# Icing on the Cake(Getting Battier)



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

This is a spin off of the rumored T-Mac to Detroit trade. 




PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS TRADE
-Martell Webster(3.8M) to Houston
-Sergio Rodriguez(1M) to Detroit
-Ike Diogu(2.9M) to Houston
-2009 lotto-protected 1st round pick to Detroit
-3 million dollars to Detroit
TOTAL- 7.7M

PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS RECIEVE
-Shane Battier(6.4M) from Houston
-Justin Reed(1.5M) from Houston(CUT)
TOTAL- 7.9M


HOUSTON ROCKETS TRADE
-Tracy McGrady(21M) to Detroit
-Shane Battier(6.4M) to Portland
-Justin Reed(1.5) to Portland
TOTAL- 29.9

HOUSTON ROCKETS RECIEVE
-Chauncy Billups(11.1M) from Detroit
-Tayshaun Prince(9.5M) from Detroit
-Martell Webster(3.8M) from Portland
-Ike Diogu(2.9M) from Portland
TOTAL- 27.3


DETROIT PISTONS TRADE
-Chauncy Billups(11.1M) to Houston
-Tayshaun Prince(9.5M) to Houston
TOTAL- 20.6M

DETROIT PISTONS RECEIVE
-Tracy McGrady(21M) from Houston
-Sergio Rodriguez(1M) from Portland
-2009 lotto-protected 1st round pick from Portland
-3 million dollars from Paul Allen
TOTAL- 22M



WHY PDX DOES IT
Portland needs a veteran presence, and I can think of no better fit than Battier. He is a great locker room guy, a tenacious defender and a amazing worker. He fits the Blazers new culture perfectly. Battier would flourish, and not complain, about being the 5th offensive option in the starting lineup. He would also be a great mentor to the guy I believe is the Blazers future SF, Nicolas Batum. It would be great to have a cerebral defender like Battier mentor a physically talented defender in Batum. Some Blazer fans will not want to move a 21 year old former 6th pick in Webster, for a 30 year old, but at this point the Blazers can afford to trade young for old. They need a glue guy who has ‘been there before’. NOTE- This deal still leaves a great deal of cap room for the summer of 2009, although I doubt we would, or would even need to, use it on a player upgrade. 

PG- Jerryd Bayless/Steve Blake/Petteri Koponen
SG- Brandon Roy/Rudy Fernandez
SF- Shane Battier/Travis Outlaw/Nicolas Batum
PF- LaMarcus Aldridge/Channing Frye
C- Greg Oden/Joel Pryzbilla/Raef LaFrentz


WHY HOU DOES IT
They decide to completely design the team around Yao. Billups gives them a great distributing PG who is extremely clutch, will defer to his teammates and plays gread defense. He is just an elite PG. Prince is the best role player in the league. He can score at a surprisingly efficient rate and handles the ball far better than most SF’s. He is also a capable distributor, and an All-NBA defender. Lastly, Webster fills out their starting lineup as the designated 3 point shooter. He is barley 21 years old, and possesses a picture perfect J, and a developing defensive repertoire. He would flourish around such vets as Chauncy, Tay and Yao. Ike is a throw in, and might be cut. 

PG- Chauncy Billups/Rafer Alston/Aaron Brooks
SG- Martell Webster/Brent Barry/Bobby Jackson/Luther Head
SF- Tayshaun Prince/Donte Greene/Steve Novak
PF- Louis Scola/Cal Landry/Hayes/Diogu
C- Yao Ming/Joey Dorsey/Mt. Mutombo


WHY DETROIT DOES IT
Realizing their championship window is closing, they shoot for the moon and acquire a superstar SF. I know TMac has never gotten out of the 1st round, but he is a straight up fighter who is hungry as ever. He becomes the focal point of their offense, opening up numerous shots for Rip, Sheed and Stuckey. I think this team needs a real shakeup, and this is just that. They also gain a future 1st round pick and a change-of-pace backup PG in Rodriguez. NOTE: Split the MLE between CJ Miles and POB. Sign Ty Lue for vet min.

PG- Rodney Stuckey/Sergio Rodriguez/Ty Lue
SG- Rip Hamilton/CJ Miles
SF- Track McGrady/Aaron Afflalo
PF- Amir Johnson/Jason Maxiell
C- Rasheed Wallace/Antonio McDyess/POB


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

I like Battier, but he's going to be 30 in September. When the Blazers hit the window they will be able to compete for titles, Battier's skills will have declined too much to make any kind of significant contribution.

Webster, on the other hand, will be hitting his prime.

This trade hurts the Blazers at the point we can least afford to be hurt... when we are trying to win titles.

We can get a veteran presence to the bench for practically nothing in 08-09 free agency. Add someone like Eddie Jones for vets minimum next summer.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I disagree. First off, the idea that this ENTIRE team is going to be fighting for a championship together in 4-5 years is absurd. That is a nostalgic pipe dream, and will never happen. 

I know Battier is 30, but we need and can afford to deal for a older player. Shane is the type of guy who will not only help us win now, but will help the other 2 SF's develop and be a excellent mentor. I think both Batum and Outlaw would be noticably better players after mentoring from Battier when his contract expires in 3 seasons. 

Battier's play will help us in the present and presence will help us in the future.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

What's the guarantee that Battier's experience won't help us expedite the whole growing process, and make next season the start of our "window?" 

He'd be a perfect fit here, and would help us contend ASAP. I love that deal.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Hey!


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

He is a good fit in theory, it's tough to argue that.

But just adding him isn't going to help our rookie point guard, and rookie center develop any faster, which is one of the main reasons for the "window" being a year or two down the line.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I have read a lot of Blazer fan's think Battier is to old but I think he would be a perfect fit. Battier is a great defender and good outside shooter. I almost think he would be the perfect fit for our team at SF even at 30 years old. He has 3 years left on his contract which will only make him 33 years old. I even think if he wants and is still playing good sign him for another 2-3 year contract. I do think he would help with Batum and his learning to play SF in the NBA.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

GregOden said:


> But just adding him isn't going to help our rookie point guard, and rookie center develop any faster, which is one of the main reasons for the "window" being a year or two down the line.


I don't agree with that one bit. Playing with a smart and experienced player will make our rookies better. Notice how Nate and KP always made note of the major impact J. Jones had on our locker room and our team's BBIQ (as a whole) last season, and particularly during the streak in December.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Hephaestus said:


> I like Battier, but he's going to be 30 in September. When the Blazers hit the window they will be able to compete for titles, Battier's skills will have declined too much to make any kind of significant contribution.


When is that window, d'you think? Why not in the next 2 or 3 years? 32 or 33 isn't so bad. How old was Bruce Bowen when the Spurs won last year? 35?



> Webster, on the other hand, will be hitting his prime.


So will Kwame Brown. Neither has what Battier can give you.



> This trade hurts the Blazers at the point we can least afford to be hurt... when we are trying to win titles.


We have Battier until Batum is ready. There's no need for Webster.



> We can get a veteran presence to the bench for practically nothing in 08-09 free agency. Add someone like Eddie Jones for vets minimum next summer.


Do you really think Eddie Jones can give you what Battier gives you?
It amazes me what people don't appreciate Battier more. Everyone seems to think that Houston got hosed when they traded Gay for Battier, but don't they know what happened to Memphis's record when they did the trade? And what happened to Houston's when they picked up Battier? It's the same reason people think we're better off with Webster than Jones.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I disagree. First off, the idea that this ENTIRE team is going to be fighting for a championship together in 4-5 years is absurd. That is a nostalgic pipe dream, and will never happen.
> 
> I know Battier is 30, but we need and can afford to deal for a older player. Shane is the type of guy who will not only help us win now, but will help the other 2 SF's develop and be a excellent mentor. I think both Batum and Outlaw would be noticably better players after mentoring from Battier when his contract expires in 3 seasons.
> 
> Battier's play will help us in the present and presence will help us in the future.


I don't think so. I think that trade hurts the Blazers chances to win titles, for a couple of extra wins this year and next year when our chances of making deep playoff runs aren't anywhere near as great.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Hephaestus said:


> I don't think so. I think that trade hurts the Blazers chances to win titles, for a couple of extra wins thus year and next year when our chances of making deep playoff runs aren't anywhere near as great.


I actually agree with this, simply because we already have a great locker room atmosphere and I'd say Roy suffices as a good-enough looker room glue guy. That allows us to keep Webster and let him develop with the team.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Not happening.

Let it go.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Hephaestus said:


> I don't think so. I think that trade hurts the Blazers chances to win titles, for a couple of extra wins thus year and next year when our chances of making deep playoff runs aren't anywhere near as great.


I only agree with what you said if Webster develops into a really good SF. I'm hoping he will develop but I have some doubts that he will. I already am pretty sure Battier would be a perfect fit for our team from watching him play the last couple years.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

meru said:


> When is that window, d'you think? Why not in the next 2 or 3 years? 32 or 33 isn't so bad. How old was Bruce Bowen when the Spurs won last year? 35?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eddie Jones would give the same thing Battier would when the Blazers are challenging for titles. A solid veteran presence on the bench. Battier is not going to be able to contribute more than that when the Blazers are trying to win rings.

Webster will be able to contribute to the Blazers title runs on the floor. Battier will not.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Tortimer said:


> I only agree with what you said if Webster develops into a really good SF. I'm hoping he will develop but I have some doubts that he will. I already am pretty sure Battier would be a perfect fit for our team from watching him play the last couple years.


Well, I'm not pretty sure Battier will be 30 in September. I'm certain of it. That means Battier performance has already started to decline. When the Blazers are thing to win titles, Battier will be contributing nothing but cheers from the bench.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

The argument that Webster will be able to contribute more than Battier in a couple of years is based on the fact that he becomes a good SF and he'll still be here by then. To be honest, I don't see that happening. I think Webster is gone by 1-3 years anyways, with Batum taking his spot as a cheaper, defensive SF.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I'm one that has always thought Battier has been severely overrated by basketball fans on the internet message boards. I couldn't for the life of me understand why the Rockets traded the right to Rudy Gay for him.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> Well, I'm not pretty sure Battier will be 30 in September. I'm certain of it. *That means Battier performance has already started to decline.* When the Blazers are thing to win titles, Battier will be contributing nothing but cheers from the bench.


That's a false statement. You can't say a player is declining just because he's getting older. Sure it's likely, but you can't be certain until you actually see him play. Also, Battier, whose main attribute is defense, is less likely to decline in the same way an offensive player will. He can be serviceable well into his 30s. Hell, just look at Bruce Bowen.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Like I posted earlier I would love to get Battier but this trade wouldn't work anyway. I don't think we can trade Ike Diogu with other players for at least 60 days. I might be wrong on that but it is something like that.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> That's a false statement. You can't say a player is declining just because he's getting older. Sure it's likely, but you can't be certain until you actually see him play. Also, Battier, whose main attribute is defense, is less likely to decline in the same way an offensive player will. He can be serviceable well into his 30s. Hell, just look at Bruce Bowen.


That's incorrect.

Age related physical performance decline is a fact proven by science.

It's also a fact that right now Battier does not shoot well enough from 3 to keep defenders from sagging off him. That means Oden's going to be double teamed all the time. That a big problem.

Webster is enough of a 3 pt threat to keep defenders honest when he's on the floor.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> That's incorrect.
> 
> Age related physical performance decline is a fact proven by science.
> 
> ...


Yeah, he'll decline, but that doesn't mean he can't contribute. Defensively that is. Battier also doesn't rely on athleticism, which is what usually declines first and causes a player to be worse than before.

Battier is a 39% career 3P shooter. He's fine. (Better than Webster btw)


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Hephaestus said:


> Webster is enough of a 3 pt threat to keep defenders honest when he's on the floor.


I think Battier's 3 pt threat is about the same as Webster and even a little more consistent IMO. Their 3 pt FG pct is about the same but Battier seems to be more consistent where Webster is hot and cold.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> WHY PDX DOES IT
> They need a glue guy who has ‘been there before’


Been WHERE before? The first round?

