# Rethinking the Blazer Wins 07-08



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I had previously thought that the Blazers would win 35-41 wins and was actually being a little optimistic with that, but the more I think about it, I think the Blazers will win more, and my new prediction is 41-48. Here is my thinking.

I had thought that the Blazers would lose a lot at the beginning of the season and then get better as the season progressed and the Players learned to play with each other and as Oden learned how ot play in the NBA. But I think the Blazers will be much better shape mentally, physically and strategically at the start of the season and that the wins will start coming right off the bat.

1) With all the players showing up early, they should all be in great shape. It usually takes at least a month for players to get into peak game shape, but with the Blazers starting early, everyone except Raef and Przybilla should be in better shape than their competition. 

2) This is a young inexperienced team, but playing with each other instead of pickup games around the states, they should all know what each other can do. Roy will know where to get Frye the ball and Jack will know how Oden will spin out for a pass. The point is, that the players will know the habits and abilities of each other and this should help them start the season better prepared than most teams. And simply having worked on issues together should also improve everyone confidence in themselves and their teammates.

3) Oden will be better and more prepared than I thought he would. This is more important than any other player because he is a game changer. Everyone will know what to expect from him and he will know what to expect from others. Also, with his wrist and breathing under control, he should be in fine shape to thrive. Also, he is already so friggen strong, and he is continuing to hit the weights earlier than most others. The Oden effect will be noticeable early on.

4) The coaches are getting a chance to study their players and work on their skills prior to the stress and fast-paced life during the NBA season. So many of the Blazers are either new or young that having more time to strategize and coach prior to the season will be more beneficial than if the Blazers were either more established or older. The effect would be greater if Nate was here, but at least all the rest of the coaching staff is on hand.

5) I am impressed with what I have seen and heard from Outlaw/Webster/Jones. The SF spot is our weak spot, but the more I see how our young guys are working and getting ready mentally and physically, the more I think that the SF spot will be just fine. 

6) This is Roy's team and he is a fighter. I was depressed when we first traded Zach, and I still think we will miss his rebounding and scoring, but I think the real bright spot is that this team is now unquestionably Roys. And it's one thing for a team to be Roy's, but another thing for him to actually take control and use that power towards progress, and that is what Roy is doing. Roy will fight from day one to make this team a winner. 



In conclusion, I think there will be pitfalls throughout the year, and we have no idea how healthy the players will be, but as of right now, I am predicting around 45 wins and a playoff birth. I would be more surprised if the Blazers only won 35 games than if they won 50. GO BLAZERS!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I firmly believe they will win between 0 and 82 games.:azdaja:


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Teams that should finish ahead of Portland in the West:

San Antonio 
Phoenix 
Dallas 
Utah
Houston
Denver 

Bubble Teams:

L.A. Lakers
Golden State 
Portland
New Orleans

Teams I think will be below Portland:

Sacramento 
L.A. Clippers (Brand out)
Minnesota
Memphis 
Seattle 

If the Lakers have another bad season, and if Golden State can't repeat, then Portland has a real shot at 41-48 wins. If Lakers pull it together and Golden State remains the same (or New Orleans gets better), then Portland may still be on the outside looking in. Too close to call at this point.

A major factor will be Oden's ability to stay out of foul trouble. If he sits a lot, then 35-40 is probably more relistic.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

We might see a marginally better team with the early workouts vs. without them, but they're still extremely young and inexperienced around each other. I expect flashes of dominance followed by frustrating bouts of inconsistency. It'll be an entertaining year though... I think we can all count on that.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> Teams that should finish ahead of Portland in the West:
> 
> San Antonio
> Phoenix
> ...


I think Memphis will be much improved this year with a healthy Gasol and Gay with a year under his belt.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I think Memphis will be much improved this year with a healthy Gasol and Gay with a year under his belt.



Yea Memphis is interesting. Don't forget Conley, he would already be an upgrade to Damon, but remember Damon was hurt last year too, so it is a really big upgrade from last years team.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

A few extra workouts won't change the fundamental facts. This is still a very young team. They will make young players' mistakes, and they won't get any calls. 35-40 wins is still the best case scenario.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Even without Randolph I think they'll improve on last season's mark. I think they'll be around .500 most of the year, (higher than that over the first 20 or so games then sliding back some) and it'll be interesting to see if they can make an end of the year surge, when things like health and the "rookie wall" will come more into play. Still, I'm guessing they finish within a couple games of .500, one side or the other.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

It might be interesting to set up a public poll about the end-of-season record, if only for bragging rights.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I'm still pegging the win total at about 38. The team will be improved, but let's face facts.

Then, this team is YOUNGER than it was last year. They lost two of their starting five, one of which was a borderline All-Star. It'll be hard to replace that, at least in the short term. I love LaMarcus and Greg, but they have a combined one year of pro experience between them.

Now the BIG question mark is how the team responds to the loss of Zach's presence ON the court. Yeah, it will be hard to replace 24 points a game, but Channing Frye mentioned how pass-happy this team is. That's a good sign. Plus, we all saw last year how much more fluid a Zach-less offense was. I think that'll be the key to this team's offensive success next year.


----------



## Superblaze (Aug 6, 2006)

hasoos said:


> I firmly believe they will win between 0 and 82 games.:azdaja:


I fully agree with that prediction.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

It's to bad the coaches can't coach them during the scrimmages. I wonder if they ask the coaches during the one on one work outs what they should be working on during the scrimmages.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

hasoos said:


> I firmly believe they will win between 0 and 82 games.:azdaja:


I'm going to be a little more risky. I'm going to say they'll win between 20 and 60 games.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> A few extra workouts won't change the fundamental facts. This is still a very young team. They will make young players' mistakes, and they won't get any calls. 35-40 wins is still the best case scenario.


You and I think alike. Thirty-five to Forty wins is best case for this team.
Oden and his potential foul-trouble is the biggest variable. We're virtually the same at SF as we were last year. PG may be a smidgon better. Aldridge will be much improved with more PT at PF. Hold on to your hats - it's going to be fun!!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

there are very rare occasions where a team adds 18-19 wins over a prior season. it tends to coincide with the addition of franchise centers:
in the 98-99 season, Duncan added 36 more wins. (if you adjust for the fact that Robinson missed the prior season, it's more like an 18 win bump.) 56 total wins. 
in the 93-94 season, Shaq added 20 wins. 50 total wins.
in the 84-85 season, Hakeem added 19 wins. 48 total wins.
in the 89-90 season, Robinson added 35 wins. 56 total wins.
in each of those instances, I don't think there were many people expecting that dramatic of an impact. 
of course the argument is that Oden is younger than all those guys were, which is true. but did all those guys have complimentary young studs like Roy and Aldridge, who would add to our win total even without Oden just by natural maturation? 
i'm sticking with 50 wins, and by the end of the season I'll either be a genius or an idiot.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

i think the Oden foul trouble issue won't be nearly the big deal we expect it to be. as Blazer fans, we automatically assume Oden won't get any superstar calls. I think it's pretty misguided to think so. we are on national tv on opening night against the freakin' SPURS because Stern has decided that Oden is the Next Big Thing. 

do you really think he's going to sit by quietly and watch his own refs take him out of games repeatedly with foul trouble? Oden will probably foul out of a few games in the first month of the season, but he'll make adjustments (and more importantly) the refs will make adjustments. 

I think superstar treatment is a major corruption of the idea of competitive sports. I despise it. but I also think we are going to be a huge beneficiary of it this coming season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> in each of those instances, I don't think there were many people expecting that dramatic of an impact.
> of course the argument is that Oden is younger than all those guys were, which is true. but did all those guys have complimentary young studs like Roy and Aldridge, who would add to our win total even without Oden just by natural maturation?


No. But did any of them give away a 20-10 guy for a bench player?

Unless someone is of the belief that Zach was a negative last year, I don't see how one can predict a 20 game improvement given that we got so little for him.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> No. But did any of them give away a 20-10 guy for a bench player?
> 
> Unless someone is of the belief that Zach was a negative last year, I don't see how one can predict a 20 game improvement given that we got so little for him.
> 
> Ed O.


I hear you. as I was typing my post, I could hear a little voice in my head screaming, "You could be a lot more sure of your prediction if we still had Zach." 

but what can I say? I just got a feeling.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Sure you "Could" (read whole thing before firing up the flame thrower!):biggrin: and that is because that wasn't the only move made, and that isn't the only change to this team coming into this season. To concentrate merely on the Zbo trade and consider that as the only thing that will affect the number of wins this season is tunnel vision at best. 

Remember how many games Brandon Roy was hurt last year? Do you believe he will be hurt that many this year? If he is here for 20 more games I can easily see 6 more wins from that alone.

How many games do you think Oden is worth? The post about franchise centers from the past is a valid argument in many ways, the question is how many wins does Oden add? I don't think anybody out there feels he will be a Michael Olowakwandi. So lets be a pessemist, and say he is worth 10 wins. 

Now for Lamarcus Aldridge. Many of you think the Zbo trade was bad and all of that. I personally think that Prichard knows what he is doing, and providing Aldridge stays injury free, he is a better player then Zbo because he plays on both ends of the court and actually runs the court. Sure it is all speculation. Feel free to make me eat my words later if it happens. I say not having Zbo on the floor is worth several more wins. There was a reason the Blazers only lost 1 game last year with him out of the lineup and Aldridge starting. It is because Zbo is a pile of crap, and Aldridge was drafted for a purpose; To replace him. Does anybody out there really think Prichard would have traded Zbo if he didn't have his bases covered? 

Now add in more experience for the players, more depth at point guard, those add up to more wins too.

But now you have to remember, some of those wins, will be the same games. You would have a real hard time attributing wins to a single player. 

But that is not the whole enchilada. We have to consider what has happened to other teams too. Unfortunately, I feel many teams that the Blazers will play many games against have improved too, and for some of them, it might just be their luck with the injury bug improving. I don't think that we will be fortunate to have 2 teams in our conference get his so hard by the injury bug that they were barely competitive, although the Clippers seem to be on that path already, and some teams in our division like the Sonics and Wolves are going to stink it up, and the Blazers play a lot of games against them, because they are in the same division. 

So the question becomes, how can you make a good judgement for number of wins? You have to look at the schedule and see who they are playing, how many times and make that judgement. 

So here is how I see it going.

Northwest Division

Opponent/wins against
Minnesota 4
Seattle 4
Denver 2
Utah 1

Pacific

Phoenix 0
La Lakers 2
Golden State 2
LA Clippers 3
Sacramento 3

Midwest 
Dallas 0
San Antonio 0
Houston 2
New Orleans 2
Memphis 2

Southeast
Miami 1
Washington 1
Orlando 1
Charlotte 2
Atlanta 2

Central
Detroit 1
Cleveland 1
Chicago 1
Indiana 2
Milwaukee 2

Atlantic
Boston 1
NY 2
NJ 1
Philadelphia 2
Toronto 1

That would be about 48 wins. 

So that being said, and considering Portland is a young team so you can throw a couple of "should have" wins down the drain, as in the other thread, I think they will come in at about 44 wins.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Sure you "Could" (read whole thing before firing up the flame thrower!):biggrin: and that is because that wasn't the only move made, and that isn't the only change to this team coming into this season. To concentrate merely on the Zbo trade and consider that as the only thing that will affect the number of wins this season is tunnel vision at best.


And to kick puppies is bad. Who cares?

No one is "concentrating merely on the Zbo trade". But my opinion is that trading away your best player for almost nothing sets a team back. In a couple of years, when Aldridge has matured and Rudy is over here? The Zach deal might turn out great... but now? It hurts us in terms of wins and losses.



> Remember how many games Brandon Roy was hurt last year? Do you believe he will be hurt that many this year? If he is here for 20 more games I can easily see 6 more wins from that alone.


I don't think that he would have helped us win that many more games. Including the game where he only played 7 minutes, the team went 10-16 without Roy last year, which means we went 22-32 with him... almost an identical winning percentage.



> How many games do you think Oden is worth? The post about franchise centers from the past is a valid argument in many ways, the question is how many wins does Oden add? I don't think anybody out there feels he will be a Michael Olowakwandi. So lets be a pessemist, and say he is worth 10 wins.


I don't think that 10 wins is at ALL pessimistic. Assuming he stays healthy all year, that's a reasonable number. I could see him being worth anywhere from 3 to 15 wins, personally. The step up from Aldridge to Oden isn't that large, given where Oden is in his career.



> Now for Lamarcus Aldridge. Many of you think the Zbo trade was bad and all of that. I personally think that Prichard knows what he is doing, and providing Aldridge stays injury free, he is a better player then Zbo because he plays on both ends of the court and actually runs the court. Sure it is all speculation. Feel free to make me eat my words later if it happens. I say not having Zbo on the floor is worth several more wins.


Personally, I think this is ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ya, I agree with Ed O, while the Zach trade might help us down the road it hurts us short term win wise. I'm not saying that's a bad thing because we should be looking down the road a few years, but it does IMO hurt us now.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> And to kick puppies is bad. Who cares?
> 
> No one is "concentrating merely on the Zbo trade". But my opinion is that trading away your best player for almost nothing sets a team back. In a couple of years, when Aldridge has matured and Rudy is over here? The Zach deal might turn out great... but now? It hurts us in terms of wins and losses.
> 
> ...


The net effect of the Zbo trade and the draft is Oden and Aldridge replacing the minutes played by Zbo and Magloire. This is a HUGE step up.

Zbo put up points and rebounds, but did so at the cost of ball movement and defense. The speed and defense of Oden and Aldridge will translated into more fast break points than were possible last year.

This should offset the loss of Zach's slow it down post up game.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't think that he would have helped us win that many more games. Including the game where he only played 7 minutes, the team went 10-16 without Roy last year, which means we went 22-32 with him... almost an identical winning percentage.
> 
> Ed O.


Try cross referencing, games in which Brandon Roy played, Lamarcus Aldridge played, and Zbo did not play and tell me that again. A large portion of those losses were games where Aldridge was not there to replace Zbo in the lineup, and in the games he did, the Blazers won almost all of them. A large portion of those losses you listed, were after Aldridge went down so they were both out. It is the team that matters, not one player.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Try cross referencing, games in which Brandon Roy played, Lamarcus Aldridge played, and Zbo did not play and tell me that again. A large portion of those losses were games where Aldridge was not there to replace Zbo in the lineup, and in the games he did, the Blazers won almost all of them. A large portion of those losses you listed, were after Aldridge went down so they were both out.


Zach only missed 14 games. I don't need to cross-reference anything to know that the sample size is far too small to have confidence that LA will be better than Zach.



> It is the team that matters, not one player.


Blah blah blah.

Do you think this kind of truistic drivel is any sort of argument?

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> The net effect of the Zbo trade and the draft is Oden and Aldridge replacing the minutes played by Zbo and Magloire. This is a HUGE step up.


I don't agree with your logic at all. Magloire is not as good as Oden, that's true, but Oden's not (yet) as good as Zach, either. The difference between Zach and Aldridge at the 4 is greater, IMO, than that between Oden and Aldridge at the 5.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> there are very rare occasions where a team adds 18-19 wins over a prior season. it tends to coincide with the addition of franchise centers:
> in the 98-99 season, Duncan added 36 more wins. (if you adjust for the fact that Robinson missed the prior season, it's more like an 18 win bump.) 56 total wins.
> in the 93-94 season, Shaq added 20 wins. 50 total wins.
> in the 84-85 season, Hakeem added 19 wins. 48 total wins.
> ...


All those teams you mentioned - Spurs, Magic, Rockets, Spurs all tanked shamelessly the season before in a (sucessful) attempt to win the #1 pick, and most had major injury issues to the roster (often what precipitated the "might as well tank" plans).

Though the Blazers "tanked" by not having Aldrige, Zach and Roy play the entire season through injuries (risky), it was very half-hearted, and nothing like what Boston and Memphis, and in the past those teams above did.

When a team tanks, they could add NOTHING and win more games the next season easily. So there is a self-fulling prophecy in tanking to win the lottery for the rare franchise center and then winning a ton more games the next season. How much is due to the new addition, how much to healthy returing players, how much due to playing to win, how much due to adding quality role players that rebuilding teams shun?

