# GAME THREAD: Blazers vs. Grizzlies 12/07/03



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

<center><font size=6 color=red>Portland Trail Blazers</font> 
*VS* 
<font size=6 color=brown>Memphis Grizzlies</font>

 *VS* 

12-07-03
TV: KGW
1:00 pm PST

 *<font color=red>VS</font>*  </center> </center>
<center>

*Main Matchup*

 *VS* 


*Other Matchups*

 *VS* 
 *VS* 

*X-Factor:**


</center>
<center><font color=black>Portland (10-7) Memphis (10-8)*</font></center>

*Click on the pictures up above to access more information on the players and teams involved in the game.* [/QUOTE]


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

This is the thread. Sorry for the screwup with the last one. Just trying to pitch in.

.


The Blazers' last game against the Grizzlies was the game after Bonzi flipped off a fan. He had 17 points.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

too intense a game?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Who is ahead? I can not watch it


----------



## kultcha (Jul 5, 2003)

Portland 50 - Memphis 43 at the Half


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Damon has nine assists at halftime???!!?!?!!?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Bonzi only needs to score 44 points in the second half to get his 50...


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Who is ahead? I can not watch it


Blazers lead 50-43 at the half.

Randolph has 17 pts. Bonzi the "50 pt man" has 6 pts at the half.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

the grizz lead 2 minutes into the second half! pathetic start to the second half. lazy!


----------



## kultcha (Jul 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>baler</b>!
> the grizz lead 2 minutes into the second half! pathetic start to the second half. lazy!


Agreed and now Mcinnis and Wallace both get fouls within 20 secs of each other.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

according to espn's gamecast, memphis has taken only one jump shot so far in the third quarter...

and technicals for wallace and patterson...

maybe that gets sheed going?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)




----------



## Blazer4ever (Feb 1, 2003)

24 Offensive Rebounds for the Grizzlies, so far. And we've been playing the 'Big' Lineup for most of the game... Pathetic!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

why is travis outlaw in???


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

WTF why havent they used WES man the guards lost this one and our rebounding is horrid. Another road loss.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Memphis is just too good and too deep for the Blazers today. Even with Rasheed doing an awesome defensive job and the Grizzlies missing their starting PG, the Blazers just don't have the players to beat a team like the Grizzlies on a consistent basis.

Wells didn't get 50, but he got good shots whenever he wanted them and the Blazers had no answer.

The game was triply hurtful because it hurts Portland's playoff run and it helps Memphis's Grizzlies' run and it hurts Portland's pick next year.

This is the team that Cheeks wanted, I guess.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

to be honest i dont think this hurts play off run but a win would have been nice and cheeks needs to know when to put players in.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

memphis had 99 FGA...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> to be honest i dont think this hurts play off run but a win would have been nice and cheeks needs to know when to put players in.


It seems to me any loss hurts the playoff run unless one doesn't think the team is going to make the playoffs (see: tlong and some others). A game today is essentially a two game swing between the Grizz and the Blazers, who should be amongst a half dozen teams going for the last 3 spots.

Why don't you think it hurts the team's playoffs chances?

Ed O.


----------



## kultcha (Jul 5, 2003)

Blazers should have shut the door when they had the chance. That was just silly.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

We need a new coach. Any idea what Mo's trade value is:no: :uhoh:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kultcha</b>!
> Blazers should have shut the door when they had the chance. That was just silly.


Memphis was able to send a lot of good players at Portland, and the Blazers had to keep running McInnis and Damon, and when ZR got into foul trouble we just didn't have an impact player to come in to replace him.

The Grizzlies had 9 guys with 17 minutes or more, and Portland had 6.

Portland got a lead but because of the depth issue it's unfortunately not a surprise they couldn't hang onto it. 

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

19 turnovers by us.... :nonono:


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Glad I missed this one. I don't know which would be worse to watch, giving up 28 more attempts to the Grizzlies or managing 29 pts. for the entire second half. And this was with above average shooting for the team, or else it wouldn't have even been that close. Yikes.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Outside of Zach's offense and Rasheed's defense, this has become a very difficult team to enjoy watching. Thoroughly brain dead against any sort of pressure D or zone, and once again Damon (who didn't play all that bad) looked out-matched by a no-name backup PG. Damon and Sheed's 3 point shot selection is a few degrees south of pitiful... "If I can't make it from the line, maybe I'll try one 2 steps back without my feet set."

