# I hope Zach has a monster season,..



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

...and gets traded to a real organization. One that doesn't support booing their own team in the preseason. I hope he goes to a city that doesn't run every good player out of town just because they aren't Michael Jordan or Ghandi. Terrell Owens is a good example of addition by subtraction, but past him, I challenge you to name 3 situations where getting rid of the best player on a team has been beneficial. I hope he joins a team that doesn't only support rookies, because rookies haven't been in the league long enough to run a stop sign or do not yet have enough money to buy a Hummer without feeling it financially. A team whose historically most successful player doesn't rag on his home team all the time (Bill Walton). An organization and media combination that understands basketball and doesn't try to turn a group of NBA players into a church choir. An organization whose goal is to win instead of desparately trying to impress fans in any possible way like a confused whipped boyfriend does to impress a controlling, irrational, gold digging, unfaithful girl. So as a fan, I hope to see him get traded to a real organization.

As a person, I know Zach loves Portland. Why? Because when you come from nothing, then everything better than "nothing" is a helluva lot better than you're used to. I personally would hate to be forced to move from my comfort zone, so from a human perspective, I wish Zach the best as a Portland resident. But, from an outsider's perspective, it's obvious that life as a Portland Trailblazer is a notch below life as an NBA player on another team. But Zach likes it there, and if he wants to stay, then the human being in me supports him wanting to be wherever he wants to be, and if that's Portland. I just hope the management and the fans collectively as a whole begin to understand what sports teams are all about. I think Nate gets it, so that's a start. And now that's my 2 cents. Now you can continue ragging on Zach for not being Lance Armstrong or Jesus and blaming him for preseason losses because he only had 20 pts 7 reb 3 stl 3 assists and 1 ill advised shot. I don't think Zach is the only one in Portland with a whining problem (or an IQ problem for that matter).

zbf


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Dude, you are going to get flamed to hell and back for that post - but there is a great deal of truth in what you say.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Tell us how you really feel.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

I hope he has a monster season, too, and gets traded, but not for the reasons you state. I want maximum trade value for the idiot that can't even follow simple rules laid down by the coach about when to show up for games and shootarounds. The first time was excusable, but the fifth? And his supposed strengths are back-to-the-basket low post moves, but yet and still the majority of his shots come from the perimeter? Remind you of another Blazer from the past? When will Zach break out his three-point shooting prowess, and tell the fans that we are "haters" because we dissapprove? Last time I checked, ticket costs still went to pay for player's salaries.

Zach is expendable with Aldridge around. LaMarcus will be 5 times the player that "Zach the never All-Star" is and will be.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ZBoFanatic said:


> ...and gets traded to a real organization. One that doesn't support booing their own team in the preseason.


please do not confuse booing 1 play where Zach made a bone head play, with us "booing" or own team. That was 1 ISOLATED play, where the crowd boo'd him playing outside of the flow of the game. And don't forget about the several times during the game (a PRE SEASON GAME mind you) where the crowd stood up and cheered very loud when the team made an effort on the court..including (and especially) the time when 4 players dove on the floor. We stood and cheered, despite the fact that there was a foul called against the Blazers and the Sonic got the ball back.



> I hope he goes to a city that doesn't run every good player out of town just because they aren't Michael Jordan or Ghandi.


you don't know **** about **** here. when Zach becomes a "good player" on the level of Drexler, Buck Williams, Walton, Lucas..hell, even Mychal Thompson..who come back years later and talk glowingly about their time here (and in some cases, still live here)...then maybe you won't look like a moron here.



> Terrell Owens is a good example of addition by subtraction, but past him, I challenge you to name 3 situations where getting rid of the best player on a team has been beneficial.


zach isn't the best player on the team.

Ok, I'll see that, and ask you to name 3 situations where a player who's

A: dumber than a bucket of ****
B: late several times
C: has the off court idiocy that Zach does
D: is a black hole on offense
E: STILL a crappy defensive playe
and F: dumber than a bucket of warm ****

has ever done anything to lead his team ANYWHERE.

go on, name him.



> I hope he joins a team that doesn't only support rookies, because rookies haven't been in the league long enough to run a stop sign or do not yet have enough money to buy a Hummer without feeling it financially.


huh? So it's ok to run red lights, or smoke pot in a hummer (of which, iirc, zach has done neither)?

and what rookie can't afford a hummer? dude, they make millions. 



> A team whose historically most successful player doesn't rag on his home team all the time (Bill Walton).


for starters, A: Walton isn't our most successful player. B: his home team is San Diego (ha!) and C: he rips on the team for having idiots on the team.



> An organization and media combination that understands basketball and doesn't try to turn a group of NBA players into a church choir.


yep. because thats the only alternative. NBA moron or church choir.



> An organization whose goal is to win instead of desparately trying to impress fans in any possible way like a confused whipped boyfriend does to impress a controlling, irrational, gold digging, unfaithful girl. So as a fan, I hope to see him get traded to a real organization.


I, as a fan, hope he gets traded so we don't have idiot fans coming in here trying to talk **** when they don't know **** about ****.


> As a person, I know Zach loves Portland. Why? Because when you come from nothing, then everything better than "nothing" is a helluva lot better than you're used to.


good for zach for loving Portland. It's not hard to love the city or the people. Quit being an idiot then.


> I personally would hate to be forced to move from my comfort zone, so from a human perspective, I wish Zach the best as a Portland resident. But, from an outsider's perspective, it's obvious that life as a Portland Trailblazer is a notch below life as an NBA player on another team.


please, maybe for the idiots in the league. Why the hell do you think so many ex players still live in Portland?

Hell, we have a former player who played like 30 games who moved here after it. We have player who played 1 season and was traded this summer, who KEPT his house here.

you don't know **** about what you're ranting about. take off the zach randolph rose colored glasses.



> But Zach likes it there, and if he wants to stay, then the human being in me supports him wanting to be wherever he wants to be, and if that's Portland. I just hope the management and the fans collectively as a whole begin to understand what sports teams are all about.


and I hope Zach gets what being on a sports team is about. responsibility. So far, he hasn't shown he gets that.



> I think Nate gets it, so that's a start. And now that's my 2 cents. Now you can continue ragging on Zach for not being Lance Armstrong or Jesus and blaming him for preseason losses because he only had 20 pts 7 reb 3 stl 3 assists and 1 ill advised shot.


i love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but can it at least be accurate? how about being a normal nice guy who's not late to practices (the FIRST game of the season!? after saying you were going to set an example??) and doesn't hire some women to do some sex show...after you've already stuck your foot in your mouth enough times by doing stupid things?

you know, like every other normal person in the world?



> I don't think Zach is the only one in Portland with a whining problem (or an IQ problem for that matter).


I'd bet that Darius ain't too bright, and god knows he probably doesn't give a crap about playing basketball. otherwise, why would he STILL have knee issues 10 months after surgery, if he "worked out" with Jordans trainer?

also, I don't think Juan is probably long for this set-up. At least playermaker took off his homer suit once in a while.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

I dont care what kind of person Zach is to be honest. In fact he seems like a very nice person despite his off-court "mistakes".

I just don't like his selfish game and disgusting contract. I don't think his style of ball will ever help this team win as many games as it should. I know he hasnt gotten a lot of help but it's clear to me he'll never be a player that can carry a team to the promise land... yet he's getting paid to be just that player.