All I can say about this trade idea is that Houston makes out like a bandit. GREAT deal for Houston. Ehh deal for us.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> Yeah, he'll decline, but that doesn't mean he can't contribute.
> 
> Battier is a 39% career 3P shooter. He's fine. (Better than Webster btw)


Gee... wonder why you showed Battier's CAREER 3 pt. %. Could it be because you know Battier shot 37.7% last year? That proves my point that Battier's production has deteriorated. It's also lower than the 38.8% Webster shot from 3 last year in what would have been Webster's junior year of college.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

B-Roy said:


> Yeah, he'll decline, but that doesn't mean he can't contribute. Defensively that is. Battier also doesn't rely on athleticism, which is what usually declines first and causes a player to be worse than before.
> 
> Battier is a 39% career 3P shooter. He's fine. (Better than Webster btw)


But Battier is declining. He only shot 37.7% from the three point line last season, his worst percentage in 4 seasons. Meanwhile, Webster shot a career high 38.8% from the three point last season.

Checkmate.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> Gee... wonder why you showed Battier's CAREER 3 pt. %. Could it be because you know Battier shot 37.7% last year? That proves my point that Battier production has deteriorated. It's also lower than the 38.8% Webster shot from 3 last year in what would have been Webster's junior year of college.


I knew you'd say that. That doesn't mean ANYTHING. Players fluctuate shooting percentages all the time, especially 3P shooting. In 06-07, Bowen shot 38% from 3. In 07-08, he shot 42%. Battier's 3P shooting percentages have been as follows: 37%, 40%, 35%, 40%, 40%, 42%, 38%. It fluctuates, but it averages at 39%, and that's what I'd expect to see from him for the rest of his career. 

Webster is also a streaky shooter. He can go 6/7 on one night, and then 0/7 on another. He's unreliable.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

KingSpeed said:


> But Battier is declining. He only shot 37.7% from the three point line last season, his worst percentage in 4 seasons. Meanwhile, Webster shot a career high 38.8% from the three point last season.
> 
> Checkmate.


Great minds think alike. :clap2:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

B-Roy said:


> Webster is also a streaky shooter. He can go 6/7 on one night, and then 0/7 on another. He's unreliable.


Um..thats kind of the definition of average.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

B-Roy said:


> The argument that Webster will be able to contribute more than Battier in a couple of years is based on the fact that he becomes a good SF and he'll still be here by then. To be honest, I don't see that happening. I think Webster is gone by 1-3 years anyways, with Batum taking his spot as a cheaper, defensive SF.


If Batum will be taking over the defensive SF role in a few years, then why bother getting Battier? Its not like we hitting our championship window in less than 3 years. The lineup is pretty nice right now. Lets play out this year and see what needs to be tweak, if at all, the following year with our huge cap space.

The only time a veteran like Battier is worth getting is when the Blazers are on the cusp of a championship. Here is a hint: its not going to be next year.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Balian said:


> If Batum will be taking over the defensive SF role in a few years, then why bother getting Battier? Its not like we hitting our championship window in less than 3 years.


I never said we should get Battier. I'm just arguing Battier can help us if we get him.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't think Battier 3 pt shooting or any thing else is declining. The year before last he shot over 43% from 3 pt. That is by far better then Webster has ever shot and probably better then he ever will shoot but I hope I'm wrong.

I think Battier would be a great player to have as our SF but I doubt we would have to include a 1st round pick and 3 million dolllars to make the trade but I also could be wrong.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Balian said:


> If Batum will be taking over the defensive SF role in a few years, then why bother getting Battier? Its not like we hitting our championship window in less than 3 years. The lineup is pretty nice right now. Lets play out this year and see what needs to be tweak, if at all, the following year with our huge cap space.
> 
> The only time a veteran like Battier is worth getting is when the Blazers are on the cusp of a championship. Here is a hint: its not going to be next year.


Monte Williams told Brian Wheeler tonight on his show that Batum is pretty special defensively right now. Playing great defense in Summer league practice already.

I'm beginning to see at least a slight possibility of Batum challenging for starting SF job by the end of this season.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Tortimer said:


> I don't think Battier 3 pt shooting or any thing else is declining. The year before last he shot over 43% from 3 pt.


Two years ago was the only season in Battier career he shot above 40% from 3.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> Monte Williams told Brian Wheeler tonight on his show that Batum is pretty special defensively right now. Playing great defense in Summer league practice already.
> 
> I'm beginning to see at least a slight possibility of Batum challenging for starting SF job by the end of this season.


Keep it real man. Batum will be riding the bench this year. He will get some spot minutes, perhaps during blowouts and towards the end of the game when defense is paramount.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Hephaestus said:


> Two years ago was the only season in Battier career he shot above 40% from 3.


I never said Battier was a better 3 pt shooter then Webster. I was responding to your statement about Webster being a better 3 pt threat. I'm not sure which is a better 3 pt threat but from watching both I think Battier is more consistent with his outside shooting which IMO would be better. Also Webster has never shot better then 38% from 3 pt. 

I don't think you have to worry about the trade because I doubt it will happen but IMO if we are trading for a vet SF Battier would be at the top of my list. There are possibly a few better players that would fit but most would cost a lot more and I don't think we need a super star SF. I think we are going to have at least 3 stars and I even think Bayless is going to be our answer at PG and could end up being a star. We don't need anymore star player just real good role players which I think Battier is perfect.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Balian said:


> Keep it real man. Batum will be riding the bench this year. He will get some spot minutes, perhaps during blowouts and towards the end of the game when defense is paramount.


I am. It's a slight possibility because I know how Nate is about his defense.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Balian said:


> Keep it real man. Batum will be riding the bench this year. He will get some spot minutes, perhaps during blowouts and towards the end of the game when defense is paramount.


Monty meant a starting spot on the NBDL team.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Tortimer said:


> I never said Battier was a better 3 pt shooter then Webster. I was responding to your statement about Webster being a better 3 pt threat. I'm not sure which is a better 3 pt threat but from watching both I think Battier is more consistent with his outside shooting which IMO would be better. Also Webster has never shot better then 38% from 3 pt.
> 
> I don't think you have to worry about the trade because I doubt it will happen but IMO if we are trading for a vet SF Battier would be at the top of my list. There are possibly a few better players that would fit but most would cost a lot more and I don't think we need a super star SF. I think we are going to have at least 3 stars and I even think Bayless is going to be our answer at PG and could end up being a star. We don't need anymore star player just real good role players which I think Battier is perfect.


I don't know how anyone could be more of a team player than Webster is right now. Webster is already back in Portland working out at the practice facility. Has been for a week.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> I like Battier, but he's going to be 30 in September. When the Blazers hit the window they will be able to compete for titles.


No. When Blazers hit the window, window will be broken.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Ballscientist said:


> No. When Blazers hit the window, window will be broken.


That was incredibly lame....and funny.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I'd make this trade- Webster has a higher ceiling than Battier- but Battier would give us a very solid starter at the 3 and a leader in the locker room at a fairly decent salary- we're still left with two prospects to develop in Outlaw and Batum.

Rudy Gay>Battier>Webster

He solidifies our lineup for the next few years and is in the prime of his career at 30. He's probably got 4 or 5 years left at a decent level.

The comparison to Eddie Jones is off base- Jones is 7 years older than Battier.

And as for the argument that he's not a great outside shooter in comparison to Webster- it'd be more convincing if we were talking about differences of greater than a couple percentage points.

In short, I'll agree that Webster has more upside, if you concede that Battier is by far the better defender and a good enough shooter to punish a defender for leaving him alone.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

It's important to align the windows of your stars. The Blazers have done that. Role players, even excellent ones like Battier, can be replaced and therefore don't have to be in lockstep, age-wise.

Giving up Webster would be a problem if he profiled as a good or very good player in a few years. Based on his flat development curve, I don't think he does. I think Batum has a better chance of being a good starter, and Battier makes a fine bridge to Batum.

Ideally, I'd like Childress...a younger Battier. But you can't have any player you want. If the Blazers can get Battier for the deal the original poster offered, I'd do that.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

If we're trying to sign or trade for a vet SF to help teach our guys, Battier isn't at the top of my list. 

Hell we'd have been better off holding onto James Jones IMO, he's got just as much playoff experience(with his teams having a far better winning percentage), is a better career 3pt shooter, and we actually know he gets along with the team. Sure Battier is known as being better defensively, but if Jones was health I think what little he would give up to Battier defensively would be worth what else he brings.

Now a Prince/Posey type has far more experience and success, and while they'd be more expensive, they'd be much higher on my list than Battier.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

You dont trade a 22 year old thats averaging 10 points a game while shooting 42% from the field for a 30 year old thats averaging 9 points a game while shooting 42 percent from the field. Websters defense was not that bad last year and for a perimeter player his rebounding was fine. In 6 less minutes a game he averaged more points and one less rebound than Battier.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

2k said:


> You dont trade a 22 year old thats averaging 10 points a game while shooting 42% from the field for a 30 year old thats averaging 9 points a game while shooting 42 percent from the field. Websters defense was not that bad last year and for a perimeter player his rebounding was fine. In 6 less minutes a game he averaged more points and one less rebound than Battier.


Have you heard that defense is half of the game? One player is NBA 2nd team defense. The other is "not that bad".


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Have you heard that defense is half of the game? One player is NBA 2nd team defense. The other is "not that bad".


One 30 year old player is NBA 2nd team defense who is demonstrated his offensive production is now dropping. The other is 21 year old player who's offensive production is better and his defense is "not that bad" and his defense gotten significantly better each year.

Still a no brainer. You stick with the player 9 years younger. Webster.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

A move like this would be great in 2 years, but pre-mature at this point.


----------



## Rip City Road Blocker (Jul 23, 2004)

LameR said:


> A move like this would be great in 2 years, but pre-mature at this point.


I very much agree with this. I really don't think we have seen all that Martell and Travis have to offer, and certainly none of what Batum is bringing. 

Making moves at this point does seem pre-mature. 

I for one want to see what these guys can do, at least until the trade dead line.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

The only reason i like this trade is for Batum. IN 3 years, when Battier's contract would be up, Batum would be ready to be the starter and Travis to be his backup. 

But for those 3 years, we have 3 SFs that deserve playing time, just like we'd have 3 now. 

I do understand the point that Battier would hopefully teach Batum and help develop him more than Outlaw or Martell could help.

IDK, i don't have that much of a problem giving up Webster anymore because of Batum, but i agree with the person that said its probably a bit pre-mature.

BUT, if the offer was on the table, take it or leave it, and we magically could trade Ike, i'd trade Ike, Sergio and Martell, cash and a 1st for Battier. I think it would help with consolidation and get us the veteran presence we need. (i'd be hesitant about the first though, and it definitely would have to be lottery protected).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> *The only reason i like this trade is for Batum. IN 3 years, when Battier's contract would be up, Batum would be ready to be the starter and Travis to be his backup.*
> 
> But for those 3 years, we have 3 SFs that deserve playing time, just like we'd have 3 now.
> 
> ...


Waaait a minute. Batum seems promising, sure, but so do a _lot_ of rookies. Remember how excited we were about Ha? Let's at least see how Batum does in _one_ summer league game before we start making moves based on him being a _starter_ in a few years, eh? :raised_ey


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Okay, I just read through the entire thread. Several arguments (particularly Minstrel's) tipped me back so that I'm at least back on the fence. The contract aspect with Pritchard's free agent may be a factor, but I'm still not totally ready to believe it's going to be that big a deal. Decisions decisions.... :whoknows:

I _do_ know I'm glad it's not me making the final call on stuff like this.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Waaait a minute. Batum seems promising, sure, but so do a _lot_ of rookies. Remember how excited we were about Ha? Let's at least see how Batum does in _one_ summer league game before we start making moves based on him being a _starter_ in a few years, eh? :raised_ey


Agreed. MrJayremmie, you're pretty much counting on Batum being a starter-quality player, and giving up on Webster (who already is a starter-quality player) before Batum has even played a minute in the NBA.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Pretty much.

But i'm not giving up on Webster, i'd just be fine with trading him for Battier.

And i just feel that Batum has the tools to turn into the perfect player we need at the 3 (i'm saying in 3 years though).

:whoknows:


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> Have you heard that defense is half of the game? One player is NBA 2nd team defense. The other is "not that bad".


When you are 21 and its your first season starting in the NBA and you are without Greg Oden "not that bad" is pretty darn good.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Guys in here are so hung up on veterans like Battier would help develop our young players. Although this is a factor, I don't buy it for a moment that this is the most important thing. More than ANYTHING ELSE, our young players need playing time to develop. Acquiring a veteran is counterproductive. That player would only eat up playing time.

Like I said before. Getting a veteran like Battier(age 30) is only useful if we are on the cusp of a championship. We are not there next season.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Balian said:


> They only eat up playing time.