First sign of Mo doing some coaching? Getting kicked out of the game.

As amazing as Zach is quickly becoming at the offensive end, he's equally horrible on defense and not showing much sign of improving. I fear he's going to be in foul trouble a lot of games if he doesn't start moving his feet... Opponents are obviously aware of it and will probably be sending more and more slashers his way.

Not a good sign when out pint sized backcourt can't run the floor with Memphis'...

Good to see Patterson looking spry again.

At least one of the teams (us or Memphis) will likely end up in the lottery. Right now, it's tough to tell which, so us losing is no worse than them losing, from that perspective at least. Should get at least one good pick.

I don't see Person as much of an answer, just a slight improvement. He's always been a solid shooter, but never a difference maker, in my opinion.

Let's hope we can break 30 in the second half the next game...

Dan


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> WTF why havent they used WES man the guards lost this one and our rebounding is horrid. Another road loss.


He was used and he was ineffective. He does not provide rebounding, he does not provide passing, he does not provide ball-handling relief, and he certainly does not provide defense. Playing him as the back up two was a bad decision by Cheeks (IMO). 

It would have been a better decision to go with Woods (IMO). He can get to the hole and he will give you defensive rebounding (two things the Blazers surely could have used in that game). 

Person strikes me as a situational shooter (not an individual you place in your guard rotation). A Steve Kerr type (the latter day Kerr)...

---------

Cheeks did not coach a good game and he played McInnis too much. McInnis could not make the entry pass to save his life, he could not beat his man off the dribble and he was invisible on defense (giving Miller open jumper after open jumper).

Stoudamire was not much better.

*Observations:* Damon and Jeff have good games at home with the crowd backing them but when the Blazers go on the road they are the first two to disappear.

Cheeks was tossed at the end of the game and I agree with him whole-heartedly. 

The Blazers did not shoot one free throw in the second half and only managed 7 for the game (the bulk of that coming in the first quarter). The Grizzlies guards were crashing the boards and clearly going over the backs of Blazers big men (on a few occasions) yet not one call was made.

On the other end the Blazers leading scorer (Randolph) was constantly being called for tick tack calls (two coming on over the back calls) keeping him on the bench for many critical stretches throughout the game. He was clearly on his way to a monstrous game and the way in which he was officiated against was (for lack of a better term) unfortunate.

The officiating was incredibly one sided in that game (especially in the second half).


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Our team can't execute and can't rebound.

The rebounding was probably mostly a fluke though. Usually we're at least a decent rebounding team.

But we really need a pg who can set up an offense. Our PG's just want to score they have no desire to have a game flow smoothly we need a 40 year old marc jackson! Its that bad.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Draco</b>!
> The rebounding was probably mostly a fluke though. Usually we're at least a decent rebounding team.


The Blazers are the second best rebounding team in the NBA. They out rebound opponents by an average of 5 per game (before this game anyway).


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

according to espn's play-by-play stats, memphis had 13 offensive rebounds in the fourth quarter...

:upset:


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>gambitnut</b>!
> Damon has nine assists at halftime???!!?!?!!?


And the team was moving and getting it done, but then he only got 1 more the rest of the way.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>el_Diablo</b>!
> according to espn's play-by-play stats, memphis had 13 offensive rebounds in the fourth quarter...
> 
> :upset:


The Blazers were getting some decent initial help (double-team) defense down low which, when the Griz missed the shot, left Offensive Board opportunites - that were capitalized on.


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Memphis is just too good and too deep for the Blazers today.


I agreed that Memphis is a deeper team than Portland, but the outcome of today's game doesn't really indicate that Memphis is the better team, IMO. 

In the first half, Portland thoroughly dominated Memphis. The only thing that was holding Portland from building a (much) bigger lead was due to the unforced turnovers. McInnis was mostly to blame for the turnovers. He just couldn't make a decent entry pass to the post. If Portland had been a little more effective making the pass to Zach and Rasheed down low, it would have been really tough for Memphis to win that game.