I'm not going to hate him because he's not the kind of player we all want him to be. But I will root for him and his contract to get traded.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I hope he has a monster season, too, and gets traded, but not for the reasons you state. I want maximum trade value for the idiot that can't even follow simple rules laid down by the coach about when to show up for games and shootarounds. The first time was excusable, but the fifth? And his supposed strengths are back-to-the-basket low post moves, but yet and still the majority of his shots come from the perimeter? Remind you of another Blazer from the past? When will Zach break out his three-point shooting prowess, and tell the fans that we are "haters" because we dissapprove? Last time I checked, ticket costs still went to pay for player's salaries.
> 
> Zach is expendable with Aldridge around. LaMarcus will be 5 times the player that "Zach the never All-Star" is and will be.


If you're talking about Sheed, I think the Blazers organization, fans, and media screwed that one up too. They wanted him to be Jordan also, but he wasn't. He ended up on a team that understood that you need more than one good player and understood that just because someone isn't perfect doesn't mean they can contribute to success, and what do you know, he was one of the pieces to sweep the Lakers and win an NBA championship.

If Zach has a monster season, "maximum trade value" will be less than what he's worth because of your local media. So, if that's what you wish than okay.

He was tardy for a 5th time. I don't support that, but if that's so important to you that you are willing to get rid of your best player, then fair enough, trade him for being tardy. You'll win more for it.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

ZBoFanatic said:


> If you're talking about Sheed, I think the Blazers organization, fans, and media screwed that one up too. They wanted him to be Jordan also, but he wasn't. He ended up on a team that understood that you need more than one good player and understood that just because someone isn't perfect doesn't mean they can contribute to success, and what do you know, he was one of the pieces to sweep the Lakers and win an NBA championship.
> .


What I dont think you're getting is how much money these guys are making. Expectations for both Sheed and Zach went up as their salaries did. I dont blame them for taking the money but I dont want to hear any *****ing about the fans expectations being too high, that comes with getting the big check.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ZBoFanatic said:


> If you're talking about Sheed, I think the Blazers organization, fans, and media screwed that one up too. They wanted him to be Jordan also, but he wasn't. He ended up on a team that understood that you need more than one good player and understood that just because someone isn't perfect doesn't mean they can contribute to success, and what do you know, he was one of the pieces to sweep the Lakers and win an NBA championship.
> 
> If Zach has a monster season, "maximum trade value" will be less than what he's worth because of your local media. So, if that's what you wish than okay.
> 
> He was tardy for a 5th time. I don't support that, but if that's so important to you that you are willing to get rid of your best player, then fair enough, trade him for being tardy. You'll win more for it.


Well put a feather in your cap.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> I dont care what kind of person Zach is to be honest. In fact he seems like a very nice person despite his off-court "mistakes".
> 
> I just don't like his selfish game and disgusting contract. I don't think his style of ball will ever help this team win as many games as it should. I know he hasnt gotten a lot of help but it's clear to me he'll never be a player that can carry a team to the promise land... yet he's getting paid to be just that player.
> 
> I'm not going to hate him because he's not the kind of player we all want him to be. But I will root for him and his contract to get traded.


The organization gave him the contract. That's not his fault. What 84 million is worth is subjective, but you can't blame him for not working hard enough. Kobe's style of ball couldn't cut it on the Lakers by himself. Jordan's couldn't cut it on the Wizard's by himself. Ray Allen's style of ball couldn't cut it on the sonics. KG's style of ball couldn't cut it on the TWolves by himself. If you constantly get rid of your best player, then you constantly get worse. When's the last time a 1 star team has won the championship? Wait. Has it ever happened?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

A real organization?

Like one that had gone to the playoffs for over 20 years straight?

One that was a model of consistency and excellence for decades?

That kind of real organization?

I wonder if the Bobcats would want him.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> What I dont think you're getting is how much money these guys are making. Expectations for both Sheed and Zach went up as their salaries did. I dont blame them for taking the money but I dont want to hear any *****ing about the fans expectations being too high, that comes with getting the big check.


Expectations should go up with salary to certain extent, but in portland that level has resulted in trading every piece of talent that they have. They stopped at Zach for some reason. It was probably because he was a nice guy.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> A real organization?
> 
> Like one that had gone to the playoffs for over 20 years straight?
> 
> ...


It was a real organization until a few years ago when they started getting rid of every single one of their players. Like I said, hopefully the organization, media, fans start to understand that. I think they have started to, but there's a longggg way to go for that.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

ZBoFanatic said:


> he was one of the pieces to sweep the Lakers and win an NBA championship.


It would really help if you had your facts correct

The Pistons did not sweep the Lakers


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

ZBoFanatic said:


> The organization gave him the contract. That's not his fault. What 84 million is worth is subjective, but you can't blame him for not working hard enough. Kobe's style of ball couldn't cut it on the Lakers by himself. Jordan's couldn't cut it on the Wizard's by himself. Ray Allen's style of ball couldn't cut it on the sonics. KG's style of ball couldn't cut it on the TWolves by himself. If you constantly get rid of your best player, then you constantly get worse. When's the last time a 1 star team has won the championship? Wait. Has it ever happened?


Zach isn't in the same class of any of the players you mention so you have no point


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Hap said:


> please do not confuse booing 1 play where Zach made a bone head play, with us "booing" or own team. That was 1 ISOLATED play, where the crowd boo'd him playing outside of the flow of the game. And don't forget about the several times during the game (a PRE SEASON GAME mind you) where the crowd stood up and cheered very loud when the team made an effort on the court..including (and especially) the time when 4 players dove on the floor. We stood and cheered, despite the fact that there was a foul called against the Blazers and the Sonic got the ball back.


Okay you're right. Every boneheaded play by Zach in the preseason from now on, go ahead and boo Zach. But make sure to boo every boneheaded play by every other player in the preseason.



Hap said:


> you don't know **** about **** here. when Zach becomes a "good player" on the level of Drexler, Buck Williams, Walton, Lucas..hell, even Mychal Thompson..who come back years later and talk glowingly about their time here (and in some cases, still live here)...then maybe you won't look like a moron here.



He may not become as good of a player as them, but he will talk glowingly about his time here.



Hap said:


> zach isn't the best player on the team.


Agree to disagree



Hap said:


> Ok, I'll see that, and ask you to name 3 situations where a player who's
> 
> A: dumber than a bucket of ****
> B: late several times
> ...


A: he isn't dumber than a buck of ****
B: i don't know or care.
C: there are many with worse... just none as publicizied b/c they arent blazers
D: i don't think the offense would be better if he wasn't on it
E: he is what he is on defense, he's trying, he led the team in steals last game
F: he's not dumber than a buck of warm ****

He was HS state champion, mcdonalds MVP, the only player on MSU that did anything in the final 4, and on portland, he was on a good team before all the other players got traded... and once again, when's the last time a team with one star won anything?




Hap said:


> huh? So it's ok to run red lights, or smoke pot in a hummer (of which, iirc, zach has done neither)?
> 
> and what rookie can't afford a hummer? dude, they make millions.


no it's not okay, but when has zbo been charged for smoking pot? never. yet, portland acts like he's a serial killer.



Hap said:


> for starters, A: Walton isn't our most successful player. B: his home team is San Diego (ha!) and C: he rips on the team for having idiots on the team.


You know as well as I that finishing runner up to an NBA champion is dissapointing, so I defined success as winning championships. If Walton is or isn't the most successful player, that's debateable. But he is one of the best players, and he's embarrased by the franchise.