And maybe just as important:

How old were those franchise centers as rookies compared to Oden?

Hint: all older.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

Ed O said:


> I don't agree with your logic at all. Magloire is not as good as Oden, that's true, but Oden's not (yet) as good as Zach, either. The difference between Zach and Aldridge at the 4 is greater, IMO, than that between Oden and Aldridge at the 5.
> 
> Ed O.


Ed. you disappoint me.

Magloire logged far more minutes last year than Aldridge did. So really the formula is:

Oden+Aldridge > Magloire + Zach

Oden is a far better defender than Zach and can finish better at the rim than Zach. The offense will not come to a standstill with GO and LA this year like it did last year when Zbo and Magloire were black holes.

Aldridge and Oden will shoot a higher % than Zbo and Magloire did, so the offense will be more efficient this year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Rip City Reign said:


> Ed. you disappoint me.


Join the club.



> Magloire logged far more minutes last year than Aldridge did.


#1. No, he didn't. He only played 311 more minutes over the course of the season. Spread over 82 games, that's fewer than four minutes a game... hardly "far more", IMO.

#2. On a per game played basis, Magloire played fewer than Aldrige. Aldridge played 22 mpg, while Magloire played 21.



> So really the formula is:
> 
> Oden+Aldridge > Magloire + Zach


Sorry. I don't see it that way.



> Aldridge and Oden will shoot a higher % than Zbo and Magloire did, so the offense will be more efficient this year.


Neither Aldridge nor Oden will command double teams the way Zach did... at least not this year. Double teams create opportunities for teammates that won't be there without Zach. Further, because NBA teams won't have to plan their defense around stopping Zach, they will be able to diffuse their focus and slow down other players more effectively.

Ed O.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Join the club.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong! Oden will be double-teamed on a nightly basis. He's too strong to play 1 on 1.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I say 47-50 wins. We'll see how Zach does in NYC. I'm guessing he has issues.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm thinking that we've all got our ideas and we're all likely to be stickin' to 'em. While for the _most_ part everyone's still being polite enough that I doubt a mod. would seriously consider locking the thread, I can't see that there's really much more to be said on this topic -- it's the immovable object and the irresistable force thing again, and we won't know how it comes out until at _least_ halfway through the season.

Finally, in Ed's defense, some posters are acting as if he's nearly being "Unamerican" (or at least not a "True Fan", though to be fair, no one's quite said that yet this time). He sees it how he sees it and I'm willing to bet he's as hopeful as anyone else that he's underestimating these guys. How 'bout we all just find other aspects to post about until we at _least_ have some preseason games to talk about?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> No one is "concentrating merely on the Zbo trade". But my opinion is that trading away your *best player* for almost nothing sets a team back.


this is where you lose me. I like Zach and think he's a good player but his oft-noted flaws kept him from being truly effective overall. As the ranking talent they featured him in their half court sets which added to the gawdy numbers he put up, but I saw more game and potential in the respective first seasons of Roy and Aldridge then I ever saw in Randolph. IMO they are both guys I'd rate ahead of him as players right now... and I'd guess Oden should be at least as good as them this year too. 

I just don't see Zach's leaving as creating some great void that can't be filled. Heck, I think the front court is going to be a lot better then last year on both ends of the court. 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> this is where you lose me. I like Zach and think he's a good player but his oft-noted flaws kept him from being truly effective overall. As the ranking talent they featured him in their half court sets which added to the gawdy numbers he put up, but I saw more game and potential in the respective first seasons of Roy and Aldridge then I ever saw in Randolph. IMO they are both guys I'd rate ahead of him as players right now... and I'd guess Oden should be at least as good as them this year too.
> 
> I just don't see Zach's leaving as creating some great void that can't be filled. Heck, I think the front court is going to be a lot better then last year on both ends of the court.


Yep, we just disagree.

I don't think that people really recognize how effective Zach is. Maybe because we were spoiled with Rasheed and then Zach, and people just assume that the glimpses of LaMarcus we've seen will translate into full-time production along the same lines.

I guess we'll see, but, just as people last year were so quick to anoint Roy as the best player on the team before he'd played a regular season game, I think some people are overestimating what Aldridge can do at his young age with his lack of experience.

Ed O.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Yep, we just disagree.
> 
> I don't think that people really recognize how effective Zach is. Maybe because we were spoiled with Rasheed and then Zach, and people just assume that the glimpses of LaMarcus we've seen will translate into full-time production along the same lines.
> 
> ...



Ed, I saw a lot of games last year and it was clear to me that Roy was the best player on the team. Not only was he the best player, he was also the leader of the team.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

The thing with Zach was that I never felt teams were double-teaming him with the primary purpose of shutting him down. It seemed to me that the objective was primarily to force him into taking a bad shot...which he all-to-readily did. I know that Aldridge isn't as experienced as Zach, but I think he is much more of a complete player. The Blazers will benefit from his better defense and I think that having Oden on the court is really going to open things up for Aldridge offensively this season. I think he has a shot at being the most improved player in the league this season.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> But my opinion is that trading away your best player for almost nothing sets a team back.


Was Zach really our best player? I suppose it depends on how you define best.

He led the team in scoring, but was far from our most efficient scorer. In terms of effective field goal percentage (eFG%), he was 10th on the team. He faired a little better in true field goal percentage (TS%) where he was 4th on the team, but in either case, he wasn't close to being our most efficient scorer. He's a volume scorer that benefited from an offense that was designed around feeding him the ball. He excelled in that role as it maximized his talents and his natural focus on his own scoring and stats. He was our leading scorer and the focus of our offense. So, I'll overlook the relatively low shooting percentage and stipulate, for the sake of argument that he was our "best scorer". 

However, with him gone, there will be more shots for everyone else, including multiple players who while scoring fewer PPG, make a greater percentage of their shots. I do think the offense will be better this year. I think they will shoot a higher team FG% and be harder to guard. Last year opponents had to focus on containing one player to shut down the Blazers offense. This year, the offense should be both more diverse and more balanced, and thus more difficult for opponents to shut down. No one player will make up for Zach's scoring, but it will be spread out over the whole team. With Zach as the focus of the offense, the Blazers were, by far, last in the league in fast break points. That should change significantly this year as Aldridge and Oden are much faster and more athletic. More fast breaks means more easy, high percentage scoring opportunities.

Of course, there's more to offense than scoring. There's also passing and ball handling. Neither are areas where Zach excels (and I'm being kind here). Personally, I think Brandon Roy was our best offensive player last year - when you look at the whole picture (scoring, scoring efficiency, passing, ball handling, etc.), but Zach did score 23.6 PPG. So, I can understand how some would give him the edge as our "best offensive player".

But again, there's more to basketball than offense. Half the game is played at the other end of the court - and that's the half where Zach was truly lacking. He's a poor 1:1 defender and a poor team defender who often fails to hustle back on defense (often after not getting a call) that leaves his team at a disadvantage. You may think that the Blazers slow-it-down, grind-it-out style would also hinder their opponents fast break opportunities. Not so, not only were the Blazers last in the league in fast break scoring by a significant margin, only two teams (Denver and Memphis) gave up more fast break points. 

With Zach as our "best player" last year's Blazer style could best be described as "walk it up on offense, walk back on defense". Their -7.6 fast break point differential was more than twice as high as any other team. In fact, only one other team had a fast break deficit greater than -2.8 (Charlotte at -3.5). It's hard to win when you're basically giving the other team a 7.6 point advantage night in and night out. Granted, that's a team stat, but Zach was a huge reason for that deficit. With Oden and Aldridge, I doubt teams will find it nearly as easy to run it back on us for quick easy scores this year.

Even if you're not a fast break style team, constantly giving up 7.6 more fast break points per game translates into a lot of losses. Last year in the few games where the Blazers managed to score more fast break points than their opponents, they were 8-4. Yeah, that's a pretty small sample size, but then that's part of the problem. In games where they gave up more fast break points than they scored, they were 24-46. Look for the fast break point differential gap to narrow this year as fast break scoring should increase and fast break points allowed should decrease - and that should translate into more wins. 

Of course, our interior defense, with Oden and Aldridge will also be much better this year. You would think that with an offense designed to run through the power forward, the Blazers would have at least had an advantage in points in the paint. Not so. Last year the Blazers scored 38.1 points in the paint per game. Unfortunately, they gave up 41.2 points in the paint per game. That's a differential of -3.1 points per game (5th worse in the league). In games where the Blazers outscored their opponents in the paint, they were 15-15. In games where they were outscored inside, they were 17-35. Better interior defense should help make up for the loss of Zach's inside scoring - and both Oden and Aldridge should shoot a higher percentage and be more efficient scorers than Zach was.

Zach was also a good rebounder, especially on the offensive end. IMHO, replacing his rebounding is more important that replacing his scoring. I'm old school and truly believe defense and rebounding wins games. We've lost our two best rebounders (Zach and Magloire). Aldridge was a pretty decent rebounder for a rookie (and was exceptional on the offensive glass in March), but he'll need to step it up and attack the glass for the entire season like he did the month of March last year. And, Oden should be an excellent rebounder - if he can stay out of foul trouble. With the size, quickness and athleticism of Oden and Aldridge, I'm not too worried about our rebounding. Still, rebounding is about more than size and athleticism. It's about hustle, desire and positioning. Until we see that from Oden and Aldridge, it's not a given that we will be a good rebounding team. The potential to be a great rebounding team is there, but we need to see that potential translated into results. I think it will be, but time will tell.

So, was Zach our "best player"? You could certainly argue that he was. Personally, I thought Brandon Roy was our best all-around player last year, in spite of Zach being the focus of the offense. Will the improved defense and ball movement on offense be enough to overcome the loss of Zach's scoring and rebounding. Personally, I think it will be. 

Yeah the team is young, but with the additions of Oden, Blake, Jones and Frye, we are deeper, taller, faster, more athletic and more talented in both the front court and back court than we were last year. The biggest weakness is a lack of experience, and with Blake, Roy, Jack and Jones, the guys handling the ball and running the offense are our most experienced, most proven players. So, in spite of losing our "best player" I think the team will win more games this year than last - and is much better positioned for the long run, both talent wise and cap wise, than before the Zach trade.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I don't think that people really recognize how effective Zach is.


Define "effective". Zach was 10th on the team in effective field goal percentage (eFG%). Yes, he was our leading scorer and the focus of the offense, but you seem to be mistaking quantity of quality. A power forward who shoots 46.7% from the field is neither highly effective nor highly efficient.

I'm not a Zach hater, and I don't think I underappeciate his contributions. However, when just about every other starting power forward in his conference shoots a higher field goal percentage, I'm inclined to think his scoring can be replaced by better ball movement and an improved team FG%.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Define "effective". Zach was 10th on the team in effective field goal percentage (eFG%). Yes, he was our leading scorer and the focus of the offense, but you seem to be mistaking quantity of quality. A power forward who shoots 46.7% from the field is neither highly effective nor highly efficient.


So why did other teams double him? Why did other teams build defensive game plans around him?



> I'm not a Zach hater, and I don't think I underappeciate his contributions. However, when just about every other starting power forward in his conference shoots a higher field goal percentage, I'm inclined to think his scoring can be replaced by better ball movement and an improved team FG%.


I'm inclined to think that's far, FAR easier said than done. Defensively, other teams won't need to worry about doubling any Blazer on the block this year. Aldridge is already talking about floating outside (which is fine; he can really shoot). Oden is not ready to be fed the ball in offensive sets just yet.

"Better ball movement" is always something that a team should strive for. I don't see that simply removing Zach is going to achieve that, though.

If the team last year had been capable of better ball movement without Zach in, why was Zach in?

If the team was better off with Aldridge in the game, why was Zach in the game?

Was Nate incompetent? Was he trying to build up trade value for the upcoming season, rather than trying to win games?

Most other power forwards in the Western conference had more capable teammates surrounding them, including some veterans who could help carry the load. Zach was, in essence, by himself both in terms of offensive capabilities and experience level.

Ed O.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

Ed O said:


> So why did other teams double him? Why did other teams build defensive game plans around him?


Because he was our primary option at the low post which is the easiest position to effectively double-team.





Ed O said:


> I'm inclined to think that's far, FAR easier said than done. Defensively, other teams won't need to worry about doubling any Blazer on the block this year. Aldridge is already talking about floating outside (which is fine; he can really shoot). Oden is not ready to be fed the ball in offensive sets just yet.
> 
> "Better ball movement" is always something that a team should strive for. I don't see that simply removing Zach is going to achieve that, though.
> 
> ...


Oden will be double-teamed from the beginning of the season. His strength is the reason. He is already stronger than 90% of the centers in the league. If he isn't doubled he will over-power the defense.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I agree that there are some who are too quick to discount Zach, but I personally am not as concerned about replacing his scoring because of the options we've added. take a look at the minutes played by our big men last year: 
Randolph: 2,425
Magloire: 1,703
Aldridge: 1,392
Outlaw: 766 * 
Przybilla: 701
LaFrentz: 352
Total: 7,339 minutes
*Outlaw played at least half his minutes last year as a backup power forward, so I divided his total minutes--1532--in half.

you look at that list of big men and you see only two guys there who were above average offensive power forward/centers (Randolph, Aldridge). and Nate rarely used Aldridge as a primary weapon in the first half of the season (when he even played him). AND they both played the same position. 

now compare that to a likely minute breakdown this year:
Aldridge: 2,000
Oden: 1,800
Frye: 1,800
Pzybilla: 700
Outlaw: 400
McRoberts: 300 
LaFrentz:300
Total: 7,300 minutes

Oden and Aldridge are certainly going to be better than average offensive PF/C's. Aldridge should do significantly better than last year just from having an offense focused on feeding him. 17 ppg seems realistic. I expect Oden to get around 13-16 ppg just on dunks, hooks and put-backs. Frye is a much better choice on offense than anyone we had on the bench last year to fill that role. 

if all our new guys played just as well as we expect them to, I think we pretty well cover the loss of Randolph's scoring. however, unlike last year when we just had Aldridge, we've got 4 different big men with various amounts of upside. although not necessarily likely, it's certainly possible that Oden proves to be a 20 ppg scorer, Aldridge becomes a 25 ppg scorer, or Frye becomes a 15 ppg scorer. or McRoberts becomes, uh, relevant. 

nobody expects Oden to do that well, right? despite all the hype, few people expected LeBron James to average 21 ppg as a rookie. 

nobody expects Aldridge to do that well, right? few people expected Nowitzki to average 23 as a rook, and 28 as a sophomore. 

nobody expects Frye to do that well, right? many did just one season ago. 

Randolph is still a better offensive player than anyone we have this year, and we were dumb to give him up so cheaply. but when I look at the changes to the other big men in the rotation, I see a lot of improvements that should make up for his lost offense. and when I look at the upside for those same big men, I can easily imagine us saying "Randolph who?" by midseason.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Yep, we just disagree.
> 
> I don't think that people really recognize how effective Zach is. Maybe because we were spoiled with Rasheed and then Zach, and people just assume that the glimpses of LaMarcus we've seen will translate into full-time production along the same lines.
> 
> ...


I think this disagreement is the crux of the issue. It seems like most on the boards members fall into one of two camps. Camp 1: Zach was a ball hog that slowed down the game and made those around him worse, and played poor D. Camp 2: Zach was a monster PF who rebounded and scored so well that his positives will be missed big time this year, and there is not enough ready talent on the team to make up for his departure. 

In reality, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Zach did help the team a lot and was a decent team player, and was the most important reason why the Blazers won many games last year, *but,* he had some big drawbacks that also stunted the abilities of some of the others on the team. I think there will be games that we will sorely miss Zach, especially on offense, but Aldridge and Oden, and even Frye, and McRoberts should be able to make up the majority of the inside bucket we lose without Zach. However, without Zach we should get more possessions during the game both because the pace should increase and because Aldridge and Oden should cause more turnovers (either via blocks, steals, or just solid D forcing missed shots) and this should help balance out the loss of Zach. 

Here are some positives that we did not have last year, some are due to Zach and some are just the circumstances of this year.
1) Aldridge and Oden *should* both be quicker at getting back on D.

