nearly as deserved as it used to be. a lot of the Mavs offense comes out of Dirk in the post now. 

Phoenix happens to have the best distributor in the league. everybody wants to be Phoenix, but it's not like there's a Steve Nash on this team. without a Kidd or Nash, a low post scorer does significantly help to organize an offense.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Hap said:


> you aren't suggesting they played playground ball when zach was out, are you?
> 
> they played crisp ball when he was out (unless zendon hamilton touched the ball. good god, thats painful basketball).


I was using "playground ball" to suggest uptempo style. the Suns play playground ball by my definition, but certainly are crisp. 

without much time to practice together, guys who've spent their entire lives being faster and stronger and better leapers than their competition naturally find it easier to play a fast game. it's what they are familiar with. 

how many of our guards and SF's have played on a team in college/high school where the best scorer on the team was somebody in the low post and not them? few if any, I'd guess. 

so we tell these kids to run a half court, low post offense with a few months of practice and they aren't great at it. is anybody really surprised?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Another thing I was wondering is how other teams "Best Players" rate out efficiency wise. 82games.com is a great source for that kinda stuff, and I think the Roland ratings are pretty accurate guage for overall impact. 

Here is a list of the other 29 teams and their highest Roland Rated player.

Highest for their teams last season (no garbage timers)
Atlanta: Johnson +0.4
Boston: Paul Pierce +8.7 
Charlotte: Gerald Wallace +6.6
Chicago: Deng +4.3
Cleveland: James +15.7
Dallas: Dirk +11.6
Denver: Melo +6.1
Detroit: Billups +11.9
GS: Richardson +7.0
Houston: Yao +12.5
Indiana: Artest +8.2
Clippers: Brand +12.1
Lakers: Kobe +14.8
Memphis: Gasol +7.7
Miami: Wade +15.4
Milwaukee: Redd +10.4
Minnesota: Garnett +12.6
New Jersey: Carter +11.1
New Orleans: Chris Paul +4.6
New York: Frye +4.6
Orlando: Dwight Howard: +4.1
Philly: Iverson +11.6
Phoenix: Nash +9.1
Sacramento: Brad Miller +4.2
San Antonio: Ginobilli +10 (Duncan +9.9)
Seattle: Allen +9.6
Toronto: Bosh +8.2
Utah: AK47 +9.8
Washington: Arenas +6.9

I suppose Fry is arguable in NY. Of the starters in NY Marbury Ranked highest at +1.6.

Now Portland
Ruben Patterson +2.6
Joel Pryzbilla: +1.8
Zach Randolph: +1.6

I think it's interesting that Portlands best player last year was our 3rd rated on the Roland scale.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



> I suppose Fry is arguable in NY. Of the starters in NY Marbury Ranked highest at +1.6.
> 
> Now Portland
> Ruben Patterson +2.6
> ...


part of that, I think, was just that our team seemed to lose hope in a lot of games. Patterson, despite his countless faults, never quits. that guy just brings it and brings it and brings it. I'm not that surprised he had that kind of impact--a lot of the time he was the only one who cared. 

Przybilla should rank well in such measures because he was probably our most consistant advantage. he was simply a better center than the majority of centers he faced on a nightly basis. there's no other position you can say that about. 

hopefully, this year a healthy Zach will be a consistant advantage for us AND be the "never quit" guy. cross your fingers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> part of that, I think, was just that our team seemed to lose hope in a lot of games. Patterson, despite his countless faults, never quits. that guy just brings it and brings it and brings it. I'm not that surprised he had that kind of impact--a lot of the time he was the only one who cared.


yah, he never quits..cept when the team tells him he's not going to play as many minutes because he's a freaking spazoid.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



cpawfan said:


> Phoenix and Dallas had a low post presence last season?


Phoenix and Dallas won the NBA championship last season?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

So if I understand Mook right our best player is the only best player in the league who doesn't have teh most possitive impact on what happens on the florr for that given team. Sounds like kinda odd logic if you ask me.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Fork said:


> Phoenix and Dallas won the NBA championship last season?


No but Dallas was in the finals.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Fork said:


> Phoenix and Dallas won the NBA championship last season?


The teams with a low post presence made the West Conference Finals last season? Or did Portland suddenly join the Eastern Conference?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



cpawfan said:


> The teams with a low post presence made the West Conference Finals last season? Or did Portland suddenly join the Eastern Conference?


Might as well, we'd stand a better chance!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



cpawfan said:


> The teams with a low post presence made the West Conference Finals last season? Or did Portland suddenly join the Eastern Conference?


So since those teams didn't, the only way we can make it is by not having a low post presence (which, as has been pointed out, really only Phoenix didn't)??? Odd logic.

Funny, because as I hear it Miami does pretty well in the league and they have a low post presence... In fact, I believe we're supposed to be looking at winning the league championship, not the conference championship.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> So if I understand Mook right our best player is the only best player in the league who doesn't have teh most possitive impact on what happens on the florr for that given team. Sounds like kinda odd logic if you ask me.


McGrady didn't have the highest rating for Houston. 
Duncan didn't have the highest rating for San Antonio. 
Bibby or Artest didn't have the highest rating for the Kings. 
Ditto with Kidd, Marbury and Okafor. 

Oh wait. We can't count McGrady, Duncan and Okafor because they were injured, right? 

So was Zach.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Shilly,

Looks like Dwight Jaynes is following your work...

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sports/story.php?story_id=116103046870748500

Oh wait, thats right.."DJ", Canzano, The Fan and Jason QUick are conspiring against the Blazers! 


Blazers can’t afford a selfish Randolph
On Sports
By Dwight Jaynes

The Portland Tribune Oct 16, 2006 


As I talk to people about baseball statistics, I always urge them not to judge players off just a few games. Conclusions about players’ ability to perform in the “clutch” of postseason is often based on stats from three or four games – not enough to reach a valid conclusion.

So I’m mindful of the pitfalls of a small sample size when I offer a few observations off the Trail Blazers’ first exhibition game. Exhibitions are meaningless, and my concerns may disappear in no time.

