# I now believe the Blazers will make the playoffs



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Earlier I was on the fence regarding the Blazers' chances at a post season. After watching the first summer league game, I now think the odds are in our favor of getting the #8 seed. The reason, Aldridge.

Lost in the disappointment over Oden's prybilla like performance, is Aldridge's continued development. He looked like a man among boys and I now don't doubt that he will be able to replace the offense that we had from Zach Randolph. His defense will, of course, be leaps beyond Zach.

Oden may develop slower than I expected, but he'll still be an upgrade at Center.

Aldridge now looks like a significant upgrade at the 4.

Roy will probably improve a bit also, as will Jack.

I think we sneak into the playoffs.

Hopefully it's not just the Mimosas talking.... :azdaja:


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

I can see us battling down the stretch with the Hornets and Clippers for the #8 spot this year. I think we get in the playoff mix from our defensive upgrade alone in the front court.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

I wouldn't be surprised if he went for 20 & 10 this year. He looks so much stronger.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

That would make up for Zach #'s while allowing us develop the next great Center and Roy will only improve. I totally agree with you, we'll get to the playoffs!


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I still think the Blazers are a year away.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Nightfly said:


> I still think the Blazers are a year away.



I agree with you Nightfly. 
I can understand fans being jubilant about our guys and expecting big things, and I do as well. I just think it is going to take some time. I think we may start out a bit slow this season. But I could see us really showing signs of growth and improvement as the season comes to an end. I just can't see a team this young making the playoffs this season. Do I hope I am wrong? Hell yes!

prunetang


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

They should replace the Lakers. Other than the Lakes I dont see them overtaking any of last years playoff teams. They should also hold off the Clips and the Kings too. The Blazers are better than those two teams but all this youth is a mutha.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

We need to address the scoring issue at the SF position. I'm not sure Roy+Aldridge will be enough.

We could probably count on Roy for 18-22 points a game, but I think he could help the team more in a supplementary scoring role. 

We'll see.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Over who?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Aldridge now looks like a significant upgrade at the 4.


Over Zach? Huh.

Not even close to me. Aldridge had a pretty good game last night, but it wasn't anything like the way Zach destroyed the summer league on a regular basis.

Aldridge is, at this point, a jump shooter. He doesn't command double-teams on the post and I don't think that he's committed to GOING to the post. He's a very good perimeter shooter, and I expect him to get better down low over the course of his career, but not this year. And he's certainly not better than Zach.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Over Zach? Huh.
> 
> Not even close to me. Aldridge had a pretty good game last night, but it wasn't anything like the way Zach destroyed the summer league on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


Aldridge had a great game. He put up the kind of numbers that Zach puts up on a good day in the real NBA. But can you imagine what Zach could do if he played in summer league now, against guys like Leon Powe and Glen Davis? It would be utter annihilation.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

El Matador!! Zach Randolph!! No way anyone is better than him!!!!!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Summer League. Means. Nothing. 

Love Aldridge but why are you getting excited off of Summer League? Fans do this every year and continue to realize that the games are meaningless.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> El Matador!! Zach Randolph!! No way anyone is better than him!!!!!


Yeah, that's exactly what I said.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

You all may be forgetting that Aldridge was a very dependable scorer in the latter part of the season last year, and in the stretches where Randolph was missing. I believe that Aldridge will come close to the numbers that Randolph put up for the Blazers last season, and I'm not basing that on one summer league game - though I don't think it's entirely irrelevant - but I'm making that prediction based on how Aldridge played last season. 

For instance, in the month of March, Aldridge averaged 14.7 ppg, 8.0 rpg, and 1.6 bpg. Those are darn good numbers for a guy in his rookie year who was playing only a hair over 30 minutes a game. (If you look at those numbers on a per 40 minute basis, they go up to 19.5 ppg, 10.6 rpg, and 2.1 bpg. Not bad, compared with Zach's numbers of 23.6 ppg, 0.2 bpg and 10.1 rpg.) 

You could argue that I chose his best month, but I chose March because it was the time period he had the most consistent minutes. 

While I agree that Aldridge scores a little more away from the basket than Zach does, I should point out that his FG% over the course of last season was 50.3%. Randolph's was 46.7%. I'm not saying that Aldridge is better than Zach, but there are plenty of indications that the Summer League was by no means an aberration, and that Aldridge has what it takes to supplant much of the scoring that the Blazers will lose in Zach's absence. 