Hap said:


> yep. because thats the only alternative. NBA moron or church choir.


you're very literal



Hap said:


> I, as a fan, hope he gets traded so we don't have idiot fans coming in here trying to talk **** when they don't know **** about ****.


haha okay



Hap said:


> good for zach for loving Portland. It's not hard to love the city or the people. Quit being an idiot then.


i'm sure it's a nice city with lots of nice people. but its also a city that has run many basketball players out of town for questionable reasons the past few years



Hap said:


> please, maybe for the idiots in the league. Why the hell do you think so many ex players still live in Portland?
> 
> Hell, we have a former player who played like 30 games who moved here after it. We have player who played 1 season and was traded this summer, who KEPT his house here.


because they like the city. i'm not ripping on the actual city, just on its treatment of the blazers.



Hap said:


> you don't know **** about what you're ranting about. take off the zach randolph rose colored glasses.


Despite my moniker, I've always been a realist. I'm not making Zach out to be a saint.



Hap said:


> and I hope Zach gets what being on a sports team is about. responsibility. So far, he hasn't shown he gets that.


I agree. I hope so too.



Hap said:


> i love hyperbole as much as the next guy, but can it at least be accurate? how about being a normal nice guy who's not late to practices (the FIRST game of the season!? after saying you were going to set an example??) and doesn't hire some women to do some sex show...after you've already stuck your foot in your mouth enough times by doing stupid things?
> 
> you know, like every other normal person in the world?


He's not a saint. He's a bit irresponsible. I agree. But he can help a team win games. Hopefully he gets traded to a team that focuses on the game, and hopefully Portland trades him for having the wrong friends and being late to practice.



Hap said:


> I'd bet that Darius ain't too bright, and god knows he probably doesn't give a crap about playing basketball. otherwise, why would he STILL have knee issues 10 months after surgery, if he "worked out" with Jordans trainer?
> 
> also, I don't think Juan is probably long for this set-up. At least playermaker took off his homer suit once in a while.


yeah, i think juan actually cares, darius doesn't. zach does.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> It would really help if you had your facts correct
> 
> The Pistons did not sweep the Lakers


sorry. thanks for pointing out the discrepency


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Zach isn't in the same class of any of the players you mention so you have no point


correlation doesn't always imply causality. he isn't in the same class, but i had a point.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

buck = bucket
haha.. i can't type.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

ZBoFanatic said:


> buck = bucket
> haha.. i can't type.


Among other things.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

ZBoFanatic said:


> correlation doesn't always imply causality. he isn't in the same class, but i had a point.


No, not really. You directly compared some of the best players in the game to Zach. The only comparison is that Z-Bo makes similar money as them but has produced WAY less. I dont blame Zach for taking the money, but surely you understand why fans expect more out of him when he's clogging up both the salary cap and lane with little of substance in return.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> please do not confuse booing 1 play where Zach made a bone head play, with us "booing" or own team. That was 1 ISOLATED play, where the crowd boo'd him playing outside of the flow of the game.


There's no nuance in booing. It's not a coaching tool. 

I think booing has a lot more in common with giving someone the finger than the type of communication that goes on between player and coach.

You don't have to cheer when a player does something bad, but booing is like giving up on the team... something we accuse the players of doing a lot on this forum.

It's Nate's job to coach. It's your job to support the team. Period.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> zach isn't the best player on the team.


Um. What?

You aren't serious, are you?

Ed O.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Dude, you are going to get flamed to hell and back for that post - but there is a great deal of truth in what you say.


I appreciate that coming from a Portland fan. There are many great, great Portland fans, especially on this board some of whom agree and disagree with this my points in this thread. I usually don't think with a sociological perspective, but I believe that the Portlandmedia has a level of mind control over some locals that is unmatched throughout the league.

I feel that the ratio of Zach supporters to non Zach supporters are much higher on this board than in the city (just a gut feeling), because people other than Canzano, Meehan, and Quick comment on the team.

But, I'm sorry if I'm just naive to how sports events in Portland are (or vice versa), but I've been to hundreds of sporting events in my life, and I've never seen or heard of anything as ridiculous as booing your own player during a preseason game.

That said, I apologize for offending any level headed fan that simply disagrees with opinion. It's more of the ultrastubborn people that are stuck on stupid that really annoy the **** out of me.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Um. What?
> 
> You aren't serious, are you?
> 
> Ed O.


Some times the best player has to go. Zach needs to show more hustle and leadership, and emotional maturity. This will let the fans embrace him, allow him to be the best player he can be, and not get booed in the home building. 

I am all for Zach maturing into a fine person and hope he does, but the time is now. I am impressed with his off-season working out, but now apply it too the floor. Smoke all the pot you want, just do it at home, not racing down the streets with your gat.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Um. What?
> 
> You aren't serious, are you?
> 
> Ed O.




I agree with Hap, Ed. Zach isn't the best player on this team. I think Zach is the best low post scorer, but he isn't close to the best defensive player, he doesn't pass particularly well, he makes poor decisions on offense, he doesn't block many shots, he doesn't run well, he isn't that good at screening, and finally doesn't move without the ball. I honestly think there are many players on the roster that are better basketball players than Zach is. Like I said though, there is no one that is close to being as dominant of a scorer as he can be. Experience aside, Roy, Jack, Aldridge, Raef, and maybe even Martell are better basketball players than Zach is. 


Heck even darius the anti Christ is a better player than Zach is.....he just doesn't give the effort Zach does


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I agree with Hap, Ed. Zach isn't the best player on this team.


Who is better?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> I agree with Hap, Ed. Zach isn't the best player on this team. I think Zach is the best low post scorer, but he isn't close to the best defensive player, he doesn't pass particularly well, he makes poor decisions on offense, he doesn't block many shots, he doesn't run well, he isn't that good at screening, and finally doesn't move without the ball. I honestly think there are many players on the roster that are better basketball players than Zach is. Like I said though, there is no one that is close to being as dominant of a scorer as he can be. Experience aside, Roy, Jack, Aldridge, Raef, and maybe even Martell are better basketball players than Zach is.
> 
> Heck even darius the anti Christ is a better player than Zach is.....he just doesn't give the effort Zach does


Effort has nothing to do with it. A player is good or he's not.

Clearly players are better when they give great effort. But many players give great effort just to stay on the end of the bench.

It's laughable to me to claim that Roy, Jack, Aldridge, Raef and maybe Martell are better players than Zach is. It's a total joke.

Ed O.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Zach WAS the best player on the team (a very bad one). It is hard to say if he IS the best player on the team. The season has not started. Besides, just becuase you are the leading scorer or rebounder does not necessarily make you the best player. It is a team game, not an individual game.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Spoolie Gee said:


> No, not really. You directly compared some of the best players in the game to Zach. The only comparison is that Z-Bo makes similar money as them but has produced WAY less. I dont blame Zach for taking the money, but surely you understand why fans expect more out of him when he's clogging up both the salary cap and lane with little of substance in return.


I directly compared him to players BETTER than him on purpose to show you that you can't win with only one star. If you get rid of your best player, your team will get worse. How about instead of spitting on Zach for not being good enough and wanting to get rid of him, you use him for what he is and add even more talent. The attitude by many is our record sucks, that means our best player must suck, let's trade him. And I pointed out much better players who were on teams that sucked because they had no supporting cast. If you really think that the team would be better without Zach, then that's your opinion, and I don't share it with you.

Do you get the point yet?


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> Zach WAS the best player on the team (a very bad one). It is hard to say if he IS the best player on the team. The season has not started. Besides, just becuase you are the leading scorer or rebounder does not necessarily make you the best player. It is a team game, not an individual game.