•When Zach Randolph lofts an outside jump shot in heavy traffic with about 17 seconds left on the shot clock in the fourth quarter, shouldn’t he immediately be yanked off the floor? He wasn’t. And if selfish behavior isn’t punished swiftly, is there any hope it can be modified?

I know, he made a few passes. But at this point, I’d have zero tolerance with selfishness. There are young players on this team who need to learn the right way to play. 

And, oh, by the way – Randolph showing up late for the first game of the season was a touch selfish, too. I realize they’re stuck with this guy, but if you start letting him get away with stuff, what does that teach the team’s youngsters?

• The size of the crowd last Wednesday night was probably the puniest I’ve seen at a Blazer game since the early seasons of the team in Memorial Coliseum. It was depressing and embarrassing.

And then announcing an attendance figure of 14,073 – surely twice what was actually in the arena – is a joke. Obviously, the franchise doesn’t seem to understand that ridiculous overstatement does nothing but make the team look foolish and out of touch.

• Coming to a video screen near you, very soon – tape of the Blazers at high school football games, working in concession stands and signing autographs.

It’s not that I think that it was a bad idea, getting the players out in the community last week. What comes off so poorly to me is that every time the Blazers do something like that, they shoot endless video of it and then cram it down our throats.

• Brandon Roy needs to have the ball in his hands more often.

• Too many outside jump shots. The Blazers are going to need more offense in the paint if they want to be consistent on offense.

• Martell Webster’s enthusiasm is infectious. I like the young kids a lot. If they’re allowed to play and grow together, there’s a future here. But a lot has to go right, too. They must get enough of a taste for winning early in their careers so that they don’t get selfish and worn down by the losing – like some other players we know.

• Dan Dickau and Sergio Rodriguez. Two fun guys to watch. Hope there is enough playing time for both of them.

• Patience. Patience. Patience. This team is too young to play well over an extended period of time. It’s going to be an up-and-down season. That’s OK, as long as the young ones don’t get discouraged


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



yakbladder said:


> So since those teams didn't, the only way we can make it is by not having a low post presence (which, as has been pointed out, really only Phoenix didn't)??? Odd logic.
> 
> Funny, because as I hear it Miami does pretty well in the league and they have a low post presence... In fact, I believe we're supposed to be looking at winning the league championship, not the conference championship.


Miami has Wade supported by a low post presence, hardly a situation similar to Portland.

While you can quibble about Dirk being a low post presence, the fact is the Mavs aren't built around him playing in the low post. Two Western Conference teams build around low post players didn't make it out of the semi-finals.

Nowhere am I stating that not having a low post presence is a requirement for winning, rather I'm disputing the comment you made that "you have to have a low post presence and Zach is it." Generally championship teams are built around "special" players and Zach isn't one of those.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Look, I've been critical of Zach too. I just don't see why people are so eager to pile on right now when:
a) there's only a two game PRE-season sample size
b) he did just go for 27 points and 10 boards
c) he played through a tough injury last year when Amare Stoudemire wouldn't
d) the guards he has played with haven't had a lot of experience together in working with a low-post based offense

I'm annoyed by the guy's unwillingness to show up to work on time, and his first game didn't sound like it went well. but it's only the pre-season and Zach is finally playing healthy. let's give him a little time before passing judgment. the guy has been a 20/10 threat for us for several years now, and at least deserves that.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> McGrady didn't have the highest rating for Houston.
> Duncan didn't have the highest rating for San Antonio.
> Bibby or Artest didn't have the highest rating for the Kings.
> Ditto with Kidd, Marbury and Okafor.
> ...


I don't think you are right at all...All of those you list are arguable, but stats don't lie when it comes to things like possitive impact on the floor. Perceived best players maybe, but come on in all of those cases you are comparing 2 very good players to each other.

Example in Charlotte...we all think Okafor is the best player, but he isn't, Gerald wallace is.
Wallace scored more 15ppg vs 13ppg...Rebounded very little less (7.5 vs 10) averaged more assists blocks and steals and had a higher FG %.

McGrady and Yao...They are both very good players. But their positive impacts on the game are different. Yao only score 2ppg less, but got 4 rpg more, had a higher fg % blocked more shots and was the bigger factor to the Rockets success last year. 

Is Bibby better than Brad Miller?
Bibby: 21ppg, 2.9rpg, 5.4apg .432fg%
Miller: 15ppg, 7.8rpg, 4.7apg .495fg%

Artest was right there with Miller.

Kidd and Carter, again 2 very good players hard call...Statisticall Carter averaged more than 10ppg more than Kdd though. 

I already pointed out the NY thing...But maybe it's not wrong, how successful has Marbury been in his career?


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

i think you meant effect :biggrin:


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Anybody that thinks that simply by removing Zach from the lineup we instantly become a better team is crazy. We needs his interior threat to keep teams honest. We would have been blown out by 20+ without Zach last night.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

BTW Mook I wouldn't say I'm being critical of Zach...well not exaclty, but my personal observation the last couple years is that while he puts up very solid stats he doesn't necessarily make the team that much better as a whole. I know not having Zach hurts us, but that's because we haven't had an adequite backup to absorb his absence.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



tlong said:


> Anybody that thinks that simply by removing Zach from the lineup we instantly become a better team is crazy. We needs his interior threat to keep teams honest. We would have been blown out by 20+ without Zach last night.


You'r eright...but I find that people that use that argument rarely consider that if a trade was made to move Zach that we would be supplimented with a player that would have an impact on the game. A guy who could bring 12ppg and 7rpg and play within the system and play better Defense may be more effective than Zach himself is.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Charlotte is a great example. I can't think of anyone who would rather have Gerald Wallace on their team instead of Okafor. the Roland numbers say otherwise because Okafor got injured in the season, before they started to gell a little, and Wallace seized the opportunity. nobody really thinks Wallace is the franchise cornerstone though. 