Do I think the Blazers will make the playoffs? I think they'll be in the running for the 7th or 8th spot.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

You have to remember that when Zach has the ball, he draws double teams and piles of fouls, which LMA doesn't do at all. You can't underestimate the effect it has on a defense to have to have to double and to have their big men in foul trouble. LMA also needs someone else to make plays for him, which Zach doesn't. Roy is our only go-to guy now, and last year we had two. LMA is a very good defender and player off the ball, which are both great things, but next year our offense is going to be short on playmaking ability, even if we believe LMA's best month average of 19 pp/40 was comparable Zach's season average of 26.5. Look for Roy to put up more TOs next season, as he valiantly struggles to replace Zach's half of the #1 option duties they shared last season.

It's not that Zach is way better than LMA, it's just that they are pretty different players, and losing Zach leaves us with some major holes in the offense.

Someday Oden will emerge as the kind of post player capable of having the offense running through him, but right now it doesn't look like that will be next season.

Maybe one of our PGs will emerge in the reliable playmaker role. We know Sergio can do it, but he really has to learn to play within the offensive sets. Half-court execution is something Nate is always going to require. Fast breaks and scoring off broken plays are an important supplement to that, but unless Sergio can get the team in their sets, Nate will never have the confidence in him to put him out there extended minutes. Dribbling into the back corner where the midcourt line meets the sideline isn't going to cut it.

If Jack is still on the team, he might emerge as another playmaker. He can create his own efficient scoring, but often he deferred when Zach was in the game. He's not great at creating opportunities for others, but he can score and does play within the offense. Even if he does step up though, we've still got an offense dominated by scoring guards, which typically doesn't work that well. It might be enough to squeak into the playoffs, but I doubt it.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> You have to remember that when Zach has the ball, he draws double teams and piles of fouls, which LMA doesn't do at all. You can't underestimate the effect it has on a defense to have to have to double and to have their big men in foul trouble.


Not true. Aldridge also commands double teams, though not as often as Randolph (and lest we forget, there are forwards capable of guarding Zach pretty well one-on-one). 



> LMA also needs someone else to make plays for him, which Zach doesn't.


I don't agree, based on what I've seen. Aldridge is capable of scoring over the top of most players in isolation, because of his high release. He can also convert hook shots over taller players. He doesn't bull through players the way Zach does with strength, but his combination of speed and height do allow him to create shots against single, or even double coverage. In addition, Randolph's "self-created shots" would often bog down the offense. Aldridge, already at this point in his career, seems more decisive with the ball. 



> Roy is our only go-to guy now, and last year we had two. LMA is a very good defender and player off the ball, which are both great things, but next year our offense is going to be short on playmaking ability, even if we believe LMA's best month average of 19 pp/40 was comparable Zach's season average of 26.5. Look for Roy to put up more TOs next season, as he valiantly struggles to replace Zach's half of the #1 option duties they shared last season.


I didn't say that the numbers were exactly comparable, only that they didn't look bad against Randolph's. Aldridge is a different kind of player from Randolph, that's true. But to say that he's not a go-to guy is to ignore the games in March where he scored 20+ points in the teeth of opposing defense. In addition, last season, it was invariably Roy who was taking the pressure shot late in games anyway, rather than Randolph (so whether the Blazers lost a "go-to" player in the Randolph trade depends on your definition of a "go-to guy"). I expect most of the late-game shots will remain up to Roy. 



> Someday Oden will emerge as the kind of post player capable of having the offense running through him, but right now it doesn't look like that will be next season.


We'll see. I think Oden will be relied on to take the 12' and in scoring burden that Randolph did frequently for the Blazers. The perimeter shooting that Randolph offense supplied - from 12' to 18' will largely be taken by Aldridge. Considering the Blazers got practically no scoring out of the center position last season, I could see the Oden + Aldridge post scoring actually more than replacing what Randolph + Przybilla supplied... to say nothing of the superior defense.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

PD, I'm sorry but I think your love for LMA is clouding your memory. Which players can stop Zach in single coverage? Besides Ben Wallace and Tim D, I don't think there are any. And I don't know how we would even know, because teams almost never even try. He gets doubled all the time.

And LMA scores in isolation against double teams? When? Not last year. He can't put the ball on the floor at all, and he has almost no post moves. His hook shot is so good he used it what, 5-10 times all year last season? He's got a decent turnaround, but nobody doubled him last year, because we didn't hardly isolate him last year, because he doesn't have the tools to work in isolation. Based on what he has actually done, rather than what one might imagine him capable of doing, there's no way to justify saying he can draw and beat double teams and be a go-to offensive player. What "teeth of the defense"? Did you notice that LMA's career record of 8 FTA in a game is what Zach _averaged _last year?

LMA will be able to score in isolation and demand double teams when he gets more moves. He hasn't done that yet.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> PD, I'm sorry but I think your love for LMA is clouding your memory. Which players can stop Zach in single coverage? Besides Ben Wallace and Tim D, I don't think there are any.