Fair. Hopefully BRoy, Serg, Aldridge all do big things and Zach is the 4th best player. That'd be a helluva team. Or Zach steps up his game and still is the best and at the same time have BRoy, Serg, Aldrige be as good as Zach was last year when he wasn't injured. Either way, the team needs more pieces not less.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Zach isn't in the same class of any of the players you mention so you have no point


Don't forget that...

MJ was ooooooold, and in the twilight of his career.
Kobe actually was able to will his team into the playoffs.
Allen's Sonics made made the playoffs the year before last.
Yeah, KG is screwed. Maybe Foye can be Wade II, but if not...he's screwed.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Effort has nothing to do with it. A player is good or he's not.
> 
> Clearly players are better when they give great effort. But many players give great effort just to stay on the end of the bench.
> 
> ...




Like I said Ed, Zach is the best post scorer on the team. You have a different opinion, so I'd like you to tell me what other basketball skill is Zach the best at on the team. Scoring does not equate to best, which is why I don't think Zach is the best.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Effort has nothing to do with it. A player is good or he's not.
> 
> Clearly players are better when they give great effort. But many players give great effort just to stay on the end of the bench.
> 
> ...


Please. MM has a good point (for once...) - Zach doesn't block shots, is good but perhaps not great at rebounding, certainly doesn't play defense much, is not an assist man (though I'll give him credit he's worked on it). If you wanted to equate best scorer w/ best player, then you of all people should've been rooting up and down to draft Morrison.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> A player is good or he's not.
> 
> Ed O.


Basketball isn't like this dog though.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The best scorer is not NECESSARILY the best player, by any means.

In this case, Zach is the best scorer AND best player.

He's our best player because he's our best scorer, one of our best rebounders, and the only guy that teams need to worry about when the Blazers have the ball.

I can't believe that anyone would argue that Zach's not the best player... because there are simply no other reasonable candidates given Miles's problems.

Aldridge better than Zach? Martell Webster better than Zach? Brandon Roy? Jarret Jack? None of those guys are necessarily even starters on THIS team, let alone a reasonably good team. Zach has been--and will continue to be--a guy who's borderline 20/10 and has an outside shot to make the all-star team.

Some of those guys might be better than Zach someday... but now? Dear Lord, it's not even close.

And Raef LeFrentz? That *had* to have been a joke.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Basketball isn't like this dog though.


Subscribing to the "when you don't have a point, post anyway" school of thought, huh, Schilly?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Um. What?
> 
> You aren't serious, are you?
> 
> Ed O.


the best stats does not = best player.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> the best stats does not = best player.


Drexler had the best stats on his Portland teams. Does that mean he wasn't the best player?

Of course not.

Who's better than Zach?

I'm eager to see who you pull out of your *** so you don't have to admit your statement was ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

ZBoFanatic said:


> I appreciate that coming from a Portland fan. There are many great, great Portland fans, especially on this board some of whom agree and disagree with this my points in this thread. I usually don't think with a sociological perspective, but I believe that the Portlandmedia has a level of mind control over some locals that is unmatched throughout the league.
> 
> But, I'm sorry if I'm just naive to how sports events in Portland are (or vice versa), but I've been to hundreds of sporting events in my life, and I've never seen or heard of anything as ridiculous as booing your own player during a preseason game.


I like how you group all of Portlandia and its citizens in every post. Yes, we are all lemmings, it must be true if you say it enough times.

Since you obviously watched none of the games last year, let me recap - Zach shot from the outside way too much - it was horrible when you consider he is paid to be our post presence. He got his paycheck because he showed some hustle, some promise, some good play for awhile. Then that stopped. When he hoarked up a shot from the middle of butt frozen Alaska in the pre-season game, a few fans thought "Hrm..I don't think that was a very good shot, and judging from last season's performance I hope that is not an indicator of future performance" and proceeded to display their displeasure vocally. It's like taking a three year old screaming and kicking on a vacation and then the first five minutes of the next vacation they start up again - you want to nip that sucker in the bud or you'll be dealing with it forever.

Let me make one other comment for all you goodie good cheerleaders - we pay the player's salaries. We pay through the nose to attend games, buy ticket packages, buy food and drinks, etc. We pay so that some human being can make enough money to buy a fleet of airplanes. All we expect is to get a little entertainment and put on display a good product. If this were a college team or a high school team I'd agree and say there should be no booing (though Riley at OSU has severely tested my feelings on the subject) but it's not. It's a team of businessmen whose business just happens to be basketball. Don't tell me you're going to give me Shakespeare and then give me the Anthony B. Susan's House For Dyslexic Kid's 5th grade production of Romeo and His Favorite Sock Puppet. This is not a charity display.

So you know what? If you like Zach, that's great. I applaud you. I think Zach is probably an okay guy - I don't know him personally, but he seems to be okay, and since you seem to know him quite well then I'll take your word for it. He's made some stupid mistakes. I personally don't think he's qualified to be a leader on the team, though, as he seems to keep making them. But if you are proceeding to tell me that I, or anyone, can't boo the team or player over one play and that the **** they display is sausage, or continue to try and encapsulate all of Portland's citizens in your little fairy tale called Stereotyping Done Easy, then I say good day to you sir - the butler will show you out.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

ZBoFanatic said:


> Now you can continue ragging on Zach for not being Lance Armstrong or Jesus and blaming him for preseason losses because he only had *20 pts 7 reb 3 stl 3 assists* and 1 ill advised shot. I don't think Zach is the only one in Portland with a whining problem (or an IQ problem for that matter).
> 
> zbf


 :clap: :clap:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Subscribing to the "when you don't have a point, post anyway" school of thought, huh, Schilly?
> 
> Ed O.


I thought the point was pretty simple. You made a blanket statement...You are either good or you aren't. The Dog is Black and White like your comment....And both are completely irrelevant to wether a player is successful or not.

Examples
Stephon Marbury...Phenominal numbers almost never successful.
Steve Francis....Very good numbers (zach good) rarely successful.
Shareef Abdur Rahim...Rarely successful, never so when best player on team.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> I like how you group all of Portlandia and its citizens in every post. Yes, we are all lemmings, it must be true if you say it enough times.
> 
> Since you obviously watched none of the games last year, let me recap - Zach shot from the outside way too much - it was horrible when you consider he is paid to be our post presence. He got his paycheck because he showed some hustle, some promise, some good play for awhile. Then that stopped. When he hoarked up a shot from the middle of butt frozen Alaska in the pre-season game, a few fans thought "Hrm..I don't think that was a very good shot, and judging from last season's performance I hope that is not an indicator of future performance" and proceeded to display their displeasure vocally. It's like taking a three year old screaming and kicking on a vacation and then the first five minutes of the next vacation they start up again - you want to nip that sucker in the bud or you'll be dealing with it forever.
> 
> ...


Like I said, I don't usually speak from a sociological perspective. This means I usually don't stereotype. I also proceeded to apologize for doing so in the post that you just quoted. 

If you don't like his game, then you don't like his game and I'm sorry. 

I think it is very unclassy to boo at your own team and guarantee I am not alone in thinking that what happened against Seattle was ludicrous.

That's all.



I didn't think I'd be on this site so long, but I have to pack up and go to Chicago for a wedding (4 hr drive) so happy debating everyone.

Ciao.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Who's better than Zach?
> 
> I'm eager to see who you pull out of your *** so you don't have to admit your statement was ridiculous.
> 
> Ed O.


Tim Duncan...Ohh wait you meant on Portland.