I don't know where you get the Roland numbers for, but it'd be interesting to see what they said about Zach before he was injured. I suspect he'd look pretty good in those ratings. 

is Zach as good as most of the names on your list? clearly no. is he the best player on our team? clearly yes. for now.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Mook there is another stat at 82games that is very telling, it's the "Per 100 possesions" stat and it indicates the teams performance with and without said player per 100 possesions...As it appears on 82games.

Charlotte
Gerald Wallace +4.6
Felton +4.6
Emeka -0.5

Houston
Ming +6.8
McGrady +6.1

New Jersey
Carter +15.6
Kidd +12.9
Jefferson +11.3

Sacramento
*Artest +9.8*
Miller +8.9
Bibby +3.0


San Antonio
Parker +8.8
Manu +7.6
Duncan +4.6

Portland
Patterson +7.8
Przybilla +2.2
Ratliff +4.9
Miles +3.0
Dixon +1.1
Randolph +0.8

My theory may be a little off... but if you go by the per 100 possetions Zach looks to been even less important from an efficiency stand point.

I don't think it's a matter of him being good or bad, I think it's a matter of him not being a good fit on this team.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> You'r eright...but I find that people that use that argument rarely consider that if a trade was made to move Zach that we would be supplimented with a player that would have an impact on the game. A guy who could bring 12ppg and 7rpg and play within the system and play better Defense may be more effective than Zach himself is.


who exactly do you mean? are you saying we would be better off with Kenyon Martin? maybe. Abdur Rahim? that bridge is burned. Rasheed? not likely. Theo Ratliff? *ducks*

I'm trying to think of whom else we could trade Zach's massive contract for and get that kind of production out of in replacement. 

or is this the ol' addition by subtraction theory, whereby we dump our most talented player for basically dead meat, because we'd be better off as a team without him?

seems like we've been down that road before, and it led us to the worst record in the league.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> Zach played strong tonight, put up some good numbers. How good? Lets lok at how the team did with him on the floor compared to Brandon Roys impact on the floor.
> 
> Ok broken down points per Minute (points per 48)
> Zach In 40 minutes
> ...


Weren't you just arguing after the last game that an analysis based only on stats, without being at the game, is a useless analysis. That someone who is at the game can give a much better analysis and not to tell you about flow or whatever if you weren't at the game. 

And now your making a point that Zach has a bad affect on the team (or not as good as Roy) based soley on stats????


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Weren't you just arguing after the last game that an analysis based only on stats, without being at the game, is a useless analysis. That someone who is at the game can give a much better analysis and not to tell you about flow or whatever if you weren't at the game.
> 
> And now your making a point that Zach has a bad affect on the team (or not as good as Roy) based soley on stats????


nope. he was at the game and wondered if stats would back up his feelings about how the team flowed with zach (and roy).


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Weren't you just arguing after the last game that an analysis based only on stats, without being at the game, is a useless analysis. That someone who is at the game can give a much better analysis and not to tell you about flow or whatever if you weren't at the game.
> 
> And now your making a point that Zach has a bad affect on the team (or not as good as Roy) based soley on stats????


I was at both games....LOL

No my argument the other day was that it is hard to simply look at the play by play transcript and determine the flow of the game and how certain players affect it. I also think you are right on, you can't simply look at a players individual production and guage their impact on the game. For Example last night, Zach had a monster game, but breaking it down the team was better offensively and defensively when he wasn't in the game. 

When you read the Play by Play, at say ESPN, it doesn't say "Zach dribbling, dribbling cribbling, lazy pass to Sergio, Now Sergio has to rush the shot with 3 on the clock" it says "Rodriguez Missed Jumper 3 seconds on Sot Clock".


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Hap said:


> nope. he was at the game and wondered if stats would back up his feelings about how the team flowed with zach (and roy).


So the 40 minutes he was in, the team had terrible flow, and the 8 he was out, they played great?

This is just stretching. The agenda is clear, lot's of people don't like Zach. 

Get over it, he's a very good basketball player and the team is better with him than without him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> When you read the Play by Play, at say ESPN, it doesn't say "Zach dribbling, dribbling cribbling, lazy pass to Sergio, Now Sergio has to rush the shot with 3 on the clock" it says "Rodriguez Missed Jumper 3 seconds on Sot Clock".


that would confuse me either way. whats cribbling (was Zach playing cribbage?) and whats a sot clock?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> When you read the Play by Play, at say ESPN, it doesn't say "Zach dribbling, dribbling cribbling, lazy pass to Sergio, Now Sergio has to rush the shot with 3 on the clock" it says "Rodriguez Missed Jumper 3 seconds on Sot Clock".


When you're at the game, apparently you miss out on key stats like 27 points and 10 rebounds.

The fact that anyone is trying to build an argument that having Zach lessened the team's chances of winning after a performance like that is ridiculous and puts a big spotlight on the anti-Zach agenda that's floating around.

Simply incredible.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> So the 40 minutes he was in, the team had terrible flow, and the 8 he was out, they played great?


the 13 minutes he was out, the team flowed better. And there were stretches were the team "flowed" good with him.


> This is just stretching. The agenda is clear, lot's of people don't like Zach.
> 
> Get over it, he's a very good basketball player and the team is better with him than without him.


he's not a very good basketball players. very good basketball players can play defense, and pass. he's a good offensive black hole. And the team is better with him than without him. why do you think they are trying to trade him (and believe it, they ARE trying to trade him) if they're better with him than without?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> So the 40 minutes he was in, the team had terrible flow, and the 8 he was out, they played great?
> 
> This is just stretching. The agenda is clear, lot's of people don't like Zach.
> 
> Get over it, he's a very good basketball player and the team is better with him than without him.


Ok your right my agenda is to state an opinion I have had for 2 years now...The offense stagnates with Zach in the game, so like any good forum nerd I spent the time to find the numbers that support my opinion. 