The secend half was a different story for Portland's offense, due mainly to Zach's foul trouble. Portland stayed away from the inside game and played from the perimeter. Without Zach's inside scoring, Memphis focused on guarding the perimeter and didn't give Portland a lot of good looks. Portland should have adjusted to Memphis' defense by attacking the hoops or force feed Wallace in the post, but they were unable to or unwilling to.

On defense, Portland played Memphis well. They contested a lot of shots inside, only to see Memphis get the second or third chance to score the basket. This is what really killed Portland. I think some of offensive rebounds that Memphis got was because of their depth (fresher players) and they simply outhustled Portland, but I think it was more because of Zach and Dale's (two good rebounders) fould troubles.

The Blazers lost mainly because of: 1) bad coaching (failing to adjust). 2) best offensive player and rebounder being in foul trouble. 3) unforced turnovers and giving up too many second chance points.

Number 1 we probably cannot recovered from when facing Memphis (Mo just cannot outcoach Brown, at least for now), but two and three we can certainly recovered from. I still like Portland's chances over Memphis.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ripct</b>!
> 
> I agreed that Memphis is a deeper team than Portland, but the outcome of today's game doesn't really indicate that Memphis is the better team, IMO.


That's why I added "today" at the end of the sentence. I didn't mean to only qualify the "depth" part of my statement... I meant the overall level of play.

I wish I could share your optimism about the two teams, though. I don't see the Blazers getting any better over time without Wells, but I definitely see the Grizz getting better with him.

Again, of course I hope I'm wrong...

Ed O.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> It seems to me any loss hurts the playoff run unless one doesn't think the team is going to make the playoffs (see: tlong and some others). A game today is essentially a two game swing between the Grizz and the Blazers, who should be amongst a half dozen teams going for the last 3 spots.
> ...


Well i mean dont get me wrong it was a step backwards but there is alot of season left and I believe we can make playoffs. We do need to figure out how to win on road or else we are finished aka seahawks (1-5 on road) I just dont think this one loss is going to knock us out of playoff run thats all.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

why is Cheeks so set against playing patterson more minutes?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazerfan024</b>!
> 
> Well i mean dont get me wrong it was a step backwards but there is alot of season left and I believe we can make playoffs. We do need to figure out how to win on road or else we are finished aka seahawks (1-5 on road) I just dont think this one loss is going to knock us out of playoff run thats all.


Gotcha. I think that agree with you here 100%.

I'm just thinking more in terms of if we miss the playoffs and the Grizzlies don't at the end of the year, this is just another brick in the wall keeping us out of the postseason.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Foul trouble obviously didn't help matters, but I don't think it's a very large part of why we lost. Zach and Dale were in foul trouble the first half and the team played through it, so that alone can't explain why things fell apart in the 2nd half. Zach was still in the game at the start of the 3rd quarter when the team came out very flat and basically handed over the lead...

And let's be honest, with how much the Blazers were contesting shots around the basket, they're lucky more fouls weren't called. Sure, some of the ones that were called were a bit tough to take ("stupid" fouls), but I don't recall seeing any which weren't deserved. Seemed like a pretty fairly officiated game to me.

Dan


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

The complaint is not so much the fouls that were given but the ones that were not.

Zach was called on a few cheap calls and on the other end the Blazers were getting no calls.

The game was allowed to be physical for the most part but 0 free throws in an entire half of basketball is hard to believe.

-------

_I would guess that listening to Hersey Hawkins and that other guy wine about how Gasol was not getting calls (when in actuality he was not being fouled) could sway perception a bit. _


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Foul trouble obviously didn't help matters, but I don't think it's a very large part of why we lost. Zach and Dale were in foul trouble the first half and the team played through it, so that alone can't explain why things fell apart in the 2nd half. Zach was still in the game at the start of the 3rd quarter when the team came out very flat and basically handed over the lead...


Coincidentally, Zach going to the bench with a bit over 8 minutes in the 4th marked the beginning of the late run that broke the game open. The loss of his rebounding was a large factor in the rebounding disparity down the stretch.