Yeah, those veteran pickups the Celtics got were sure greedy, weren't they? Why didn't they give more time to their young players?



> Like I said before. Getting a veteran like Battier(age 30) is only useful if we are on the cusp of a championship. We are not there next season.


Yikes - I guess the Lakers better trade Kobe Bryant pretty soon. Who knew players hit the scrapheap at 31? If only the Celtics had known before they signed PJ Brown.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

2k said:


> When you are 21 and its your first season starting in the NBA and you are without Greg Oden "not that bad" is pretty darn good.


sure. I like Webster. But in this case, I'd rather have the solid piece rather than the potential piece. Since we have two other players with potential at small forward, I'd rather cash in one of the chips for someone that will be a very solid defender for us.

And I don't see any evidence that Battier is getting worse offensively. He's a decent scorer and a good to great defender- combined with Oden/Aldridge/Roy he gives us a top defensive team with strong defenders at 4 out of five positions.

2nd team NBA defensive player is really nothing to scoff at, considering that he was sixth overall in the voting by NBA coaches and that this designation is recent- may 2008. Basically, he was the second best small forward behind Bowen. It's unlikely that Webster will ever be this good defensively.

The sad truth is that we would probably have to give up much more to get Battier, but I would do this trade in an instant.

Sometimes you need to cash in your chips.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

meru said:


> It amazes me what people don't appreciate Battier more. Everyone seems to think that Houston got hosed when they traded Gay for Battier, but don't they know what happened to Memphis's record when they did the trade? And what happened to Houston's when they picked up Battier? It's the same reason people think we're better off with Webster than Jones.


Battier had nothing to do with that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> Guys in here are so hung up on veterans like Battier would help develop our young players.
> 
> ...
> 
> Like I said before. Getting a veteran like Battier(age 30) is only useful if we are on the cusp of a championship.


The first isn't a motivating factor for me and I think the second comment is wrong.

A good veteran who fills a hole is useful whenever you'd like to compete for as many wins as possible. As nice as it is to boil things down to one goal ("win a title" or "rebuild") there are always at least two goals for each team: building for the future and competing in the present. Depending on the current make-up of the team those goals are prioritized differently...but they are both always there.

Portland is not "rebuilding." They are not trying to punt on seasons in order to find more talent. They are, and should be, trying to win games with the eventual goal of winning the championship. 

They shouldn't be surrendering key pieces of the future in order to win more games this season, but the deal offered in this thread doesn't do that, in my opinion. Webster, as far as I'm concerned, appears destined to be a decent, if limited, backup on a good team. Webster is not the next Glen Rice...from his current developmental arc, I'd say he's the next Khalid Reeves.

I wouldn't throw that away for nothing, but I'd certainly trade that away for a superior player who can help the team win more for the next few years while the team looks for their next solution at small forward. Which may be Batum or a free agent or a trade acquisition in two years.

The idea that good veteran additions should only be sought when the team is expected to win titles is wrong, in my opinion. As long as one isn't giving up important parts of the future, teams should be trying to add players that make for the best team on the floor possible. That's how you advance as a team and develop into a championship team. By trying to win and actually winning more and more.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Battier had nothing to do with that.


And thank you for going to the time and effort to explain what did.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> 2nd team NBA defensive player is really nothing to scoff at, considering that he was sixth overall in the voting by NBA coaches and that this designation is recent- may 2008. Basically, he was the second best small forward behind *Bowen*. It's unlikely that Webster will ever be this good defensively.


You must be mistaken. Bruce Bowen has in fact died of old age.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

meru said:


> And thank you for going to the time and effort to explain what did.


Do your homework, and I wouldn't have to.

Gasol went to Europe that summer and broke his foot in the 2006 FIBA World Championships. He missed the first 23 games of the season, and shortly after that, Mike Fratello got fired (partially because he was playing washed-up Eddie Jones over Rudy Gay) and was replaced by not an assistant coach, but Tony Barone, the Director of Player Personnel. 

The team was platooning Chucky Atkins and a shot Damon Stoudamire at point guard after Kyle Lowry (who like Rudy didn't play much either) got hurt 10 games into the season.

Junior Harrington, Tarence Kinsey, Alexander Johnson and Lawrence Roberts were all playing significant minutes by the end of the season. The team was a train wreck. The team was DOA straight out of the gate with Gasol's injury and with the coaching change and general front office instability at the time, it wasn't going to get better. Battier and his 9 points per game weren't going to help.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Cinco de Mayo said:


> Do your homework, and I wouldn't have to.


Ouch!



> Junior Harrington, Tarence Kinsey, Alexander Johnson and Lawrence Roberts were all playing significant minutes by the end of the season. The team was a train wreck. The team was DOA straight out of the gate with Gasol's injury and with the coaching change and general front office instability at the time, it wasn't going to get better. Battier and his 9 points per game weren't going to help.


Good thing when Gasol got healthy and Gay started scoring in bunches, the team rebounded, eh?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> WHY PDX DOES IT
> Portland needs a veteran presence, and I can think of no better fit than Battier.


The only thing that could ruin this team is another supposed "veteran presence". A huge distraction that can only cause discord.



ThatBlazerGuy said:


> He fits the Blazers new culture perfectly.


Our culture's main ingredient is that the players have not been corrupted by the NBA lifestyle, other NBA teams' systems, and stardom. Battier, or any other established star, would harm more than help.



ThatBlazerGuy said:


> They need a glue guy who has ‘been there before’.


That's a ridiculous and baseless cliche'.

This team's promise lies in the avoidance of changing course by adding players who are no longer pliable in the coach's hands. Vets are what they are and if you expect to change them you're a fool.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

meru said:


> Yikes - I guess the Lakers better trade Kobe Bryant pretty soon.


They have tried for the last 3 years and received no offers to their liking, but it probably has more to do with the anal rape than his age.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

meru said:


> Ouch!
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing when Gasol got healthy and Gay started scoring in bunches, the team rebounded, eh?


Good thing Battier was such a beast, he disappeared in all 12 of our playoff losses, most of them blowouts.

The 2006-07 team and the 2007-08 team didn't have hardly any talent. Period. After the Gasol trade, how many Grizzlies should have been logging minutes in the NBA, much less made other teams' rosters? Six? How about before the Gasol trade? Seven?

You think if Battier had never been replaced by Rudy Gay, the team would have continued to make the playoffs?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I'd be willing to bet right now that, when they're both done playing, most people will look back and call Gay the better player between Gay and Battier.

That said, I can see where Battier might be a great fit on this team, filling in nicely for the departed Jones. His NBA game has never particularly been built on speed -- mostly he's a smart defender and shoots well from deep. That'll still be good for another four or five years, probably, even if he's not starting that whole time. It would also buy time to see what's going to happen with Outlaw and Batum; if they don't convince Pritchard that, between them, they'll be able to handle the position for most of the next decade, KP probably then goes after a SF either in trade or as his Big Free Agent.

I also think there's a lot of value to winning as much as possible now, both for them chemistry and, more the point, to establish a pattern of winning and getting the team to really _expect_ to win every time they step onto the court. I suspect guys like Fernandez and Oden already come with some of that. It'd be nice if they could simply maintain that (or, better yet, continue to build on that) without having it beaten out of them to then try to rekindle it in another year or two.

Then there's the argument that Webster's contract cuts pretty significantly into Pritchard's so highly valued cap space. As I said earlier, I'm still not sold it'll happen (at least in as big a way as Pritchard implies), but I can see trying to give him the best shot possible (and, more than that, I can see _him_ trying to give himself the best shot possible). With that, I haven't factored in Battier's contract but I'm guessing it's not as damning, given the way bird rights work, etc.

So yeah, I'm warming to the idea and if it's relatively certain that Webster's gone by the trade deadline anyway, I'd be okay with a deal like this. That said, I'd still love to see how Webster comes in this season before moving him. Given the doubles Oden may command, Webster _might_ become the next Glen Rice.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

meru said:


> Yeah, those veteran pickups the Celtics got were sure greedy, weren't they? Why didn't they give more time to their young players?
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes - I guess the Lakers better trade Kobe Bryant pretty soon. Who knew players hit the scrapheap at 31? If only the Celtics had known before they signed PJ Brown.


Are you seriously comparing Battier to that of a Garnett or Allen? Hate to break it to you but Battier is far from an elite superstar and we are not making a title run next year. 

What Danny Ainge did last year was a desperation move and it worked out for Boston. We are building a dynasty here, not a small window title run.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> The only thing that could ruin this team is another supposed "veteran presence". A huge distraction that can only cause discord.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maris come on. If that's really, truly, how you feel, why do you even bother following sports at all? And by your logic, it sounds as if the team surely would have made the playoffs and might've won the whole thing if not for guys like Jones and Przybilla. And if you consider those guys exceptions, I think you need to make room for Battier, too, who is, by all accounts, cut from the same cloth.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Maris come on. If that's really, truly, how you feel, why do you even bother following sports at all?


I disagree with your assessment of a player's usefullness to our team and I prefer not to keep burning development time for our talented players in exchange for getting back to the 1st and out stage, so I shouldn't follow sports? Huh????

Without the committment to development we might as well not have drafted these guys at all.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> I disagree with your assessment of a player's usefullness to our team and I prefer not to keep burning development time for our talented players in exchange for getting back to the 1st and out stage.
> 
> Without the committment to development we might as well not have drafted these guys at all.


Not all players are "talented" and worth developing. Is it your contention that all the young players on the Portland roster are talented relative to the rest of the NBA?

If so, then I understand your perspective though I disagree with it. I think some players, like Webster and Rodriguez, have interesting characteristics (like Webster's shooting ability or Rodriguez's passing ability) but are not impressive players overall and their time would be better spent on other players who are finished products and better players.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I see that most Blazer fans dislike this deal, so I am going to make a point by point list of why I am a fan...

1) Webster has a large cap hold. Chances are we will either deal him, or renounce him in pursuit of a 'big name' FA in 2009. I am of the camp that thinks we need a 'glue' guy like Battier far more than a borderline FA star like Granger, Deng and Iggy. 

2) I am a huge fan of Webster, in fact I like him more than Travis. But, I dont see his niche'. I might just be a huge Batum supporter, and I probably am. But, I think Battier as a starting SF for 3-5 seasons with an eventual replacement by a tutored and seasoned Batum is a better fit than letting Martell and Outlaw battle it out for a season and let the looser walk or trade during the 2009 offseason. 

2) Sergio has no future with this team. I was once a believer, and now I can see. Simply put, if he plays over 250 minutes this season, I will be astounded. Kid has talent, it will never be realized here. 

3) Ad for the 1st round pick, who cares honestly. This team is 2 deep at every position. We can definatley afford to go a year without a 1st rounder. We have no major holes or large rotation gaps. 

4) Some also seem to perfer Prince over Battier. Other than the 2 year age difference, I dont get it. Anyone who has watched Prince will have noticed he needs the rock in his hands to be maximuly effective. That is not something we want out of our starting SF. Battier is a great 'move without the ball' kind of player. Not to mention Shane is the better defender. 

5) AGE: Defensive specialist who dont rely on athlecism seem to last a very long time in this league, especially at the swing position. Bowen is a indespensible part of SAS, and is like 37. Players like Lindsey Hunter and Trenton Hassell are in the league simply because of their defense. Battier will be an effective player well into his 30's. He has no reliance whatsoever on athlecism, and that is a telling sign of his long term effectivenes. 

6) I know Shane isnt a good offensive player. Hell, he is a bad offensive player, but he is a far above average overall player. We are going to have two insane offensive sparkplugs off the bench in Rudy and Outlaw. We can afford to have a Bowen like player in the Starting Lineup. Hell, even if Battier only got 5 or 6 points a game we would be fine, we arguably have 6 guys who could go off for 20 on any given night(Bayless, Roy, LMA, Oden, Rudy, Trout).


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

just say no to battier.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I see that most Blazer fans dislike this deal,


I don't agree with most Blazers fans dislike trading for Battier and the deal. I think at worst it is 50-50 and maybe 60-40 in favor of the trade. I do agree wih most of your points why this would be a good trade for the Blazers.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> I disagree with your assessment of a player's usefullness to our team and I prefer not to keep burning development time for our talented players in exchange for getting back to the 1st and out stage, so I shouldn't follow sports? Huh????