I would add Rasheed Wallace and Kevin Garnett to that list off the top of my head. There are times that Elton Brand and Amare Stoudemire have given him problems, as well. Your further point - that few teams single cover him any more - is as much about Zach's ability to put the ball in the hole as it is an indictment of what Randolph and the Blazers have struggled with: Randolph is not good at recognizing defenses and the Blazers' guards aren't good enough outside shooters to make double teams pay consistently. If you can stop a team by double-teaming one player, who wouldn't do it? 



> And LMA scores in isolation against double teams? When? Not last year. He can't put the ball on the floor at all, and he has almost no post moves. His hook shot is so good he used it what, 5-10 times all year last season? He's got a decent turnaround, but nobody doubled him last year, because we didn't hardly isolate him last year, because he doesn't have the tools to work in isolation. Based on what he has actually done, rather than what one might imagine him capable of doing, there's no way to justify saying he can draw and beat double teams and be a go-to offensive player. What "teeth of the defense"? Did you notice that LMA's career record of 8 FTA in a game is what Zach _averaged _last year?


A few things: 

1.) I'm sure you don't honestly think that Aldridge can't put the ball on the floor at all. He can, and that's what makes his hook shot possible. 

2.) I don't know how many times he's used his hook. He has used it, and used it effectively. 

3.) Free throws aren't a great measure of physical play for rookies, since they tend to get ignored by officials. 

4.) By isolation, I didn't mean a "clear-out" play, and maybe I should have used a different term. I meant against single coverage, or against a set defense. 

My point before was simply that Aldridge is a dangerous scorer in a variety of ways, and teams have had trouble defending him one-on-one, and on the few occasions when he's been doubled, he's responded by either scoring anyway, or finding another option. You're right that it's happened seldom. Whether it's happened enough to get a sense of what he's "capable of doing" is probably a matter of debate (and one where we'd likely disagree). 



> LMA will be able to score in isolation and demand double teams when he gets more moves. He hasn't done that yet.


I'd certainly like to see Aldridge add polish to the moves that he has, and improve his footwork, and above all, his strength. And while it's true, that it's great to have a player who commands double teams most of the time, it's also important to have a player and a team that can respond in a way that makes the double team ineffective.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> He looked like a man among boys and I now don't doubt that he will be able to replace the offense that we had from Zach Randolph. His defense will, of course, be leaps beyond Zach.
> 
> Aldridge now looks like a significant upgrade at the 4.


Not to burst your bubble...

If Zach was allowed to play in Summer League he'd put up 50, pull down 30, and then sit the 2nd half of the blowout.

That's why it's a "boys only" game.

I like Aldridge and he'll be pretty good eventually, but the day he's better than Zach on offense is the day after Zach retires.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> Not to burst your bubble...
> 
> If Zach was allowed to play in Summer League he'd put up 50, pull down 30, and then sit the 2nd half of the blowout.
> 
> ...


Super Zach!!!! C'mon now... 

My argument is that it looks like Aldrige offense + defense> Zach offense + defense.

I'm seeing a different Aldridge than I saw even at the end of last year. Even though he's up against inferior competition, you can still see the marked improvement over last year, when he basically ended up going 15 & 8.

I think Aldridge can go 20/10, which essentially makes up for 87% percent of Zach's scoring.

I'm one of the relative few here on record liking Randolph's game. I'm just blown away by what I'm seeing so far from Aldridge.

Put me on record here- I predict 20/10 from Aldridge.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Not to burst your bubble...
> 
> If Zach was allowed to play in Summer League he'd put up 50, pull down 30, and then sit the 2nd half of the blowout.
> 
> ...


Correction: He'd get the 2nd half off, and head to the nearest strip club. Not more than a block or 2 in Vegas.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Why weren't teams lining up to get him if he's so good? 

Maybe we just should have traded Zach for Kobe straight up? Maybe Lebron? Shoot, Pritchard should be fired for not thinking of those.

If you didn't know better, after reading this thread you'd think he's a top 20 all-timer.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

Public Defender said:


> I would add Rasheed Wallace and Kevin Garnett to that list off the top of my head. There are times that Elton Brand and Amare Stoudemire have given him problems, as well.


No way did Rasheed show an ability to shut down Randolph one-on-one. Z-Bo had some of his best games the past two seasons against Sheed and the Pistons. Sure, Rasheed is capable of doing so, but he sure didn't do it on the court.

That said, lost in this discussion of offensive playmaking is the big upgrade on defense. Our interior defense should be much improved with LMA instead of Zach.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

RipCity9 said:


> No way did Rasheed show an ability to shut down Randolph one-on-one. Z-Bo had some of his best games the past two seasons against Sheed and the Pistons. Sure, Rasheed is capable of doing so, but he sure didn't do it on the court.