I would term Zach having to be pulled early in the 4th as a large part of why they lost.


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Foul trouble obviously didn't help matters, but I don't think it's a very large part of why we lost. Zach and Dale were in foul trouble the first half and the team played through it, so that alone can't explain why things fell apart in the 2nd half. Zach was still in the game at the start of the 3rd quarter when the team came out very flat and basically handed over the lead...


I certainly don't think Zach and Dale being in foul trouble alone was the cause for the loss. As I noted in my previous post, other factors came into play. But I think, Zach and Dale being on the bench for most of the fourth quarter was the reason why Memphis was able to scored on the second chance points, while Portland's offense became stagnant. 

Zach was big on offense and was very good at rebounding on the defensive end today. Dale is still a solid rebounder. It is easy to understand that without Portland's best offensive player and their two best rebounders, that Portland struggled to rebound and score in the fourth quarter.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Zach going to the bench with a bit over 8 minutes in the 4th marked the beginning of the late run that broke the game open.


They had already let control of the game slip away by then. Zach may have prolonged the inevitable, but his absence isn't what decided the outcome. The team as a whole saw to that at the end of the 1st half.

Calls are _always_ going to be missed here and there. That's just the nature of the game... I saw nothing during the game that indicated Memphis was getting the benefit of the calls overall, and Steve Jones even commented several times in the first half that Portland was getting some lucky breaks with the refs. The aggressor will almost always get the benefit of the calls, and Portland stopped being that pretty early on. No one to blame but themselves.

Dan


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> They had already let control of the game slip away by then. Zach may have prolonged the inevitable, but his absence isn't what decided the outcome. The team as a whole saw to that at the end of the 1st half.


Again, I disagreed. The game was still very close at that point. Nobody really had control of that game in the fourth quarter until the Blazers lost their best offensive player. The Blazers couldn't score, and Memphis keep getting second chance points. That was during Zach and Dale's absence, I believe. That stretch was what broke the game open.

I agreed with you about the offiating, though. It was a fairly even called game. If anything, it might have been called in the Blazers' favor.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> They had already let control of the game slip away by then. Zach may have prolonged the inevitable, but his absence isn't what decided the outcome. The team as a whole saw to that at the end of the 1st half.


When Zach left the game with around 8 minutes remaining in the 4th the Blazers were facing a 3 point deficit.

I would hardly term a 3 point deficit a game that has slipped away.
The Blazers were up big early but you have to expect a team the caliber of Memphis to make a run on their home floor.

Whether Zach would have merely prolonged the inevitable Blazers loss (while being faced with the daunting task of helping overcoming Memphis's 3 point advantage) will never be known, however I am certain that it did not help matters.



> Calls are _always_ going to be missed here and there. That's just the nature of the game...


I would call 7 total free throws, 0 in the entire second half (for a team averaging 20 plus trips to the stripe for the season), in a basketball game a bit more than a call being "missed here and there".

Seems more like calls being missed all together (if you ask me). 



> I saw nothing during the game that indicated Memphis was getting the benefit of the calls overall, and Steve Jones even commented several times in the *first half* that Portland was getting some lucky breaks with the refs. The aggressor will almost always get the benefit of the calls, and Portland stopped being that pretty early on. No one to blame but themselves.


The Blazers shooting a total of 1 free throw over three quarters of Basketball is proof enough for me. 
The Blazers being in the penalty with 8:37 remaining in the 4th while Memphis only had 1 team foul for the *entire quarter* is proof enough for me.

_In fact Memphis was called for a total of 3 fouls in the entire second half (once again... that’s proof enough for me)._


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ripct</b>!
> I agreed with you about the offiating, though. It was a fairly even called game. If anything, it might have been called in the Blazers' favor.


How could you possibly substantiate this? That second half was decidedly one sided.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Again, I disagreed. The game was still very close at that point.
> 
> When Zach left the game with around 8 minutes remaining in the 4th the Blazers were facing a 3 point deficit.