Sorry, I wasn't clear -- why follow sports if your general opinion of at least NBA veterans is that they can only cause discord and that the NBA "lifestyle" necessarily and seemingly absolutely corrupts pretty much everyone not currently in a Blazers uniform? Your arguments are so often baby-with-the-bathwaterish that it becomes _really_ hard to take them seriously, even when you might well have a good point to make, such as with the conversation about McMillan and his family.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Balian said:


> We are building a dynasty here, not a small window title run.


Find me a dynasty
1) where all the players were within 5 years of each other
2) where no starter was 32 or over


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Sorry, I wasn't clear -- why follow sports if your general opinion of at least NBA veterans is that they can only cause discord and that the NBA "lifestyle" necessarily and seemingly absolutely corrupts pretty much everyone not currently in a Blazers uniform? Your arguments are so often baby-with-the-bathwaterish that it becomes _really_ hard to take them seriously, even when you might well have a good point to make, such as with the conversation about McMillan and his family.


What I lack in tactfulness I make up for in sincerity. :biggrin:

To clarify:

I'm a huge Bob Whitsitt fan and was pleased with his approach to trading for talented vets with some edge on them. We would have 1-2 young guys to develop but vets made up our team for the most part. I feel he was largely successful and still ranks as the best GM ever in my book.

BUT...

We have sworn off that approach and have done the exact opposite to get where we are, the 13th team from the bottom rung.

WE have a collection of goody-goodies with an amazing array of UNDEVELOPED talent. They have not picked up bad habits, they have not yet begun to refer to themselves in the third person and they actually listen to the coaches and attempt to do as they are told. Several of them can already be considered vets, IMO, due to their success and poise in this league. If they were all split up and sent to other teams where they were the only young guy they would develop soooo much faster but since we have a bunch of them we really shouldn't waste ANY PT on vets just to pad Nate's record at the exspense of developing our dynasty.

Shane Battier (or any other vet) cannot teach these guys anything they can't learn from Roy, Oden, Joel, Blake, Nate and Luke...

Not one thing.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

meru said:


> Find me a dynasty
> 1) where all the players were within 5 years of each other
> 2) where no starter was 32 or over


By that logic we really should never have attempted space travel, or curing diseases, or inventing anything at all.

In 1964 Don Schollander won 4 Gold Medals in swimming at the Olympics.

Find me someone who had done that before 1964.

In 1972 Mark Spitz won 7 Gold Medals in swimming.

Find me someone who had done that before 1972.

I can't find anyone who's won 8 Gold Medals in swimming, but I am willing to bet it will be done someday.

Just because nobody has done it correctly before doesn't mean we should mirror their mistakes and mis-steps.

We don't want to mimic Boston and LA.

We want to make fans forget those teams ever won anything that's even worth mentioning.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> 4) Some also seem to perfer Prince over Battier. Other than the 2 year age difference, I dont get it. Anyone who has watched Prince will have noticed he needs the rock in his hands to be maximuly effective. That is not something we want out of our starting SF. Battier is a great 'move without the ball' kind of player. Not to mention Shane is the better defender.


This is my biggest problem with the trade, that it's for Battier and not one of the other defensive/glue guy SFs in the league. You said it yourself in the original post, a guy that's ‘been there before’ would be a nice addition to the Blazers. That is *NOT* Shane Battier, Shane Battier has never won a playoff series, his teams are a combined 5-20 in the post season where his PPG/RPG/APG all drop below his career averages.

Battier is a sound citizen and an upgrade from Webster(at this point in time) but he does not fit my description of the kind of veteran presence that should be added. As I said in my 1st post, James Jones fit the description of what you were looking to add more than Battier in my opinion, he's had just as much playoff experience (and he's actually gotten to the conference finals), plays defense, shoots the 3 better than Battier, and he was an undeniable influence on our younger players. Why would we let him walk, then add an inferior replacement at the cost of 3 young players and a future draft pick?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> This is my biggest problem with the trade, that it's for Battier and not one of the other defensive/glue guy SFs in the league. You said it yourself in the original post, a guy that's ‘been there before’ would be a nice addition to the Blazers. That is NOT Shane Battier, Shane Battier has never won a playoff series, his teams are a combined 5-20 in the post season where his PPG/RPG/APG all drop below his career averages.
> 
> Battier is a sound citizen and an upgrade from Webster(at this point in time) but he does not fit my description of the kind of veteran presence that should be added. As I said in my 1st post, James Jones fit the description of what you were looking to add more than Battier in my opinion, he's had just as much playoff experience (and he's actually gotten to the conference finals), plays defense, shoots the 3 better than Battier, and he was an undeniable influence on our younger players. Why would we let him walk, then add an inferior replacement at the cost of 3 young players and a future draft pick?


Name another 'defensive/glue' guy who would fit this team better than Battier. I can think of few if any, and most are not avaliable.

As for Battier v. Jones, almost all well informed NBA fans would clearly label Shane as the better player. Battier is only slightly worse than JJ offensivley, far better defensivley and much, much more reliable. 

There will come a time in the next 2-3 seasons where we have to choose one or maby two of Webster, Outlaw and Batum. I think this move expediates that choice. As for giving up 3 young players and a 1st, only one player, Webster really matters. Sergio is never going to be a rotation player in PDX. Diogu is a 3rd string, injury prone PF. Consitering that we are 2 deep at every position, I find it almost a forgone conclusion that we dont add another 1st to this team next draft.


----------



## Jayps15 (Jul 21, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Name another 'defensive/glue' guy who would fit this team better than Battier. I can think of few if any, and most are not avaliable.
> 
> As for Battier v. Jones, almost all well informed NBA fans would clearly label Shane as the better player. Battier is only slightly worse than JJ offensivley, far better defensivley and much, much more reliable.
> 
> There will come a time in the next 2-3 seasons where we have to choose one or maby two of Webster, Outlaw and Batum. I think this move expediates that choice. As for giving up 3 young players and a 1st, only one player, Webster really matters. Sergio is never going to be a rotation player in PDX. Diogu is a 3rd string, injury prone PF. Consitering that we are 2 deep at every position, I find it almost a forgone conclusion that we dont add another 1st to this team next draft.


Mickael Pietrus, Josh Childress, James Posey, Corey Brewer, Gerald Wallace, Tayshaun Prince, Thad Young, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Andrei Kirilenko, James Jones just to name a few defensive/glue guys in the NBA that are just as good or better fits for this team right now and long term than Battier. As far as availability goes who says Shane Battier was/is more available than any of the guys on that list, and that Houston would take what your offering?

As a player in a vacuum yes Battier is superior to Jones overall, but you yourself said that playoff experience and leadership was part of the equation, in which case James Jones is superior.

Of course at some time we'll have to make a decision with what we have at the SF, but expediting that decision for Battier isn't an attractive choice to me when we could have kept the assets you propose giving up and just resigned JJ. And it was a foregone conclusion by many that going into this years draft KP would be looking for a veteran and that we wouldn't be using the 13th pick because of how stacked our roster was, and we ended with 2 1st round selections on our roster. I wouldn't make any 'foregone conclusions' with this management.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

meru said:


> Find me a dynasty
> 1) where all the players were within 5 years of each other
> 2) where no starter was 32 or over


My gawd. Is it really that hard to comprehend? In order to be a dynasty, you have to start with one championship. Of course, any successful dynasty will have old veterans towards the end of a series of title runs. We are more than two years away from making a serious title run. If we are successful at making a dynasty, yes Brandon Roy/LMA/Oden will be over 30 someday ...towards the end.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> My gawd. Is it really that hard to comprehend? In order to be a dynasty, you have to start with one championship. Of course, any successful dynasty will have old veterans towards the end of a series of title runs.


I think meru's point was that no dynasty is constructed entirely of players who are all (roughly) the same age. The stars sometimes align in age, the rest of the players don't.

The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen. Everyone else around them shifted. Everyone else was not the same age. Grant was, Paxson wasn't, Cartwright wasn't, Kukoc wasn't.

The Spurs had Duncan. Robinson wasn't his age, Elliott wasn;t his age, Parker and Ginobili aren't his age.

The Showtime Lakers had Magic Johnson and James Worthy. Abdul-Jabbar wasn't their age, Gail Goodrich wasn't their age, Bob McAdoo wasn't their age, Elden Campbell and Sam Perkins weren't their age.

Successful teams create a core (one to three players) and then continuously add moving parts around them, infusing the team sometimes with age and sometimes with youth. The idea that everyone, even the role-players, must be the same age or else it's useless is not borne out by the history of successful teams.

Portland's core is Oden, Aldridge and Roy. If Bayless becomes a fourth star, that will be remarkable. But Battier doesn't need to be the same age to be valuable.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> I think meru's point was that no dynasty is constructed entirely of players who are all (roughly) the same age. The stars sometimes align in age, the rest of the players don't.
> 
> The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen. Everyone else around them shifted. Everyone else was not the same age. Grant was, Paxson wasn't, Cartwright wasn't, Kukoc wasn't.
> 
> ...


Listen, everybody knows this. The point is Portland won't be contending this year or the next. Battier is a veteran one might get when a team is on the cusp of a championship. We are not there yet.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Portland can contend next year without doing anything to the roster at all.
If they are healthy there is no reason Portland cant win a title in 09/10. Whose going to stop them? The Lakers, the Spurs, the Celts??? Lol.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

2k said:


> Portland can contend next year without doing anything to the roster at all.
> If they are healthy there is no reason Portland cant win a title in 09/10. Whose going to stop them? The Lakers, the Spurs, the Celts??? Lol.


What if Oden, Rudy, and Bayless become busts?


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

^^ Then we deal with that when the time comes, not before they've ever stepped on the NBA courts.
come on now... get real.  We won 41 games without them last year, no reason to think we wont win more this year..


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> Listen, everybody knows this. The point is Portland won't be contending this year or the next.


That's not the only reason you look to improve. All those teams were trying to improve even before they were championship caliber. Outside of mortgaging the future, you always try to win as much as possible in the here and now.

The trade suggested doesn't mortgage the future at all. It simply gives this group the best chance possible to win this year and the next few years. When Battier no longer helps the team win, you let him go and find the next player who helps you win the most. 

That's how winning works. Put the best pieces in place around your core until they are no longer the best pieces and then replace them with new pieces.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Balian said:


> Listen, everybody knows this. The point is Portland won't be contending this year or the next. Battier is a veteran one might get when a team is on the cusp of a championship. We are not there yet.


While it's not a high chance, you never know about the next 2 years.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

People really are being pretty obtuse here.

First point: nobody appears to have mentioned Outlaw. Why is that? Is it because he's actually the right age and would be around even if we traded Webster for Battier (which, incidentally, the Rockets have supposedly already turned down), thus rendering moot all this "window" nonsense?

Second point: why is it that Webster is pencilled in as starter? Answer, because Outlaw is seen as more of a scorer. Yes, that's right, they want Webster NOT to score. So the one possible advantage (other than age, which we'll get to) he had over Battier is gone.

Third point: here is a truth that is hard for some people to grasp: just because you don't recognize a stat for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. James Jones didn't put up great stats, but clearly Miami saw something in him that they liked. Check out Tayshaun Prince's stats - pretty average. That's not why they're valued. There really are such things as good teammates, smart players who (cliche alert) "do the little things that go unnoticed" and build (shock, horror) chemistry. Webster is not one of those people. Battier is one of those people.

Fourth point: you don't even GET to be a contending dynasty unless you have more than raw talent. You need leaders. You need players who can help you believe you can get there. There are certain players who give a team a huge boost just by their presence. Sam Cassell was one such (and certainly didn't hurt the Celtics, even though he jacked a shot every time he got the ball). Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, obviously. Now, those are all PGs, but there are other players who have an influence, the coaches-in-the-making (like Michael Curry, when he played). I think Battier could be one of those. 

Fifth point: Every successful team that has won more than one championship in the last twenty-odd years has had seasoned vets AT THE START of their run, which they then replaced once the team had got the taste of winning. Paxson, Cartwright on the Bulls. Thorpe on the Rockets. Avery Johnson on the Spurs. Ron Harper on the Lakers. All starters, all on the downslope of their careers. Notice that NO team has won a championship with all young players, although many have won with young STARS. This is the point that Minstrel has been trying to hammer through remarkably thick skulls.

Sixth point: what's the point? Nobody is going to change their position now. But I bet you dollars to donuts that if Houston called and offered a trade that was essentially Webster for Battier, Pritchard would snap it up in a millisecond. He'd be a fool not to.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

meru said:


> Fifth point: Every successful team that has won more than one championship in the last twenty-odd years has had seasoned vets AT THE START of their run ...