I didn't say that anyone would shut anyone down, only that Wallace was able to guard Randolph one-on-one. What I meant was that Wallace was able to hold Zach somewhat in check (few good NBA players can be "shut down" one-on-one, and there are few defenders who can truly "shut down" anyone). I see that Randolph averaged 26 points and 11 boards against the Pistons last season, which is a little better than his average. Looking at his averages against other teams, it's slightly above average (not that I want to trifle with you, but "some of his best games" seems like a bit of an exaggeration, at least judging by last season's stats). Anyway, the point is that there are teams that don't resort to constantly double-teaming Zach, and they aren't torn to shreds one-on-one, as a result. 



> That said, lost in this discussion of offensive playmaking is the big upgrade on defense. Our interior defense should be much improved with LMA instead of Zach.


True, we'd limited ourselves to just one side of the equation... and arguably the one that's changing less.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

minimum 86 games!!!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I guess some of us won't be surprised next season when LMA doesn't average 20-10, when Roy's TOs mysteriously increase and when we don't get more than 42 wins, and some of us will.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

TP3 said:


> Why weren't teams lining up to get him if he's so good?
> 
> Maybe we just should have traded Zach for Kobe straight up? Maybe Lebron? Shoot, Pritchard should be fired for not thinking of those.
> 
> If you didn't know better, after reading this thread you'd think he's a top 20 all-timer.


Rep points :clap:


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

It's not gonna be hard for the rest of the team to pick up Zach's scoring slack. Forget about the rebounding, that's a given. Roy will average 20+, LMA 15-20, Travis/Martell 5 ppg more or so....some Blazer fans will be stunned when we actually win more games because the opposing PF isn't going off every single night.


----------



## HAAK72 (Jun 18, 2007)

c_note said:


> It's not gonna be hard for the rest of the team to pick up Zach's scoring slack. Forget about the rebounding, that's a given. Roy will average 20+, LMA 15-20, Travis/Martell 5 ppg more or so....some Blazer fans will be stunned when we actually win more games because the opposing PF isn't going off every single night.


agreed!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

c_note said:


> It's not gonna be hard for the rest of the team to pick up Zach's scoring slack. Forget about the rebounding, that's a given. Roy will average 20+, LMA 15-20, Travis/Martell 5 ppg more or so....some Blazer fans will be stunned when we actually win more games because the opposing PF isn't going off every single night.


Opposing PF going off every single night? What team were you watching? The guy playing PF against Zach was less productive than any player opposite any Blazer over last season except Joel or Magloire. Stated another way, opposing PFs usually had below average nights against Zach. Aldridge's guy was more likely to "go off" than Zach's. Facts are funny sometimes.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> Opposing PF going off every single night? What team were you watching? The guy playing PF against Zach was less productive than any player opposite any Blazer over last season except Joel or Magloire. Stated another way, opposing PFs usually had below average nights against Zach. Aldridge's guy was more likely to "go off" than Zach's. Facts are funny sometimes.



All I know is the Blazers had a better record when Zach didn't play last year. I remember going to my one and only game last year and Zach was arguing phantom no calls while the rest of the Blazers were playing 4 on 5 defense at other other end of the court. Zach did this more then just once or twice that game. Sure Zach is a good offensive player but a terrible defensive player especially when he isn't trying. 

There is no way to know but IMO the Blazers will have a better record with a Oden/LMA/Frye rotation then Oden/LMA/Zach. I think we would have probably had to start Zach and LMA would be coming off the bench.

I think we will be fighting for the 7th or 8th playoff spot. I'm not sure we will make it but I'm hoping even if we lose in the 1st round. I think it would be good to have some playoff experience for Roy, LMA, Oden and the rest of the guys.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Zach was usually an effective one on one defender (other than Wilcox that seemed to have his number) - his issues were with help defense. I suspect that with Oden backing up Aldridge opposing PFs will not have a field day against Aldridge even if his one on one defense is not up to what Zach has done - but the team's help defense and transition defense will improve with Aldridge vs. Zach's contributions.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

The real question comes down to this for all you Zach supporters: DO you want him around Oden? Zach has real and obvious character issues and we have a very young team, his off the court got him shipped and rightly so. I would hate to see Oden get in trouble hanging around Zbo. On a business level it's suicide to even tempt that type of fate. So he's gone!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Tortimer said:


> All I know is the Blazers had a better record when Zach didn't play last year.


That's a coincidence. If you look at it game by game, they were slightly better at 7-8 when Zach was injured. But if you look at those wins, you'll see it wasn't a typical course of games. They were all except Utah bad teams and/or teams missing their stars. It's also a small sample size.