2) Both Aldridge and Oden seem to work in the flow a little more and do less one on one, which can be good or bad. They may not draw the double teams, but getting the ball towards the hoop faster and kicking out the ball faster should result in more uncontested shots. I was always amazed at Zach’s ability to score while triple teamed, but better are shots that are taken before the defense is set or kicked out to an open shooter/scorer. 

3) Roy is one year matured and should be able to pick up a larger load. Add to that a more experienced Jack, Blake and Webster, and I think that the guard play should be able to play at a higher level and balance both the offense and defense this year. One of the reasons that Zach scored so much last year was that he had to. Add to that a (hopefully) better SF rotation and the scoring load placed on the PF position should be lessened so Aldridge does not have to make up for Zach, the 1,2 and 3 spots can help.

4) Defense. I think Zach was underrated on D, when he hustled back, but the problem was that he did not get back often enough. With Oden, Aldridge and Frye taking up most of the minutes that Zach and Magloire played, the D should be improved mostly because I expect them to get beck on D. 

5) Oden - He is a big question mark *this year*. Most on these boards agree that in the future he will be a big time player, the question is when will he really start to show his abilities. I personally believe that he is ready right now to score 15ppg and play 30 min of solid D. And his thunderous dunks and quick jump should mean that he will draw double teams very early in his career. This should help Aldridge and the rest of the team have an easier time scoring, just as double teams on Zach helped the rest of the team. Watching college games and practice clips of Oden leaves me in awe. This kid is going to be the best center in the league in a few years, and should be able to be a top 10 center as a rookie.

There are more positives than drawbacks this year and that should result in more wins. Losing Zach will hurt, but adding Oden, Frye, Blake, Jones and others should help offset and even improve the team. Then you add more experience for Outlaw, Roy, Webster and Jack and this team should be making large strides this year. And then to top it off, the pace of the game this year should be better suited for the majority of the players than it was last year. Zach and Magloire had to play a slow down game, but this year the pace should be dictated by the abilities of Roy, Aldridge and Oden, and that should result in faster play, better ball movement, and easier shots. 

Overall, I think there is truth to both camps mentioned earlier, but that in the end, the Blazers will be much better than last year. I would be more surprised with 30 wins than with 48. I think 45 is very doable.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> So why did other teams double him? Why did other teams build defensive game plans around him?


Simple - he was the focus of the Blazers' offense. The Blazers ran their offense through him, as shown by his 21.2 FGA per game. You design your defense to stop the other team's offense. If the Blazers game plan was to run the offense through Zach, the appropriate response from the defense is to focus on Zach. Throw in the fact that he's turnover prone and a poor passer, and all the more reason to focus defensive pressure on him.



Ed O said:


> Defensively, other teams won't need to worry about doubling any Blazer on the block this year.


I disagree. There are very few centers in the league who can match Oden's size, strength, quickness and athleticism. With his ability to shoot with either hand, if you let him get the ball down on the blocks, he will be very difficult to guard 1:1. He will draw double teams for this reason - and also teams will be trying to test the rookie to see how he handles the pressure. Will he recognize the double team and find his open teammate, or will he try to force a shot or commit a turnover. I suspect we'll see plenty of all three scenarios this year, but one pleasant surprise I've see from Oden during his limited summer league action and these few scrimmages is his willingness to pass the ball and his ability to find an open teammate. Yeah, it will be a lot tougher against real NBA competition, but at least he shows the willingness to pass the ball and not always force his own shot.



Ed O said:


> Oden is not ready to be fed the ball in offensive sets just yet.


I'm not sure why you say that. IMHO, he has a much better developed offensive game than Shaq did as a rookie. I don't think he'll score as much as Shaq did, but with a great drop step and a jump hook with either hand, to not feed him in the post would be stupid. You don't draft a franchise center to be a role player. There will be some growing pains as he gets used to the speed of the NBA game, but he WILL be a presence at BOTH ends of the court this year.



Ed O said:


> "Better ball movement" is always something that a team should strive for. I don't see that simply removing Zach is going to achieve that, though.
> 
> If the team last year had been capable of better ball movement without Zach in, why was Zach in?


Removing Zach wasn't the only change that will result in better ball movement. They now have a starting center that the other team has to actually guard. They've also added Steve Blake, an excellent distributor. Roy and Aldridge are both a year older and more experienced. As a team, they are faster, taller and more athletic than they were last year. This, plus an offense that doesn't focus on one player should result in better ball movement.



Ed O said:


> If the team was better off with Aldridge in the game, why was Zach in the game?


Well, Aldridge was injured at the start of the season. Plus, he was an unproven rookie playing for a coach who is usually (Roy being the exception) reluctant to play rookies. Aldridge showed great improvement over the course of the season. He went from a guy who wasn't even in the regular rotation on January 1 to a starter by March 1. And, when he did start, it was almost always at center where the Blazers were exceptionally weak. So, the choice wasn't between Zach and Aldridge. It was between Aldridge and Magloire (or Joel when healthy). Zach was in the game because Zach + Aldridge > Aldridge + Magloire. With the addition of Oden at the 5, Aldridge can play most of his minutes at his natural power forward position.



Ed O said:


> Was Nate incompetent? Was he trying to build up trade value for the upcoming season, rather than trying to win games?


I suppose he was trying to do the best with what he had. Going into the season, Zach was the only proven scorer the team had. So, Nate's offense was designed with him as the focus. As the season progressed, Roy and eventually Aldridge both emerged as viable scoring options. Unfortunately, both were injured at various times. So, the bulk of the scoring load still fell on Zach.

Aldridge showed enough improvement over the course of his rookie year that the Blazers felt they could dump Zach and move Aldridge to the starting power forward position. I trust their judgment.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> Aldridge showed enough improvement over the course of his rookie year that the Blazers felt they could dump Zach and move Aldridge to the starting power forward position. I trust their judgment.


I don't blame you trusting their judgment, but I don't think you can extrapoloate their willingness to dump Zach into some sort of dismissal of his value to the team.

It's not at all inconsistent for the Blazers to move Zach for the long run (saving millions of dollars, giving us more ability to add a FA down the road, giving Aldridge room to play AND adding prospects in Frye and Rudy) while missing him in the short run.

Didn't Nate claim that the team will be challenged to meet their win total from last year? I'm pretty sure he said something to that effect. Why would he say that, given we just added the best big man prospect in the last decade?

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Didn't Nate claim that the team will be challenged to meet their win total from last year? I'm pretty sure he said something to that effect. Why would he say that, given we just added the best big man prospect in the last decade?
> 
> Ed O.


he's doing what every politician does right before a big speech or debate: tamp down expectations, so that when you easily exceed the lowered expectations it's a big achievement. 

nobody will second guess him if he says they should win 31 games and we win 50. everyone will if he says they should win 50 and they win 31.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

as long as we're quoting Blazer staff, though, I think it was Pritchard who said something like "You have to know where Oden is at all times. He's a real presence out there on both ends of the court." 

that doesn't sound like a guy who thinks Oden "isn't ready to be fed the ball in offensive sets yet."


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Did Zach have holes in his game? Yes.

How many NBA players can you name who *don't* have holes in their games?

Oden, Roy, and LaMarcus may all become very good players - but current expectations for them are absurd. The more they play, the more obvious it will become that they have flaws in their games as well.

What are you going to do then folks?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Aldridge showed enough improvement over the course of his rookie year that the Blazers felt they could dump Zach and move Aldridge to the starting power forward position. I trust their judgment.


More then trust it, I wholeheartedly second it. Given a choice between the two as the PF on any team, I'd rather have LA then Zach. I value defense especially from the frontcourt, and LaMarcus is decidedly better on that end of the court. Projecting either playing beside GO gives LaMarcus even more of an advantage, as his high post offensive game should be a great compliment to Greg's power on the low block. 

btw... the way Pritchard spoke of ZR's other unreported incidents on courtside a week back, I think that _dump_ is an appropriate description. With the cupboards filled with better Big options, they had the luxury of taking what the market was bearing rather then holding out for a hypothetical day when he was worth closer to what some posters perceive his value at. Then again, I think the fan's view of whats what in the league is largely shaped and limited to whats reported and that a whole lot of important things happen unbeknownst to us but known to NBA personnel types. Personally I liked what they got for ZR quite a bit and don't think offers would have sweetened much if at all.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Did Zach have holes in his game? Yes.
> 
> How many NBA players can you name who *don't* have holes in their games?


I would have much more of an issue trying to name players who've the types of pluses and minuses that Zach has. Portland's big 3 all have far more well rounded games then Zach. Unlike Zach, all 3 excell on both ends of the court. Unlike Zach, all three are at least good athletes for their respective positions. I'd be interested for you to list what sort of holes any of these three possess that could rival Zach's horrible D.



> Oden, Roy, and LaMarcus may all become very good players - but current expectations for them are absurd. The more they play, the more obvious it will become that they have flaws in their games as well.
> 
> What are you going to do then folks?


Well after they do what I'm expecting I'm going to rub this post in your face for all eternity :wink:

Seriously, all three are already very good players. Thats not expectations, thats what is. I expect them to get better as their career's progress (especially GO and LA), but I'm projecting over 500 ball from the get go. Soon enough we'll see whats absurd.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> he's doing what every politician does right before a big speech or debate: tamp down expectations, so that when you easily exceed the lowered expectations it's a big achievement.
> 
> nobody will second guess him if he says they should win 31 games and we win 50. everyone will if he says they should win 50 and they win 31.


It's possible. It seems odd, though, that everything positive the team says about its players is taken as truth, but the negatives are taken as expectation management.

*shrug*

We'll see. 

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I would have much more of an issue trying to name players who've the types of pluses and minuses that Zach has. Portland's big 3 all have far more well rounded games then Zach. Unlike Zach, all 3 excell on both ends of the court. Unlike Zach, all three are at least good athletes for their respective positions. I'd be interested for you to list what sort of holes any of these three possess that could rival Zach's horrible D.
> 
> STOMP


Players like Zach? How about Rashard Lewis who doesn't pass, play defense, or rebound. How about Arenas who often hogs the ball and plays little or no defense. 

Many NBA players only excel at one end of the floor. The difference is that they aren't in the same pay bracket. Players like Zach and Lewis are overpaid - not useless. There is a difference.

The Blazers have a bright future, but I will be very surprised if they are above .500 this season.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> The Blazers have a bright future, but I will be very surprised if they are above .500 this season.


There is the very real possibility that they will be both better than last year AND below .500. 

In fact, if you view the poll results here you'll see that's what many people think. I personally voted for 39-42 wins and think that's the most likely outcome. However, the optimist in me hopes they'll surprise some people (and be healthy) and win even more.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

GOD said:


> I think this disagreement is the crux of the issue. It seems like most on the boards members fall into one of two camps. Camp 1: Zach was a ball hog that slowed down the game and made those around him worse, and played poor D. Camp 2: Zach was a monster PF who rebounded and scored so well that his positives will be missed big time this year, and there is not enough ready talent on the team to make up for his departure.


And then there is Camp 3 (including me): who think Zach is a very good offensive player who hurts his team on the defensive end to the point where his net contribution is zero to slightly positive - positive on some nights, negative on others, but on the average much of what he puts up on offense, he gives back on the defensive end. And since the game is played on both ends of the court, I view Zach as neither a villain (Camp 1) nor a hero (Camp 2). All those arguing that the Blazers will win fewer games without Zach focus almost completely on replacing his scoring and neglect to consider how much better the team defense will be without him - and great defense (steals and blocked shots) leads to easy scoring opportunities n the other end.

I think Zach could be a great role player in the right situation (veteran club that needs an inside scoring presence), but I don't think he's the kind of player that will ever be the cornerstone of a championship contender. In the right situation where a team can exploit his offensive talents and cover up his defensive lapses, he could thrive, but I think as a team the young Blazers are better off without him both now and in the future.

BNM


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> And then there is Camp 3 (including me): who think Zach is a very good offensive player who hurts his team on the defensive end to the point where his net contribution is zero to slightly positive


I guess it's cliche by now to point out again that Zach's contribution to this team was strongly positive last year. That's a statistical fact. One can claim that the plays were designed for him or whatever, but that doesn't explain why the team was so much worse on average in every minute he was off the floor. Does anyone think Nate does not have plays in the book for a not-Zach scenario? Yeah right.

Aldridge and Oden have very well rounded games, with few holes, but neither When Steve Kerr wrote a column about Dwight Howard's lack of post skills, who did he pick as the natural post-scoring counter-example? Zach Randolph. He plays no help defense and doesn't run the floor, but of those three players, he's by far the best post-player, he's the only one that can score in isolation, he draws more fouls, he keeps himself in the game by staying out of foul trouble and he's even the best passer. People can claim wishfully he does nothing that they can't do, but it just isn't so.

A frontcourt rotation of LMA, Oden and Zach would be better than whatever we put on the floor this year. They are all starting caliber players, so it wouldn't be at all untenable in the long-run, but when we traded Zach, we probably traded away wins in the 2007-2008 season.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Last year when we were hitting our outside shot we had great ball movement, but when we weren't hitting outside shots we depended more and more on Zach and we didn't have the ball movement. The same will be true this year. If we are hitting our outside shots we'll have good ball movement, but if we aren't then we'll have to force it inside where the D will be collapsing on Oden and Aldridge and they'll end up having to force up shots.

This year with Oden we should have a better D so when we are missing our shots we should at least be able to keep it close, but that would have been true with Zach to a degree as well. Hopefully we'll also get a lot more easy baskets with Oden and Aldridge running the court.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Aldridge and Oden have very well rounded games, with few holes, but neither When Steve Kerr wrote a column about Dwight Howard's lack of post skills, who did he pick as the natural post-scoring counter-example? Zach Randolph. He plays no help defense and doesn't run the floor, but of those three players, he's by far the best post-player, he's the only one that can score in isolation, he draws more fouls, he keeps himself in the game by staying out of foul trouble and he's even the best passer. People can claim wishfully he does nothing that they can't do, but it just isn't so.


So when Steve Kerr wrote a collumn about who is a beast on the block, he pointed to Zach and his main skill? Is this really news? 

Then you make the quantum leap that he's only one (of Zach LA and Greg) who can score in isolation!!! The best passer??? Are you freaking joking? Is whether Zach the darkest of black holes in any way still up for debate? I don't know whether I've ever seen a Blazer force their shot through more double/triple teams. 

I'd love for you to tell me what you think Zach can do on the block that Oden can't and please don't hide behind some vague inexperience/unproven mumbo jumbo... afterall... you're making claims whats what being common knowledge with the _just isn't so_ line.



> A frontcourt rotation of LMA, Oden and Zach would be better than whatever we put on the floor this year. They are all starting caliber players, so it wouldn't be at all untenable in the long-run, but when we traded Zach, we probably traded away wins in the 2007-2008 season.


Yes they are all starting caliber players, but that doesn't make them a good mix. Zach and Oden both have only excelled on the low block. How many chefs (and chef defenders) would you like in the kitchen? I definitely think there would have been chemistry problems on offense, and the D would have been worse without question. For many reasons (including this season's chances) I'll take the current mix (even without the Rudy kicker) over what KP passed on... this year. 

btw.. following Nash it's been amazing to have a GM that I'm in near full agreement with. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> Last year when we were hitting our outside shot we had great ball movement, but when we weren't hitting outside shots we depended more and more on Zach and we didn't have the ball movement. The same will be true this year. If we are hitting our outside shots we'll have good ball movement, but if we aren't then we'll have to force it inside where the D will be collapsing on Oden and Aldridge and they'll end up having to force up shots.


Hello Channing Frye and James Jones.

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Hello Channing Frye and James Jones.


And maybe I'm being to optimistic but given that Roy was much better from outside by the end of the year than he was at the beginning and that one of his stated goals this summer was to improve it yet further....

And beyond Roy I think there's at least a reasonable chance we'll see significant improvement from at least one of Outlaw, Webster, Jack, or Blake (addition by, well... addition). And while Aldridge maybe isn't ready for a 3 point contest, he's got a solid mid-range jumper, much like Frye.