That's sort of ignoring everything prior to that point in the game, though. A 15 point lead had turned into a 3 point deficit, which I consider to be a very clear sign of having lost control of the game. It wasn't out of reach at that point, obviously, but it also didn't look like Portland had any inkling of how to turn things back in their favor.

You can't use quantity of freethrows as evidence of the quality of officiating unless you have actual bad calls to back it up. When teams rely on stagnant perimeter offense, they aren't likely to get to the line very often. Memphis had a lot more motion in their offense, so it's to be expected they got to the line. Even so, they didn't get there all that much.



> How could you possibly substantiate this? That second half was decidedly one sided.


Likewise, how can you substantiate that?

Dan


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> 
> How could you possibly substantiate this? That second half was decidedly one sided.


First of all, I have to admit I didn't pay as much attention to the officiatings in this game as I would have with other games. I guess part of it was the Bonzi factor. However, my stance that the officiating was evenly called was because I didn't noticed any play that was obviously missed by the refs. I don't mind if the refs missed some rather questionable calls. If it is obvious though, I would trust that I would notice it right away or after an instance replay.

I think the second half of this game the Blazers didn't get a lot of calls to go their way because they played almost exclusively from the perimeter. A team is not going to have a lot of opportunities to go to the charity stripe if it keep shooting from the outside. 

Also, Portland contested a lot of shots from close range in the first half. Some of it could have been fouls on the Blazers, yet most of it were not called. In the second half, the refs called more fouls on the Blazers as Memphis kept attacking inside. Again, I did not see any obvious missed calls by the refs.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Second half foul comparison:*

Portland... 11 (15 if you count technical fouls)
Memphis... 3

3 of those second half fouls coming against Portland’s key offensive player, while Memphis's key offensive player (Gasol) amassed a total of 0 (2 for the game) 

Game totals:

Portland... 20 (24 if you count technical fouls)
Memphis... 12

I can clearly see why Cheeks would have a complaint about the officiating.


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> That's sort of ignoring everything prior to that point in the game, though. A 15 point lead had turned into a 3 point deficit, which I consider to be a very clear sign of having lost control of the game.


Then I think we just disagreed on the meaning of "controlling the game." Even if they just came back from a 15-point deficit, I don't agree that a team is really in control when they are up only 3 points with 8 minutes left in the game. They might be controlling the pace of the game or imposing their gameplan on their opponent, but that doesn't mean they are controlling the game so much that a win is almost a certainty. They will most likely have a better chance to win the game if they can dictate the pace of the game, but it is not a sure bet that the other team cannot beat them at their own game. 

Basketball is a up and down game. One team can have control the pace of the game in one stretch, the other team can take it away the next. Portland pretty much imposed their gameplan on Memphis in the first half, then they lost it early in the second half. What's to say Portland couldn't get it back? Eight minutes is a lot of time left to play the game. Portland was trailing by just three points. I think it is reasonable to expect Portland to be much more competitive (and possibly win the game) if the had their best offensive player and their two best rebounders in that crucial stretch.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ripct</b>!
> Also, Portland contested a lot of shots from close range in the first half. Some of it could have been fouls on the Blazers, yet most of it were not called. In the second half, the refs called more fouls on the Blazers as Memphis kept attacking inside. Again, I did not see any obvious missed calls by the refs.


I agree that Portland contested a lot of shots around the basket but many of those were clean blocks by Wallace (on Gasol). I saw no fouls there. One Davis block was a bit questionable (I will admit).

I recall one play in the first half where Wallace clearly striped the ball from Gasol in which he was called for a foul. I recall a play in the second half where Damon was hit going to the hole but got no call (resulting in a Patterson technical about the no call).
I recall another play where Stepania went strong to the basket got mauled yet once again... No call

Overall the Blazers guards were being played extremely physical by the bigger Memphis guards yet I cannot recall one foul to their benefit (in the game). I can also recall a few over the backs that were not called against Swift in the 4th.
A play in which Watson jumped over Damon’s back for an offensive rebound (near the free-throw line) where no foul was called comes to mind as well.

I am sure there were more (that’s all I can come up with off the top of my head).