I think it's a very real possibility that Brandon Roy is the best player on the team. Watching the game ( I know seeing doesn't make a whit of difference) I though Roys presence on the floor made a much more possitive impact on the team than Zachs did.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW I want to add, that I think a player being best or not is weighed by the possitive impact that is realized while they are on the floor, as opposed to points scored...See Allen Iverson.


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Subscribing to the "when you don't have a point, post anyway" school of thought, huh, Schilly?
> 
> Ed O.


Boys, boys lets play nice today.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Drexler had the best stats on his Portland teams. Does that mean he wasn't the best player?


magic didn't lead the lakers in scoring every year. he didn't lead them in rebounding often either. But he was the lakers best player for most of the 80's..



> Of course not.
> 
> Who's better than Zach?
> 
> ...


I will say that Brandon will end up the season being more important to the team than siv is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Don't tell me you're going to give me Shakespeare and then give me the Anthony B. Susan's House For Dyslexic Kid's 5th grade production of Romeo and His Favorite Sock Puppet. This is not a charity display.


Anthony B Susan..nicely played.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I thought the point was pretty simple. You made a blanket statement...You are either good or you aren't. The Dog is Black and White like your comment....And both are completely irrelevant to wether a player is successful or not.


You mocked my point because you didn't understand it. Nice. Let me explain it to you a bit more...

A player can be short and be good. A player would almost always better if he were taller.

A player can be relatively lazy (meaning giving less effort) and still be good. He would be better, probably, if he tried.

A player is either good or he isn't. Arguing that a player doesn't give effort doesn't impact that underlying fact. I'm not arguing that there are only two states ("good" and "not good") but instead am arguing that lack of effort (or height, or hand size, or whatever) goes into the efficacy of a player, and further discounting that player's production because of lack of effort (or height, or whatever) is not a fair or accurate way to assess players.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> magic didn't lead the lakers in scoring every year. he didn't lead them in rebounding often either. But he was the lakers best player for most of the 80's..


So what? This has nothing to do with my point.



> I will say that Brandon will end up the season being more important to the team than siv is.


Is he better now? In your opinion?

Because you said Zach *is* not the best player. I'm eager to hear who you think is CURRENTLY the team's best player.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> So what? This has nothing to do with my point.


because I said best stats does not = best player, you're trying to act like since drexler had the "best" stats on the blazers he was, since obviously all things have to be black or white in the world of eddie o, it must follow that drexler wasn't the best player.

so I brought up how stupid that counter analogy by you was. which it was. and is. and will always be.


> Is he better now? In your opinion?


for the team, yes.


> Because you said Zach *is* not the best player. I'm eager to hear who you think is CURRENTLY the team's best player.
> 
> Ed O.


and he's not. just like darius isn't the best SF on the team. he's a ****ing tool. same with Zach. they're both detriments to the team, and each other.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Zach is our best player currently, like it or not. While some other may very well prove themselves better in time, they certainly have not shown it yet.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> BTW I want to add, that I think a player being best or not is weighed by the possitive impact that is realized while they are on the floor, as opposed to points scored...See Allen Iverson.


Just for Curiosity sake, I built a quick spreadsheet to evaluate the teams success with each player on the floor or off (Zach and Brandon). Kinda like 82games.com does.

With Roy in 
Pts Scored: 64
Pts Allowed: 66

With Zach in
Pts Scored: 65
Pts Allowed: 72

With Roy Out
Pts Scored: 25
Pts Allowed: 33

With Zach Out:
Pts Scored: 24
Pts Allowed: 27

Net Points
Roy: +6
Zach: -4


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You mocked my point because you didn't understand it. Nice. Let me explain it to you a bit more...
> 
> A player can be short and be good. A player would almost always better if he were taller.
> 
> ...


Then say that to begin with!...Wait did you? Maybe you did....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> because I said best stats does not = best player, you're trying to act like since drexler had the "best" stats on the blazers he was, since obviously all things have to be black or white in the world of eddie o, it must follow that drexler wasn't the best player.


Are you arguing that Magic wasn't, statistically, the Lakers' best player?

I doubt you are, because I doubt you did research to prove that. 

I am NOT saying that best stats=best player in all cases. But it's certainly evidence of it. There is certainly a correlation between statistics and production, and of production and "best player".

But let's look at the evidence YOU'VE got that Brandon Roy is the best player: 33 minutes in a preseason game... where Roy got 8 points, missed 7 of 10 shots from the floor, 2 of 3 shots from the line, had as many turnovers as assists and rebounds combined AND had five personal fouls.

Fortunately you saw the game to cut through all the statistical mumbo-jumbo.



> for the team, yes.


What does that mean? "for the team"?

You think that Brandon Roy is the best player on the Blazers, or not?



> and he's not. just like darius isn't the best SF on the team. he's a ****ing tool. same with Zach. they're both detriments to the team, and each other.


You let your dislike of players get in the way of reality, dude.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Just for Curiosity sake, I built a quick spreadsheet to evaluate the teams success with each player on the floor or off (Zach and Brandon). Kinda like 82games.com does.
> 
> With Roy in
> Pts Scored: 64
> ...


Stats don't lie!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You let your dislike of players get in the way of reality, dude.
> 
> Ed O.


I don't think Haps dislike of a player or your like of a player prevents reality from happening in any way.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

ZBoFanatic said:


> I directly compared him to players BETTER than him on purpose to show you that you can't win with only one star. If you get rid of your best player, your team will get worse. How about instead of spitting on Zach for not being good enough and wanting to get rid of him, you use him for what he is and add even more talent. The attitude by many is our record sucks, that means our best player must suck, let's trade him. And I pointed out much better players who were on teams that sucked because they had no supporting cast. If you really think that the team would be better without Zach, then that's your opinion, and I don't share it with you.
> 
> Do you get the point yet?


Do you get the point that those players you mentioned make their teams better but there's no evidence that Zach does the same thing? Yes, Kobe has played on a bad team but without him the Lakers would've been neck and neck with the Blazers for the most ping-pong balls. Also you mentioned KG... Guess who's been taking some heat for getting paid a huge amount of money and not taking his team as far as people expect. 

Since Zach is making a boat load of cash he should be the type of player that makes his team better, maybe not much better but more then 21 wins would be nice.

Let's look at the facts...

03-04 - 20.1 PPG - 10.5 RPG - .485 FG - Wins 41
* Sign's fat contract in off season*
04-05 - 18.9 PPG - 9.6 RPG - .448 FG - Wins 27
05-06 - 18.0 PPG - 8.0 RPG - .436 FG - Wins 21

Decline in production and team wins. Incline in salary. He's entering his prime and his numbers should be going the other way. Is it really that hard to see why fans don't like him??? And yes, I know the team around him has sucked but I think the last couple years has made it clear Z-Bo is not and should not be a player you build a team around.

BTW don't think I'm not pissed at management for giving him that ridiculous contract.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed, I'm going to say this once. And Im going to say it in a langauge that you will better understand.