I still don't think outside shooting will be a strength of the team, but there's at least a decent chance it'll be some less a weakness. And if even a couple guys (like Jones and Roy or Webster) can hit open 3s enough to keep the opposing defense at least somewhat honest, there should be room enough for the post men and the cutters to go to work.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Hello Channing Frye and James Jones.
> 
> STOMP


Hopefully they'll consistently hit outside shots. James Jones probably will do about the same as Ime, so they cancel each other out. That leaves Frye as the only difference. Funny, Zach was probably our best outside shooter was well. Not 3 pointer, but he was the most consistent jump shooter,,,,,or maybe fade away shooter.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> I'd love for you to tell me what you think Zach can do on the block that Oden can't and please don't hide behind some vague inexperience/unproven mumbo jumbo.


You aren't serious, are you, STOMP?

Zach is one of the best offensive players in the NBA. You think that Greg Oden, at age 19 or 20, is going to be able to score at that level?

I just don't see it.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You aren't serious, are you, STOMP?
> 
> Zach is one of the best offensive players in the NBA. You think that Greg Oden, at age 19 or 20, is going to be able to score at that level?
> 
> ...


I agree that Stomp's out on a limb I'm glad I'm not on. I'm also one who really wanted to see a rotation of Oden, Randolph, and Aldridge.

That said, Shaq came in without what anyone would call a plethora of moves and still made a substantial impact his first year, and he's not the only big who's done that. And yes, Shaq and those other "raw" rookie bigs who had major impacts were all older than Oden is now. Still, Oden's bigger, stronger, and faster than many of the centers he'll be facing, he's plenty mature and coachable, he'll have both hands to play with this year, and gosh darn it people like him! :biggrin: 

So yeah, there's my attempt to help ya out there, Stomp. :cheers:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> I guess it's cliche by now to point out again that Zach's contribution to this team was strongly positive last year. That's a statistical fact.


Based on what statistic? Define "strongly positive".

The Blazers 2006-2007 points per 100 possessions with Zach Randolph on the court:

Points scored: 107.4
Points allowed: 111.8
Difference: -4.3

The Blazers 2006-2007 points per 100 possessions with LaMarcus Aldridge on the court:

Points scored: 108.1
Points allowed: 110.2
Difference: -2.1

So even during Aldridge's rookie year, the Blazers scored more and gave up fewer points when he was on the court compared to when Zach was on the court. And, keep in mind that's for the whole year and Aldridge improved dramatically over the course of the season.

Zach did make a positive contribution (as in, they were outscored by less when he was on the court than off the court), but again the edge goes to the rookie Aldridge.

The Blazers 2006-2007 points per 100 possessions with Zach Randolph off the court:

Points scored: 103.6
Points allowed: 110.0
Difference: -6.4
Net: +2.1

The Blazers 2006-2007 points per 100 possessions with LaMarcus Aldridge off the court:

Points scored: 104.7
Points allowed: 111.6
Difference: -6.8
Net: +4.7

So, if Zach's contributions were strongly positive with a net on court/of court differential of +2.1 points per 100 possessions, what does that make LaMarcus Aldridge's contributions with a net of +4.7. The more I look at the stats, the more it reinforces what I've felt intuitively and the more it backs up KP's decision to dump Zach and go with LaMarcus Aldridge as our starting power forward of the future - the immediate future.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

mgb said:


> Funny, Zach was probably our best outside shooter was well. Not 3 pointer, but he was the most consistent jump shooter,,,,,or maybe fade away shooter.


Not even close. Zach's eFG% on jump shots last season was 0.417. Brandon Roy's was 0.467. Ime Udoka's was 0.510. Jarrett Jack's was 0.462. Martell Webster's was 0.481. Zach has a decent jumper for a big man, but he was hardly our best jump shooter and was much more effective close to the basket where his eFG% was 0.551.

BNM


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Not even close. Zach's eFG% on jump shots last season was 0.417. Brandon Roy's was 0.467. Ime Udoka's was 0.510. Jarrett Jack's was 0.462. Martell Webster's was 0.481. Zach has a decent jumper for a big man, but he was hardly our best jump shooter and was much more effective close to the basket where his eFG% was 0.551.
> 
> BNM


Huh. It _almost_ seems as if Webster should be shooting more.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You aren't serious, are you, STOMP?
> 
> Zach is one of the best offensive players in the NBA. You think that Greg Oden, at age 19 or 20, is going to be able to score at that level?
> 
> I just don't see it.


This is the second time (different thread) you've called me on this same thing and I don't change my opinion every couple weeks in the offseason. Yes I believe that GO will be even better then Zach on the low block. No I don't think Portland is going force feed him the ball and then clear out like they did with ZR last year as they have better options and a more balanced team skill wise. I expect the club should run a lot more without the molasses slow Bigs they had last year.

In half court sets from day 1 Greg will absolutely draw double teams as few players in the league can match his physicality. I expect him to force things a lot less then ZR though which should translate into less points/more assists but a much higher shooting percentage. In part because of him, I expect that ball movement will be noticeably improved this year. 

Serious

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> This is the second time (different thread) you've called me on this same thing and I don't change my opinion every couple weeks in the offseason. Yes I believe that GO will be even better then Zach on the low block. No I don't think Portland is going force feed him the ball and then clear out like they did with ZR last year as they have better options and a more balanced team skill wise. I expect the club should run a lot more without the molasses slow Bigs they had last year.
> 
> In half court sets from day 1 Greg will absolutely draw double teams as few players in the league can match his physicality. I expect him to force things a lot less then ZR though which should translate into less points/more assists but a much higher shooting percentage. In part because of him, I expect that ball movement will be noticeably improved this year.
> 
> Serious


I don't mean to harp on it... I just can't believe that you and I are at such odds.

Nate is going to let the team run?

Oden is going to command double teams because of his "physicality"?

I don't see these things at all. Nate has ALWAYS been a slow-down coach, and Oden wasn't even consistently double-teamed at OSU... in the NBA he'll have difficulty backing players down and/or posting them up--at least until he gets some experience.

We'll see. I'll try not to keep asking you the same things, though. 

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Nate is going to let the team run?


you run when you have an advantage in the open court and Portland should be in that situation a lot more then in past years. Two of the most common ways to get a breakout opportunity are TOs (steals/blocks) and long rebounds. Obviously with Oden and Aldridge this is going to one of the better shotblocking Blazer teams we've seen. Not only should their blocks start fastbreaks, but their shotblocking presense should have opposing teams settling for more shots outside the paint... and long shots equal long rebounds. And of course Greg, LaMarcus, and Channing are just a tad bit more likely to be filling a lane on the break then Zach, Magloire, or Joel.



> I don't see these things at all. Nate has ALWAYS been a slow-down coach, and Oden wasn't even consistently double-teamed at OSU... in the NBA he'll have difficulty backing players down and/or posting them up--at least until he gets some experience.


Oden was dominating college ball by the end of last year with limited use of his shooting hand and (reportedly) regular battles with sinus infections. Being able to breath and use his shooting hand should give his already sizable physical advantages a significant boost. Having spent a year focusing on his left hand should pay benefits throughout his career too. On offense I bet we'll see him play more of the garbage man style, pounding the offensive boards like Zach did early on in his Blazer days. He'll get his 15-17 ppg in the flow of the game rather then by being the focus of the attack 



> We'll see. I'll try not to keep asking you the same things, though.


sorry if I came off snippy... I guess I'm tiring of reading how my line of thinking is absurd/out on a limb. Much of the board seems to have made up it's collective mind that the club is going to be worse then I do... oh well whatever... I very much doubt I'll be eating crow once the games start but we shall see. 

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> sorry if I came off snippy... I guess I'm tiring of reading how my line of thinking is absurd/*out on a limb*.
> STOMP


Sorry Stomp. I guess that came out wrong. That post _was_ actually meant to be supportive -- I was just trying to be clear for other posters that I wasn't totally buying my own argument. 

Regardless, I _very_ much _want_ you to be right, and I'm even willing to bet Ed does as well. And I can even see how you might be, apparently unlike Ed. I guess I'm just trying to avoid getting my expectations very high at this point because if they're off I'd rather be pleasantly surprised (or even very pleasantly surprised) than fall crashingly back to earth.

I _do_ see Randolph's on-the-court shortcomings: defense, speed, jumping ability, etc. The list is pretty long, actually. And, I think Ed's right in saying that Randolph is one of the very best post scorers in a league with a number of great post scorers. I can see where we'll get some of that back through better defense, fast-breaks, and the like, but I don't think we can really tell how much until games start getting played and as I said, I'm trying to keep my expectations down. That said, I'm not as concerned about my _hopes_ and they're pretty high right now. :biggrin:


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

PorterIn2004 said:


> And, I think Ed's right in saying that Randolph is one of the very best post scorers in a league with a number of great post scorers. I can see where we'll get some of that back through better defense, fast-breaks, and the like...


I'm not really worried about our inside scoring. Yes, Aldridge will score less than Zach did, but Oden will easily score a ton more than Joel/Magloire did last year.

Here's a quote from a post I made on this same topic two months ago:



Boob-No-Moore said:


> We lose Zach's scoring and rebounding, but I look at it this way... Last year Joel started 43 games at center and averaged 2.0 PPG. Magloire started another 23 games at center and averaged 6.5 PPG. So, for those 66 games, we got an average of 3.6 PPG out of our starting center spot. Combined with Zach's 23.6 PPG, that comes to 26.2 PPG from the starting 4/5 spots. I can see Oden and Aldridge easily combining to exceed that total point production. In fact, I'll be surprise if they don't top that mark by around 5 PPG. So, Zach's scoring will be more than replaced - and I expect Oden and Aldridge to score more efficiently than Zach did and shoot > 50% from the field (compared to Zach's 46.7%).


If you look at what Aldridge did during the month of March last season, when he finally became a starter and got 30 minutes per game on a regular basis. Ignoring the last game when he only played seven minutes due to the irregular heart beat, he averaged 15.6 PPG and 8.3 RPG in 31.9 MPG on 0.525 FG%. 

And, he's supposedly improved even more over the summer. for most of March, other than Zach's bereavement leave) he started at the 5. This year he will come into his second season as the starting 4 - which is his best natural position and where he will have a height/length advantage almost every night. He may also get more minutes now that he'll be a full-time starter and a more experienced player. So, I don't think it's inconceivable that he'll average 16+ PPG this year, but let's be conservative and say he only averages 14.5 PPG. That means Oden only needs to average 11.7 PPG for the starting 4/5 spots this year to equal the scoring we got last year from the starting tandem of Zach + Joel/Maglorie. Personally, I would be surprised if both Aldridge and Oden don't exceed these modest numbers. I'm expecting something more like 17 PPG from Aldridge and 15 PPG from Oden.

And, of course, our defense both interior, full court, individual and team, will be a WHOLE lot better than it was last year.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Nate is going to let the team run?
> 
> Nate has ALWAYS been a slow-down coach..


This is a valid point. Nate has never coached a team with a pace factor in the top half of the league - and has only came close once.

As a counter point, he's never coached a team with a starting big man nearly as athletic as Oden or Aldridge (who started only 22 games last year) - let alone TWO of them. This year, he will go into the season with two of the fastest, most athletic big men in the league. That alone will create MANY more fast break opportunities.

He will also have a point guard better suited to the fast break this year than last - Steve Blake. Last year, Denver was second in the league in fast break points at 18.6 per game (second only to Don Nelson's run 'n gun Warriors at 20.4). I like Jarrett Jack, but he's really more of a combo guard and running the break is not his strength.

So, this year we'll have a starting 4 and 5, plus an experienced PG who are all well suited to the running game. Even if Nate doesn't make it a featured part of the offense, there will be plenty of opportunities to run the break this year due to the speed and athleticism of our bigs. When you have an advantage, which you will often with Aldridge and Oden running the court, you attack the basket and finish. When you don't, you bring it back out and run your half court sets.

My biggest concern is that Nate will discourage the team from running, even when they have an advantage. Old habits die hard. He hasn't has the personnel to run in the past. Now that he has superior athletes will he take advantage of their abilities or revert to his old, comfortable style. I hope not, but if he does he's not the right coach for this team.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Oden is going to command double teams because of his "physicality"?


Name three players in the NBA who can match his combination of size, strength, quickness and leaping ability. He is the most physically gifted big man to come into the league since Shaq. Once he adjusts to the NBA, there will be very few players capable of guarding him in the low post 1:1. The question is how long will that adjustment take. I personally think he will be doubled a lot this year. Of course, he won't reach his peak for several years, when he'll be truly scary, but he's already superior enough athletically to demand regular double teams in the post. 



Ed O said:


> Oden wasn't even consistently double-teamed at OSU...


I don't know which Ohio State games you watched, but in every one I saw, he was constantly double teamed, even triple teamed - and that includes the title game against Florida, where in spite of a a right wrist that wasn't still fully healed, and being double teamed by two older, more experienced, future lottery picks, he was clearly the best player on the court. 

Yeah, the NCAA isn't the NBA, and it will take him some time to adjust, but I think Oden will be better offensively this year than most people think. He's got some good fundamental post moves and the size and athleticism few can match. He can score around the basket with either hand and will also get a lot of points on put-backs and dunks.[/QUOTE]

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Sorry Stomp. I guess that came out wrong. That post _was_ actually meant to be supportive -- I was just trying to be clear for other posters that I wasn't totally buying my own argument.
> 
> Regardless, I _very_ much _want_ you to be right, and I'm even willing to bet Ed does as well. And I can even see how you might be, apparently unlike Ed. I guess I'm just trying to avoid getting my expectations very high at this point because if they're off I'd rather be pleasantly surprised (or even very pleasantly surprised) than fall crashingly back to earth.
> 
> I _do_ see Randolph's on-the-court shortcomings: defense, speed, jumping ability, etc. The list is pretty long, actually. And, I think Ed's right in saying that Randolph is one of the very best post scorers in a league with a number of great post scorers. I can see where we'll get some of that back through better defense, fast-breaks, and the like, but I don't think we can really tell how much until games start getting played and as I said, I'm trying to keep my expectations down. That said, I'm not as concerned about my _hopes_ and they're pretty high right now. :biggrin:


I actually wasn't referring to any specific post just the general assessment that those who view the team's chances outside of the 38 win consensus are somehow out of our collective minds. Work has me away from the computer a week at a time and when I come back I seem to read post after post with those sorts of derogatory assessments. 

Now granted it's the offseason, and every offseason it seems some giddy (usually young) fans go overboard speculating on the teams chances. Thats hasn't been me. Overall I've been pretty good at taking a cold look at the various Blazer teams and individual prospects and giving an accurate forecast on how they'll do. At full strength last year the PTB were becoming a competitive club until injuries took them down. Most of that club is back healthy and seems to be focused and stoked. I think they have good reason to be.

Their top talent lacks experience and they've some lessons to learn. <<< Thats about the worst thing I can come up with to say about them. On the positive side they have one of the longest and most athletic frontcourts in the league's history and a do it all guard with seemingly great leadership qualities. Their projected starting lineup seems to be a blend of complimentary talents. They look to have a pretty decent/deep bench as well. 

I guess overall I don't see where the pessimistic view holds much water. Ya'll are clearly insane 

:smile:

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, this year we'll have a starting 4 and 5, plus an experienced PG who are all well suited to the running game. Even if Nate doesn't make it a featured part of the offense, there will be plenty of opportunities to run the break this year due to the speed and athleticism of our bigs. When you have an advantage, which you will often with Aldridge and Oden running the court, you attack the basket and finish. When you don't, you bring it back out and run your half court sets.


ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ty

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally Posted by Boob-No-Moore
> We lose Zach's scoring and rebounding, but I look at it this way... Last year Joel started 43 games at center and averaged 2.0 PPG. Magloire started another 23 games at center and averaged 6.5 PPG. So, for those 66 games, we got an average of 3.6 PPG out of our starting center spot. Combined with Zach's 23.6 PPG, that comes to 26.2 PPG from the starting 4/5 spots. I can see Oden and Aldridge easily combining to exceed that total point production. In fact, I'll be surprise if they don't top that mark by around 5 PPG. So, Zach's scoring will be more than replaced - and I expect Oden and Aldridge to score more efficiently than Zach did and shoot > 50% from the field (compared to Zach's 46.7%).


exactly. and the only real big man offense we had coming off the bench was Aldridge and Outlaw. I expect Frye to replace most of Aldridge's backup production and Outlaw will be one year better. at worst our bench is a wash compared to last year's.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Based on what statistic? Define "strongly positive".