If you look at it on a minute by minute basis, which is much less subject to random variation from sample size and coincidence, Zach helped us a lot. For every 12 minutes he was on the court, our point differential was +1 higher than when he sat. We were a much worse team with Zach not playing than with him playing.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

YardApe said:


> The real question comes down to this for all you Zach supporters: DO you want him around Oden? Zach has real and obvious character issues and we have a very young team, his off the court got him shipped and rightly so. I would hate to see Oden get in trouble hanging around Zbo. On a business level it's suicide to even tempt that type of fate. So he's gone!


I honestly wasn't worried about Zach being around Oden. People make their own decisions, and I don't think Zach has the kind of influence some seem to assume. Zach is bad PR, which is bad for business, but I really don't care about Paul Allen's money. I care much more about winning games.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Over Zach? Huh.
> 
> Not even close to me. Aldridge had a pretty good game last night, but it wasn't anything like the way Zach destroyed the summer league on a regular basis.
> 
> ...


Really Aldridge is just a jump shooter huh? That tells me alone you weren't watching the same game I was watching. Aldridge had more throw downs in that game then Zbo probably had his whole career, probably because he can't jump. Secondly, he definitly demonstrated his post up game. You act like Zbo's offensive game wasn't half taking outside jumpers, if not more then half if he was being lazy, which was about half the time. The difference is that Aldridge, isn't a ballhogging, non defense playing pile of crap that Zbo is. He gets his shot in the flow of the offense, and doesn't bring the offense to a screeching halt. Zbo was and still is a pile of crap.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Aldridge is, at this point, a jump shooter.


I think he can run a little bit..............oh, and play some D, to boot.

(Basically, what Hasoos said.)


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

dudleysghost said:


> That's a coincidence. If you look at it game by game, they were slightly better at 7-8 when Zach was injured. But if you look at those wins, you'll see it wasn't a typical course of games. They were all except Utah bad teams and/or teams missing their stars. It's also a small sample size.
> 
> If you look at it on a minute by minute basis, which is much less subject to random variation from sample size and coincidence, Zach helped us a lot. For every 12 minutes he was on the court, our point differential was +1 higher than when he sat. We were a much worse team with Zach not playing than with him playing.



You can try and rationalize you point all you want but I watched the Blazers and I didn't see use being better when Zach was playing. The record backs my point but not yours even with you trying say it doesn't. I don't think he will help NY win that much either. I do think the Knicks will be a little better but part of that will be adding a few more FA's. I don't think the Knicks will necessarily be better because of Zach. I'm pretty sure sometime next year the Knick fans will hate Zach for what he does off the court and also on the court. No defense, black hole, not getting back and the team will not look that good with no ball movement. Zach will not be a 23/10 guy with the Knicks not even close. He might start off hot but that will fade really fast.

I know it's just me but I would have given Zach away free if someone would have just taken Miles and his contract. Getting back Frye is a big bonus to me. I also hope Francis never plays a game for Portland.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Tortimer said:


> You can try and rationalize you point all you want but I watched the Blazers and I didn't see use being better when Zach was playing.


Well, people don't see that the earth is round very often. Just because they see the earth as flat doesn't mean that it actually is.

Ed O.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Well, people don't see that the earth is round very often. Just because they see the earth as flat doesn't mean that it actually is.
> 
> Ed O.



That is a very true statement but people can make stats work anyway they want to make their point valid. You can show stats that show us playing better when Zach played and playing worse when Zach played. The one thing that there is no question on is we had a better record when Zach didn't play.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

On the question of whether Aldridge is not a post player and only a jump-shooter, as the man once said "let's go to the video tape!" 

http://blazersclips.blogspot.com/search/label/LaMarcus Aldridge

I couldn't get the Bobcats' or Hawks' videos to load, but I did see in both the Lakers' and Wizards' games examples of Aldridge converting baskets inside, from the low block. Of course, he also scored in transition, on putbacks, on jump shots and yes, even recognizing a double-team on Randolph, moving to the basket and getting a feed from Z-Bo. There are also lots of fun highlights of Aldridge on defense, too, FYI. 

I have to admit, I got really excited to see a video at the very bottom of that page that says "beautiful move to the basket." But when I looked at it, it was a nice move and all - but he missed the shot! I have a hard time saying any move is "beautiful" if it doesn't either result in a basket or a trip to the foul line...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Tortimer said:


> That is a very true statement but people can make stats work anyway they want to make their point valid. You can show stats that show us playing better when Zach played and playing worse when Zach played. The one thing that there is no question on is we had a better record when Zach didn't play.


Not all stats are created equal. The small sample size of what our record was without Zach holds almost no value.

On the other hand, looking at the hundreds of minutes he played on the floor and comparing the team's performance with him on and off of the court? Now *that* has value. And it shows that Zach helped the team more than he hurt it when he was playing.