0100100100100000011101110110000101101110011011100110000100100000011100100110111101100011011010110010000001110010011010010110011101101000011101000010000001101110011011110111011100001101000010100100100100100111011011010010000001010010011011110110001000100000010000100110000101110011011001010010000001100001011011100110010000100000010010010010000001100011011000010110110101100101001000000111010001101111001000000110011101100101011101000010000001100100011011110111011101101110000011010000101001001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001000000110100101101110011101000110010101110010011011100110000101110100011010010110111101101110011000010110110001101100011110010010000001101011011011100110111101110111011011100000110100001010010000100111010101110100001000000100100100100111011011010010000001101011011011100110111101110111011011100010000001110100011011110010000001110010011011110110001101101011001000000111010001101000011001010010000001101101011010010110001101110010011011110111000001101000011011110110111001100101000011010000101001000010011001010110001101100001011101010111001101100101001000000100100100100000011001110110010101110100001000000111001101110100011011110110111101110000011010010110010000101100001000000100100100100000011011010110010101100001011011100010000001101111011101010111010001110010011000010110011101100101011011110111010101110011000011010000101001010011011101000110000101111001001000000110000101110111011000010111100100100000011001100111001001101111011011010010000001101101011001010010000001101001011001100010000001111001011011110111010100100111011100100110010100100000011000110110111101101110011101000110000101100111011010010110111101110101011100110000110100001010001001110100001101100001011101010111001101100101001000000100100100100111011011010010000001110100011010000110010100100000011101110110100101101110011011100110010101110010001011000010000001101110011011110010110000100000010010010010011101101101001000000110111001101111011101000010000001110100011010000110010100100000011011000110111101110011011001010111001000001101000010100101010001101111001000000110001001100101001000000110000101101110001000000100110100101110010000110010111000100000011010010111001100100000011101110110100001100001011101000010000001001001001000000110001101101000011011110110111101110011011001010010000000100111011000010000110100001010010011000110000101100100011010010110010101110011001000000110110001101111011101100110010100100000011011010110010100101100001000000110011101101001011100100110110001110011001000000110000101100100011011110111001001100101001000000110110101100101000011010000101001001001001000000110110101100101011000010110111000100000011001010111011001100101011011100010000001110100011010000110010100100000011011110110111001100101011100110010000001110111011010000110111100100000011011100110010101110110011001010111001000100000011100110110000101110111001000000110110101100101000011010000101001001100011010010110101101100101001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110111011000010111100100100000011101000110100001100001011101000010000001001001001000000111001001101000011110010110110101100101001000000110000101110100001000000110000100100000011100110110100001101111011101110000110100001010010101000110100001100101001000000111001001100101011000010111001101101111011011100010000001110111011010000111100100101100001000000110110101100001011011100010110000100000010010010010000001100100011011110110111000100111011101000010000001101011011011100110111101110111000011010000101001010011011011110010000001101100011001010111010000100111011100110010000001100111011011110010110000100000001001110110001101100001011101010111001101100101


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Binary baby!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> With Roy in
> Pts Scored: 64
> Pts Allowed: 66
> 
> ...


Prorated out to per 48 (Roys minutes 33 Zachs 36)

Per 48 Impact
Roy: +8.73
Zach: -5.33


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Prorated out to per 48 (Roys minutes 33 Zachs 36)
> 
> Per 48 Impact
> Roy: +8.73
> Zach: -5.33


The team outscored the Sonics by 2 with Hamilton in the game... maybe HE'S our best player?

You all are stretching for someone other than Zach to put in that role, so you might as well go with ZH.

Ed O.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Hap said:


> Ed, I'm going to say this once. And Im going to say it in a langauge that you will better understand.
> 
> 
> 0100100100100000011101110110000101101110011011100110000100100000011100100110111101100011011010110010000001110010011010010110011101101000011101000010000001101110011011110111011100001101000010100100100100100111011011010010000001010010011011110110001000100000010000100110000101110011011001010010000001100001011011100110010000100000010010010010000001100011011000010110110101100101001000000111010001101111001000000110011101100101011101000010000001100100011011110111011101101110000011010000101001001001001001110110110100100000011011100110111101110100001000000110100101101110011101000110010101110010011011100110000101110100011010010110111101101110011000010110110001101100011110010010000001101011011011100110111101110111011011100000110100001010010000100111010101110100001000000100100100100111011011010010000001101011011011100110111101110111011011100010000001110100011011110010000001110010011011110110001101101011001000000111010001101000011001010010000001101101011010010110001101110010011011110111000001101000011011110110111001100101000011010000101001000010011001010110001101100001011101010111001101100101001000000100100100100000011001110110010101110100001000000111001101110100011011110110111101110000011010010110010000101100001000000100100100100000011011010110010101100001011011100010000001101111011101010111010001110010011000010110011101100101011011110111010101110011000011010000101001010011011101000110000101111001001000000110000101110111011000010111100100100000011001100111001001101111011011010010000001101101011001010010000001101001011001100010000001111001011011110111010100100111011100100110010100100000011000110110111101101110011101000110000101100111011010010110111101110101011100110000110100001010001001110100001101100001011101010111001101100101001000000100100100100111011011010010000001110100011010000110010100100000011101110110100101101110011011100110010101110010001011000010000001101110011011110010110000100000010010010010011101101101001000000110111001101111011101000010000001110100011010000110010100100000011011000110111101110011011001010111001000001101000010100101010001101111001000000110001001100101001000000110000101101110001000000100110100101110010000110010111000100000011010010111001100100000011101110110100001100001011101000010000001001001001000000110001101101000011011110110111101110011011001010010000000100111011000010000110100001010010011000110000101100100011010010110010101110011001000000110110001101111011101100110010100100000011011010110010100101100001000000110011101101001011100100110110001110011001000000110000101100100011011110111001001100101001000000110110101100101000011010000101001001001001000000110110101100101011000010110111000100000011001010111011001100101011011100010000001110100011010000110010100100000011011110110111001100101011100110010000001110111011010000110111100100000011011100110010101110110011001010111001000100000011100110110000101110111001000000110110101100101000011010000101001001100011010010110101101100101001000000111010001101000011001010010000001110111011000010111100100100000011101000110100001100001011101000010000001001001001000000111001001101000011110010110110101100101001000000110000101110100001000000110000100100000011100110110100001101111011101110000110100001010010101000110100001100101001000000111001001100101011000010111001101101111011011100010000001110111011010000111100100101100001000000110110101100001011011100010110000100000010010010010000001100100011011110110111000100111011101000010000001101011011011100110111101110111000011010000101001010011011011110010000001101100011001010111010000100111011100110010000001100111011011110010110000100000001001110110001101100001011101010111001101100101


Do you really wanna rock right now?


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Do you get the point that those players you mentioned make their teams better but there's no evidence that Zach does the same thing? Yes, Kobe has played on a bad team but without him the Lakers would've been neck and neck with the Blazers for the most ping-pong balls. Also you mentioned KG... Guess who's been taking some heat for getting paid a huge amount of money and not taking his team as far as people expect.
> 
> Since Zach is making a boat load of cash he should be the type of player that makes his team better, maybe not much better but more then 21 wins would be nice.
> 
> ...


Quoted for sensibility (it seems to be lacking in this thread).

And hooray for double posts!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> Zach is our best player currently, like it or not. While some other may very well prove themselves better in time, they certainly have not shown it yet.



Simple, yet powerful. :biggrin:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

First, branding all Portland fans and all of Portland past present and future because of boos at one preseason game is what I would expect to see from one particular poster who says all Black men are thugs because of what one person does and all Muslims are terrorists and all gays are rapists etc etc etc.

Second, whether or not Zach Randolph is or is not or will be the best player on this team is subject to debate, especially since people don't agree on what makes "the best player". 

But what I want to take up was the comment that Portland always trades its best players etc etc. Look at the players traded in recent years from Portland because of some problem. I am excluding those that we can safely say management would have liked to have kept but needed to make salary match (e.g. Steve Blake, Viktor Khryapa, Wesley Person). 