In three years or so when we be making our title runs, what would you call Brandon Roy/LMA/Outlaw/Webster/Oden/Rudy ....seasoned rookies? Who is being obtuse now? Hell, you can classified Roy and Outlaw as seasoned veterans now. They are clutch at the end of games.

The Blazers will probably not making a title run for the next two years. If this the case, why trade for veterans now? Perhaps next year but not this year.

Of course you want to keep improving the team. Adding probably 4 top rookies(Oden, Rudy, Bayless, Koponen) is improving. Four new players is drastic change enough.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

we're not a young team as people might think, the only true rookies will be oden, batum, and bayless. The rest of our team should be considered veterans.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> The Blazers will probably not making a title run for the next two years. If this the case, why trade for veterans now? Perhaps next year but not this year.


So, until the team is championship-caliber, you are anti-winning?

Your position is slightly unfathomable. If you aren't a championship contender you shouldn't make smart moves for the present, even at little cost to the future.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> So, until the team is championship-caliber, you are anti-winning?
> 
> Your position is slightly unfathomable. If you aren't a championship contender you shouldn't make smart moves for the present, even at little cost to the future.


You are assuming we can't win with the current makeup? We were 41-41 WITHOUT Oden, Rudy, Bayless. Our goal for next year is a winning season. Lets worry about making the playoffs first before titles okay?

Battier is 30 yr old and highly overrated. You can argue he is declining. He is the wrong move for the Blazers now.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

B-Roy said:


> What if Oden, Rudy, and Bayless become busts?


The chances of all of them being a bust is not even worth consideration however the chances of one of them being a bust is probably even steven which is why I'm for keeping Webster. If some of the young guys dont pan out and the team trades Outlaw or Webster its just going to make them an older fringe contender. I'm optimistic that at least two of the teams rooks will have a real impact and that Webster will improve. I see a lot of teams in the west getting older so I'm all for sitting back and enjoying the show.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I think the goal for the team this coming season is to win the championship. I see no reason why it can't be done.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> You are assuming we can't win with the current makeup? We were 41-41 WITHOUT Oden, Rudy, Bayless. Our goal for next year is a winning season. Lets worry about making the playoffs first before titles okay?


Sure. But why not get the 7 seed instead of the 8? Why not get the 5 seed instead of the 7? Why not maybe win a round instead of being swept in the first round?

If upgrading the current team doesn't significantly affect the team's future, why *not* upgrade and win more?


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> Sure. But why not get the 7 seed instead of the 8? Why not get the 5 seed instead of the 7? Why not maybe win a round instead of being swept in the first round?
> 
> If upgrading the current team doesn't significantly affect the team's future, why *not* upgrade and win more?


Sure, I am all for that. But Battier is not that. He won't be contributing during our title runs. Webster is still improving his game each year and has not peaked yet. For the future of the team, Webster > Battier. End of story.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Balian said:


> Sure, I am all for that. But Battier is not that. He won't be contributing during our title runs. Webster is still improving his game each year and has not peaked yet. For the future of the team, Webster > Battier. End of story.


He actually hasn't been improving. His per36 numbers have been basically the same. What improvement he's made is really small.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> Sure, I am all for that. But Battier is not that. He won't be contributing during our title runs.


Yes, that's not the point. The point is he helps this team win now. When he no longer does, you replace him with a new role-player.



> Webster is still improving his game each year.


He hasn't. He got worse in his second year and then recovered last year to his rookie performance level. Webster's development doesn't, at all, suggest that he'll be a good starter in the NBA.

Giving up Webster really doesn't hurt the team's future in any significant way.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

B-Roy said:


> He actually hasn't been improving. His per36 numbers have been basically the same. What improvement he's made is really small.


You are kidding right? He has career highs in virtually every category. Matter of fact, he outscored Battier while playing about 10 minutes less.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> You are kidding right? He has career highs in virtually every category.


That's because he played more minutes. He didn't play any better, though. More minutes at the same ability level still means more numbers.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

Minstrel said:


> That's because he played more minutes. He didn't play any better, though. More minutes at the same ability level still means more numbers.


More minutes with career highs in FG% and 3pt%. That is considered an improvement ...ie he is making shots at a higher rate. How can you argue otherwise?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Balian said:


> More minutes with career highs in FG% and 3pt%. That is considered an improvement ...ie he is making shots at a higher rate. How can you argue otherwise?


His TS% (essentially points per shot attempt) has gone up slightly. His rebounding and passing have remained stagnant. Looking at his PER per season:

2005-06: 11.6
2006-07: 9.9
2007-08: 12.0

PER is normalized such that an average starter is 15.0. An all-star caliber player tends to be 20.0 or higher.

And from observation, his defense hasn't improved significantly.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> His TS% (essentially points per shot attempt) has gone up slightly. His rebounding and passing have remained stagnant. Looking at his PER per season:
> 
> 2005-06: 11.6
> 2006-07: 9.9
> ...


Let's look more closely at those PER numbers...

At the SF position... Martell's position isolated PER (calculated only figuring the time a player is actually playing at a certain position)

Webster position isolated PER at SF? 13.9 

http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR7C.HTM

Shane Battier's position isolated PER at SF? 12.6

http://www.82games.com/0708/07HOU12C.HTM

Battier's numbers were skewed upward by some more productive minutes at the PF position last year playing in lineups with Yao at C and McGrady at SF. I'd guess Scola either had minor injuries or was in foul trouble when Battier got those PF minutes.

Repeat that. Martell Webster was more productive at the SF position last year than Shane Battier was.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> Let's look more closely at those PER numbers...
> 
> At the SF position... Martell's position isolated PER (calculated only figuring the time a player is actually playing at a certain position)
> 
> ...


PER says nothing about defense, which is Battier's main strength. He's not called upon to be an offensive threat.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Nice argument, Meru (back at the end of page 6). In all, I'm warming up to the idea of moving Webster for someone _like_ Battier (though apparently the Rockets don't want to part with him just yet), especially since it seems to make good financial sense to move him before this coming trade deadline.

So that leaves me debating this; _if_ this trade could be made to happen anytime between now and the trading deadline, if you're KP do you:

1. Do the deal now so that the new crew can gell some this summer; or

2. Wait to see if Webster _does_ come in looking like Glen Rice -- apparently this off season he's been working out like... someone who works out a lot.  He also became a lot more coachable about this time last season, apparently.

With option one, it's done. With option two, you get a chance to see if Webster _might_ be the long term answer and if he's not the deal can still be done, but the team's a bit behind in terms of coming together and you risk hard feelings that, in option one, would probably be mostly dealt with by the time the season started.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> PER says nothing about defense, which is Battier's main strength. He's not called upon to be an offensive threat.


Opponent's position isolated PER does (Reminder... lower would be better, 15 is average) .

Battier 14.4 
Webster 16.6

Bring this back up...


Hephaestus said:


> Webster position isolated PER at SF? 13.9
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR7C.HTM
> 
> ...


(opp defensive numbers on same linked page, by the way...)


Webster is a net +1.3 PER on offense
Battier is a net +2.2 PER on defense

Battier is overall a +0.9 net overall position isolated PER over Webster.

Battier's a little better. Not a lot better. A 0.9 net total pos iso PER is not worth the bother of a trade. He's also 9 years older. You hold Webster, because Webster has more value to the franchise now, and will continue to be a more valuable asset. Battier's value has already peaked, and will be less valuable as an asset by the day.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> Let's look more closely at those PER numbers...
> 
> At the SF position... Martell's position isolated PER (calculated only figuring the time a player is actually playing at a certain position)
> 
> ...


There's no compelling reason to throw out any of the data of Battier's play. Battier's role on the team doesn't change when he plays out of position. He isn't suddenly being used as a post threat or main distributor. The only thing that changed was who Battier was called upon to guard, which has little to do with PER.

That said, over the past two years, his numbers *have* dropped. As an offensive player, he's not much of an upgrade in production. Battier is a massive upgrade on defense and he's a much smarter player.

The difference on defense matter a lot. The difference in savvy matters much less but I'd rather have it than not. In a close game, I'd prefer to be confident that all the players on the court are going to make the right play at the right time. Battier is known as that sort of player. Webster is not as mistake-prone as Outlaw, but is far from a heady player.

Essentially swapping out Webster for Battier keeps the production the same but greatly upgrades the team's perimeter defense. It gives the team a top defender to put on the best swing threat on the opposing team, as well as a player who is a great team defender. 

The cost is the loss of Webster's production in a few years (until then, Battier replaces it). If you think Webster is going to be a very good player, that's a loss. I don't, as I don't think his development suggests growth towards being anything more than average in his prime. Those types of players are not hard to find, and Pritchard gets them for free (like Ike Diogu).


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> There's no compelling reason to throw out any of the data of Battier's play. Battier's role on the team doesn't change when he plays out of position. He isn't suddenly being used as a post threat or main distributor. The only thing that changed was who Battier was called upon to guard, which has little to do with PER.
> 
> That said, over the past two years, his numbers *have* dropped. As an offensive player, he's not much of an upgrade in production. Battier is a massive upgrade on defense and he's a much smarter player.
> 
> ...


There most certainly is reason to throw out Battier numbers at PF in Houston. Hell would freeze before Battier saw a single minute at PF for the Blazers.

Like I already said. At SF, there a total net pos iso difference of 0.9 between Battier and Webster. That little difference between players is not worth the bother of a trade. It's also most certainly not worth the additional $6,373,900, $6,864,200, $7,354,500 Battier gets paid over the next three years.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> There most certainly is reason to throw out Battier numbers at PF in Houston. Hell would freeze before Battier saw a single minute at PF for the Blazers.


As I said, his role on the offensive end didn't change. How he played while "officially" in the power forward spot was still representative of his ability. The only thing that changed was who he defended.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> As I said, his role on the offensive end didn't change. How he played while "officially" in the power forward spot was still representative of his ability. The only thing that changed was who he defended.


You're obviously reaching at straws at this point, Minstrel.

The difference is who he defended. Who he was defended by. Role in the offense. Role in the defense. You know... all those things that change when a player CHANGES POSITION. I don't know if you heard this Minsterel, but there's so much differences between the roles players take where they are on the floor, they have different names for them. PG, SG, SF, PF, C. Have you seen Yao bring the ball up the floor for Houston? Have you seen Yao set up the offense?

Didn't think so.

What else do I see in the statements above? No EVIDENCE supporting your claims.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> The difference is who he defended. Who he was defended by. Role in the offense. Role in the defense. You know... all those things that change when a player CHANGES POSITION.


I'm afraid not. Position is entirely defined by who you defend. Offensive roles are assigned based on the talents of the individuals. 

On the late-'90s Chicago Bulls, their second threepeat, Ron Harper occupied the point guard position. If you think that means he was the main ball-handler and distributor, you're way off. Pippen was the main ball-handler and distributor. Harper simply played the position to defend opposing point guards. Dirk Nowitzki plays power forward, but he's not a primary post option, he plays on the perimeter on offense. He's a "power forward" because that's the position he defends.

When Battier played "power forward," he didn't suddenly become a post option on offense or set the screens on pick-and-rolls or perform any traditional power forward role on offense. He was a "power forward" because he was being asked to defend opposing power forwards. They did this in order to play both McGrady and Battier without forcing McGrady to chase guards around on defense. Battier's offensive role remained the same, which was pass the ball and shoot from the perimeter.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> I'm afraid not. Position is entirely defined by who you defend. Offensive roles are assigned based on the talents of the individuals.
> 
> On the late-'90s Chicago Bulls, their second threepeat, Ron Harper occupied the point guard position. If you think that means he was the main ball-handler and distributor, you're way off. Pippen was the main ball-handler and distributor. Harper simply played the position to defend opposing point guards. Dirk Nowitzki plays power forward, but he's not a primary post option, he plays on the perimeter on offense. He's a "power forward" because that's the position he defends.
> 
> When Battier played "power forward," he didn't suddenly become a post option on offense or set the screens on pick-and-rolls or perform any traditional power forward role on offense. He was a "power forward" because he was being asked to defend opposing power forwards. They did this in order to play both McGrady and Battier without forcing McGrady to chase guards around on defense. Battier's offensive role remained the same, which was pass the ball and shoot from the perimeter.


Have you seen Yao bring the ball up for the Rockets? Yes or No

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim the 5 players on the basketball court do not have positions?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> Have you seen Yao bring the ball up for the Rockets? Yes or No


I'm afraid Yao playing center and performing traditional center duties on offense doesn't contradict what I said. Obviously, most of the time, offensive roles are similar across positions. But position is still based on who you defend.