Ed O.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Not all stats are created equal. The small sample size of what our record was without Zach holds almost no value.
> 
> On the other hand, looking at the hundreds of minutes he played on the floor and comparing the team's performance with him on and off of the court? Now *that* has value. And it shows that Zach helped the team more than he hurt it when he was playing.
> 
> Ed O.



I do agree Zach did help us more the first half of the year. He was playing I think probably the best I have seen him play. It went down hill from what I saw of his play the second half not even counting his injury. I'm not saying his isn't a really good offensive player.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Not all stats are created equal. The small sample size of what our record was without Zach holds almost no value.
> 
> On the other hand, looking at the hundreds of minutes he played on the floor and comparing the team's performance with him on and off of the court? Now *that* has value. And it shows that Zach helped the team more than he hurt it when he was playing.
> 
> Ed O.


I have no doubt that we were better last year with Zach than we were w/o Zach.

My argument is that Aldridge (when you take him overall) is looking like he will be a more than adequate replacement for Zach. Of course, there is no replacement for Aldridge as a reserve- so power forward is probably a net loss, but not as big as I thought it would be before I got my look at Aldridge in the first summer league game.

That's why I think we make the playoffs- a great AG scouting session based on me watching Aldridge playing against inferior talent. Before seeing him play I was worried about our post play- I'm now less worried.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> If you look at it on a minute by minute basis, which is much less subject to random variation from sample size and coincidence, Zach helped us a lot. For every 12 minutes he was on the court, our point differential was +1 higher than when he sat. We were a much worse team with Zach not playing than with him playing.



all that means is our starters weren't as bad collectively as our second unit. doesn't necessarily prove anything specific about zach. the difference could easily be due to roy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crowTrobot said:


> all that means is our starters weren't as bad collectively as our second unit. doesn't necessarily prove anything specific about zach. the difference could easily be due to roy.


How do you figure that?

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> On the other hand, looking at the hundreds of minutes he played on the floor and comparing the team's performance with him on and off of the court? Now *that* has value. And it shows that Zach helped the team more than he hurt it when he was playing.
> 
> Ed O.


Perhaps, though, that's because he had no _real_ help at the time.

Now that help has essentially arrived/matured, Z-bo's on-court (absent) value can be effectively leveraged......essentially, making him all that much more expendable.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

crowTrobot said:


> all that means is our starters weren't as bad collectively as our second unit. doesn't necessarily prove anything specific about zach. the difference could easily be due to roy.


Maybe I should have linked this originally.

http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM

I'm not making numbers up or just throwing junk stats out there. It's a +/- rating. It has it's limitations, but one thing it shows us is that the team absolutely did play better with Zach on the court in your average minute. The link doesn't show it, but the differential actually grew more positive as the season went on. It was negative in the first part of the year, then swooped way up.

+/- is affected by the subs though, that's true. One thing we can't attribute it to is Brandon Roy. His +/- was negative for the year, so he sure wasn't the one carrying Zach into the black. Zach was the team leader in that stat, and he played a lot of minutes and shared time with almost everyone on the time. so nobody was carrying him there. For all the often valid complaints about Zach's game, it's an absolute fact that we were a better team last year with him on the court, when measured on a minute by minute basis.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ABM said:


> Perhaps, though, that's because he had no _real_ help at the time.
> 
> Now that help has essentially arrived/matured, Z-bo's on-court (absent) value can be effectively leveraged......essentially, making him all that much more expendable.


Zach's not absent value is pretty easily quantified, and real. Hate if you want though. The guys giving Zach "no real help" are still mostly the same guys as last season, only a little older. I agree that Zach is expendible, _long-term_, but this thread is about whether we make the playoffs _next year_, and I think a lot of people who don't realize how much Zach helped us last year and would have helped us this coming year, and are as a result overestimating our chances of making the playoffs.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Perhaps, though, that's because he had no _real_ help at the time.
> 
> Now that help has essentially arrived/matured, Z-bo's on-court (absent) value can be effectively leveraged......essentially, making him all that much more expendable.


What I'm addressing is this: Did Zach help or hurt the team when he played last year?

The numbers indicate that he HELPED the team. It doesn't mean that he played great defense or that he maximized his potential or that the team (or fans) should be in love with him... but the team was better with him on the floor than with him off of it.

You raise two issues that don't DIRECTLY relate to what I was addressing, but they're things that I'd like to comment on.

First of all, I don't think that the team will be that much better this year. Oden will, of course, be a big help, and I suppose Jack/Roy/Aldridge will probably improve, but I don't see some sort of cavalry that will be arriving to cover for Zach's loss. Further, the improvement of those guys might have meant that Zach would have been ever MORE effective, since he would've seen fewer double teams, for example.