-----------

On a whole I must admit that officiating has been superb thus far this season (however tonight was extremely questionable)

It is not as though you see the Blazers amassing multiple techs and coach Cheeks getting thrown out (protesting the officiating) often.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Portland didn't play well in the 2nd half, and Rasheed especially was muffing it down the stretch, but the Blazers seemed to not be getting a fair shake from Steve Javie's crew. Not that getting mad ever seems to help, but that little barage of Techs seemed to be all about the call disparity that others noted. The one Wallace got was after an amazing no call. Mike Miller was dribbling on the right side of the lane, cupped the ball and did a behind the back pass... but he didn't handle it cleanly and he wasn't able to get enough on it to get it out to his teammate on the perimeter... so he picked it up again and started dribbling again. Double Dribble? Nope new possession. Wallace who would have got the steal instead got a foul and then argued for the obvious double, and eventually got a tech. As others have also noted, having numerous frontline players in foul trouble seemed to play a major role down the stretch too.

Bonzi played well and didn't seem to be forcing things at all, and generally the Griz had the better of it, at the end especially. Sort of a painful one to watch the way Portland unraveled.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Mike Miller was dribbling on the right side of the lane, cupped the ball and did a behind the back pass... but he didn't handle it cleanly and he wasn't able to get enough on it to get it out to his teammate on the perimeter... so he picked it up again and started dribbling again.


That's a good example of a questionable call. I was hoping Blazer Broadcasting would give a better replay of it, because it sort of looked like whoever was defending the play might have snuck a hand in next to Miller's left hip (where the ball was headed behind his back). If I wasn't imagining that, then it was a deflected pass and the refs might have actually made the correct no call.



> Then I think we just disagreed on the meaning of "controlling the game." Even if they just came back from a 15-point deficit, I don't agree that a team is really in control when they are up only 3 points with 8 minutes left in the game.


Please re-read what I said. I didn't say Memphis had control of the game, rather that the Blazers had lost it. One implies victory was in hand, the other that mometum had been lost. I suppose you could split hairs over what I meant by "the inevitable," but that is perfectly well explained by the overhwhelming swing of momentum.



> They might be controlling the pace of the game or imposing their gameplan on their opponent, but that doesn't mean they are controlling the game so much that a win is almost a certainty.


I fail to see what your point is here. One could argue that a win is never a certainty until the final buzzer. So what? Controlling the pace of the game and imposing your game plan on the opponent are roughly the most important components of winning a game...



> Portland pretty much imposed their gameplan on Memphis in the first half, then they lost it early in the second half.


No, they lost it well before that. Mid to late second quarter is more like it. And like I said earlier, they built their lead with Zach and Dale in foul trouble, so the subsequent collapse cannot be explained simply by that same foul trouble. That aspect did not change.



> Portland was trailing by just three points.


Having just been outscored by 18, at least some of it with Zach and Dale out on the floor... I guess that doesn't fit the foul problem theory, though.



> I think it is reasonable to expect Portland to be much more competitive (and possibly win the game) if the had their best offensive player and their two best rebounders in that crucial stretch.


Agreed with the competitiveness, but not the possibility (likelihood, actually) of them winning. They didn't have enough fight in them to slow Memphis down, so unless Zach was headed for 50 points, I seriously doubt he would have made that much of a difference. If anything, Memphis would have scored more had he been in the game more...

Dan


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Forget the turnovers, the refs, the foul trouble. The Blazers lost this game because of fatigue. They came out with a lot of energy to start the game, but paid for it in the end. We need DA back, we need more PT for Q. Rasheed totally ran out of gas. I wouldn't mind seeing Travis get a little burn out there. I'm not too impressed with Person. We went from being one of the deapest teams in the league to being too thin. The talent is there, but we need our young guys to develope as quickly as possible.


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Please re-read what I said. I didn't say Memphis had control of the game, rather that the Blazers had lost it. One implies victory was in hand, the other that mometum had been lost.


If having "control of the game" implies that victory was in hand, then Portland never had control of the game to begin with. Neither did Memphis, until the waning seconds of the game, that is. You said Portland "had already let control of the game slip away by then," which I took it that you meant Portland had control of the game before they lost it. 