Agenda or not...can you find concrete evidence other than simply questioning my agenda, to counter what I am showing you? Show me a figure that would indicate that his presence makes the team that much better. And again Don't give me any garbage about simply cutting him, only Canzano would think that is the answer.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> When you're at the game, apparently you miss out on key stats like 27 points and 10 rebounds.
> 
> The fact that anyone is trying to build an argument that having Zach lessened the team's chances of winning after a performance like that is ridiculous and puts a big spotlight on the anti-Zach agenda that's floating around.
> 
> Simply incredible.


well, travis had 12 and 6, so obviously he must've played really good the whole game, right?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> When you're at the game, apparently you miss out on key stats like 27 points and 10 rebounds.
> 
> The fact that anyone is trying to build an argument that having Zach lessened the team's chances of winning after a performance like that is ridiculous and puts a big spotlight on the anti-Zach agenda that's floating around.
> 
> Simply incredible.


Ohh yeah I forgot how did we do when Damon scored what was it 53? That's right we lost...Individual performances mean very little when the only stat that counts is the 1 in the Loss column.

Now explain to me what the numbers I've presented tell you?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> Ohh yeah I forgot how did we do when Damon scored what was it 53? That's right we lost...Individual performances mean very little when the only stat that counts is the 1 in the Loss column.


Of all the points you've raised, this is the one that I find the weakest.

If all that matters is wins and losses, why do we discuss who's the best player? Why are you arguing AGAINST Zach and FOR Roy?

Roy was in the game last night, too, and they lost. Does that mean he didn't have a good game? Clearly not, by any reasonable standard. And yet you seem willing to discount Zach's production merely because the team lost.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

BTW BR at least read the box score...he had 27 and 12.

The numbers I have posted are fact plain and simple. You can't debate them, period go ahead try to do it I dare you. Show me how a team can score more points and give up less points with a certain player off the floor compared to on the floor, and debate that he is the positive difference maker on that team.

Hmm let's see...Player goes out...Scoring and defensive efficiency goes up...Player comes in Scoring and Defensive efficiecy both drop....

Go ahead debate it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Ed O said:


> Of all the points you've raised, this is the one that I find the weakest.
> 
> If all that matters is wins and losses, why do we discuss who's the best player? Why are you arguing AGAINST Zach and FOR Roy?
> 
> ...


because the -+ #'s of Brandon, were positive. That tends to imply the team he was playing for scored more points than the opponents..and that (get this) usually is how you win games.

and the -+ #'s for Zach, were negative. That tends to imply the team he was playing for scored less points than the opponents..and that (get this) usually is how you lose games.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Ed O said:


> Of all the points you've raised, this is the one that I find the weakest.
> 
> If all that matters is wins and losses, why do we discuss who's the best player? Why are you arguing AGAINST Zach and FOR Roy?
> 
> ...


Nah Ed you kinda misinterpreted what I said there. I have not discounted Zachs performance in any way. All I was saying in the post you qouoted is a guy can have a monster game and it doesn't make them more successful. 

BTW you are right it's not a strong argument, but neither is trying to say I discounted Zachs performance.

Stats don't lie...Zach had a good game...The numbers indicate that the team performed at a lower level with him in the game vs out of the game...we lost. I selected Brandon Roy because we keep hearing via Mike Barrett that he is the best player at practice, in the scrimmages etc etc... I also think he is our best player. I also have the numbers to show how the team performed with those 2 players individually without the other on the floor.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Brandon, No Zach
Portland 31
Golden State 28

Zach, no Brandon
Portland: 24
Golden State: 32

So with Roy and no Zach Portland +3
With Zach and no Roy Portland -8

Net in favor of Roy +11


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> BTW BR at least read the box score...he had 27 and 12.
> 
> The numbers I have posted are fact plain and simple. You can't debate them, period go ahead try to do it I dare you. Show me how a team can score more points and give up less points with a certain player off the floor compared to on the floor, and debate that he is the positive difference maker on that team.
> 
> ...


Sorry, was posting quickly and saw mook's post about 27 and 10. Does it help the argument that he got two more rebounds? Would you like me to add in all of the other stats he picked up, like how he shot 59% from the floor and 88% from the FT line and picked up 3 assists?

So now I read the box score, and it only makes his performance look better. It looks like he was incredibly efficient on offense, and most of the comments I read in the game thread were very complimentary to his effort on defense. Not sure what else you want him to do... 

If you're point is to argue that Brandon Roy is better than him, then I don't think you have enough data. If your point is to argue that the team would have done better without Zach on the floor last night, then please let me know who we have on the team that is going to replace that level of production - or even who we could trade for? If everybody could score the way Zach does down low, then we wouldn't have given him that contract.

As far as the numbers you posted, they just don't pose a compelling argument. We're talking about very small fractions of the game - part of which as someone pointed out Roy, Jack and Martell were fouled out. 

Is it Zach's fault that 6 Blazers were in foul trouble, or is it to his credit that he was able to stay in the game with only 2 fouls and finish up the game?

If you want to track this though and keep us posted on this once the season gets under way and we have some serious data to look at, then feel free, but please understand our skepticism when you post +/- stats from a single preseason game with two players who played most of the game and expect it to prove something.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Speaking of Zach, there is a thread tearing him to shreds on the NBA General forum. I hope that after the season is over, those people will feel embarassed. There are also a couple of nice unnecissary jailblazer barbs. Awesome.


Prunetang


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Hap said:


> he's not a very good basketball players. very good basketball players can play defense, and pass. he's a good offensive black hole. And the team is better with him than without him. why do you think they are trying to trade him (and believe it, they ARE trying to trade him) if they're better with him than without?


He got 3 assists and the guy he was guarding shot 33% and scored 13 less points than he did.

Fine, better without Zach? 

Take him out of the game last night... who is going to score 27 more points and grab 12 more rebounds?

You can look at +/-'s and all kinds of fun ratings, but the fact is - Zach can flat out score, and he was incredibly efficient last night. There is nobody on the team right now that poses the same level of a threat on offense and if you take that away, regardless of the potential of your young guys, you will struggle even more.

Do I think Zach is an All-Star? No. But that doesn't mean that he can't be the best player on one of the worst teams in the league. Maybe Roy is going to be better this year, but so far he has only had one good preseason game. He has a lot more to prove than Zach does.