Meaning that our +/- measured on a per minute basis was very high. I can link the page for you again, but I seriously wonder if people are ignoring it on purpose, since I find it hard to believe you don't see it when it's the first thing that appears when you click on "Portland Trailblazers" on 82games.com:

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

Dare to look at it, and you'll see that the team played better with Zach in it, based on the most holistic stat there is. Some people like to "LOL" about +/- because it gives screwy readings on guys who play few minutes ("Jason Richardson is our best player????"), but all it does is tell how well the team played with and without a player on the floor, and when a guy plays most of the season with many different player combos next to him, it's a solid basis for making a conclusion of causality.

So people can complain about Zach's defense or his eFG% or whatever, but it's still a fact the team played better with him.

And when you go and compare his stats to Aldridge's (who for some reason is better per possession but not per 48 mins, although the game is measured in minutes...), but realize that nobody is advocating getting rid of Aldridge. It's a straw man to compare the output of Frye-LMA-Oden to last year, because nobody is advocating not replacing Magloire with Oden. All I said was that the hypothetical 3 man rotation of Zach-LMA-Oden is better than LMA-Oden and whoever else we put out there. Having three very good front court players, each having some extraordinary abilities that the other two don't possess, would be a good thing.

And if you think rookie Oden is going to play like rookie Shaq, you're mistaken. Remember that great game Oden had in the finals? He put up 25-12 in the one tourney game he didn't get in foul trouble, and we were impressed by how well he stepped up his game and led his team valiantly in defeat. Well, Shaq _averaged_ that much over the entire season his last year in college. Shaq was raw, but not as raw as Oden, as evidenced by his total domination of the college game. I'm not saying Oden couldn't someday be that kind of player, but Shaq was older and his game was simply more developed when he entered the league, and Oden just isn't at the same point yet.

edit: you should also notice that in that great month of March Aldridge had that people keep mentioning, he started _with_ Zach for most of it. I guess rather than stifling LMAs game like many would claim, they actually made a pretty good combo. Zach was putting up 4 apg that month, while LMA was putting up a consistent 0.5. It seems that when Zach finally had some decent teammates to play with, he adapted his game and passed the ball more. Amazing.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> And if you think rookie Oden is going to play like rookie Shaq, you're mistaken. Remember that great game Oden had in the finals? He put up 25-12 in the one tourney game he didn't get in foul trouble, and we were impressed by how well he stepped up his game and led his team valiantly in defeat. Well, Shaq _averaged_ that much over the entire season his last year in college. Shaq was raw, but not as raw as Oden, as evidenced by his total domination of the college game. I'm not saying Oden couldn't someday be that kind of player, but Shaq was older and his game was simply more developed when he entered the league, and Oden just isn't at the same point yet.


Mostly I agree with this but it _does_ seem to me that the combination of being able to get a full breath and having full use of his dominate hand might make some difference to Oden's performance level and, near as I can tell, you've pretty much ignored that piece in your above statements.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> So when Steve Kerr wrote a collumn about who is a beast on the block, he pointed to Zach and his main skill? Is this really news?


I dunno. Sometimes I get the feeling that when people list off all of Zach's faults and incredulously ask how it was the team possibly could have played better with him than without last year, they are forgetting what Zach did very very well.



STOMP said:


> Then you make the quantum leap that he's only one (of Zach LA and Greg) who can score in isolation!!!
> 
> ...
> 
> I'd love for you to tell me what you think Zach can do on the block that Oden can't and please don't hide behind some vague inexperience/unproven mumbo jumbo... afterall... you're making claims whats what being common knowledge with the _just isn't so_ line.


I make that conclusion not from what Kerr said, but from having seen them all play. We all know (since it isn't news) that Zach can score in isolation. If you watched the Blazers consistently last year, you'd have seen that Aldridge didn't. Maybe one would argue that he could have if given the chance, but then you have to wonder why Nate never had him doing that. It's probably because, unlike Zach, he has no jab step to create space facing up and few moves or ability to pass out of double teams to be effective posting up.

With Oden, we did see him isolate on the blocks in college. Here one could argue that he will be effective at it in the pros as well, but what I saw was a player who almost solely used his strength/size/quickness advantages to bully guys, and with NBA centers being stronger/bigger/faster than college ones, that kind of approach is going to be much less effective. To score in the post effectively in the NBA takes skills that Oden simply hasn't shown us yet. I don't think it's a quantum leap at all to say that Zach next year is still going to be a much better post scorer than either of those guys.



STOMP said:


> The best passer??? Are you freaking joking? Is whether Zach the darkest of black holes in any way still up for debate? I don't know whether I've ever seen a Blazer force their shot through more double/triple teams.


I was kind of hoping someone would pick up on that and give me the multiple punctuation point riff. Yes, Zach is a better passer than LMA or Oden. 
He has forced shots and hasn't shown much passing ability in the years he has been playing for the Blazers with not-very-good teammates, but he does have some ability. It's not that great, but it's also not hard to be a better passer than guys who hardly pass at all.



STOMP said:


> Yes they are all starting caliber players, but that doesn't make them a good mix. Zach and Oden both have only excelled on the low block. How many chefs (and chef defenders) would you like in the kitchen? I definitely think there would have been chemistry problems on offense, and the D would have been worse without question.


It's tough to find a perfect mix. LMA and Zach looked great together last year. LMA and Oden should be great as well. With Aldridge and Frye on the court though, we've got a couple guys who are too thin to guard stronger post players and who themselves have little post game of their own. With Joel on the court with anyone, we've got a hole on offense.

Zach is very good on the low block, but he also can play face up in the high post, because unlike Oden/LMA/Frye/Joel, he has a skillset that includes jab steps, jumpers, driving with the ball, spin moves and yes, even passing. When you take into account the piles of fouls he draws (again unlike Frye or LMA), he's pretty efficient as well. None of those other players can isolate in the high post, at all, unless it's LMA or Frye for a quick jump shot and nothing more.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Mostly I agree with this but it _does_ seem to me that the combination of being able to get a full breath and having full use of his dominate hand might make some difference to Oden's performance level and, near as I can tell, you've pretty much ignored that piece in your above statements.


Was Oden having sinus problems in college, before summer league? Either way, I'm sure it's true what they say that we didn't get to see the full Greg Oden while he was at OSU. But even so, he wasn't anywhere near rookie Shaq. Not even close. And an early season hand injury and sinus problems wouldn't account for the fact that he showed relatively little in the way of post skills in college. You can be very tired and still use your skills, so I'm comfortable with the presumption that he simply hasn't developed them yet, and that's going to prevent him from being a truly dominant post player in the NBA this year.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I make that conclusion not from what Kerr said, but from having seen them all play. We all know (since it isn't news) that Zach can score in isolation. *If you watched the Blazers consistently last year*, you'd have seen that Aldridge didn't. Maybe one would argue that he could have if given the chance, but then you have to wonder why Nate never had him doing that. It's probably because, unlike Zach, he has no jab step to create space facing up and few moves or ability to pass out of double teams to be effective posting up.


Yeah I sure need to start watching the Blazers more  

I think you're equally off base in your assessments of Zach and Aldridge. LA is very talented offensively, and saying he doesn't have something as basic as a jab step is plain silly. Not only do I watch most every Blazer game every year, but I also caught as many of LA's games at Texas as I could. He perked my interest in the HS McDonalds game and I followed him since. 



> With Oden, we did see him isolate on the blocks in college. Here one could argue that he will be effective at it in the pros as well, but what I saw was a player who almost solely used his strength/size/quickness advantages to bully guys, and with NBA centers being stronger/bigger/faster than college ones, that kind of approach is going to be much less effective. To score in the post effectively in the NBA takes skills that Oden simply hasn't shown us yet. I don't think it's a quantum leap at all to say that Zach next year is still going to be a much better post scorer than either of those guys.


Thats not what you said though. You said Zach was the only one of the three that could score when isolated. I watched both LaMarcus and Oden do this many times last year and I doubt they've forgotten how. This year GO will have the option to shoot with his dominant hand again I'm positive that there will be few NBA Bigs able to effectively deal with him. Yes NBA centers are bigger and more athletic then college centers, but Greg will still enjoy a size advantage on most and an athletic advantage on all. 



> I was kind of hoping someone would pick up on that and give me the multiple punctuation point riff. Yes, Zach is a better passer than LMA or Oden.
> He has forced shots and hasn't shown much passing ability in the years he has been playing for the Blazers with not-very-good teammates, but he does have some ability. It's not that great, but it's also not hard to be a better passer than guys who hardly pass at all.


We've seen in spades that when passed the ball Zach does not give it up. His unwillingness to give it up when double and triple teamed was very frustrating to watch. Oden and Aldridge both play team ball and do give it up. None of the three are Sabas, but only one of the three is a ball hog. 



> It's tough to find a perfect mix. LMA and Zach looked great together last year. LMA and Oden should be great as well.


You go on to claim LA isn't big enough to guard big/strong post players yet he "looked great" teamed with Zach who struggles to guard anyone? Seems you're arguing against yourself.

An Oden LA combination is superior IMO because they have offensive games that should compliment each other and both excel on D. Frye's outside game can blend with most anyone and I'd rather have him guarding any Big over Zach.



> With Aldridge and Frye on the court though, we've got a couple guys who are too thin to guard stronger post players and who themselves have little post game of their own. With Joel on the court with anyone, we've got a hole on offense.


Right, thats why Joel probably won't be playing much... they have better options this year.

Aldridge and Frye (according to them) both weigh over 250... in fact Frye says he plans to play at 260-265 range. Thats not too thin at all... heck Joel (according to him) plays best in the 230-240 lb. range and he's generally thought of as a solid post defender. Outside of Shaq and maybe Yao, who are these mystery Bigs with so much size who are going to bully these two on the low blocks and score at will? Mehmet Okur? Bob Swift? Marcus Camby? Andris Biedrins? Andrew Bynum? Brad Miller? Mark Blount? Darko? Chris Kamen? Tyson Chandler? Erick Dampier? It seems a more preposterous claim with every starting Western Center's name I type.

Some guys will score on Aldridge to be sure, but it's going to be their skills (not that their size) that gets it done.

Aldridge hitting the weights and bulking up happened last year. He is now a very big strong dude... one of the bigger starting 4s in the game in fact. I don't know where you're coming up with him having little post game... because he does. I'm sure we'll be seeing plenty of it as LA and Frye should see lots of time on the court together. 



> Zach is very good on the low block, but he also can play face up in the high post, because unlike Oden/LMA/Frye/Joel, he has a skillset that includes jab steps, jumpers, driving with the ball, spin moves and yes, even passing. When you take into account the piles of fouls he draws (again unlike Frye or LMA), he's pretty efficient as well. None of those other players can isolate in the high post, at all, unless it's LMA or Frye for a quick jump shot and nothing more.


That I'm not seeing eye to eye with your opinions is an understatement. Zach sucked on the high post... opposing teams tried to have him set up there every night. His jumper was not a consistent weapon and his passing was as non-existent there as on the low block. His inability to effectively play at the high post is why a Zach Oden combo would have been a poor blend. Defenses would have packed the paint which is why I disagreed with your claim that a LA, Oden, and Zach frontcourt would have been better then what they now have. They would have had poor spacing and presumably Zach would still want to hog the ball and go as thats been his MO since he got here. I could be wrong, but I don't think ZR would have taken a lesser role without making a big stink about it. 

Does anyone besides dudleysghost think that Zach was a good high post player?

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Was Oden having sinus problems in college, before summer league? Either way, I'm sure it's true what they say that we didn't get to see the full Greg Oden while he was at OSU. But even so, he wasn't anywhere near rookie Shaq. Not even close.


Shaq as a rookie at LSU: 28 minutes, 14 ppg, 57% fg, 3.6 blocks, 12 rebs
Oden as a rookie at Ohio: 29 minutes, 16 ppg, 62% fg, 3.3 blocks, 10 rebs

Oden scored a little more and shot a lot better (although both were ridiculously good). Shaq blocked a little better and rebounded a lot better. 

Oden didn't have his right hand for most of the season. I don't know if Shaq was injured much as a rookie, but he did play the full season. 

The two were certainly pretty "close." When you take into account that Oden led his team to the championship game while Shaq didn't that year, I'd say Oden had the superior rookie season.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Was Oden having sinus problems in college, before summer league?


according to him it's been a big problem for years...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=alipour/070713

_"I was planning on getting my tonsils out during my junior year in high school, but then the doctor I saw said, "We're not sure how your immune system will react. People have actually died from this." When me and my mom heard that, we just ran out of the building [laughs]. I need to get them out though. Most people get one sore throat a year, but I get five or six, and my tonsils turn white, get swollen and I can't even swallow water."_

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Does anyone besides dudleysghost think that Zach was a good high post player?
> 
> STOMP


I do. I can't think of many power forwards in the game who are more lethal at nailing a 16 footer. on top of that, he's so crafty that if you play him too tight on the high post he can bully around you and get one of his crazy little flip shots in from half that distance. against a Ben Wallace or Kevin Garnett, he's not that great in the high post. but if you try to stick your traditional 7 foot stiff center on him on the high post without any help, you are going to pay. 

is he a great passer from the high post (which is what people generally assume a big man should do from there)? no. he's horrible. but only Nowitzki is a bigger threat to score from anywhere inside the arc at PF, and that includes the high post. 

man, I'll miss that guy. if he wasn't such a cretin in his personal life people would see what an inspiring player he is on the court. horrible build for basketball. no jumping ability whatsoever. microfracture surgery. yet through sheer determination he's among the very best scoring big men in the game and is sitting on a max contract. 

sad to see him go to New York. he was really making some progress on his passing this last season. I think he's going to really backslide when pared with Eddy Curry, the ultimate NBA black hole.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> Meaning that our +/- measured on a per minute basis was very high. I can link the page for you again, but I seriously wonder if people are ignoring it on purpose, since I find it hard to believe you don't see it when it's the first thing that appears when you click on "Portland Trailblazers" on 82games.com:
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0607/0607POR.HTM


I'm not ignoring it at all. 82games.com was the same source I used for the stats I quoted above.



dudleysghost said:


> Dare to look at it, and you'll see that the team played better with Zach in it, based on the most holistic stat there is. Some people like to "LOL" about +/- because it gives screwy readings on guys who play few minutes ("Jason Richardson is our best player????"), but all it does is tell how well the team played with and without a player on the floor, and when a guy plays most of the season with many different player combos next to him, it's a solid basis for making a conclusion of causality.


The problem with this stat is people tend to misunderstand what it really means. It's a TEAM stat, but many people try to use it as a measure of individual performance. What it really says is that the TEAM (meaning Zach + 4 other guys) played better when he was on the court than not. Think about what that really means. The five man unit that Zach played with was better than the five man unit on the court when Zach was on the bench. 

Note: those aren't the same five man units. Zach was a full-time starter and played the vast majority of his minutes with the other starters - presumably our best five players. He rarely played significant minutes with the second unit - unlike Brandon Roy who also played significant minutes at back-up PG. So, if Zach spent the vast majority of his minutes on the court with the "best teammates" (first unit), you would expect that unit to do better (or less bad in this case as they were still outscored, on average, by their opponents).

I'm not trying to diminish Zach's contributions. Just pointing out that this is a multi-variable stat, which makes it hard to interpret in a meaningful way. Using it to evaluate the performance of a single player is flawed since it really depends who else was on/off the court at the same time as that player.

And yes, there are some ridiculous results for guys who played just a few minutes due to a insufficient data set (same can be said for per 48 minute stats for guys who played 2 minutes all year). Still, look at Dickau's numbers. He played 11% of the available minutes, hardly an insignificant amount, and had the highest +/- rating of any Blazers who played significant minutes. Was he our best player? Hardly. Was he even a good player? That's debatable. Yet, he has this great +/- rating. Why is that? Could it be that this stat is a poor measure of individual performance? 