Battier didn't perform a traditional power forward role on offense, because he doesn't have traditional power forward offensive skills. He continued to perform the same role on offense, because his offensive skills didn't magically change.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> I'm afraid Yao playing center and performing traditional center duties on offense doesn't contradict what I said. Obviously, most of the time, offensive roles are similar across positions. But position is still based on who you defend.
> 
> Battier didn't perform a traditional power forward role on offense, because he doesn't have traditional power forward offensive skills. He continued to perform the same role on offense, because his offensive skills didn't magically change.


Can you answer simple yes or no questions?

Have you seen Yao bring the ball up for the Rockets? Yes or No

Have you seen Yao shooting 3s for Houston (other than an end of quarter heave at the basket)? Yes or No

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim the 5 players on the basketball court do not have positions? Yes or No


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> Can you answer a simple yes or no question?


An irrelevant one? No, I can't. I already answered the sentiment behind it in my last post.



> Do you have any evidence supporting your claim the 5 players on the basketball court do not have positions? Yes or No


I didn't say they don't have position. I said position is defined by who you defend. I provided examples of that, like Ron Harper and Dirk Nowitzki.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Hephaestus said:


> Can you answer simple yes or no questions?





Minstrel said:


> An irrelevant one? No, I can't. I already answered the sentiment behind it in my last post.





Hephaestus said:


> Have you seen Yao bring the ball up for the Rockets? Yes or No
> 
> Have you seen Yao shooting 3s for Houston (other than an end of quarter heave at the basket)? Yes or No
> 
> Do you have any evidence supporting your claim the 5 players on the basketball court do not have positions? Yes or No





Minstrel said:


> I didn't say they don't have position. I said position is defined by who you defend. I provided examples of that, like Ron Harper and Dirk Nowitzki.


Well... this is America. You are free to feel Shane Battier plays pole vaulter for the Rockets and Dirk Nowitzki plays ski jumper for the Mavs if you are so inclined. However, since you can't seem to find any evidence to support your claims, we're going to conclude you're claim is unsupportable and invalid.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> Well... this is America. You are free to feel Shane Battier plays pole vaulter for the Rockets and Dirk Nowitzki plays ski jumper for the Mavs if you are so inclined. However, since you can't seem to find any evidence to support your claims, we're going to conclude you're claim is unsupportable and invalid.


You never actually addressed any of my points, and your jibes are too silly to feel scathing. But those who read these posts can decide for themselves if I explained my position rationally.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You never actually addressed any of my points, and your jibes are too silly to feel scathing. But those who read these posts can decide for themselves if I explained my position rationally.


:stupid:


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> You never actually addressed any of my points, and your jibes are too silly to feel scathing. But those who read these posts can decide for themselves if I explained my position rationally.


And you haven't posted anything whatsoever in the way of data or evidence supporting anything you have said since I posted the independent evidence that shows there is little actual difference between how Martell Webster and Shane Battier actually perform at SF.

You have no evidence that disputes the evidence I posted upthread.

The claims you have made since I posted said evidence are all unsupported by evidence. Get some evidence that shows your claims have some actual merit.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> The claims you have made since I posted said evidence are all unsupported by evidence. Get some evidence that shows your claims have some actual merit.


I posted a long post using actual examples of how position doesn't dictate offensive role, and your only response was "Have you seen Yao bring the ball up for the Rockets?" and then asking for evidence of a claim I never made.

That's simply surrendering on your part. All your posts since then have been claiming I have no evidence rather than responding to the evidence.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> I posted a long post using actual examples of how position doesn't dictate offensive role, and your only response was "Have you seen Yao bring the ball up for the Rockets?" and then asking for evidence of a claim I never made.
> 
> That's simply surrendering on your part. All your posts since then have been claiming I have no evidence rather than responding to the evidence.


I posted real statistical evidence that mathematically proved there was no significant difference between Battier and Webster's production at the SF position.

Minstrel has not presented any claim supported by evidence since I presented that evidence. Only some uhhh.... "unique" claim that the 5 players of a basketball team all have the exact same role on offense.... a claim that is so... uh... "unique" that for obvious reasons Minstrel can find no evidence anywhere to support the claim.

When Minstrel or anyone else makes a uhhh.... "unique" claim to dispute hard evidence, like I had showing Webster and Battier's performance is shown to be almost identical from an excellent website such as 82games.com, Minstrel or anyone else is going to need hard evidence backing any claim he's going to make to counter the evidence I introduced.

Minstrel could find no supporting evidence to support his uhhh.... "unique" claim or he would have posted it.

Additionally, the fact that a well-respected web site like 82games.com has gone to all the effort for several years now to break down every single player in the NBA by each position on offense and defense...

http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR5C.HTM

..is more than sufficient expert evidence that the creators of 82games.com consider the differences between the 5 positions on offense and defense so important that they have gone to the significant trouble and effort of providing said by position breakdowns on offense and defense on their website.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> Only some uhhh.... "unique" claim that the 5 players of a basketball team all have the exact same role on offense....


Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can tell that's not remotely what I said.

This is becoming pointless. First you claimed I said there are no positions. Now you're claiming that I said that all players have the same offensive role. I've said more than once that position is defined by who you defend and that offensive role is assigned by each player's talents.

As long as you keep misstating what I said, there isn't any purpose to the discussion. 

Ultimately, though, Battier's PER is a bit better than Webster's, Battier's man defense is quite superior (which is imperfectly measured by opponent PER, since the help defense of teammates affects it) and Battier's team defense (for which there is no good statistical measure) is also quite superior. The defensive contributions are evidenced by Battier's All-Defense selection, whereas no one would consider Webster a credible candidate for an All-Defense award.

The sum total makes Battier a greater benefit to the team right now and at least throughout Battier's prime.

Whether losing Webster beyond that is a problem depends on whether you feel he's likely to be a good player down the line. I don't, based on his flat development curve and no indication that he's going to become a defensive standout.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension can tell that's not remotely what I said.
> 
> This is becoming pointless. First you claimed I said there are no positions. Now you're claiming that I said that all players have the same offensive role. I've said more than once that position is defined by who you defend and that offensive role is assigned by each player's talents.
> 
> As long as you keep misstating what I said, there isn't any purpose to the discussion.


Well do you have any evidence then that supports your claim that... 




Minstrel said:


> position is defined by who you defend and that offensive role is assigned by each player's talents.











*crickets chirping*

No. You have no evidence supporting your claim basketball players stats should be broken down in that fashion. That means your claim is defined as an unsupported claim.

Well I do have evidence supporting my statements. I got a 82games.com whole website full of math ands stats they have gone to the trouble to provide to the public that proves they consider the offensive and defensive by position breakdown on every player in the NBA for years important and real.





Minstrel said:


> Ultimately, though, Battier's PER is a bit better than Webster's, Battier's man defense is quite superior (which is imperfectly measured by opponent PER, since the help defense of teammates affects it) and Battier's team defense (for which there is no good statistical measure) is also quite superior. The defensive contributions are evidenced by Battier's All-Defense selection, whereas no one would consider Webster a credible candidate for an All-Defense award.
> 
> The sum total makes Battier a greater benefit to the team right now and at least throughout Battier's prime.


The math I already provided says different.



Hephaestus said:


> B-Roy said:
> 
> 
> > PER says nothing about defense, which is Battier's main strength. He's not called upon to be an offensive threat.
> ...


A 0.9 net total pos iso PER is not worth the bother of a trade. It's also most certainly not worth the $6,373,900, $6,864,200, $7,354,500 Battier gets paid over the next three years.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> Well do you have any evidence then that supports your claim that...


Yes. Ron Harper played point guard, yet didn't play the offensive role of main distributor. Dirk Nowitzki plays power forward, yet doesn't play the role of primary post option. Kobe Bryant plays shooting guard and is the main distributor for his team.

There are many examples of offensive role being assigned based on the player's abilties, not based on the position they play. What almost never changes is that players defend the position they occupy. Thus my contention that position is based on which position you defend.



> The math I already provided says different.


Your math is based on faulty assumptions. That parts of Battier's performance shouldn't be counted, that opponent PER perfectly measures man defense and that team defense doesn't matter.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Yes. Ron Harper played point guard, yet didn't play the offensive role of main distributor. Dirk Nowitzki plays power forward, yet doesn't play the role of primary post option. Kobe Bryant plays shooting guard and is the main distributor for his team.
> 
> There are many examples of offensive role being assigned based on the player's abilties, not based on the position they play. What almost never changes is that players defend the position they occupy. Thus my contention that position is based on which position you defend.
> 
> ...


That is your opinion. Do you have any math or statistics supporting that opinion?

No.

Have you posted any evidence of experts in the basketball world that agree with your opinion?

No.

Then your opinion is your opinion only, that's a layman's opinion statement that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

The fact that a well-respected web site like 82games.com has gone to all the effort for several years now to break down every single player in the NBA by each position on offense and defense...

http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR5C.HTM

..is more than sufficient expert evidence that the creators of 82games.com consider the differences between the 5 positions on offense and defense so important that they have gone to the significant trouble and effort of providing said by position breakdowns on offense and defense on their website.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> That is your opinion.


Yes, of course it is. Battier's defensive superiority is far from a minority opinion.



> Have you posted any evidence of experts in the basketball world that agree with your opinion?


Yes. Battier's All-Defense selection, voted on by NBA head coaches.



> ..is more than sufficient expert evidence that the creators of 82games.com consider the differences between the 5 positions on offense and defense so important that they have gone to the significant trouble and effort of providing said by position breakdowns on offense and defense on their website.


82games.com has collected the statistics for use. Statistics are meant to be interpreted with logic. Przybilla had one of the highest TS% on the team. That's a statistic. If someone used that to claim Przybilla was one of the best offensive options on the team, that would be an interpretation based in poor logic.

Your interpretation that when Battier plays power forward, his PER comes from playing the offensive role of a power forward is an interpretation based in poor logic. Battier did not do any of the things traditionally associated with a power forward, on offense. I watched a great deal of Rockets games, as they are my second-favourite team after the Blazers. His role on offense didn't change. He continued to take the same shots he takes as a small forward and move to the same spots on the floor for spacing and passing purposes. Since he continued to do the same things he did as a small forward, on offense, I see no reason to remove that PER data from his record.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> Yes, of course it is. Battier's defensive superiority is far from a minority opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter how many time you repost rewordings of your opinion, Minstrel. If you haven't got any evidence from experts that agree with your opinion, or any math/stats that supports your statements, it's still just you just making a layman's opinion statement that's unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Do you have any math or statistics supporting your opinion?

No.

Have you posted any evidence of experts in the basketball world that agree with your opinion?

No.

That means it's still layman's unsupported opinion, Minstrel. 

My opinion is not unsupported. My opinion is backed by the experts at 82games.com

The fact that a well-respected web site like 82games.com has gone to all the effort for several years now to break down every single player in the NBA by each position on offense and defense...

http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR5C.HTM

..is more than sufficient expert evidence that the creators of 82games.com consider the differences between the 5 positions on offense and defense so important that they have gone to the significant trouble and effort of providing said by position breakdowns on offense and defense on their website.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Wow, this thread is ridiculous.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> It doesn't matter how many time you repost rewordings of your opinion, Minstrel. If you haven't got any evidence from experts that agree with your opinion, or any math/stats that supports your statements, it's still just you just making a layman's opinion statement that's unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.


No, my opinion is supported by logic. That is far more important than your poorly reasoned use of statistics. Further, my opinion is supported by all the NBA coaches who assign players roles that aren't traditional for their position. For example, Phil Jackson supported my opinion by making Scottie Pippen, the small forward, his main distributor and putting a player with no point guard skills, Ron Harper, at point guard. Ron Harper's PER didn't suddenly become a product of point guard production, because Ron Harper wasn't playing the point guard's offensive role.

And your opinion isn't supported by the "experts" of 82games.com. The fact that they break things down by position doesn't contradict anything I said. Nor are they any more expert about basketball than any other fan who watches a lot of basketball. They collect statistics, they have no special training that makes them "basketball experts."


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

Look Hep, there are lots of statistics that 82games.com uses. Half of those stats think that Al Jefferson is a top 10 PF and half think he is a lousy PF. It really depends on the stat and EVERY one of them are subjective. 