In chronological order:

Jeff McInnis. Supposed to be the guy to feed LeBron James. Pouted and mis-played his way off Cleveland, sent to New Jersey, told by the Nets at the end of last year not to come back. So far as I know, he is not on any team.
Bonzi Wells. Good start in Memphis, but after a year was told to stay out of the arena during the playoffs. Went to Sacramento with mixed results. The Kings were looking like dumping him but he had a very solid playoffs so they reconsidered and made a good offer, which he refused. Signed with Houston for less money. His 3rd team since leaving the Blazers.
Rasheed Wallace. Fit in very well as the last piece of a team with a no-star approach; his biggest on court problem in Portland is that he was expected to be The Man, a role that never fit. But the Pistons have gone backwards in the last 2 years: from winning the championship, to losing in the finals, to losing in the conference finals. They are now without Ben Wallace and may recede further. They may also need Sheed to do more without Big Ben; we will see how he fares.
Damon Stoudamire. Seriously injured early in the season, trying to come back. He's no kid any more by sports standards and how well he returns is an open question.
Qyntel Woods. Dumped by Miami, picked up by the Knicks, done pretty much nothing. Projected by some here to be 6th man of the year and a great 3 point shooter, hasn't happened.
Derek Anderson. Released by the Heat after sulking.
Ruben Patterson. As soon as he was traded, the usual suspects called him "an excellent shooting guard"; the only problem is, he can't shoot. Was asked to keep away from the Nuggets during their playoffs. I can't even remember where he is now.

So, how great are all these guys? When they were in their primes, the Blazers made the playoffs. Of course those teams also had guys like Scottie Pippen and Arvydas Sabonis. 

So how much has the team lost without McInnis, Wells, Wallace, Stoudamire, Anderson, Woods, Patterson?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The team outscored the Sonics by 2 with Hamilton in the game... maybe HE'S our best player?
> 
> You all are stretching for someone other than Zach to put in that role, so you might as well go with ZH.
> 
> Ed O.


Except for one thing....Hamilton played 6 minutes in the 1st half against the Seattle second unit. Conversely, Roy and Zach both started both halfs and both finished the game out. Zach played 36 minutes and Roy played 33. So amount of time and when is comparable, unlike Zendon.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Except for one thing....Hamilton played 6 minutes in the 1st half against the Seattle second unit. Conversely, Roy and Zach both started both halfs and both finished the game out. Zach played 36 minutes and Roy played 33. So amount of time and when is comparable, unlike Zendon.


The difference in the stat you're looking at is insignificant. We're talking about 3 or 4 minutes where Zach was on the floor and Brandon wasn't and the team got outscored.

That small difference counts both against Zach (since he was on the floor) and in favor of Roy (since he wasn't). Double counting.

Then making an extrapolation over 48 minutes?

It's not a statistic that's worth a lot in a single preseason game.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The difference in the stat you're looking at is insignificant. We're talking about 3 or 4 minutes where Zach was on the floor and Brandon wasn't and the team got outscored.
> 
> That small difference counts both against Zach (since he was on the floor) and in favor of Roy (since he wasn't). Double counting.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely right, it's not significant in 1 pre-season game. So it's not valid to discount that Roy might be our best player right now, is it?

I mean to look at the numbers and say the Sonics scored more easily with out Roy of the game, Compared to when Zach was out. Totally insignificant. I mean Zach sat out less so the fact that less points were scored against Portland with Zach out doesn't mean much. But if that holds true, then it's safe to say that the offense was also less efficient with Roy out.

Stats were all that were needed to prove things like impact on a game yesterday, why not today?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> You are absolutely right, it's not significant in 1 pre-season game. So it's not valid to discount that Roy might be our best player right now, is it?


So the fact that one piece of evidence isn't valid means that an utter lack of evidence isn't a consideration? Your argument could be used with Aldridge or Sergio, as wel, you know. 

Zach has a track record of scoring and rebounding the basketball in the NBA. He's proven that he's at LEAST an average NBA starter.

Roy has done nothing. He hasn't had a chance to, of course, but the odds of him--as a rookie--being a better player than Zach has been the past few years are very slim.



> Stats were all that were needed to prove things like impact on a game yesterday, why not today?


Not all stats are created equal. And not all uses of statistics are equally valid.

I used statistics yesterday to show why, in my opinion, booing Zach based on his performance in that game wasn't justified. You're taking a single statistic and using it as the sole criteria, seemingly, for who the best player on the team is.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok Ed, maybe stringing the efficiency out to per 48 is irrelivant to you. Now keep in mind we basically have one game to debate about.Let's lok at it as a per minute basis.

Roy in 
2.00 ppm allowed
1.94 ppm scored

Roy Out
2.2 ppm allowed
1.66 ppm scored

Zach in
2.00 ppm allowed
1.80 ppm Scored

Zach out
2.25 ppm allowed
2.00 ppm scored

Totally irrelevant that with Roy in the team scored more efficiently than he was out, compared to Zach who while in the team scored less efficiently than compared to when he was out. Teams scoring Dropped by 0.28 ppm (13.44 pp48)when Roy went out, but interestingly The teams scoring efficiency oddly went up by 0.20 (9.6 pp48) ppm when Zach went out.

Insignificant that the teams scoring efficiency difference between the 2 was 23.04 points per 48 minutes for one game.

Points allowed difference of 2.4 points per 48, in favor of Zach.

Insignificant. But it sure the heck justifies my thought that the team was more efficient with Roy on the floor than without him.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW I'd like to state that IMO the best player on a team is the player that makes the team most successful. To me early on looking at a teams efficiency in scoring and defense is the best way to calculate if a player is making a team better. 

I had suggested that IMO Brandon may be the best player on the team. Based on the efficiency form one single game...I'll stick with my theory.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I used statistics yesterday to show why, in my opinion, booing Zach based on his performance in that game wasn't justified. You're taking a single statistic and using it as the sole criteria, seemingly, for who the best player on the team is.
> 
> Ed O.


I don't think any one claimed they booed Zach for his performance...If you had been at the game you would have realized that.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I don't think any one claimed they booed Zach for his performance...


Let's see:



BlazerFanFoLife said:


> [Zach] was even Boo'd at one time by the fans because he helped shoot us out of the game.





zagsfan20 said:


> The booing wasn't without reason. Zach was dribbling the ball about 10 times and then shooting ugly outside shots. This was at critical points in the game. They weren't booing because they were losing the lead, it was because of stupid bone-headed shots that we could have gone without.





hasoos said:


> The reason everybody boo'd him was the fact they came up the court, and with all the time on the shot clock, he basically did a crossover at 19' out and jacked up a brick rather then even pass the ball once.


Those are the first three I found in the game thread. There were others that said, essentially, the same thing. You admitted that you booed because of last year/previous things, but I think you were in the minority.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

LameR said:


> Quoted for sensibility (it seems to be lacking in this thread).
> 
> And hooray for double posts!


And to talk about the post you quoted, the decline in production has to do with THE MAJOR KNEE SURGERY he had during the season after he got his contract. So that point in argument is really moot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Let's see:
> Those are the first three I found in the game thread. There were others that said, essentially, the same thing. You admitted that you booed because of last year/previous things, but I think you were in the minority.
> 
> Ed O.


I don't see that any of those say anything about his performance. In fact the last one described the play that was booed...to a "Z". 

I admitted it cause you asked me to, and it was relevant. My whole argument yesterday was that Zach bogged the offense. Clearly the stats I'm posting now support that cause.