All the stat really says is that the 5-man unit Dickau played most of his minutes with was "better" than the 5-man units they played against. Think about Dickau's minutes. He was basically our 4th string PG behind Jack, Roy, and Sergio. Sometimes he played with the second unit, but more often than not, Roy or Sergio was running the point with the second unit. He also started 3 games, and spent significant time playing garbage minutes in blow outs. So, it's impossible to reach any real conclusions about his performance based on this single stat. You need to look at the bigger picture. My personal theory is all this really means is our garbage time guys were better than their garbage time guys, but I have no way to prove that conclusively using the available stats .



dudleysghost said:


> So people can complain about Zach's defense or his eFG% or whatever, but it's still a fact the team played better with him.


This one stat makes it a fact? Then Dan Dickau was our best player and we should all be discussing how we will ever replace his significant positive contributions.

Seriously, you need to look at the big picture. Zach was our leading scorer, but far from our most efficient. Coming into the season, he was the only proven scorer in our starting line-up. Starting next to Joel Przybilla, Ime Udoka, rookie Brandon Roy and second year PG Jarrett Jack, it was obvious that he needed to be the focus of our offense. And I'll give Zach credit in that he came into camp in the best shape of his life and thrived in his role as No.1 option on offense.

Still, we all saw what happened when Zach was paired with another big man who needed to be on the blocks to be effective (Magloire). It was downright ugly, The offense ground to a halt and Zach and Magloire just got in each other's way.

Which is why when KP decided to draft Greg Oden with the No. 1 pick in the draft, Zach had to go. Playing both of them together would have minimized the effectiveness of both. I suspect the Knicks will have similar problems with Zach and Eddy Curry trying to share the paint this year on the offensive end (and avoiding it on the defensive end), but that's their problem now. Look for Zach's scoring average to be down significantly this year. His rebounding will probably stay the same, or maybe improve, as Eddy Curry seems to go out of his way to avoid getting rebounds if at all possible. LaMarcus Aldridge at the 4, paired with Greg Oden at the five is a much better combination than Zach and Oden. Their skills and styles are much more complimentary.



dudleysghost said:


> And when you go and compare his stats to Aldridge's (who for some reason is better per possession but not per 48 mins, although the game is measured in minutes...), but realize that nobody is advocating getting rid of Aldridge. It's a straw man to compare the output of Frye-LMA-Oden to last year, because nobody is advocating not replacing Magloire with Oden. All I said was that the hypothetical 3 man rotation of Zach-LMA-Oden is better than LMA-Oden and whoever else we put out there. Having three very good front court players, each having some extraordinary abilities that the other two don't possess, would be a good thing.


The problem is how their skills mesh. As we saw last year, Zach doesn't do nearly as well when paired with a center who wants/needs the ball in the low post. By comparison, LaMarcus Aldridge is at his best when paired with a strong low post offensive presence. Aldridge's best natural position is the 4. With Zach gone, he can now play the majority of his minutes at his best position next to a center who will be a low post presence.



dudleysghost said:


> And if you think rookie Oden is going to play like rookie Shaq, you're mistaken.


Where did I say that? Hint: I didn't. Talk about a straw man argument.

What I said was: "He is the most physically gifted big man to come into the league since Shaq."

Nowhere have I projected he will play like Shaq as a rookie. Shaq had three year's of college experience compared to Oden's one. I've consistently said I expect Oden to average about 14-15 PPG and around 9 RPG as a rookie. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he puts up better numbers, but don't think there is any realistic way he will equal Shaq's 23.4 PPG and 13.9 RPG rookie numbers.



dudleysghost said:


> Remember that great game Oden had in the finals? He put up 25-12 in the one tourney game he didn't get in foul trouble, and we were impressed by how well he stepped up his game and led his team valiantly in defeat. Well, Shaq _averaged_ that much over the entire season his last year in college. Shaq was raw, but not as raw as Oden, as evidenced by his total domination of the college game. I'm not saying Oden couldn't someday be that kind of player, but Shaq was older and his game was simply more developed when he entered the league, and Oden just isn't at the same point yet.


Again, straw man as I never said Oden would be as good as Shaq as a rookie. I'll be happy with a much more realistic 14-15 PPG and 9 rpg - which is a still a lot more than we got out of our starting centers last year.



dudleysghost said:


> edit: you should also notice that in that great month of March Aldridge had that people keep mentioning, he started _with_ Zach for most of it. I guess rather than stifling LMAs game like many would claim, they actually made a pretty good combo. Zach was putting up 4 apg that month, while LMA was putting up a consistent 0.5. It seems that when Zach finally had some decent teammates to play with, he adapted his game and passed the ball more. Amazing.


Actually, you're kind of arguing my point for me here. Zach is at his best when he's paired with a center that doesn't need the ball in the low post to be a factor on offense. That's why he was a good fit with LaMarcus Aldridge, but would be a poor fit with Greg Oden. That's also why Aldridge is the perfect complimentary 4 to Oden at the 5. You will also note (yes it's a small data set) that in the four games where Aldridge started at the power forward next to Magloire at the center (during Zach's bereavement leave) the Blazers went 3-1 with a one point loss at Minnesota. Yes, it was against some weak competition (other than Washington), but it did give us a glimpse of what the team would look like without Zach and with LaMarcus starting at power forward next to a low post center. And, I don't think it's a coincidence that Jamaal Magloire absolutely thrived when paired with Aldridge. He easily had his best performances of the season during that four game stretch - averaging 10.1 PPG and 12.0 RPG. Once again illustrating why LaMarcus Aldridge is a much better match for a low post center than Zach Randolph.

Yeah, I suppose we could have kept Zach and started Aldridge at the 5 and brought Oden off the bench, but do you really take the most hyped big man to be drafted in the last decade and make him a back-up? Starting Zach and Oden together would have been a train wreck as they would have constantly been in each other's way. It MIGHT have worked for a season, but if Oden/Aldridge is your front court of the future, wouldn't it be better to let them start working together now than delay their development by a year?

BTW, I've never said Zach would stifle Aldridge's game (another straw man). What I said is an Oden/Aldridge starting front court would mesh better than Oden/Zach. Evidently, I'm not the only one who felt this way as KP was willing to dump Zach and go with the Oden/Aldridge starting front court.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mook said:


> I can't think of many power forwards in the game who are more lethal at nailing a 16 footer.


as BoobNoMore relayed, Zach's jumper hit at just 0.417 last year. 

http://www.82games.com/0607/06POR12A.HTM

Thats not horrible, but it's certainly not good. PFs with better percentages on their jumpers aren't hard to find. They run the gammot from top talents...Dirk 51%, Duncan 43%, KG 43% Brand 47% to the mediocre... Al Harrington 49% Brian Cook 51%, Troy Murphy 49%, Heck our old buddy Rasheed shot 46% on his shots outside the paint last season and many of those were from a lot further then 16 feet. 



> on top of that, he's so crafty that if you play him too tight on the high post he can bully around you and get one of his crazy little flip shots in from half that distance.


yup... he has that flip spin fade to the left shot down. Unfortunately his J wasn't good enough for guys to play up on him giving him the opportunity to drive.

STOMP


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> And an early season hand injury and sinus problems wouldn't account for the fact that he showed relatively little in the way of post skills in college.


It wasn't an early season hand injury, it was off season wrist surgery. He played most of the season with a brace on his right wrist and shot free throws left handed. His right wrist was never 100%. How many players do you know who can still be effective with only partial use of their dominant hand? Oden compensated for the weakness and pain in his right wrist by using his left hand to score and rebounded with one hand, or by trapping the ball against his body or left hand with his right forearm. And, in spite of his dominant hand being far from 100%, he was still good enough to be a first team all-American and lead his team to the NCAA championship game.

And, he did show excellent post skills in college. He has a great drop step and a very effective jump hook with either hand.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> Shaq as a rookie at LSU: 28 minutes, 14 ppg, 57% fg, 3.6 blocks, 12 rebs
> Oden as a rookie at Ohio: 29 minutes, 16 ppg, 62% fg, 3.3 blocks, 10 rebs


Maybe I misread it, but I think he meant "rookie", and not "freshman".

Shaq came into the NBA and scored over 23 ppg as a rookie... but he'd had THREE years at LSU.

Also, while Oden was on a pretty good OSU team as a freshman, Shaq was on an LSU team that was absolutely stacked... Chris Jackson was one of the best college scorers EVER... he scored over 27 ppg as a sophomore when Shaq was a freshman (after over 30 as a freshman!). Stanley Roberts scored over 14 ppg for LSU, as well, and played the same position as Shaq.

That Shaq's scoring doubled his sophomore year (with Jackson going onto the NBA) isn't a big shocker. Whether it was because he was that much better or just that he became the focal point is unclear.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> With Aldridge and Frye on the court though, we've got a couple guys who are too thin to guard stronger post players and who themselves have little post game of their own.


Really, LaMarcus started at center for most of March last season. Was he too thin to guard stronger post players? Did he have any trouble getting offensive rebounds and put backs against those supposedly stronger players? Heck no, he played great - even though he wasn't playing his best position for most of the month.

Unless Oden is injured or in early foul trouble, the only time you'll likely see Aldridge and Frye together is against the other team's second unit. I think they'll thrive in those situations, and even when pressed into duty against the other team's first unit, based on how Aldridge did against starting centers last March, I think they'll be able to hold their own.

Between Oden, Aldridge, Joel and Frye, I'm not worried much about the Blazers getting physically dominated in the paint.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Also, while Oden was on a pretty good OSU team as a freshman, Shaq was on an LSU team that was absolutely stacked... Chris Jackson was one of the best college scorers EVER... he scored over 27 ppg as a sophomore when Shaq was a freshman (after over 30 as a freshman!). Stanley Roberts scored over 14 ppg for LSU, as well, and played the same position as Shaq.


What is truly amazing is that as good as that team was (and it was truly stacked), and as dominant as Shaq was in college, LSU never won the SEC tournament (and only one regular season SEC championship) and never made it past the second round in the NCAA tournament in Shaq's three years at LSU.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> Remember that great game Oden had in the finals? He put up 25-12 in the one tourney game he didn't get in foul trouble, and we were impressed by how well he stepped up his game and led his team valiantly in defeat.


You make it sound like Oden was only a factor in that one game. Against Memphis he had 17/9 on 7-8 shooting. He did struggle against Georgetown, but still managed 13/9 in just 20 minutes in a low scoring game (67-60). The only game where didn't play well was against Tennessee, but he was still a factor on defense (4 blocks in 18 minutes) when he was on the court.

Again, this was as a freshman playing at less than 100%. How'd Shaq do in the NCAA tournament his freshman year?

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Maybe I misread it, but I think he meant "rookie", and not "freshman".


I re-read it and I guess I don't know quite what he meant. If you are right, he's saying that Shaq as an NBA rookie was a lot better than Oden as a freshman at Ohio. (Wow. That's going out on a limb.) Or he's actually traveled into the future and has seen that Oden as an NBA rookie was much worse than Shaq as an NBA rookie. In which case, I've got much better ideas about how he can take advantage of his mastery over space and time. 



> Also, while Oden was on a pretty good OSU team as a freshman, Shaq was on an LSU team that was absolutely stacked... Chris Jackson was one of the best college scorers EVER... he scored over 27 ppg as a sophomore when Shaq was a freshman (after over 30 as a freshman!). Stanley Roberts scored over 14 ppg for LSU, as well, and played the same position as Shaq.


yeah, I don't really know that this is a great argument for Shaq having a better college career. he put up better stats, but his failure to take his team as far as Oden did with a much more "stacked" team isn't exactly an endorsement of Shaq.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

STOMP said:


> Thats not horrible, but it's certainly not good. PFs with better percentages on their jumpers aren't hard to find. They run the gammot from top talents...Dirk 51%, Duncan 43%, KG 43% Brand 47% to the mediocre... Al Harrington 49% Brian Cook 51%, Troy Murphy 49%, Heck our old buddy Rasheed shot 46% on his shots outside the paint last season and many of those were from a lot further then 16 feet.


everybody know Al Harrington, Brian Cook and Troy Murphy aren't nearly the threat as scorers as Zach is. you might as well argue Dikembe Mutombo is a better offensive player because of his better FG%. it's a silly argument. these guys take jumpers only when they are absolutely wide open, and often when there's absolutely no pressure on them. Randolph took shots because nobody else could or would, and he took them under intense pressure.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> Yeah I sure need to start watching the Blazers more
> 
> I think you're equally off base in your assessments of Zach and Aldridge. LA is very talented offensively, and saying he doesn't have something as basic as a jab step is plain silly. Not only do I watch most every Blazer game every year, but I also caught as many of LA's games at Texas as I could. He perked my interest in the HS McDonalds game and I followed him since.


I guess we just disagree. I'm certain though that LMA showed little or no ability to create space for himself when faced up last year. He was great at getting open for jump shots with speed and length and is a very good shooter, but once the D closed out on him, he passed it off. Maybe against high school defenders he could drive the lane well enough to make his jab step credible, but I'm just going by what happened in NBA games.



STOMP said:


> Thats not what you said though. You said Zach was the only one of the three that could score when isolated. I watched both LaMarcus and Oden do this many times last year and I doubt they've forgotten how. This year GO will have the option to shoot with his dominant hand again I'm positive that there will be few NBA Bigs able to effectively deal with him. Yes NBA centers are bigger and more athletic then college centers, but Greg will still enjoy a size advantage on most and an athletic advantage on all.


Sure. We'll see 



STOMP said:


> We've seen in spades that when passed the ball Zach does not give it up. His unwillingness to give it up when double and triple teamed was very frustrating to watch. Oden and Aldridge both play team ball and do give it up. None of the three are Sabas, but only one of the three is a ball hog.


And yet only Zach seems to register any assists in the stat sheet. That's wierd.



STOMP said:


> You go on to claim LA isn't big enough to guard big/strong post players yet he "looked great" teamed with Zach who struggles to guard anyone? Seems you're arguing against yourself.


No, I just don't agree with your assumptions. Saying Zach struggleds to guard anyone is an oversimplification. Zach is pretty good at guarding his own man. That's how this happens. The guy Zach is guarding tends to have a relatively unproductive game. He has slow lateral motion and struggles guarding quick forwards, but he is strong and has a solid base, so he does pretty well against other big strong players.

What gets Zach a deserved reputation for poor defense is his sloth getting back and his lack of providing help. Those are very legit criticisms IMO, but it is also mitigated if he plays next to a quick weakside shot-blocker, like Aldridge or Oden...



STOMP said:


> An Oden LA combination is superior IMO because they have offensive games that should compliment each other and both excel on D. Frye's outside game can blend with most anyone and I'd rather have him guarding any Big over Zach.


Oden and LA is a great combination. I definitely agree. You can think Frye gets us more wins as our other big man than Zach, and I totally disagree.



STOMP said:


> Aldridge and Frye (according to them) both weigh over 250... in fact Frye says he plans to play at 260-265 range. Thats not too thin at all... heck Joel (according to him) plays best in the 230-240 lb. range and he's generally thought of as a solid post defender. Outside of Shaq and maybe Yao, who are these mystery Bigs with so much size who are going to bully these two on the low blocks and score at will? Mehmet Okur? Bob Swift? Marcus Camby? Andris Biedrins? Andrew Bynum? Brad Miller? Mark Blount? Darko? Chris Kamen? Tyson Chandler? Erick Dampier? It seems a more preposterous claim with every starting Western Center's name I type.
> 
> Some guys will score on Aldridge to be sure, but it's going to be their skills (not that their size) that gets it done.


I know, if you don't understand and agree with someone's argument, then it must be "preposterous". 

It's interesting that you think skill and not size is what "gets it done" in the post. I made the argument that Oden's relative lack of post skills is going to prevent him from getting it done early in his NBA career. I wouldn't say that's the only prerequisite though. Since all the great post players in the NBA happen to be both very skilled and very large individuals, it seems that both are necessary to get it done.

Aldridge hitting the weights and bulking up happened last year. He is now a very big strong dude... one of the bigger starting 4s in the game in fact. I don't know where you're coming up with him having little post game... because he does. I'm sure we'll be seeing plenty of it as LA and Frye should see lots of time on the court together. 