The fact that Roy gets the benefit of the doubt that he is already better on very little data amidst an obvious resurgence in Zach's game is troubling.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



cpawfan said:


> Miami has Wade supported by a low post presence, hardly a situation similar to Portland.
> 
> While you can quibble about Dirk being a low post presence, the fact is the Mavs aren't built around him playing in the low post. Two Western Conference teams build around low post players didn't make it out of the semi-finals.
> 
> Nowhere am I stating that not having a low post presence is a requirement for winning, rather I'm disputing the comment you made that "you have to have a low post presence and Zach is it." Generally championship teams are built around "special" players and Zach isn't one of those.


I hesitated on replying to this because the rest of the thread is much more entertaining but then I thought..nyuh, why not?

I think you are vastly mis-interpreting my statement about Zach and I also think you're wrong.

You HAVE to have a low post option. HAVE to. I don't care if it's 3 or 4 touches a game, there is no team alive that won't at least throw it in there once or twice. Does it have to be the bulk of your game? No. But you have to have the threat of being able to score within the first five feet of the basket. I think that's where you are misinterpreting things. I'm not saying you have to have a primarily post-based offense, I'm saying you have to have that option. And while Shaq was supporting Wade in a portion of the playoffs, I'd hardly dismiss Shaq as just supporting cast.

Zach may not be a special player but he is, for the most part, a post player and as you will see from statistics, he is pretty much our only consistently succesful post player. That is what meant by Zach being "it".


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Hap said:


> because the -+ #'s of Brandon, were positive. That tends to imply the team he was playing for scored more points than the opponents..and that (get this) usually is how you win games.
> 
> and the -+ #'s for Zach, were negative. That tends to imply the team he was playing for scored less points than the opponents..and that (get this) usually is how you lose games.


Do you think that I didn't read the rest of the thread? Or did you think that your post was actually adding some value to what's already been said?

And did you think you were addressing what I posted about? Or were you just being difficult.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> Nah Ed you kinda misinterpreted what I said there. I have not discounted Zachs performance in any way. All I was saying in the post you qouoted is a guy can have a monster game and it doesn't make them more successful.
> 
> BTW you are right it's not a strong argument, but neither is trying to say I discounted Zachs performance.


Um... you are seriously claiming that you didn't discount his performance when you posted "Individual performances mean very little when the only stat that counts is the 1 in the Loss column."

That's just a ridiculous base for measurement... it's true that if winning is ALL that matters, then we can discount the stats that the loser accumulates. But that's silly.

Damon scored 53, and that was a good game. The team lost, so it probably wasn't as impressive as 53 points in a win. But how would the team have done without his 54 points? Or if he'd shot worse than 20 for 32 (including 8 of 16 from beyond the arc)? I GUARANTEE that the team would have lost by more than six points.

I REALLY don't like Damon, but discounting his performance entirely because of the loss is something that's not fair. And it appears that's what you're doing with Zach's production: claiming it's worthless because it comes in a loss.



> Stats don't lie...Zach had a good game...The numbers indicate that the team performed at a lower level with him in the game vs out of the game...we lost. I selected Brandon Roy because we keep hearing via Mike Barrett that he is the best player at practice, in the scrimmages etc etc... I also think he is our best player. I also have the numbers to show how the team performed with those 2 players individually without the other on the floor.


You have an INCREDIBLY small sample size. Plus/minus stats are really only valuable in terms of individual performance when they're compared over the long haul, because who the players are on the floor with is so critical.

I don't think that anyone could use your stats to argue that Zach is making the team better than Roy so far in the preseason (just like you couldn't use the boxscore to show Zach had a poor game). But I just think it's far too little data to be at all compelling at this point.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> The fact that Roy gets the benefit of the doubt that he is already better on very little data amidst an obvious resurgence in Zach's game is troubling.


It's the cycle of fandom. People were hyping Zach when he was significantly worse than Rasheed and Bonzi, and (unfortunately) if/when Roy doesn't emerge as a star, people will bash him, too.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

I want to say To ringbearer or anyone else who thinks I am saying that simply benching Zach makse us a better team, you have totally mis-interpereted me. So far with the new configuration of this team...Yes I know 2 games is too small of a sample, but all that per 100 posessions stuff was for last season, big sample... Zach makes the team less efficient when he is in. It's pretty hard to debate that based on the performance per minute with/without him. DOes he make the team worse? Don't know but for 2 games I think it's definately debateable. 

My contention is this Portland needs a PF that is better suited to the other players on the floor. It appears through 2 games that Roy has a better positive impact on the game than Zach does, and having watched both games in person it seems that he simply plays within the flow of the rest of his team. The ball moves around alot as long as it stays out of Zachs hands.

We need a PF that fits the rest of the players on the floor. As good as Zach may be, I personally don't believe he is that guy. And based on his impact (+.8 per 100 posessions last year?) He may be much more replaceable than people contend.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Ed O said:


> It's the cycle of fandom. People were hyping Zach when he was significantly worse than Rasheed and Bonzi, and (unfortunately) if/when Roy doesn't emerge as a star, people will bash him, too.
> 
> Ed O.


Roy is far from significantly worse than Zach....In fact with his defense and overall basketball smarts it is my opinion, yes based on a small sampling and on what reports we have access too, that Roy is the best player on this team. 

I also think that Portland fans are lulled into the idea that a rookie can't be our best player. Aside from Sabas, the last impact Rookie Portland has had was Mychael Thompson. Outside of that in the last 12 years or so they have all been either low 1st rounders, or HS players. Heck Sam Bowie was our second best Rook in that time period going for about 10 and 10 IIRC.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> Roy is far from significantly worse than Zach....In fact with his defense and overall basketball smarts it is my opinion, yes based on a small sampling and on what reports we have access too, that Roy is the best player on this team.
> 
> I also think that Portland fans are lulled into the idea that a rookie can't be our best player. Aside from Sabas, the last impact Rookie Portland has had was Mychael Thompson. Outside of that in the last 12 years or so they have all been either low 1st rounders, or HS players. Heck Sam Bowie was our second best Rook in that time period going for about 10 and 10 IIRC.