Secondly, I'm all for trading Zach (or anyone, including Oden) if it gets us good value back. Portland got jack SQUAT for Zach. If we would've traded him for a lottery pick (say, traded him to Golden State for JRich and then JRich onto Charlotte)? Or if we'd been able to get a quality small forward to patch a hole? I would be singing a different tune.

Instead, we got a guy who seems like he's going to be bought out and another player who's a likely career bench player. It's very bad value for Zach, I think it was a big mistake, and I think that the team would've been much better off keeping him and seeing how he played with Oden.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm all for trading Zach (or anyone, including Oden) if it gets us good value back. Portland got jack SQUAT for Zach...........Instead, we got a guy who seems like he's going to be bought out and another player who's a likely career bench player. It's very bad value for Zach, I think it was a big mistake, and I think that the team would've been much better off keeping him and seeing how he played with Oden.
> 
> Ed O.


In my mind, Zach's kind of like a nice car that you're taking down to the dealership as a trade-in..............only to crunch it in an accident on the way down there. What you could hope to expect prior to leaving the house, and what you're ultimately offered are probably two completely different prices.

I believe wholeheartedly that Roy's and Aldridge's (and, the overall team's) improvement will be exponential....................now that Z-Bo is out of the way.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> In my mind, Zach's kind of like a nice car that you're taking down to the dealership as a trade-in..............only to crunch it in an accident on the way down there. What you could hope to expect prior to leaving the house, and what you're ultimately offered are probably two completely different prices.


Yeah. I don't see that, because the Blazers didn't HAVE to trade Zach. They traded him for diddly, when there simply was no reason not to take another solid year of production, which would have reduced the length of his contract and perhaps increased his trade value. Eventually a team like Chicago would notice that they can't win without a low-post presence and be willing to give up more than a guy with $32m left on his contract and a middle-level prospect like Frye.



> I believe wholeheartedly that Roy's and Aldridge's (and, the overall team's) improvement will be exponential....................now that Z-Bo is out of the way.


I just don't see that. I see teams being able to focus on both of them a lot more easily now that Zach is gone and no offensive force has replaced him in the lineup.

We'll see 

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Yeah. I don't see that, because the Blazers didn't HAVE to trade Zach. They traded him for diddly, when there simply was no reason not to take another solid year of production....


I also remember Nate's comments about how much *better* the Blazers played once Zach went down at the end of last season. It was at that point that I just knew he was gone.

I agree, the Zach (and junk) for a buyout and Frye is lopsided. However, if the Miles for Rose is truly part of this trade, then I'll see it as equitable in the "long" run.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ABM said:


> I also remember Nate's comments about how much *better* the Blazers played once Zach went down at the end of last season.


 That's not what Nate said. Just sayin.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Yeah, after watching tonight's game- I still think the Zach thing has become irrelevant. Aldridge looks very good and would have beat out Randolph in any case.

Oden also looks very active defensively- a lot of fouls, but altered many shots and had to be taken into account defensively.

I look forward to seeing how Aldridge and Oden play with Roy and Jack.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I was pretty upset after the trade, but after watching Aldridge I think that in the end, the deal may work out. Aldridge needs the starting spot because I think he is already almost as good as Zack on the offensive end and better on the defensive end. And when you take the future into account and that Aldridge will become Much better than Zach IMO, then Zach needed to be traded. I would have thought that we could get more, but Frye is a decent player with good potential. And we could not continue to start LMA at C and Zach at PF because Oden needs as much playing time as he can handle to become one of the best ever big men. 

What we got back sucked, but the more I think about it, a trade needed to happen now. 


The value added by keeping Zach for one more year (good play and one more year off his salary) is not more value than the additional improvement that Oden and Aldridge will gain by playing more minutes. 

I am not convinced that we will have tons of dough to spend in 09, but that could also play a roll in the choise to get rid of Zach. Not only so we can have more money to spend because we could always trade Zach for an expiring contract next year, but by getting Oden and Aldridge more playing time now, they will become better players in 09 and better able to attract a top flight FA.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Yeah. I don't see that, because the Blazers didn't HAVE to trade Zach. They traded him for diddly, when there simply was no reason not to take another solid year of production, which would have reduced the length of his contract and perhaps increased his trade value. Eventually a team like Chicago would notice that they can't win without a low-post presence and be willing to give up more than a guy with $32m left on his contract and a middle-level prospect like Frye.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ya, when I posted originally that we'd win 52 games it was with Zach. In the long run it might be for the best, but we won't be as good next year with Zach gone and I agree completely and said before he was traded we should have kept him until the trading deadline to see how it worked out. 

Now I just hope we don't dig to big of a hole early and improve enough to make a run for the playoffs.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

After watching the first 2 games live, I can say that I believe most of Oden's points will be off dunks, much like they were in this game. He will most likely average around 13/10/3 this season. 