At what point of the game did Portland "had the victory in hand"? Leading by 15 points during the early part of the second quarter? Playing on the road and leading by 15 points during the second quarter to a team that's about the same leval as you, does not mean "victory in hand," IMO. Teams win come from behind games all the time. A 15-point come from behind win is not that rare.

Thanks for suggesting that I should re-read what you said, but I didn't need to re-read it to understand what you meant.



> I suppose you could split hairs over what I meant by "the inevitable," but that is perfectly well explained by the overhwhelming swing of momentum


I'm not going to split hair, but I don't think the swing of momentum you're referring to substantiate the "inevitable" part.

Portland led the entire first half, if I remembered correctly. They came out real flat and lost their 7-point lead during the first three minutes of the third quarter. After that, if was a back and forth game (until the later part of the fourth quarter, which I will get to). Memphis never led more than 3 points until the deciding run that they had, during which Zach and Dale was out of the game. 



> I fail to see what your point is here. One could argue that a win is never a certainty until the final buzzer. So what? Controlling the pace of the game and imposing your game plan on the opponent are roughly the most important components of winning a game...


Again, this is my interpretation of what "control the game" means. If a team can control the tempo of the game and can impose their gameplan on their opponents, they would stand a greater chance to win. Of course, it is never a certainty (I never said it was), as teams can beat teams at their own gameplans.

I brought this up because: 1) at first, I interpreted your "control the game" comment as a "very good chance to win" (you have now cleared this up with your "victory in hand" comment). 2) I wanted to point out even if what you meant by "control the game" is the same as my interpretation of what "control the game" means, it still doesn't prove that Portland couldn't take it back (taking back control of the game with 8 minutes left in the game trailing by 3 points).



> No, they lost it well before that. Mid to late second quarter is more like it.


You mean Portland lost the game (or control of the game) mid to late second quarter, even though they were still leading by 7 points at halftime? I don't know what to say, other then we'll have to agree to disagree.



> Having just been outscored by 18, at least some of it with Zach and Dale out on the floor... I guess that doesn't fit the foul problem theory, though.
> 
> And like I said earlier, they built their lead with Zach and Dale in foul trouble, so the subsequent collapse cannot be explained simply by that same foul trouble. That aspect did not change.


No, Portland built their lead WITH Zach and (most of the time) Dale in the game. They might have extended the lead a few points when Zach had to sit during the last few minutes of the 1st quarter, but Zach's scoring definately was a major reason for the lead.

Yes, Zach (I don't think Dale was) was in foul trouble in the first half, but he was on the court for most of it.

And yes, both Zach and Dale was on the floor when Portland quicky squandered that 7-point lead. However, after that, it was an even game again. Zach was again a major reason why the Blazers held steady after giving up the lead. If Zach keep scoring the way he was scoring (which was pretty easy), what's to say that Portland wouldn't have had a better chance to win the game? All we can do is speculate about it now, but I don't see any logical reasoning as to why Zach wouldn't have helped Portland's chances, especially with the way he was scoring the ball. 



> Agreed with the competitiveness, but not the possibility (likelihood, actually) of them winning.


I don't think I ever gave what kind of a chance Portland would have to win the game had Zach and Dale not been in foul troubles. All I said was "possibly win the game." Trailing by three with eight minutes left in the game, it would be absurd to think Portland had no chance of winning the game. So really, I don't think I said anything for you to disagree with here. 



> They didn't have enough fight in them to slow Memphis down, so unless Zach was headed for 50 points, I seriously doubt he would have made that much of a difference.


It might be a stretch to think that Zach was headed for a 50-point game, but I don't think it is a stretch to think that he would have scored a lot more than the 29 points he scored. Zach was abusing whoever was guarding him. Memphis simply had no answer for him. Had our guards effectively pass the ball to Zach more in the post, I have no doubt Zach would have scored close to 40 points.



> If anything, Memphis would have scored more had he been in the game more...


Maybe. Ruben subbed in for Zach, iirc. Ruben is a much better defender than Zach, so I can see your point here. But the flip side is: Zach is a MUCH, MUCH better offensive player than Ruben. The Blazers might give up a few more points when Zach is in the game rather then Ruben, but they will almost certainly score more points. The points differential (example: Zach scored 20pts, gave up 15pts vs. Ruben scored 8pts, gave up 8pts) would be in Zach's favor most of the time.

