-17 with outlaw at PF

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
crowTrobot

crowTrobot

die comcast
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
4,597
Likes
208
Points
63
that's what we were today in a 1 point win (aldridge +18). bring back frye! :ghoti:
 
leaves Joel real lonely down low on rebounds and defense. Frye isn't a good defender, but he is still much more of a sturdy body than Outlaw (especially for setting picks!).
 
And yet he was +2 at Boston and Roy was -18 or something.

Take it with a grain of salt.
 
MARIS61 said:
And yet he was +2 at Boston and Roy was -18 or something.
Click to expand...


i recall he played PF against boston for a couple minutes in the first half and we looked terrible then, too. he was +2 for the game because he was +10 or so playing SF with frye and joel against their scrubs during the comeback.

Take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

normally yes, but watching the last two games i can see with my own eyes that the numbers mean something. we were a very weak rebounding poor defensive team with him at 4. we fell apart all 3 of his stints at PF in the last 2 games, including when the raps blitzed us early in the 4th Q today.
 
I'd rather have TO at SF too, but whatchagonnado?
 
I'd prefer to see both TO and Frye traded (one of them for sure), but only if it brings back a quality backup PF such as David Lee or similar.
 
SpanishFly said:
I'd prefer to see both TO and Frye traded (one of them for sure), but only if it brings back a quality backup PF such as David Lee or similar.
Click to expand...

First of all, David Lee is a starter, no question about it.

Secondly, while I haven't been in love with our backup power forward roatation this year, all backup power forwards that could be had in trade are going to have warts and flaws in their game (if they didn't they'd be starters). The biggest problems with Frye and Outlaw is that neither are good rebounders, both are poor defensively, and they're both are jump shooters -- there's not much variety in what they have to give you.
 
Actually, there is a difference - while both Outlaw and Frye are not good defensive PF - Outlaw is better - especially in help-defense - and Outlaw is a much bigger offensive force than Frye.

FWIW - As nice as David Lee looks from an offense/rebounding point of view - he is not a good defender at all...
 
PapaG said:
Start a thread bashing Outlaw at PF for one game based on the OP's own bias against Outlaw? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Or you could start a thread bashing Outlaw for a lifetime (minus a couple games here and there) of not going after rebounds?

:dunno:

BTW: I really don't know what OP is....Opinion Populaire?
 
The sooner those people who only look at stats to determine how a player is doing realize that Travis Outlaw is a really bad basketball player the better off they will be.
 
Ahh...gotcha. Thanks, Crimson.
 
Diana Prince said:
The sooner those people who only look at stats to determine how a player is doing realize that Travis Outlaw is a really bad basketball player the better off they will be.
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone should really separate Nate from the stat-sheet - he keeps putting Travis in at the end of close games and we keep winning them.

Sheesh, Travis, have the decency to botch some of these close games when you are in there so we can lose them and can replace you with someone that does not have your winning stat-sheet but people who watch the game can clearly see how much better he is.

:crazy:
 
It's not like he's not trying, Andalusian. For those who think Travis is the reason we're good in close games, might I submit the WSJ article on Nate's coaching and our "clutch" all-star in Brandon Roy?

Travis's 07-08 "Clutch Stats": http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR9E.HTM
Please explain his +/- being negative, 4 offensive rebounds in 128 chances, 3 assists all year?? in crunch time (Roy had 24, btw).

Roy's "Clutch Stats": http://www.82games.com/0708/07POR5E.HTM
 
I have no idea how they define crunch time - and what it tells us about when Roy is inserted into the game - what I do notice however is that Travis's win% in crunch time last year was 51.5% and Roy's is 52.6% - could care less about the +/- stats as they can be skewed by blow-outs or big losses - Travis is very close to Roy in win percent at what they define as crunch time - slightly better than Aldridge, Joel, Jack and a lot better than Webster and Frye.

As for assists - thank god Travis is not dominating the ball and trying to assist people in crunch time - this is not his job, it was Roy's, Blake's or Jack's role in clutch time last year. His job is to put the ball in the hole when all other options fail - and you can see that he was pretty decent at doing that.