FWIW, I believe Roy is our best player too. When Ed catches a few games he will see this too. However, I *do not* believe Zach is a problem for the team. He looks healthy and is far better than any reasonable alternative I can think of. I think Nate just needs to run the offense through Roy more often and this will fix the problem.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



tlong said:


> FWIW, I believe Roy is our best player too. When Ed catches a few games he will see this too. However, I *do not* believe Zach is a problem for the team. He looks healthy and is far better than any reasonable alternative I can think of. I think Nate just needs to run the offense through Roy more often and this will fix the problem.


My whole thought is Zach needs to buy into the system and from some things I've heard, he isn't. He also needs to start playing some D. He made some effort last night, but we all have known he really has never been an adequite defender.

I think Zach has the tools to do these things, but I doubt he has the mindset.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Doesn't the nature of stats like that require them to be measured with a large number of games as sample size, to compensate for matchups, bench-vs-starter cycles when a certain player is in, etc.? One game could mean anything or nothing at all. I think you'd need at least 10 games before determining a clear effect.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



BlazerCaravan said:


> Doesn't the nature of stats like that require them to be measured with a large number of games as sample size, to compensate for matchups, bench-vs-starter cycles when a certain player is in, etc.? One game could mean anything or nothing at all. I think you'd need at least 10 games before determining a clear effect.


Absolutely that's why last years stats were looked at as well.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

three points: 

1. So? 
So Schilly, what do you suggest we do? I asked earlier who we should trade for or if we should dump Zach for nothing, and I haven't seen a reply. When I used to rail about Stoudamire all the time, at least I made suggestions on what to do. All I've read is that Zach shouldn't play, but nothing about who exactly will replace him. Should we just play four players? 

2. Nobody seems to be bringing up who was in the game last night for Golden State when Zach (and also Roy) sat. If Baron Davis was sitting too, it'll drastically impact the +/- of Randolph. I didn't see the game so I don't know. 

3. Zach was coming back from microfracture surgery last year. Looking at last year's +/- stats are pretty much worthless, if Zach is indeed now healthy. Unless you want to also say that because Emeka Okafor and Amare Stoudamire's stats last year stunk, they will this year too.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Ed O said:


> It's the cycle of fandom. People were hyping Zach when he was significantly worse than Rasheed and Bonzi, and (unfortunately) if/when Roy doesn't emerge as a star, people will bash him, too.
> 
> Ed O.


Ed, I really disagree. My personal opinion is that Portlander's are disgruntled primarily with Zach's perceived persona. When he appears to be not engaged, not gratefuly, not happy, and then has thuggish incidents...it kills him.

Blazer fans have a LONG tradiotn of LOVING our Blazer heroes. Drexler, Porter, Kersey etc...legends around here, even after their skill sets diminished.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Oil Can said:


> Blazer fans have a LONG tradiotn of LOVING our Blazer heroes.


do they really? I'm trying to think of recent Blazers who are universally loved. Sabonis. Pippen. not exactly going out on a limb to love two of the hundred or so greatest players to ever play the game. 

uh, anyone else? 

we made it to a number of playoff series, and two Western Conference Finals, since Drexler, and that's all the people I can come up with. 

seems to me we blazer fans exert a lot more energy coming up with reasons to hate players than love them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Oil Can said:


> Ed, I really disagree. My personal opinion is that Portlander's are disgruntled primarily with Zach's perceived persona. When he appears to be not engaged, not gratefuly, not happy, and then has thuggish incidents...it kills him.
> 
> Blazer fans have a LONG tradiotn of LOVING our Blazer heroes. Drexler, Porter, Kersey etc...legends around here, even after their skill sets diminished.



Ed is trying to incorporate the Bonzi Wellsian approach to passing the blame. It's the fans who turn on the players, and they'll always do it. It's not Bonzi that made Bonzi into a dumb****, it's Portland fans. It's just like Zach is being picked on just because he's the 'star' and thats what fans in Portland do.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> three points:
> 
> 1. So?
> So Schilly, what do you suggest we do? I asked earlier who we should trade for or if we should dump Zach for nothing, and I haven't seen a reply. When I used to rail about Stoudamire all the time, at least I made suggestions on what to do. All I've read is that Zach shouldn't play, but nothing about who exactly will replace him. Should we just play four players?


I did at some point say that simply subtracting Zach isn't the right thing to do. Whoever we trade Zach for will have an impact on the game. I'm not on the inside so I can't say who's available to be had. 



> 2. Nobody seems to be bringing up who was in the game last night for Golden State when Zach (and also Roy) sat. If Baron Davis was sitting too, it'll drastically impact the +/- of Randolph. I didn't see the game so I don't know.


I'll find time tonight and see how that stacks up. 



> 3. Zach was coming back from microfracture surgery last year. Looking at last year's +/- stats are pretty much worthless, if Zach is indeed now healthy. Unless you want to also say that because Emeka Okafor and Amare Stoudamire's stats last year stunk, they will this year too.


Hey...What if?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> do they really? I'm trying to think of recent Blazers who are universally loved. Sabonis. Pippen. not exactly going out on a limb to love two of the hundred or so greatest players to ever play the game.
> 
> uh, anyone else?
> 
> seems to me we blazer fans exert a lot more energy coming up with reasons to hate players than love them.


thnk for a second, who are the players we "hated" on?

guys who use pot, guys who are selfish dip****s, guys who don't play great teamball, guys who chase down refs, whine, throw tantrums, spit on players, accuse fans of being racist, give up, quit, flip the fan the bird...

you know, things that ooh...favorite players don't do.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Ohh Mook I did have a thought though last year in 24mpg Raef went for 7.8ppg and 5rpg...That gets us part way to filling the shoes LOL!

Seriously though I think we might be surprised once Aldridge is cleared to play. Let's not forget his importance on Texas last year and their succes as a top 5 team throughout the year. Lamarcus + Raef + return for Zach...I don't think IMO that we would see a big dropoff.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> I want to say To ringbearer or anyone else who thinks I am saying that simply benching Zach makse us a better team, you have totally mis-interpereted me.