In every statistical enumeration that attempts to synthesize the value of a basketball player in one number on a scale, PER, Winscores, Reina Value, Etc... there is an element of subjectivity. Each statistician has to decide what the value of a steal vs a turnover is or the value of an offensive rebound vs a defensive rebound, and how to value a block vs a steal since the shot may have missed anyways and the block may be rebounded by the opposing team rather than the blockers team.

So you can't say LOOK, THIS IS MATH, YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH MATH!!1!1

When actually it's Math + Assumptions + Empirical values for Normative concepts. Shane Battier's defense is superior to Websters, no matter what stat you throw out or cherry pick. Battier's 3pt% is comparable to Websters and he is a great glue guy. If he gets old and declines, we can just let him walk or trade him for another role player. 

There is NO evidence that Webster has not reached his ceiling or will not regress next season, there is only hope. Right now and possibly in the future,Battier is a better NBA basketball player than Webster. Webster for Battier is a good move that would help the team win more games in the short term and possibly in the long term. 

I like Webster, I hope he does well. However, I'd rather have Battier.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> No, my opinion is supported by logic. That is far more important than your poorly reasoned use of statistics. Further, my opinion is supported by all the NBA coaches who assign players roles that aren't traditional for their position. For example, Phil Jackson supported my opinion by making Scottie Pippen, the small forward, his main distributor and putting a player with no point guard skills, Ron Harper, at point guard. Ron Harper's PER didn't suddenly become a product of point guard production, because Ron Harper wasn't playing the point guard's offensive role.
> 
> And your opinion isn't supported by the "experts" of 82games.com. The fact that they break things down by position doesn't contradict anything I said. Nor are they any more expert about basketball than any other fan who watches a lot of basketball. They collect statistics, they have no special training that makes them "basketball experts."


...in your opinion.

Your opinion is supported by logic ACCORDING TO YOU. 

Minstrel... your opinion is layman's opinion, and it has no expert or statistical evidence supporting it.


My opinion is supported by the math and statistical expertise of the experts at 82games.com.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> ...in your opinion.
> 
> Your opinion is supported by logic ACCORDING TO YOU.


Well, duh.

And your opinion is founded in solid math according to you.

You've exposed the secret...we all tend to agree with ourselves. 

I'm off to bed, though.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> ...in your opinion.
> 
> Your opinion is supported by logic ACCORDING TO YOU.
> 
> ...


If you're just going to spew out the same old "STAT WINS" BS, then there's no point in arguing with you.

Watch the games, and then decide if Minstrel has a point. (He does)


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> If you're just going to spew out the same old "STAT WINS" BS, then there's no point in arguing with you.
> 
> Watch the games, and then decide if Minstrel has a point. (He does)


That is an incorrect answer, dude. Particularly for a Blazers fan.



> It's a numbers game
> 
> Sunday, June 17, 2007
> BY BRIAN HENDRICKSON
> ...


don't post whole articles. Provide a link, and a SHORT synopsis, nothing more


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> That is an incorrect answer, dude. Particularly for a Blazers fan.


At this point, I think you're just purposely trying to stir up something. I'll let others decide.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> At this point, I think you're just purposely trying to stir up something. I'll let others decide.


Excuse me?

I post an Brian Hendrickson article from the Columbian that shows Kevin Pritchard hired Jeff Ma from Protrade to create a statistical formula for KP's draft prep, and in response... you say I'm trying to stir up something?!?

Actually, if there's evidence of anything on this thread, it would appear you and Minstrel are trying to cause problems for me because I've provided statistical evidence supporting my opinions and I provided proof Kevin Pritchard considers stats so vital to draft prep, he hired MIT mathematician / statistician Jeff Ma from Protrade to create stats for his draft preparations. That directly contradicts you guys claim that stats have no value in sports discussions.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

HurraKane212 said:


> So you can't say LOOK, THIS IS MATH, YOU CAN'T ARGUE WITH MATH!!1!1


How about wins? Starting SF for a 41-41 team vs. starting SF for a 55-27 team. Hmmm....


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Zybot said:


> How about wins? Starting SF for a 41-41 team vs. starting SF for a 55-27 team. Hmmm....


Celtics had 66 wins. Does that means Kendrick Perkins is the best starting center in the NBA? Not hardly.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Hephaestus said:


> Celtics had 66 wins. Does that means Kendrick Perkins is the best starting center in the NBA? Not hardly.


So you are comparing what Perkins means to the Celtics vs. what Battier means to the Rockets? 

Using your bible, aka 82 games.com, it is clear that Battier had a lot more to do with Houston's record than Webster did for Portland's record or Perkins did for Boston's record.

Battier played 75% of the time, vs Webster (54%) and Perkins (48%)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Heph, please check your PMs.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Zybot said:


> So you are comparing what Perkins means to the Celtics vs. what Battier means to the Rockets?
> 
> Using your bible, aka 82 games.com, it is clear that Battier had a lot more to do with Houston's record than Webster did for Portland's record or Perkins did for Boston's record.
> 
> Battier played 75% of the time, vs Webster (54%) and Perkins (48%)


No. A guy with average stats and a lot of minutes on an above average team is dragging the team down to his level, making it less successful than it could potentially be.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

Hephaestus said:


> No. A guy with average stats and a lot of minutes on an above average team is dragging the team down to his level, making it less successful than it could potentially be.


Hmmm... kind of reminds me of a certain website. 

There are certain things that do not show up in boxscores and statistics. I trust NBA coaches a little more than data on websites. And just to clarify, I am not necessarily saying we should get Battier. But, I just don't think your "math = irrefutable evidence" mantra is that persuasive.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

This is giving me a headache. I guess Hep isn't going to accept the idea that Battier is a great defender, even though the NBA coaches voted him the 6th best defender last year.

It's hard to argue with someone who sees Battier as completely average or mediocre.

so, I'll retreat to a more interesting thread- but for the record, I would still do this trade.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Zybot said:


> Hmmm... kind of reminds me of a certain website.
> 
> There are certain things that do not show up in boxscores and statistics. I trust NBA coaches a little more than data on websites. And just to clarify, I am not necessarily saying we should get Battier. But, I just don't think your "math = irrefutable evidence" mantra is that persuasive.





Anonymous Gambler said:


> This is giving me a headache. I guess Hep isn't going to accept the idea that Battier is a great defender, even though the NBA coaches voted him the 6th best defender last year.
> 
> It's hard to argue with someone who sees Battier as completely average or mediocre.
> 
> so, I'll retreat to a more interesting thread- but for the record, I would still do this trade.




And as I've pointed out above, Kevin Pritchard does not agree with you. KP thinks math/stats are a indispensible tool to analyze player performance.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

Hephaestus said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> I post an Brian Hendrickson article from the Columbian that shows Kevin Pritchard hired Jeff Ma from Protrade to create a statistical formula for KP's draft prep, and in response... you say I'm trying to stir up something?!?
> 
> Actually, if there's evidence of anything on this thread, it would appear you and Minstrel are trying to cause problems for me because I've provided statistical evidence supporting my opinions and I provided proof Kevin Pritchard considers stats so vital to draft prep, he hired MIT mathematician / statistician Jeff Ma from Protrade to create stats for his draft preparations. That directly contradicts you guys claim that stats have no value in sports discussions.


*

OK, Jeff Ma said that PDX should choose Kevin Durant over Greg Oden.* (you can search Truehoop for the link, because I haven't had enough coffee yet) Obviously, we know how that worked out.
Yes stats can be useful, but they are not the end all. To paraphrase a KP quote stats can confirm something we think we see, or hint at something we might see, but you have to go see the player play yourself because there are so many things numbers can't tell you. Also, I've heard this sentiment echoed by PDX scouts on MB's blog as well.

Case number two of KP going against the numbers is Nicholas Batum. Pretty much every stat thinks he is a bust in the making based on hid french league numbers, but KP has a feeling (going with that subjective, normative, "golden gut" of his) that defies the numbers.

Until you can reconcile my two posts in this thread with your own posts, I don't think you are qualified to make any statistical assumptions. Now put that in your algorithm and smoke it.:yay:


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

HurraKane212 said:


> *
> 
> OK, Jeff Ma said that PDX should choose Kevin Durant over Greg Oden.* (you can search Truehoop for the link, because I haven't had enough coffee yet) Obviously, we know how that worked out.
> Yes stats can be useful, but they are not the end all. To paraphrase a KP quote stats can confirm something we think we see, or hint at something we might see, but you have to go see the player play yourself because there are so many things numbers can't tell you. Also, I've heard this sentiment echoed by PDX scouts on MB's blog as well.
> ...


Nick Batum... 2007 Nike Hoops Summit Boxscore

2007 NIKE HOOPS SUMMIT BOX SCORE

VISITORS: World Select Team
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
*08 BATUM, Nicolas...... f 9-13 3-5 2-2 2 2 4 4 23 1 4 0 4 28*
10 CASSPI, Omri........ f 4-9 0-2 6-9 0 3 3 3 14 0 2 1 2 29
12 ALEKSANDROV, Nemanja f 6-14 0-2 2-2 3 11 14 3 14 1 2 0 2 28
15 AJINCA, Alexis...... f 3-5 0-1 3-3 1 3 4 1 9 0 4 1 1 21
07 KOPONEN, Petteri.... g 2-4 1-3 2-2 0 1 1 4 7 6 1 0 2 31
05 JIANGHUA, Chen...... 0-2 0-1 0-0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 9
06 UGRINOSKI, Aleksanda 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 10
09 DEDOVIC, Nihad...... 0-6 0-2 1-2 2 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 11
11 ALABI, Solomon...... 1-8 0-0 3-4 4 1 5 3 5 0 0 3 0 14
13 PRELDZIC, Emir...... 2-6 1-4 2-2 1 1 2 1 7 3 2 0 0 16
14 RICHARDS, Ryan...... 0-2 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
TEAM................ 1 2 3
Totals.............. 27-69 5-20 21-26 14 26 40 22 80 13 20 5 11 200

TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 11-34 32.4% 2nd Half: 16-35 45.7% Game: 39.1% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 2-12 16.7% 2nd Half: 3-8 37.5% Game: 25.0% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 5-6 83.3% 2nd Half: 16-20 80.0% Game: 80.8% 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME TEAM: USA Junior National Team
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
08 SINGLER, Kyle....... f 3-5 1-3 1-2 3 2 5 4 8 0 1 0 0 16
10 LOVE, Kevin......... f 5-9 1-1 2-2 4 4 8 5 13 3 0 2 1 18
12 BEASLEY, Michael.... f 3-15 0-2 2-6 6 3 9 3 8 0 0 2 0 23
07 ROSE, Derrick....... g 4-5 0-1 0-0 1 4 5 2 8 3 1 0 4 21
09 MAYO, O.J........... g 6-12 2-5 6-6 2 1 3 2 20 4 5 0 2 21
04 FLYNN, Jonny........ 0-3 0-1 2-2 0 0 0 1 2 10 2 0 3 23
05 BAYLESS, Jerryd..... 5-10 1-3 4-7 0 2 2 3 15 1 1 0 0 20
06 SMITH, Nolan........ 2-8 0-2 0-0 4 0 4 4 4 0 1 0 2 19
11 GREENE, Donte'...... 4-10 0-2 2-2 3 5 8 0 10 1 0 1 0 18
13 PATTERSON, Patrick.. 6-9 0-0 0-0 2 6 8 2 12 1 2 1 1 21
TEAM................ 1 2 3 1
Totals.............. 38-86 5-20 19-27 26 29 55 26 100 23 14 6 13 200

TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 17-46 37.0% 2nd Half: 21-40 52.5%  Game: 44.2% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 3-11 27.3% 2nd Half: 2-9 22.2% Game: 25.0% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 9-14 64.3% 2nd Half: 10-13 76.9% Game: 70.4% 4,1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials:Jorge Vazquez, Ron Tyburski, Winston Stith

Technical fouls: World Select Team-None. USA Junior National Team-None.

Attendance: 5870

Score by Periods 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
World Select Team............. 13 16 26 25 - 80
USA Junior National Team...... 24 22 26 28 - 100

http://www.insidehoops.com/hoop-summit.shtml

Nick Batum lead all scorers at the 2007 Nike Hoop Summit. 23 pts on 9/13 shooting. Nick instantly jumped into the lottery on all last year's mock drafts before Batum pulled out of last year's draft. Batum stayed in the lottery or close to lottery country in all the mock draft all year until that false positive in a physical the week before the draft that he had to get a re-test that the Spurs tried to hide the results. Next.