Size and strength are also important when defending the post. Do you disagree? Do you really need me to list off the great post players in the NBA? When LMA and Frye are on the court together, one of them will have to try to stop these big strong post players from scoring:

Tim Duncan, Shaq, Yao, Zach, Boozer, Al Jefferson, Elton Brand, Eddy Curry, Ilgauskas. There are probably more I'm not thinking of. There are also plenty of less strong post players who still nonetheless are strong enough to create space and score easily on weaker defenders, like Kevin Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, Chris Bosh, Pau Gasol, etc. I don't know why you chose to only list of guys that can't score, but there are in fact plenty of post players who can score in the NBA still, and if you want to stop them you need to be strong enough to hold your ground.

In addition to that, there are also piles of big strong guys with little offensive skill who will still hurt you badly with offensive rebounding if you aren't able to box them out. Dampier, Kaman, Biedrins, Ben Wallace, Ty Chandler, Okafor, D Howard, and on and on. Defensive rebounding is a part of defense, and if you're curious, go ahead and look up whether Zach, LMA and Frye has the higher D-Reb rate.




STOMP said:


> That I'm not seeing eye to eye with your opinions is an understatement. Zach sucked on the high post... opposing teams tried to have him set up there every night. His jumper was not a consistent weapon and his passing was as non-existent there as on the low block. His inability to effectively play at the high post is why a Zach Oden combo would have been a poor blend. Defenses would have packed the paint which is why I disagreed with your claim that a LA, Oden, and Zach frontcourt would have been better then what they now have. They would have had poor spacing and presumably Zach would still want to hog the ball and go as thats been his MO since he got here. I could be wrong, but I don't think ZR would have taken a lesser role without making a big stink about it.
> 
> Does anyone besides dudleysghost think that Zach was a good high post player?
> 
> STOMP


I don't know what people in here think, but I know one person who certainly didn't think Zach sucked in the high post: Nate McMillan. I know this because Nate called so many plays for Zach there, despite marvelous LaMarcus being available all year. It seems like he thought running the offense through Zach was the better option. But what does he know?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mook said:


> Shaq as a rookie at LSU: 28 minutes, 14 ppg, 57% fg, 3.6 blocks, 12 rebs
> Oden as a rookie at Ohio: 29 minutes, 16 ppg, 62% fg, 3.3 blocks, 10 rebs
> 
> Oden scored a little more and shot a lot better (although both were ridiculously good). Shaq blocked a little better and rebounded a lot better.
> ...


I was just trying to compare the year before Shaq came into the NBA (his Junior year) and the year Oden is coming. I don't doubt that Oden has Shaq-like potential, although even with his physical gifts Oden will have to work hard to ever achieve Shaq's level of skill. But I'm just saying that the year Shaq came into the NBA he was much further along in his development than Oden, so it's not likely that Oden will achieve the kind of output in his first NBA year that Shaq did.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> so it's not likely that Oden will achieve the kind of output in his first NBA year that Shaq did.


Again, who here said they expect Oden to average 23.4 PPG and 13.9 RPg as a rookie. I haven't seen anyone make such a ridiculous assertion in this thread. So, who exactly are you arguing with on this point?

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Again, who here said they expect Oden to average 23.4 PPG and 13.9 RPg as a rookie. I haven't seen anyone make such a ridiculous assertion in this thread. So, who exactly are you arguing with on this point?


Let's put this another way... I haven't seen anyone in this thread predict Greg Oden will put up Shaq-like numbers as a rookie. Most posters, myself included, seem to think he'll be somewhere in the 15 PPG/9 RPG neighborhood (or about 65% of Shaq's rookie numbers). Since you seem to be down on Oden's "skills", what are your predictions for his rookie scoring and rebounding averages?

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Never mind, I just went back to the "Oden Expectations" thread and found your prediction:



dudleysghost said:


> 14 ppg, 55% FG, 9.5 rpg, 2.4 bpg, 1.2 apg, 2.3 TOg


So, in spite of everything written in this thread, we don't seem to be too far apart on our expectations for Oden's rookie numbers.

BNM


----------



## Headwound (Aug 16, 2007)

> Randolph took shots because nobody else could or would, and he took them under intense pressure.


"Intense pressure"? You're kidding right? 

I can picture what was going through Zach's mind as if it were yesterday... " I gotta hit this shot to keep us from fallin' 5 games under .500".

Intense pressure?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> I'm not ignoring it at all. 82games.com was the same source I used for the stats I quoted above.


For some reason you chose to use the per possession stat rather than the per minute stat (which also happened to show Zach as a net positive by the way). Why is that? I justify using the per minute stat simply because the game is measured in minutes, although certainly both show Zach being a net contributor. How do you justify choosing the alternative?



Boob-No-More said:


> The problem with this stat is people tend to misunderstand what it really means. It's a TEAM stat, but many people try to use it as a measure of individual performance. What it really says is that the TEAM (meaning Zach + 4 other guys) played better when he was on the court than not. Think about what that really means. The five man unit that Zach played with was better than the five man unit on the court when Zach was on the bench.
> 
> Note: those aren't the same five man units. Zach was a full-time starter and played the vast majority of his minutes with the other starters - presumably our best five players. He rarely played significant minutes with the second unit - unlike Brandon Roy who also played significant minutes at back-up PG. So, if Zach spent the vast majority of his minutes on the court with the "best teammates" (first unit), you would expect that unit to do better (or less bad in this case as they were still outscored, on average, by their opponents).


Ok, so the problem with the per minute +/- is that it's prone to variation by teammates, but you are willing to discount it while still quoting the per possession +/- stats that have the very same problems? Again, how do you justify that? It looks to me like you are picking and choosing.

I'm fully aware of how +/- can be affected by factors other than individual play, such as teammates' play. That has to be noted, which is why I noted it myself in the post you quoted.

I think though that one of the problems people have with +/- stats is they fail to realize when they are significant. 

With a team like Detroit or Dallas, that plays a consistent starting lineup together most of the game then platoons the backups in together, it's hard to tease out who is the cause of the + and who is just along for the ride. I'm sure Erick Dampier owes most of his +/- to playing with Dirk and the starters.

But Portland didn't have that kind of pattern. Nate used a long bench that cycled players in and out mostly one at a time. The team also had enough injuries and player development over the year that the rotation wasn't consistent for any length of time. In playing most of the minutes in most of the games, Zach played with everyone. Certainly he didn't play with every player exactly proportionately, but he did play significant time with and against a wide sampling of different 5-man units. If you can find a disproportionate playing time pattern that could possibly account for even a large fraction of Zach's positive +/-, be my guest.

Although you should notice that Zach has the highest +/- of any major rotation player. Even if there was some consistent substitution pattern whereby the other players could artificially carry Zach's +/- higher, than how could his get higher than theirs? What kind of asymmetry is supposedly inflating Zach's value? Is it playing with Jack? (negative +/-, so no) Roy ? (also slightly negative) Ime? (slightly positive, but still not enough) That hypothesis simply doesn't add up.



Boob-No-More said:


> And yes, there are some ridiculous results for guys who played just a few minutes due to a insufficient data set (same can be said for per 48 minute stats for guys who played 2 minutes all year). Still, look at Dickau's numbers. He played 11% of the available minutes, hardly an insignificant amount, and had the highest +/- rating of any Blazers who played significant minutes. Was he our best player? Hardly. Was he even a good player? That's debatable. Yet, he has this great +/- rating. Why is that? Could it be that this stat is a poor measure of individual performance?


No, 11% is not a sufficient amount for a good +/- reading, because at that proportion, the lineups a guy has or hasn't played with will probably be a very skewed sampling. But yes, when someone only plays 11% of th minutes, then +/- is a poor measure of individual performance.



Boob-No-More said:


> All the stat really says is that the 5-man unit Dickau played most of his minutes with was "better" than the 5-man units they played against. Think about Dickau's minutes. He was basically our 4th string PG behind Jack, Roy, and Sergio. Sometimes he played with the second unit, but more often than not, Roy or Sergio was running the point with the second unit. He also started 3 games, and spent significant time playing garbage minutes in blow outs. So, it's impossible to reach any real conclusions about his performance based on this single stat. You need to look at the bigger picture. My personal theory is all this really means is our garbage time guys were better than their garbage time guys, but I have no way to prove that conclusively using the available stats .
> 
> *This one stat makes it a fact?* Then Dan Dickau was our best player and we should all be discussing how we will ever replace his significant positive contributions.
> 
> Seriously, you need to look at the big picture.


I'm looking at the big picture and trying to explain it. When you can eliminate the possibility that confounding variables account for the sign of the +/- stat, as in Zach's case, then yes that one stat makes it a fact that team played better with him because he made the team better. In statistics terms, that's how you make an inference of causality when using a non-random sampling. In a case like Dickau's though where you can't eliminate the possiblity that confounding variables account for his score, then no such inference can be made. The existence of a poor sampling like Dickau's doesn't make all +/- values meaningless, just like the existence of Jason Richardson's one possession uber-score doesn't either.



Boob-No-More said:


> Zach was our leading scorer, but far from our most efficient.


There are different ways of looking at efficiency. You chose eFG%, even though an arguably superior stat exists in PPS. That takes into account both eFG and the points a guy gets at the FT line. It is flawed in how it doesn't count an attempt for 2-shot fouls, but those are still points, and you aren't getting a true read on a guy's efficiency if you ignore the and-1s, which Zach gets lots of. Using PPS, Jack was our most efficient scorer at 1.34, and Zach was tied for second with Roy at 1.25, and on par with other primary scorers on overall poor offensive teams such as Kevin Garnett and Joe Johnson.



Boob-No-More said:


> Still, we all saw what happened when Zach was paired with another big man who needed to be on the blocks to be effective (Magloire). It was downright ugly, The offense ground to a halt and Zach and Magloire just got in each other's way.
> 
> Which is why when KP decided to draft Greg Oden with the No. 1 pick in the draft, Zach had to go. Playing both of them together would have minimized the effectiveness of both. I suspect the Knicks will have similar problems with Zach and Eddy Curry trying to share the paint this year on the offensive end (and avoiding it on the defensive end), but that's their problem now. Look for Zach's scoring average to be down significantly this year. His rebounding will probably stay the same, or maybe improve, as Eddy Curry seems to go out of his way to avoid getting rebounds if at all possible.


Zach-Magloire and Zach-Curry are terrible combinations. Still, I feel silly having to say that there are tremendous differences between Oden and Curry or Magloire. One is on the defensive end. A major problem with Zach-Mags was that it left the team without a shot-blocking help defender. Zach-LMA or Zach-Oden doesn't have that problem.

The other one is that Oden has great mobility and a short jump shot. That makes a big difference. If Zach is trying to post up or drive the lane from the hi post, Oden could step a few feet outside, and the defender has to stay with him, because otherwise he is a threat to make an open shot or cut to the hoop quickly If Oden was trying to post up and Zach was outside, the converse would also be true. If Magloire or Curry takes a few steps outside though, the defender can safely sag off of them to double team, because those guys are zero threat to do anything away from the hoop. That's how those guys clog the lane, but Oden does much less so. Just stretching the D 6 feet out makes a major difference.



Boob-No-More said:


> LaMarcus Aldridge at the 4, paired with Greg Oden at the five is a much better combination than Zach and Oden. Their skills and styles are much more complimentary.
> 
> The problem is how their skills mesh. As we saw last year, Zach doesn't do nearly as well when paired with a center who wants/needs the ball in the low post. By comparison, LaMarcus Aldridge is at his best when paired with a strong low post offensive presence. Aldridge's best natural position is the 4. With Zach gone, he can now play the majority of his minutes at his best position next to a center who will be a low post presence.


Those guys (LMA-Oden) are a great combo and highly complimentary. All I'm saying is that Zach-Oden and Zach-LMA is overall a better combo for winning games than whatever our present alternatives are. In any given basketball game, we're definitely going to play more than two big men, especially if LMA and Oden are even nearly as foul prone as they were last year.



Boob-No-More said:


> Where did I say that? Hint: I didn't. Talk about a straw man argument.
> 
> What I said was: "He is the most physically gifted big man to come into the league since Shaq."
> 
> ...


I don't need any hints, and it isn't a straw man because I never claimed you said that. I used the conditional "if you think...". You did use Shaq as a basis for comparison for Oden. I don't know what conclusions you are implying we should have drawn from that but _if_ you or anyone was thinking that the precedent that is Shaq meant we should expect similar productivity from Oden in his rookie year, I wanted to quash that. I'm glad that you already knew that a Shaq level of output is an unrealistic expectation for Oden's rookie year.



Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, you're kind of arguing my point for me here. Zach is at his best when he's paired with a center that doesn't need the ball in the low post to be a factor on offense. That's why he was a good fit with LaMarcus Aldridge, but would be a poor fit with Greg Oden.


Hmm, me saying that Zach and Aldridge played well together is somehow arguing your point for you? Uhh, I disagree. Zach and LMA playing together is half the reason that a Zach-LMA-Oden rotation would be better than our other alternatives.

The other half is that Oden isn't the kind of center you are describing. Like I said, he isn't ineffective without the ball. His short jumper and especially his mobility means that, unlike Mags or Curry, he remains a threat without the ball and away from the hoop. Not very far away, but far enough that he isn't clogging the lane and his defender can't cheat off him.



Boob-No-More said:


> You will also note (yes it's a small data set) that in the four games where Aldridge started at the power forward next to Magloire at the center (during Zach's bereavement leave) the Blazers went 3-1 with a one point loss at Minnesota. Yes, it was against some weak competition (other than Washington), but it did give us a glimpse of what the team would look like without Zach and with LaMarcus starting at power forward next to a low post center. And, I don't think it's a coincidence that Jamaal Magloire absolutely thrived when paired with Aldridge. He easily had his best performances of the season during that four game stretch - averaging 10.1 PPG and 12.0 RPG. Once again illustrating why LaMarcus Aldridge is a much better match for a low post center than Zach Randolph.


If Magloire was such a good player without Zach, why did he wait until the end of the year to show it? Early in the season Nate kept Zach's and Mag's minutes totally separate, and Mags played like dog-doo (often next to LaMarcus after LMA came back from surgery). Even when injuries forced Nate midseason to at times put Zach and Mags on the floor together, Mags never played all his minutes with Zach (he played many of them with LaMarcus too), and he still played bad until near the end of the year. You want to attribute Mags improved play to the Zach-LMA switch, but I'm thinking that more likely it was because at the end of the season Magloire finally decided to give a hoot because he sensed his next contract might depend on it.

But yeah, I agree that LMA plays very well with a low post _player_, such as Zach Randolph.



Boob-No-More said:


> Yeah, I suppose we could have kept Zach and started Aldridge at the 5 and brought Oden off the bench, but do you really take the most hyped big man to be drafted in the last decade and make him a back-up? Starting Zach and Oden together would have been a train wreck as they would have constantly been in each other's way. It MIGHT have worked for a season, but if Oden/Aldridge is your front court of the future, wouldn't it be better to let them start working together now than delay their development by a year?
> 
> BTW, I've never said Zach would stifle Aldridge's game (another straw man). What I said is an Oden/Aldridge starting front court would mesh better than Oden/Zach. Evidently, I'm not the only one who felt this way as KP was willing to dump Zach and go with the Oden/Aldridge starting front court.


I don't think it would have worked for more than a season, and it would have been wierd bringing one of those three players off the bench. With the foul trouble LMA and Oden seem to find, and the omnipresent possibility of injury (haven't all 3 of those guys missed piles of games the last season or few?), I would guess the 96 big man minutes would be enough to go around for the three of them, despite the weirdness, and if we basically cut the other alternatives out of the rotation.

The question of long-term development is a tricky one. With 96 minutes, even with Zach around, LMA and Oden would get major minutes. One probably wouldn't start, but they would play a lot. They would also have to try to guard Zach in practice, which I'm sure would help them develop their post D skills. They would probably also win more games, which keeps players excited, and can help development as well.

Zach is a pretty potent force on offense though, and often when players play with a guy like that, especially one who is all to willing to take his own shots, they often defer when they maybe shouldn't. I think Jack was particularly guilty of this last year. LMA seemed to be fine playing with Zach, making himself a productive scorer by moving without the ball, getting open for jumpers and attacking the basket for O-rebs.