Well, I apologize, but I gave you a response for if that was your argument, and I also gave you a response for if your argument was that Roy is the better player - not nearly enough data and the data that we have disagrees.



> So far with the new configuration of this team...Yes I know 2 games is too small of a sample, but all that per 100 posessions stuff was for last season, big sample... Zach makes the team less efficient when he is in. It's pretty hard to debate that based on the performance per minute with/without him. DOes he make the team worse? Don't know but for 2 games I think it's definately debateable.


So far this preseason, this was Roy's only good game. Meanwhile, Zach had a better game and is shooting a much better percentage from the floor, the free throw line (even the 3-point line!) than Roy with the same number of turnovers and far fewer fouls. 

Who is more efficient? 

What can you point to in terms of Roy's efficiency besides some vague number that shows that the team didn't perform as well when half of the starters were fouled out?



> My contention is this Portland needs a PF that is better suited to the other players on the floor. It appears through 2 games that Roy has a better positive impact on the game than Zach does, and having watched both games in person it seems that he simply plays within the flow of the rest of his team. The ball moves around alot as long as it stays out of Zachs hands.


If Roy were a PF, then it sounds like you have a great solution.



> We need a PF that fits the rest of the players on the floor. As good as Zach may be, I personally don't believe he is that guy. And based on his impact (+.8 per 100 posessions last year?) He may be much more replaceable than people contend.


He was pretty banged up last season. So far in the preseason (which most vets don't care about), he is averaging 23.5 pts, 9.5 reb, 3 ast, 1.5 st on 52%FG and 85%FT.

These are great numbers and real stats.

Roy, in REAL stats is averaging 13.5 pts, 5.5 reb, 2.5 ast, 0.5 st on 43%FG and 75%FT.

Much less impressive than Zach.

But guess what, I think that's great. I'm excited about his play and hope he has a great season. Zach is just flat out outplaying him. We can bring a lot of unmeasurable crap into the equation, but the numbers don't lie - Zach has been better in pretty much every measurable category so far this preseason.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

You guys are beating a dead horse. Zach will get blamed for every loss, and no one will give up their position. If the team wins, everyone but Zach will get the credit, and when Zach doesn't play and the team loses, no one will say anything, and no one will respond to statements such as "the team was winless without Zach playing last year", but a thread about how the Blazer's offense is stagnant because of Zach in a preseason game where he plays 40 minutes and the team scores 120 points is like the topic of the century. Nothing new here.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



> Seriously though I think we might be surprised once Aldridge is cleared to play. Let's not forget his importance on Texas last year and their succes as a top 5 team throughout the year. Lamarcus + Raef + return for Zach...I don't think IMO that we would see a big dropoff.


Hard to drop off much from 20 wins. 

I (and many others) are optimistic about Aldridge. however, I was also optimistic about Bonzi, Outlaw, Webster, Khryapa, Monia, Telfair, uh, I'm probably forgetting some guys. I was never that optimistic about Ha, I'll admit. 

anyway, my point is that Aldridge is certainly no sure thing. his upside is that he'll produce offense and rebounding like Zach, with better defense and passing. he may never come close to reaching that potential. there's a pretty long list of big men drafted in the top 5 who never became nearly as good as Randolph. 

Portland's done pretty well for itself in the power forward department. Grant, Rasheed, Jermaine, Rahim, Randolph--that's a pretty nice list of guys. But I think it makes fans think a quality PF is pretty easy to get. Seattle's had one guy that good in the last decade (Kemp). Ditto with a number of other teams. Zach may be the best PF Portland sees for a number of years.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> I want to say To ringbearer or anyone else who thinks I am saying that simply benching Zach makse us a better team, you have totally mis-interpereted me. So far with the new configuration of this team...Yes I know 2 games is too small of a sample, but all that per 100 posessions stuff was for last season, big sample... Zach makes the team less efficient when he is in. It's pretty hard to debate that based on the performance per minute with/without him. DOes he make the team worse? Don't know but for 2 games I think it's definately debateable.
> 
> My contention is this Portland needs a PF that is better suited to the other players on the floor. It appears through 2 games that Roy has a better positive impact on the game than Zach does, and having watched both games in person it seems that he simply plays within the flow of the rest of his team. The ball moves around alot as long as it stays out of Zachs hands.
> 
> We need a PF that fits the rest of the players on the floor. As good as Zach may be, I personally don't believe he is that guy. And based on his impact (+.8 per 100 posessions last year?) He may be much more replaceable than people contend.


To use +/- statistics for a small sample time is to waste your time and everybody elses time. The numbers are garbage.

It is like saying, hey I just rolled 7 four times in a row, thus I will keep rolling sevens. Small sample size give you no reliable information.

I also find it completely ridiculous that you are attempting to make this argument after Zach dropped 27 on a good percentage. Talk about filtering through hate filled lenses.

As for Zach's poor "best player" plus/minus numbers last season I have some comments:

Every player on the Blazers had a poor plus/minus rating last season. It was very much a "team" effort in being the suckiest team in the West. Everybody "contributed". The large number of blowouts messed with the numbers too.

Zach was playing on surgically repaired knees. It clearly affected his game. He wanted to play anyway. The team wanted him to play. He tried to contribute in contrast to many other players in similar situations who didn't even try.

Guards are independant and can put up good numbers on teams with poor bigs. Bigs (like Zach) MUST rely on decent guard play to have a chance to put up solid numbers. As I have said many times, last year's Blazers had a poor group of guards - undersized, rookies getting big minutes, bench players starting - yech.

Zach played a fair number of minutes out of position at Center, and was statistically worse in those lineups. Is it his fault that he is unable to play Center effectively or that the team actually had him do it?

Zach should be healthier this season and more confident in his knees.

Roster changes and another year experience look to have improved the guards on paper. We will see if that translates into better guard production this season.

Roster changes look to have improved the dept at Center, eliminating the need to play Zach there.