I don't see how an argument that "Memphis would have scored more had Zach been in the game more" is valid when debating whether Zach can help Portland beat Memphis or not. We are debating if Zach hadn't been in foul trouble and played more in the 4th quarter, would Portland have had a better chance of beating Memphis. If we take your argument, then Portland would be better off not to play Zach when they meet Memphis. That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Not that getting mad ever seems to help, but that little barage of Techs seemed to be all about the call disparity that others noted. The one Wallace got was after an amazing no call. Mike Miller was dribbling on the right side of the lane, cupped the ball and did a behind the back pass... but he didn't handle it cleanly and he wasn't able to get enough on it to get it out to his teammate on the perimeter... so he picked it up again and started dribbling again. Double Dribble? Nope new possession. Wallace who would have got the steal instead got a foul and then argued for the obvious double, and eventually got a tech.


Yeah, I remember that play. I also thought it should have been a TO, but I wanted to see a replay to conform it. I didn't get to see the replay.

Those techs definately hurt, but I don't know if it was deserved or not. Over all, I don't really have much to complain about over the officiating.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

We've gotten pretty deep into the territory of meaningless gradients in diction, so I think it's best that I spare everyone a response. Nothing of use to add, one way or the other.

Dan


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> We've gotten pretty deep into the territory of meaningless gradients in diction, so I think it's best that I spare everyone a response. Nothing of use to add, one way or the other.


I don't think we've reached that point yet. 

You either meant "victory in hand" or "lost momentum" with your "control the game" comment. In either case, I don't see how it could be used to argue that Zach wouldn't have helped Portland's chances to win the game.

Case 1. The Blazers lost momentum (let's remember that except the first *3 minutes* of the third quarter, both teams played pretty evenly. So neither teams had any kind of momentum over the other the rest of the third and the early part of the fourth quarter.) and trailed by 3 points with 8 minutes to go in the game. With 8 minutes to go in the fourth quarter, Portland's offense became stagnant and got killed on the offensive rebounds.

If Portland's best offensive player (who was having a great offensive game) and rebounders (Dale Davis was also out) played more during that 8 minutes stretch, wouldn't Portland's offense and rebounding be a little better? It most likely would have. If Portland can score and limit Memphis' second chance opportunities, wouldn't Portland have a better chance to win? It most likely would have.

Zach and Dale being in foul trouble and therefore did not play much of the fourth quarter, might very well be the reason that Portland wasn't able to regain momentum. Regaining the momentum might have given them enough of a push to win the game.

Case 2. The victory was in hand, but Portland let it slipped away. 

Going by history, this really isn't accurate or reasonable. A 15-point lead in the second quarter is never "victory in hand."


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I don't enjoy arguing over semantics as much as you obviously do. No compelling need on my part to add to a debate that's already going in circles... I've said my share, but you're welcome to continue debating with yourself. Could be good practice for the next time around.

Dan


----------



## ripct (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I don't enjoy arguing over semantics as much as you obviously do.


I don't know about that. A few posts back, I've already said that we might just disagree on what "control the game" means. I wanted to leave it at that. You were the one suggesting I should re-read your post to better understand what you meant. So if I'm the one that enjoy arguing over semantics, I doubt you are any different. 

This part of Quick's article _might_ help explain to some the significant of Portland's big men being in foul trouble (and subsequently didn't play much in that deciding 4th quarter).

http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/1070888310191171.xml

_"The Blazers had leads of as many as 15 points in the first half *behind the relentless inside play of Zach Randolph*, who scored 17 of his 29 points in the first half. 

But as Randolph battled foul trouble in the second half, limiting him to 18 minutes, the Blazers abandoned their inside attack and settled for jump shots. 

Stoudamire tried to justify the Blazers' second-half offense by saying the team had no inside options once Randolph was forced to the bench with fouls, but when he questioned why Wallace couldn't fill that void, Stoudamire relented."_


----------