Now our disagreement today has to do with who the best player on the team is. To me the best player is the player that makes the team best. I am getting that too you the best player is the player with the best stat line....So in both our opinions we are right. All I care about is winning though and in that regard I'll take the player that makes the team better. In the case of Wednesday I observed while at the game, and vocally to friends, some post here, that the team played much better with Roy on the floor, and that it looked like the offense lagged when Zach was on the floor. I think the stats I posted support that claim.

If you want to win games you put the best...get this..."Team" on the floor. Otherwise New York would be a favorite this year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I don't see that any of those say anything about his performance. In fact the last one described the play that was booed...to a "Z".


What are you talking about?

Every single one of those quotes said the boos were based on his performance in the game.



> I admitted it cause you asked me to, and it was relevant. My whole argument yesterday was that Zach bogged the offense. Clearly the stats I'm posting now support that cause.


No they don't. At least not in a significant way. Looking at the four stints of each of the two players:

Zach:
Stint 1: +3
Stint 2: +3
Stint 3: -1
Stint 4: -12

Roy:
Stint 1: +3
Stint 2: +6
Stint 3: 0
Stint 4: -11

The two players had a TON of overlap when they played, and their +/- numbers for each of their four times on the floor show that. In Stint 2, Zach's squad was outscored 6-3 from 8:45 to 6:31 left in the second quarter... that accounts for a huge part of the difference you keep posting over and over. Heck, if Magloire would have made the free throw he missed in that time, a decent chunk of the difference would have gone away.

You've said yourself, repeatedly, that the +/- stat isn't significant, but you keep referring to it. It's bizarre and it makes me wonder if you understand statistical significance.



> If you want to win games you put the best...get this..."Team" on the floor. Otherwise New York would be a favorite this year.


The Knicks only have two guys who've ever made an all-star team. To claim that anyone would look at the career production of that roster and claim that they're the best team in the league is a joke.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Every single one of those quotes said the boos were based on his performance in the game.
> 
> ...


Umm, not so fast sheriff...



> Originally Posted by hasoos
> 
> The reason everybody boo'd him was the fact they came up the court, and with all the time on the shot clock, he basically did a crossover at 19' out and jacked up a brick rather then even pass the ball once.


First of all, I think we're pumping up hasoos' ego by quoting him so many times. But secondly, I think if you re-read the statement he made, your honor, you'll see that he refers to ONE specific play.

Also, what if I think Joel is the best player on the team? What if I think that his defensive presence alters the game enough that the affect on the other team is greater than Zach's contribution to his own team? How would I go about proving that (or disproving that) with statistics?


----------



## ptownblazer1 (Oct 12, 2005)

I'm sorry I have to chime in as far as me, being one of the people, who did boo at him during a pre-season game. I'm sure for those of you who were there, it was a very selfish Randolph who, by the way I hope he has a great season too, does a greay job dribbling in circles with his head down and when he looks up, it's not to look at any of his teammates, it's to look at maybe his only friend on the court...THE HOOP. Who, with that shot was not friendly.

I hope the best for him, but he has work to do. Know when to pass the damn ball, and know when to shoot.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

ZBoFanatic said:


> Terrell Owens is a good example of addition by subtraction, but past him, I challenge you to name 3 situations where getting rid of the best player on a team has been beneficial.


Memphis Grizzlies trade Shareef Abdur-Rahim for a draft pick and they improve

Dallas Cowboys trade Herschel Walker for draft picks and prospects and they improve

Phoenix Suns trade Stephon Marbury for guys that didn't really contribute and draft picks and they still improve


I'm sure if I did some research, I could come up with more examples. These are the simply the first three to come off the top of my head....


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

crandc said:


> First, branding all Portland fans and all of Portland past present and future because of boos at one preseason game is what I would expect to see from one particular poster who says all Black men are thugs because of what one person does and all Muslims are terrorists and all gays are rapists etc etc etc.


First, I didn't brand all Portland fans past, present, and future. Second, this wasn't about the boos, this was about the flaws of the organization's policy, a petty media, and it's effect on many Portland fans, but not all of them. But what happened at the Seattle game was something that I'd never seen before and shocked me that so many people were okay with it.



crandc said:


> Second, whether or not Zach Randolph is or is not or will be the best player on this team is subject to debate, especially since people don't agree on what makes "the best player".


Well, I haven't engaged in this debate, but my opinion on this is that until someone else proves that they are better than Zach, the title of best player is his. Some of the rooks look like they may be really good in the future, but right now (the preseason) it's too early to tell.



crandc said:


> But what I want to take up was the comment that Portland always trades its best players etc etc. Look at the players traded in recent years from Portland because of some problem. I am excluding those that we can safely say management would have liked to have kept but needed to make salary match (e.g. Steve Blake, Viktor Khryapa, Wesley Person).
> 
> In chronological order:
> 
> ...


A lot of games! The great Blazer playoff run is over.

McInnis, Anderson, and Woods were garbage.
Trading Bonzi for nothing wasn't very smart, but it made the fans happy for a couple of weeks.
Trading Sheed wasn't very smart, all of the players respected him and was the most talented player on the team. Pip and Arvydas were getting old and there wasn't a true PG. I thought ZBo and Sheed worked well together. Instead of focusing on dumping the people that made the newspaper, mgmt could have focused on finding a PG. Having Damon as the PG was similar to the situation in Phoenix with Marbury. Landing Nash made Marion, QRich, etc. infinitely better. I always thought Portland was a PG away.
Damon wasn't a true PG. If he was 5 inches taller, he would have been a hell of a SG, but just like Iverson, Marbury, etc. Team's with shoot first PGs only go so far. It took longer to trade him because he and JQuick got along.
Ruben wasn't anything special and no one on the team seemed to like him. The team got worse for trading him, but he was a dick anyway and was probably a good decision to drop him.

I think some of the trades were good, others were bad, but all were a result of the media exaggerating things to fans, the fans reacting to the media, and the organization reacting to the fans. IMO, a point guard (and a different coach) were the moves that should have been made.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Storyteller said:


> Memphis Grizzlies trade Shareef Abdur-Rahim for a draft pick and they improve
> 
> Dallas Cowboys trade Herschel Walker for draft picks and prospects and they improve
> 
> ...


I should have said 4! Just kidding. You know your history. I do think the Marbury one is debateable. I don't think the Suns improved that much because of the Marbury trade, rather just got lucky and signed the 2x league MVP through FA. Also, Shawn Marion was better than Marbury.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

ZBoFanatic said:


> I should have said 4! Just kidding. You know your history. I do think the Marbury one is debateable. I don't think the Suns improved that much because of the Marbury trade, rather just got lucky and signed the 2x league MVP through FA. Also, Shawn Marion was better than Marbury.


Well, we can debate specific trades until the cows come home...but the real issue is this: are the Blazers better long-term with or without Zach? I used to be a big defender of Randolph, but no longer. My patience has worn out. I'm tired of seeing the offensive flow come to a stagnant crawl when he gets the ball. I'm tired of him settling for jumpshots. I'm tired of his childish behavior off the court. I'm tired of not having a PF who can contribute to the interior defense through blocked shots (Zach has gotten better at individual defense, but not at team defense). I'm tired of seeing more athletic PF's beat him up and down the court.

I wish the best for Zach - in another town and with another team.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ZBoFanatic said:


> I should have said 4! Just kidding. You know your history. I do think the Marbury one is debateable. I don't think the Suns improved that much because of the Marbury trade, rather just got lucky and signed the 2x league MVP through FA. Also, Shawn Marion was better than Marbury.


steve nash was not the 2 time league MVP when he signed...and also, I doubt many people would've said that getting Nash instead of Marbury would've been nearly as successful as it has been.


----------