----------



## Sheed30 (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



ZBoFanatic said:


> You guys are beating a dead horse. Zach will get blamed for every loss, and no one will give up their position. If the team wins, everyone but Zach will get the credit, and when Zach doesn't play and the team loses, no one will say anything, and no one will respond to statements such as "the team was winless without Zach playing last year", but a thread about how the Blazer's offense is stagnant because of Zach in a preseason game where he plays 40 minutes and the team scores 120 points is like the topic of the century. Nothing new here.


You could not have said it any better


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Fair enough guys. BTW Masbee the best player numbers themselves aren't relevant. Bad teams are going to generate lowe +- numbers because they get beat alot. But you can to some degree look at it and determine a persons impact on his own team. That's all I was pointing out.

We'll have to see how it goes.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> do they really? I'm trying to think of recent Blazers who are universally loved. Sabonis. Pippen. not exactly going out on a limb to love two of the hundred or so greatest players to ever play the game.
> 
> uh, anyone else?


Brian Grant comes to mind.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



mook said:


> do they really? I'm trying to think of recent Blazers who are universally loved. Sabonis. Pippen. not exactly going out on a limb to love two of the hundred or so greatest players to ever play the game.


Show me a Portlander who doesn't love Porter, and I'll show you a Portlander who thought you were talking about a type of beer.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Oil Can said:


> Brian Grant comes to mind.


The mere fact that several of us still root for Travis Outlaw to do well also speaks about the Portland mindset. Now we may want to trade him by the deadline but we've also given him the benefit of the doubt several times out.

I think you're (Mook) much too harsh on Portlanders. But then, maybe you're (Mook) just referring to the California transplants.

As for Zbo, I know ZboFanatic would like to have us believe we are all evil, despicable people for ever saying one thing bad about Zach and everyone constantly posts about the fact that Zach is to blame for the end of the garden of Eden, etc. etc. but really Schilly was just putting some statistical analysis out there (however flawed) that SEEMS to me to be an extension of an earlier debate he and Ed had about who the best player on the team is.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*

Porter is a recent Blazer? I wish. 

Grant is still generally well-liked, mostly because management at the time went against popular opinion and (thankfully) refused to re-sign him. had we made the mistake of re-upping him, I'm pretty sure he'd be loathed here as a contract albatross.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Schilly said:


> I was at both games....LOL
> 
> No my argument the other day was that it is hard to simply look at the play by play transcript and determine the flow of the game and how certain players affect it. I also think you are right on, you can't simply look at a players individual production and guage their impact on the game. For Example last night, Zach had a monster game, but breaking it down the team was better offensively and defensively when he wasn't in the game.
> 
> When you read the Play by Play, at say ESPN, it doesn't say "Zach dribbling, dribbling cribbling, lazy pass to Sergio, Now Sergio has to rush the shot with 3 on the clock" it says "Rodriguez Missed Jumper 3 seconds on Sot Clock".



I still don't get it. If, according to you, stats don't show the impact a player has on the game, why are you using stats to show the impact players have on the game?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Hap said:


> he's not a very good basketball players. very good basketball players can play defense, and pass. he's a good offensive black hole. And the team is better with him than without him. why do you think they are trying to trade him (and believe it, they ARE trying to trade him) if they're better with him than without?


Edit: forget it, not worth it


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



yakbladder said:


> As for Zbo, I know ZboFanatic would like to have us believe we are all evil, despicable people for ever saying one thing bad about Zach and everyone constantly posts about the fact that Zach is to blame for the end of the garden of Eden, etc. etc. but really Schilly was just putting some statistical analysis out there (however flawed) that SEEMS to me to be an extension of an earlier debate he and Ed had about who the best player on the team is.


I don't despise everyone who says one bad thing about Zach. I only despise the people that blame him for the end of the garden of Eden. There's actually a lot of those.

Contrary to what every you read between the lines I wrote, I had no problem with the statistical analysis. I did think a lot of the comments afterwards labeling Zach as the problem on offense were offbase. I mean come on... 120 points... led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists. 10-17 from the field (10 for 16 before the 3 pointer w/ 4 seconds to go in the game). He's obviously worked on his passing, and still needs to work on it more, but why is he getting ragged about that right now? Aren't the guards supposed to have a lot of assists? I don't see anyone screaming trade the guards because they aren't doing their job. But I'm not expecting that though.

Anyway, keep telling everyone what you know man. I appreciate it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I still don't get it. If, according to you, stats don't show the impact a player has on the game, why are you using stats to show the impact players have on the game?


If you don't get it thats not my problem. Your talking apples to oranges. An individuals stat line isn't entirely indicitve of their impact on the game, as it doesn't factor alot of elements. It's like looking at assists but not aknowledging turnovers. Or saying hey my guy had a great game...without taking note of the fact that the guy he was defending had a better game.Simply looking at Blocks can't tell you how good of a defender a player is. 

Now to me the best stat to guage a players affect on the game is the teams efficiency offensively and defensively when they are in, and comparing that to when they are out. In theory your team should be less efficient when your best player is out of the game. 

The reason I look at it this way is because there are players that are walking stat machines, but their overall contribution to the teams success is low, a lot of times due to their dominance of the ball on offense and their lack of defense at the other end.

Scoring 20 doesn't make much difference if the guy you are defending scored 24. As a whole thats a -4. 

Stats are a funny thing they can be interpreted in many ways, but regardless of how you interpret them they are fact.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



Masbee said:


> Bigs (like Zach) MUST rely on decent guard play to have a chance to put up solid numbers.


 :clap: 

I respect Allen Iverson's abilities, but god you have to admit that too many up and comers have emulated his style as a point guard. If you aren't at least 6'5" pass first, please!


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: The Zach affect....*



ZBoFanatic said:


> :clap:
> 
> I respect Allen Iverson's abilities, but god you have to admit that too many up and comers have emulated his style as a point guard. If you aren't at least 6'5" pass first, please!


Masbee's absolutely correct. Once our young guards are at their best, we will see Zach at his best because we will have to many weapons.


----------