As for Durant? As KP said at the time, there no way any of Jeff Ma's stats could have captured or could have even been expected to capture Greg Oden trying to play almost an entire college basketball season one handed.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

HurraKane212 said:


> *
> 
> OK, Jeff Ma said that PDX should choose Kevin Durant over Greg Oden.* (you can search Truehoop for the link, because I haven't had enough coffee yet) Obviously, we know how that worked out.
> Yes stats can be useful, but they are not the end all. To paraphrase a KP quote stats can confirm something we think we see, or hint at something we might see, but you have to go see the player play yourself because there are so many things numbers can't tell you. Also, I've heard this sentiment echoed by PDX scouts on MB's blog as well.
> ...


Nick Batum... 2007 Nike Hoops Summit Boxscore

2007 NIKE HOOPS SUMMIT BOX SCORE

VISITORS: World Select Team
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
*08 BATUM, Nicolas...... f 9-13 3-5 2-2 2 2 4 4 23 1 4 0 4 28*
10 CASSPI, Omri........ f 4-9 0-2 6-9 0 3 3 3 14 0 2 1 2 29
12 ALEKSANDROV, Nemanja f 6-14 0-2 2-2 3 11 14 3 14 1 2 0 2 28
15 AJINCA, Alexis...... f 3-5 0-1 3-3 1 3 4 1 9 0 4 1 1 21
07 KOPONEN, Petteri.... g 2-4 1-3 2-2 0 1 1 4 7 6 1 0 2 31
05 JIANGHUA, Chen...... 0-2 0-1 0-0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 9
06 UGRINOSKI, Aleksanda 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 10
09 DEDOVIC, Nihad...... 0-6 0-2 1-2 2 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 11
11 ALABI, Solomon...... 1-8 0-0 3-4 4 1 5 3 5 0 0 3 0 14
13 PRELDZIC, Emir...... 2-6 1-4 2-2 1 1 2 1 7 3 2 0 0 16
14 RICHARDS, Ryan...... 0-2 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
TEAM................ 1 2 3
Totals.............. 27-69 5-20 21-26 14 26 40 22 80 13 20 5 11 200

TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 11-34 32.4% 2nd Half: 16-35 45.7% Game: 39.1% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 2-12 16.7% 2nd Half: 3-8 37.5% Game: 25.0% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 5-6 83.3% 2nd Half: 16-20 80.0% Game: 80.8% 3


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME TEAM: USA Junior National Team
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
08 SINGLER, Kyle....... f 3-5 1-3 1-2 3 2 5 4 8 0 1 0 0 16
10 LOVE, Kevin......... f 5-9 1-1 2-2 4 4 8 5 13 3 0 2 1 18
12 BEASLEY, Michael.... f 3-15 0-2 2-6 6 3 9 3 8 0 0 2 0 23
07 ROSE, Derrick....... g 4-5 0-1 0-0 1 4 5 2 8 3 1 0 4 21
09 MAYO, O.J........... g 6-12 2-5 6-6 2 1 3 2 20 4 5 0 2 21
04 FLYNN, Jonny........ 0-3 0-1 2-2 0 0 0 1 2 10 2 0 3 23
05 BAYLESS, Jerryd..... 5-10 1-3 4-7 0 2 2 3 15 1 1 0 0 20
06 SMITH, Nolan........ 2-8 0-2 0-0 4 0 4 4 4 0 1 0 2 19
11 GREENE, Donte'...... 4-10 0-2 2-2 3 5 8 0 10 1 0 1 0 18
13 PATTERSON, Patrick.. 6-9 0-0 0-0 2 6 8 2 12 1 2 1 1 21
TEAM................ 1 2 3 1
Totals.............. 38-86 5-20 19-27 26 29 55 26 100 23 14 6 13 200

TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 17-46 37.0% 2nd Half: 21-40 52.5% Game: 44.2% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 3-11 27.3% 2nd Half: 2-9 22.2% Game: 25.0% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 9-14 64.3% 2nd Half: 10-13 76.9% Game: 70.4% 4,1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials:Jorge Vazquez, Ron Tyburski, Winston Stith

Technical fouls: World Select Team-None. USA Junior National Team-None.

Attendance: 5870

Score by Periods 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
World Select Team............. 13 16 26 25 - 80
USA Junior National Team...... 24 22 26 28 - 100

http://www.insidehoops.com/hoop-summit.shtml

Nick Batum lead all scorers at the 2007 Nike Hoop Summit. 23 pts on 9/13 shooting. Nick instantly jumped into the lottery on all last year's mock drafts before Batum pulled out of last year's draft. Batum stayed in the lottery or close to lottery country in all the mock draft all year until that false positive in a physical the week before the draft that he had to get a re-test that the Spurs tried to hide the results. Next.

As for Durant? As KP said at the time, there no way any of Jeff Ma's stats or anyone elses stats could have captured or could have even been expected to capture Greg Oden trying to play almost an entire college basketball season one handed.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Battiers on the decline, and webs is still climbing...give it time boyz...


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> http://www.insidehoops.com/hoop-summit.shtml
> 
> Nick Batum lead all scorers at the 2007 Nike Hoop Summit. 23 pts on 9/13 shooting. Nick instantly jumped into the lottery on all last year's mock drafts before Batum pulled out of last year's draft. Batum stayed in the lottery or close to lottery country in all the mock draft all year until that false positive in a physical the week before the draft that he had to get a re-test that the Spurs tried to hide the results. Next.
> 
> As for Durant? As KP said at the time, there no way any of Jeff Ma's stats or anyone elses stats could have captured or could have even been expected to capture Greg Oden trying to play almost an entire college basketball season one handed.


God, you're like KingSpeed now, basing everything off of one game.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

I don't understand the hard-ons you guys have for an above average defensive SF in Battier. That is the only tangible quality he has over Webster. One could argue he has peaked and on the declining curve of his career at age 30. In the meanwhile, Webster is only 21, cost less, and continues to improve both on offensive and defense.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> God, you're like KingSpeed now, basing everything off of one game.


Excuse me... Everybody in the basketball world instantly rated Nick Batum a lottery pick in the 2007 draft right after that Nike Hoop Summit. Not one guy. The whole basketball world.

If YOU go put 23 pts in a game on 9/13 shooting on Rose, Mayo, Love, Beasley, Bayless, Singler, Flynn, Green, etc., YOU would be rated a lottery pick the next day, too.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> Excuse me... Everybody in the basketball world instantly rated Nick Batum a lottery pick in the 2007 draft. Not one guy. The whole basketball world.
> 
> If YOU go put 23 pts in a game on 9/13 shooting on Rose, Mayo, Love, Beasley, Bayless, Singler, Flynn, Green, etc., YOU would be rated a lottery pick the next day, too.


Honestly, it's one game, and experts (which you seem so fond of) of stats like Hollinger rate Batum incredibly low.

And btw, Batum was rated a lottery pick Based on potential, not overall ability.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> Honestly, it's one game, and experts (which you seem so fond of) of stats like Hollinger rate Batum incredibly low.
> 
> And btw, Batum was rated a lottery pick Based on potential, not overall ability.


Well... we have another "that's your opinion, but nobody else shared it" situation. 

Batum was pretty much a barely mentioned prospect listed in mock drafts as a late 2nd rounder or not at all before the 2007 Nike Hoops Summit. The day after the 2007 Nike Hoops Summit, both Draft Express and Chad Ford had Nick Batum rated a 2007 lottery pick. Everyone else followed suit. When Batum withdrew from the 2007 draft, he was slid to over to lottery country in the 2008 mock drafts.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> Batum was pretty much a barely mentioned prospect listed in mock drafts as a late 2nd rounder or not at all before the 2007 Nike Hoops Summit. The day after the 2007 Nike Hoops Summit, both Draft Express and Chad Ford had Nick Batum rated a 2007 lottery pick. Everyone else followed suit. When Batum withdrew from the 2007 draft, he was slid to over to lottery country in the 2008 mock drafts.


Your point? No one felt (or still feels) Batum can contribute right away. Nor does anyone rate Batum highly in terms of stat production. Which is what this debate is about....


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

woah, how did you guys get into an arguement about Batum we were just talking about making a trade for Battier and Battier/Webster. lol...

edit - ah, i see the transition into Batum... nice...


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

B-Roy said:


> Your point? No one felt (or still feels) Batum can contribute right away. Nor does anyone rate Batum highly in terms of stat production. Which is what this debate is about....


Well...If that is what this debate is supposedly about, you just now decided to change the subject.

this was what you jumped into the thread with...



B-Roy said:


> God, you're like KingSpeed now, basing everything off of one game.


HurraKane212 claimed Batum didn't get draft becasue of performance. I showed he indeed did. You made a comment suggesting Batum wouldn't have moved been into lottery because of one game, and I provided the back story that Batum did indeed get moved into the 2007 draft lottery after the basketball world saw his performance at the 2007 Nike Hoops Summit.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

Hephaestus said:


> HurraKane212 claimed Batum didn't get draft becasue of performance. I showed he indeed did. You made a comment suggesting Batum wouldn't have moved been into lottery because of one game, and I provided the back story that Batum did indeed get moved into the 2007 draft lottery after the basketball world saw his performance at the 2007 Nike Hoops Summit.


No, he claimed:



HurraKane212 said:


> Case number two of KP going against the numbers is Nicholas Batum. Pretty much every stat thinks he is a bust in the making based on his french league numbers, but KP has a feeling (going with that subjective, normative, "golden gut" of his) that defies the numbers.


One game (in 2007) didn't change the fact that stat guru's still saw him as a potential man, with a high bust potential.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> That directly contradicts you guys claim that stats have no value in sports discussions.


I think everyone, at this point, understands that you purposely distort what others say to create straw man arguments.

No one has said "stats have no value in sports discussions." No one has said anything remotely like that. I'm probably one of the most frequent users of stats on the forum.

It is obvious, however, that not everything in basketball is perfectly measured by statistics. Individual defense can be evaluated in shades by things like opponent PER and team defense can be hinted at by Adjusted +/- variants, but none of the stats are conclusive about the value of defense, because none can completely eliminate the effect of teammates.

Since the crux of the Webster/Battier comparison revolves around defense, there's simply no way that a number on the difference between the two players will be compelling. I'm extremely happy Pritchard uses advanced statistical analysis to inform his decisions. You're being completely unrealistic, though, if you think Pritchard uses nothing but statistics. Subjective analysis is always going to be a part of sports analysis, because while statistics can tell you what happened, you have to watch to see how it happened or why it happened--both of which are key issues in predicting what will happen in the future.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> *I think everyone, at this point, understands that you purposely distort what others say to create straw man arguments.
> *
> No one has said "stats have no value in sports discussions." No one has said anything remotely like that. I'm probably one of the most frequent users of stats on the forum.
> 
> ...


Well... I don't think this... I know the above statement I've got bolded and underlined is an off topic personal attack. I know the rules here say to stay on the subject of this forum... basketball. I know personal attacks are against the rules here. I also know this is the 2nd time in two days you've made personal attack on me on a thread. The last you did it, the moderator deleted your personal attack and about 10 other posts you made on that thread.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hephaestus said:


> I also know this is the 2nd time in two days you've made personal attack on me on a thread. The last you did it, the moderator deleted your personal attack and about 10 other posts you made on that thread.


I didn't make a personal attack here or in that thread. The moderator deleted a pointless ten post back-and-forth between us, most of which was you posting generic graphics you found on the interweb that you mistakenly thought hid our own inability to be witty.

If you don't want people pointing out that you purposely distort what others say, how about not distorting what other people say? Novel idea! 

I'll leave it at that to prevent another ten post back-and-forth. You may have last word!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Wow. For the record I, at core, agree with Minstrel, _even_ though I'm still not completely sold about Battier vs. Webster (though I'm leaning that way, as well, largely for the reasons Meru layed out back at the end of page 6). Saying anything more (and potentially even this much) seems pointless.


----------



## Hephaestus (Jun 16, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> I didn't make a personal attack here or in that thread. The moderator deleted a pointless ten post back-and-forth between us, most of which was you posting generic graphics you found on the interweb that you mistakenly thought hid our own inability to be witty.
> 
> *If you don't want people pointing out that you purposely distort what others say, how about not distorting what other people say?* Novel idea!
> 
> I'll leave it at that to prevent another ten post back-and-forth. You may have last word!


More off topic personal attacks.


----------