I am really finding it amusing that people attack Travis for his assists - this is not what makes him effective. I do not want to see Roy concentrating on blocks, I do not need to see Blake mastering the turn-around jumper, I could care less about Sergio dunking, Rudy backing people in the post or Greg hoisting 3s and I would be really upset if Travis got it into his head that his job on the court is to try and create assists for others. This team is successful when people know their roles, concentrate on them and perform them as needed. Travis needs to play decent defense, try to help on the boards and put the ball in the hole - especially when a play fails and he needs to create for himself and take a crazy shot.

He performs these tasks very well, he is not a prima-donna causing locker-room mayhem, he is not paid like a max-player to do that restricting the team's cap-space - so what's not to love?

Travis is an important cog in a successful machine - he does an ugly job that puts him in an easy to criticize position (take the ugly shots when a play breaks down and we need someone to bail us out) and he is pretty successful doing it. Learn to appreciate him for what he is.

Again - you can try to reconstruct his performance as you wish - but the stat-sheet shows that they won more than lost when he was in the game and the team won an awful lot of close games with Travis usually on the floor...

Just for the record - Travis's win% in crunch time for this year is 66% - and it is even higher than Roy's 63%
 
Last edited:
Diana Prince said:
The sooner those people who only look at stats to determine how a player is doing realize that Travis Outlaw is a really bad basketball player the better off they will be.
Click to expand...
right... because lots of posters here don't watch the games and only look at stats :crazy:

STOMP
 
andalusian said:
I have no idea how they define crunch time - and what it tells us about when Roy is inserted into the game - what I do notice however is that Travis's win% in crunch time last year was 51.5% and Roy's is 52.6% - could care less about the +/- stats as they can be skewed by blow-outs or big losses
Click to expand...

No - they can't. Blowouts are not included in the numbers.

If you had bothered to look at the links, you would have seen the definition of "Clutch Statistics" (not "crunch time").

These numbers show that Travis was not very "Clutch" last season.

Was he part of a team effort that won their share of close games? Yes.

Was Travis a good scorer in close game situations? Yes.

Did Travis do other things like rebound, pass and defend to help seal victories? No.

Was he the driving force of winning those close games more often than losing them? No.
 
Masbee said:
No - they can't. Blowouts are not included in the numbers.

If you had bothered to look at the links, you would have seen the definition of "Clutch Statistics" (not "crunch time").

These numbers show that Travis was not very "Clutch" last season.

Was he part of a team effort that won their share of close games? Yes.

Was Travis a good scorer in close game situations? Yes.

Did Travis do other things like rebound, pass and defend to help seal victories? No.

Was he the driving force of winning those close games more often than losing them? No.
Click to expand...

I looked at the link and I now notice the definition, I also noticed some more data - so for the year, he is -19 points in 35 games (that they included for his clutch performance) - so he lost you about 0.5 point per game in clutch - but was still a part of these 35 games where we won more than we lost - in other words - this -19 is an insignificant statistic that means nothing. Since their definition is the game is at 5 points margin - 9 games of 5 points losses vs. 26 wins of 1 point losses would also give him the same range of +/- stat but he would be a part of a much higher clutch win.

In other words - given the sample size (35 games), the positive winning ratio and the size of the accumulative +/- stat (it sure looks worse for Travis if we put it at -19 for the year instead of -0.5 per game) - I stand by my previous conclusion. This is an unimportant stat that does nothing but take a number out of context.

It is even more absurd when you look at the same performance this year and see that he has 66% win clutch statistics and is +12 in accumulative +/- (or +1 per game).

Now - you can tell me that he did not rebound well - and I agree. I find it hard to tell how you can tell from these stats what his defensive contributions were or that he did not pass - he might have not done the assists - but if you notice Portland's game plan - they usually have Roy penetrating and passing for an assist if he does not score - or passing out and having the ball passed around the perimeter for an open-3 - you can still be a part of the passing game even if you do not get the assist...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top