He'll be fine, but I don't think we are playoff bound this year unless Aldridge puts up 20/10, and focuses more on once he gets his outside shot going, taking it down low a few possessions.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

A few thoughts:

1. Channing Frye isn't "squat". He had a somewhat disappointing second season, but his rookie year people on this board were drooling over him. I still think he has the tools to be a solid player. In fact, I'd say that within two years the Blazers will have the best big man rotation in the league.

2. Losing Zach's scoring and experience is certainly going to hurt next season, but it's something that has to be gone through in order for Aldridge and Oden to develop their games. It would be nice to make the playoffs next season, but the ultimate prize is being in a position to win a title in three years. Zach had to go to make room for that to happen.

3. The summer isn't over and there may still be a trade that will bring in a player that will help replace Zach's lost offense. Aldridge looks to be improving, but he's still going to be inconsistent next year. Getting a SF that can score and a backup SG that can shoot (or somebody figuring out a way to get Martell to develop into an NBA player) would go a long way towards making the team better.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> 1. Channing Frye isn't "squat". He had a somewhat disappointing second season, but his rookie year people on this board were drooling over him. I still think he has the tools to be a solid player. In fact, I'd say that within two years the Blazers will have the best big man rotation in the league.


He's not WORTHLESS. But he's squat in my opinion. A soft jumpshooter who doesn't rebound or defend well. A bench player who was outplayed by several other bigs on a bad Knicks team. I'm hopeful that he proves me wrong, but I doubt it.



> 2. Losing Zach's scoring and experience is certainly going to hurt next season, but it's something that has to be gone through in order for Aldridge and Oden to develop their games. It would be nice to make the playoffs next season, but the ultimate prize is being in a position to win a title in three years. Zach had to go to make room for that to happen.


I disagree. The team won't challenge for a title if they can't get out of the playoffs and get some experience. They are lottery-bound again for this year, at least. Zach would have been 28 three years from now and been a part of whatever the team was capable of doing.

Oden would have been just fine with Zach... no question to me. Aldridge might've been stuck behind Zach, but that's the way good teams do it, IMO. Aldridge would've had to improve and earn his minutes, rather than being handed them because there's no other starting-caliber player on the roster.



> 3. The summer isn't over and there may still be a trade that will bring in a player that will help replace Zach's lost offense. Aldridge looks to be improving, but he's still going to be inconsistent next year. Getting a SF that can score and a backup SG that can shoot (or somebody figuring out a way to get Martell to develop into an NBA player) would go a long way towards making the team better.


And me winning the lottery would go a long ways to making me richer.

I'm not going to assume there's some other trade. If/when it happens I'll comment on our chances to make the playoffs.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> That's not what Nate said. Just sayin.


Checking. I've e-mailed Quick directly on this.

I'm certain that there was an article near the end of last season which quoted Nate as saying the team was playing better as a "team" at that time (with the inference being that it was somewhat due to Zach being out of the lineup.)


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I will say this again! This is not about trading Zach for basketball reasons. Zach is gone because he's a thug!!!! Make no mistake about it! The staff, coaches and I'd bet large amount of the fan base want Zach no where near ODEN. We have a hub of players here now that the city, fans, and all of the NBA can get behind. That translates into big money for Portland. Zach puts that at risk nightly just being here, we all know that! Allowing him to be here during Odens first year was not going to happen. Not good for our positive media spin, new season ticket holders, or new company sponsorship to Portland. Look at this trade as simply a huge PR right off.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Look at this trade as simply a huge PR write-off.


And payroll a couple of years earlier than it would have been.

I believe The Blazer brass is targeting the summer of 20009 as FA haven?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I disagree. The team won't challenge for a title if they can't get out of the playoffs and get some experience. They are lottery-bound again for this year, at least. Zach would have been 28 three years from now and been a part of whatever the team was capable of doing.
> 
> Oden would have been just fine with Zach... no question to me. Aldridge might've been stuck behind Zach, but that's the way good teams do it, IMO. Aldridge would've had to improve and earn his minutes, rather than being handed them because there's no other starting-caliber player on the roster.


Well that is in your opinion; Pritchard and McMillan have both commented that they felt Zach's presence would hinder the growth and opportunities of our bigs. They felt Zach didn't fit the "culture" of the team. If management decided the team would be better off in the long run without Zach than I support their decision to dump him for the most value they can. 

Keeping Zach on the roster with the intent to unload him at a later date is a very risky move. He was coming off his best year as a pro and would probably be more likely to lower his trade value than raise it. I would have thought Zach was worth more than nothing, I would have thought we could have at least given him to the Bobcats as a salary dump, but it appears many of us were wrong.


----------