Is that the kind of player Aldridge will continue to be? Amare Stoudemire has made a career being that kind of player, who doesn't totally create his own offense or create for others but stays in motion and takes advantage of scoring opportunities that come his way as a result. Some have compared LMA to Duncan, but I don't think the comparison is apt, yet. Duncan is the kind of player who can get isolated and direct the offense from the post. Rather than just making the binary decision of trying to score or passing out for the offense to reset, he sees the whole court and lets plays develop and then decides to score or pass to a shooter or pass to the guy who passes to the shooter. He's not just a scorer, he's a guy who can create offense out of thin air.

Will LMA become that kind of player? Will Oden? I don't know, but my expectation is that LMA won't and Oden will, but only after a few years in the L. Either way, Zach would take up a lot of the touches where the offense runs _through_ the post. Of course, he isn't so good at getting his teammates, although he hasn't had very good teammates for a while and has shown flashes in that regard, but the main thing is he can and does take it upon himself to create offense. He only touches the ball on 30% of the teams plays though, so of course there are plenty of other opportunities for other players to be the creators, and I don't really think that LMA or Oden are going to be ready for that full time next year anyway. Would they (or the other young Blazers) develop their games more if they tried? Maybe. It's a possibility.

All I'm saying though is that the team would win more games in just the next year without the Zach trade than with. Of course, KP did choose to make the trade, but I don't see that as definitive that he felt Zach would cause us to lose games next year, because the GM has to consider more factors than just the win % of the next season, such as long-term win % and good PR. I'm confident that KP felt the team improved in the latter two by making this trade, and given that would make the trade even if he believed short-term winning would suffer.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Never mind, I just went back to the "Oden Expectations" thread and found your prediction:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It seems like the difference is in the way we expect him to get those numbers. Many (I think you included BNM) seem to think he's going to be getting it done in the low-post, whereas I think he is going to get most of his points in other ways, like put backs, cutting to the basket without the ball and short jumpers. Pretty much like LMA did last year, except with less distance on Odens jumper. I don't think Oden will be as much of a non-factor in the low post as LMA was, but I just don't think he's going to be even near dominant for most of the season.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Headwound said:


> "Intense pressure"? You're kidding right?
> 
> I can picture what was going through Zach's mind as if it were yesterday... " I gotta hit this shot to keep us from fallin' 5 games under .500".
> 
> Intense pressure?


yeah, I'm sure you are used to having 15,000 people stare at you as you make or miss a big shot in the fourth quarter. 

it may not be the pressure cooker of the NBA finals, but it's not like it's the same kind of a shot Brian Cook makes in garbage minutes.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I guess we just disagree. I'm certain though that LMA showed little or no ability to create space for himself when faced up last year. He was great at getting open for jump shots with speed and length and is a very good shooter, but once the D closed out on him, he passed it off. Maybe against high school defenders he could drive the lane well enough to make his jab step credible, but I'm just going by what happened in NBA games.


HS defenders? Your true colors are showing. I mentioned a HS All-Star game as a reference of when I started following his career... and then mentioned I watched a considerable amount of Texas games and nearly every Blazer game last year. This was in response to your lame _if you watched him play regularly_ comment. And now this bleep as a followup... I can play that way too.

You know what I want a player to do when the D closes them out? I want them to move the ball to an open teammate for a better look. Obviously you're a pretty over the top Zach fan, so I can see how this might not be your favorite style of ball, but it works pretty well if you value wins more then personal stats.



> And yet only Zach seems to register any assists in the stat sheet. That's wierd.


It's basic hoops. Players that dominate the ball like Zach have more chances to get assists simply because they have the ball in their hands so much. Occasionally taking advantage of this and passing to wide open teammates doesn't make them good passers. Personally I prefer ball movement, back cuts off screens... team ball, to clearing out a side and letting one player go. I find that style of ball pretty boring and usually less effective then a team approach. For the clearout style to be truly effective, the go guy has to be adept at passing out of the double team. Zach draws the double, and then more times then not, forces up another shot.

Damon was another ball hog who got assists... was he a good passer?

Players who share the ball are much less likely to have the ball in their hands when the wide open cutter needs it then a player who rarely passes. That pass is still made by the ball movement team, it's just done by who ever has the ball rather then just by the ball hog in a rare moment of sharing.



> No, I just don't agree with your assumptions. Saying Zach struggleds to guard anyone is an oversimplification. Zach is pretty good at guarding his own man. That's how this happens. The guy Zach is guarding tends to have a relatively unproductive game. He has slow lateral motion and struggles guarding quick forwards, but he is strong and has a solid base, so he does pretty well against other big strong players.
> 
> What gets Zach a deserved reputation for poor defense is his sloth getting back and his lack of providing help. Those are very legit criticisms IMO, but it is also mitigated if he plays next to a quick weakside shot-blocker, like Aldridge or Oden...


Why in the world would everyone be trying to keep things simple for you? Maybe it's because you do such a bang up job of convoluting matters? Zach sucks at defense. He always guards the worst frontcourt player that the other team has for this reason. For this same reason, opposing guards always drive right at him. You sort of note his poor rotating and complete lack of shotblocking, but those are not trivial things for a Big to be lacking. His lack of general hustle on D is also pretty glaring. 



> You can think Frye gets us more wins as our other big man than Zach, and I totally disagree.


Ya think? Zach was gonzo for sure the day they won the Oden sweepstakes. Both play the same spot on offense and there can only be one bully on the block. I think things probably would have ended badly had Pritchard ignored this obvious looming issue. If Zach could have been relied on to swallow his selfishness and take a lessor role, then it might have worked. I think KPs comments on courtside showed off the depths of the organization's frustration with him. 



> I know, if you don't understand and agree with someone's argument, then it must be "preposterous".


no, it is what it is... it's ridiculous to think that the Bigs of the Western conference are going to roll right over LaMarcus when he's plenty big and strong himself. Plus he already proved he can score and defend inside last season.



> It's interesting that you think skill and not size is what "gets it done" in the post.


Speaking of not understanding... the reason I made that comment is that there are few players in the league much bigger then Aldridge. I thought I had clarified your year old misconception of him being too skinny and weak to guard the post by referring to his widely reported weight room dedication and visible bulking up. How you were watching games and not noticing this transformation is odd... and it's not like the Blazer announcers didn't mention it ad nauseum. I truely don't know how anyone could have watched LaMarcus in March and still hold on to the too skinny/weak to effectively guard the post stuff. 



> I made the argument that Oden's relative lack of post skills is going to prevent him from getting it done early in his NBA career. I wouldn't say that's the only prerequisite though. Since all the great post players in the NBA happen to be both very skilled and very large individuals, it seems that both are necessary to get it done.


hey! something you wrote that I agree with! Not the broken record about you thinking Oden has few post skills (thats as wrong as ever) but that being both skilled and large are important ingredients in post play. 



> Size and strength are also important when defending the post. Do you disagree? Do you really need me to list off the great post players in the NBA? When LMA and Frye are on the court together, one of them will have to try to stop these big strong post players from scoring:
> 
> Tim Duncan, Shaq, Yao, Zach, Boozer, Al Jefferson, Elton Brand, Eddy Curry, Ilgauskas. There are probably more I'm not thinking of. There are also plenty of less strong post players who still nonetheless are strong enough to create space and score easily on weaker defenders, like Kevin Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, Chris Bosh, Pau Gasol, etc.


back to strawmen and general nonsense...

Frye and Aldridge are at least as big and strong as most of the guys you list. Though they are both primarily PFs, both of them are heavier and longer then the Blazers starting center of the last few seasons... and Joel is thought of as a solid post defender. 

When you were supposively watching Blazer games the 2nd half of last year, did you notice who they usually had guarding the other team's best post player? The rookie. I watched LaMarcus guard many of the guys on your list and I don't recall a game where he looked physically overmatched. I recall him matched up on Timmy D and noticing how close they were in size/length. 



> I don't know why you chose to only list of guys that can't score, but there are in fact plenty of post players who can score in the NBA still, and if you want to stop them you need to be strong enough to hold your ground.


Since your premise was that these guys (LA & CF) were going to get steamrolled by the size/strength of the Bigs they go up against, I choose to list the biggest guys/starting centers of the West which (as you might be realizing) really aren't that much of low post threats. Since both Frye and Aldridge are amoung the tallest/longest/& now heaviest PFs in the league, I thought you'd realize that when they go up against a one of the big brute PFs of the league (Sheed :lol: ) that size would definitely not be an issue. But obviously this escapes you as you are listing guys like Zach who is shorter, has a lot less length, and reportedly the same 250ish weight as LA. Maybe you've just decided to operate from a new premise and forgot to tell anyone?



> In addition to that, there are also piles of big strong guys with little offensive skill who will still hurt you badly with offensive rebounding if you aren't able to box them out. Dampier, Kaman, Biedrins, Ben Wallace, Ty Chandler, Okafor, D Howard, and on and on. Defensive rebounding is a part of defense, and if you're curious, go ahead and look up whether Zach, LMA and Frye has the higher D-Reb rate.


While Zach is great on the boards (he has tremendous hands) part of the reason why stems from other things I've touched on. Since he's usually on the Big who doesn't shoot and with a 0.2 Blocked shot average he doesn't try to effect the opponent's shot, getting into position for the board on a miss is his contribution to the D. While I don't think either LA or Frye are great rebounders, they do go for the block both on their man and for help D which leaves them in poorer position for RBs. I'm not that concerned as they are decent enough and they'll be teamed with a truely great rebounder. 

Again, it's about the overall team chemistry.



> I don't know what people in here think, but I know one person who certainly didn't think Zach sucked in the high post: Nate McMillan. I know this because Nate called so many plays for Zach there, despite marvelous LaMarcus being available all year. It seems like he thought running the offense through Zach was the better option. But what does he know?


It was debated here last season if Portland kept forcing the ball into Zach to profile him/get his trade value up as high as possible. We had no real telling quote to indicate if this was true or not, but after drafting a stud PF #2 the speculation started. Especially when Zach was alloud to repeatedly crank up that scattershot J of his from the top of the key, I'd wonder.

We do know that KP has been quoted as saying he consults Nate on personell moves though, and they did make a personell move recently. Reportedly Nate is phyched. Sometimes actions speak louder then words.

What does Nate know indeed.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> What does Nate know indeed.


He knows that they're going to be challenged to match last season's win total.



Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O. said:


> He knows that they're going to be challenged to match last season's win total.


unless injuries or some other viable excuse comes up, I bet he knows he'll be expected to do much more then match.

btw... listening to the courtside summer wrap, Frye expects the club to run a lot this year... but what doesn he know.

STOMP


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Wow, this thread has gotten really long and convoluted (and yes, I played a significant role in making it that way). At this point, I don't think anyone is convincing anyone else to change their mind. So, I'll summarize.

We'll never know if an Oden/Aldridge/Zach front court rotation would have won more games than an Oden/Aldridge/Frye rotation this season.

What we will know eventually is if this year's team won more games than last year's. In spite of Ed's protestations, I expect them to win more games this year than last. I won't restate my reasons here as I've already said what I had to say earlier in this thread. We'll just have to wait and see how it all shakes out over the course of the season. I'm looking forward to it.

BNM

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> In spite of Ed's protestations, I expect them to win more games this year than last.


If you're going sum it up... please don't ****ing say I said something that I did not. I expect the Blazers to win more games than last year. Maybe you got confused because:

-- I think they would have won even MORE games if they hadn't made the Zach move that they did
-- I pointed out that Nate, who is readily (and understandably) quoted as an authority regularly on this board, has stated that the team will be hard pressed to match the win total of last year (or he said something to that effect; if someone has the actual quote, I'd love to see it).

That does not add up to me predicting the same or fewer wins.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> unless injuries or some other viable excuse comes up, I bet he knows he'll be expected to do much more then match.


What his perception of expectations and what HIS expectations are are different things.



> btw... listening to the courtside summer wrap, Frye expects the club to run a lot this year... but what doesn he know.


Players like to run. Young players, especially, like to run.

I'll believe it when I see it. Nate has a firm and established record of having one of the slowest-paced teams in the NBA. His philosophy seems to be to play good defense, slow down the other team, and get the most out of each offensive possession. 

I seriously doubt he's going to change his coaching style given the long-term potentially dominant 4/5 we have.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> If you're going sum it up... please don't ****ing say I said something that I did not. I expect the Blazers to win more games than last year.


Sorry, my bad. I was distracted when I posted and didn't bother to check first. I see in the other thread you predicted 35 - 38 wins.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Nate has a firm and established record of having one of the slowest-paced teams in the NBA. His philosophy seems to be to play good defense, slow down the other team, and get the most out of each offensive possession.
> 
> I seriously doubt he's going to change his coaching style given the long-term potentially dominant 4/5 we have.


I agree about Nate's style. However as I stated elsewhere, even if it's not a featured part of the offense, I believe this team will have a LOT more opportunities to run just by the different make-up of the roster. They will be much better defensively, which will lead to a lot more fast break opportunities off blocked shots, steals and long rebounds. They now have a starting center and a starting power forward who are both extremely fast for their size/positions. Blake did a great job pushing the ball in Denver last year (second in the league in fast break points), and while he is also capable of directing a half-court offense, he's much better at running the break than Jarrett Jack.

So, while Nate might not make it part of his game plan, when guys have 3 on 1, 2 on 1 and 1 on 0 opportunities, I doubt if they'll pull-up and set up the half court offense. As you say, young guys like to run, and when you've got young guys like Greg Oden, LaMarcus Aldridge, Travis Outlaw and even Martell Webster filling the lanes on the break, I think you're going to see quite a few breaks than end in impressive dunks - a lot more than last year. 

I also think you'll see them pushing the ball when Sergio, Frye and possibly McRoberts are on the court as well. Heck, Sergio was often able to push the tempo last year when he was on the court with Magloire. I can't wait to see what he an do with the younger guys he'll be paired with this year.

BNM


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> We'll never know if an Oden/Aldridge/Zach front court rotation would have won more games than an Oden/Aldridge/Frye rotation this season.



A moot point now that Oden is out of the picture.

The real question, and one in which the answer is obvious, is would we win more with Zach, Joel and LaMarcus or Frye, Joel and LaMarcus.

Gonna be another rough season to stomach.


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

This season is going to be a tough pill to swallow. We really don't know what we're going to get out of LaMarcus and Frye. 

The big factor: Could our often injured duo of Brandon and LaMarcus actually stay healthy for an entire season? Is that really too much to ask for?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> A moot point now that Oden is out of the picture.
> 
> The real question, and one in which the answer is obvious, is would we win more with Zach, Joel and LaMarcus or Frye, Joel and LaMarcus.
> 
> Gonna be another rough season to stomach.


This latest Oden injury was my biggest fear when we made the Zach trade. 

We had 3 high quality starting level 4/5's that could have shared 96 minutes if all 3 were healthy. But all three had missed extensive games recently with injury. Chances are very good that one of those three would be out for a large portion of the season. Now Oden may miss his first game when all he has been trying to do this summer is get healthy.

Instead of inserting Zach in place of Oden and having a solid big man rotation, we are going to have one solid big man (LMA) playing with scrubs. 

I'm sick of rooting for a losing team, will we have tanking threads again to get extra balls for Rose/Mayo? Sigh....:azdaja:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Draco said:


> This latest Oden injury was my biggest fear when we made the Zach trade.


It wasn't my BIGGEST fear, but it was definitely a fear. We don't have enough good players to give one away for cap space three years down the line.

Hopefully Oden's not out long and we don't need to see how important Zach was to this team last year.

Ed O.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Oh, jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Even in the best case scenario, this will set Oden's development back some - just as the shoulder injury did with LaMarcus last season. The odds of the team breaking .500 just got longer.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

QRICH said:


> This season is going to be a tough pill to swallow. We really don't know what we're going to get out of LaMarcus and Frye.
> 
> The big factor: Could our often injured duo of Brandon and LaMarcus actually stay healthy for an entire season? Is that really too much to ask for?



Tom Smykowski: It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO. 

Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom. 

Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea. 



prunetang


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

*bump*

I was trying to find a thread that talked about this season's expectations, and I noticed this one. not exactly what I was looking for (much of it was pre-Oden injury), but still a very interesting discussion. 

basically, the whole "how good will Oden be as a rookie, and consequently how good will our team be" debate has been set back a year.


----------

