All signs point to Steve Blake starting

[PHXBlazer1]

And Blakey definitely played better than Miller tonight, as many of you have been so quick to point out. That's one out of eight meaningless games. Whether or not you want to recognize the reasons why his BOX SCORE looked better, you'll draw your faulty conclusions no matter what anyone says. All I care about is that the Blazers win games, which we did tonight. Blake is the better "fit" with the starting 5 RIGHT NOW, because he's played with them for 2 years. But, personally, I want to watch the Blazers in June, and if its gonna happen in June of 2010, Nate needs to establish the chemistry between Miller and our other starters ASAP.

 

[MickZagger]

I like the argument of who is going to start between Miller and Blake, much better than the arguments last year of who had to start Blake or Sergio

 

[SpanishFly]

I like the argument of who is going to start between Miller and Blake, much better than the arguments last year of who had to start Blake or Sergio

+1, post of the night!

 

[PHXBlazer1]

I like the argument of who is going to start between Miller and Blake, much better than the arguments last year of who had to start Blake or Sergio

THIS!!!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Blake is the better "fit" with the starting 5 RIGHT NOW, because he's played with them for 2 years. But, personally, I want to watch the Blazers in June, and if its gonna happen in June of 2010, Nate needs to establish the chemistry between Miller and our other starters ASAP.

As has been pointed out before, just because Blake starts doesn't mean that Miller and Roy won't share significant time on the floor together. There's no reason to think that they won't have time to develop some chemistry together, even with Miller coming off the bench.

I've come around to the thinking that Blake starting is what's best for the team right now. Roy is used to Blake, and he can get into a rhythm in the first 6 minutes or so while Blake is out there. Then, by the time Miller comes in, Roy is in full Roy-mode, and Miller (hopefully) will be adjusting to the already-established flow of the game, as opposed to the other way around.

And, if it comes about that the lineup with Blake in it has dug a significant hole, then adjustments can be made. I guess I fail to believe that a significant percentage of games will be won or lost in the first six minutes, but I do believe that a player's rhythm for the game can often be determined in that time frame. I'd much rather that we cater to Roy than Miller in that regard.

 

[PHXBlazer1]

As has been pointed out before, just because Blake starts doesn't mean that Miller and Roy won't share significant time on the floor together. There's no reason to think that they won't have time to develop some chemistry together, even with Miller coming off the bench.

I've come around to the thinking that Blake starting is what's best for the team right now. Roy is used to Blake, and he can get into a rhythm in the first 6 minutes or so while Blake is out there. Then, by the time Miller comes in, Roy is in full Roy-mode, and Miller (hopefully) will be adjusting to the already-established flow of the game, as opposed to the other way around.

And, if it comes about that the lineup with Blake in it has dug a significant hole, then adjustments can be made. I guess I fail to believe that a significant percentage of games will be won or lost in the first six minutes, but I do believe that a player's rhythm for the game can often be determined in that time frame. I'd much rather that we cater to Roy than Miller in that regard.

Totally agree with you. With all the shots Dre jacked up, the very poor percentage the team shot as a whole, and the VERY few minutes our core spent on court together, I just hope people don't forget how important Miller will be come May and June. I'm fine with Blake starting at this point.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Blake shouldn't be starting. Miller and Bayless have both outplayed him this preseason. Miller understands that getting the ball into the lane and getting layups for him and others is important while Blake sets people up for jumpers. I don't think this is a very good decision at all.



As far as Nate saying he works hard, big fuckin deal. Bayless works harder than anyone, and will be rewarded with multiple DNPCD's this year.

 

[mook]

I was pretty concerned that Miller, Oden and Batum were even debatable starters. So it's nice to see two of the three appear to be going where they belong.

Schilly brought up a fantastic point about Nate's tendency to swap lineups within the first three games. To me, that's more a sign of strength than weakness, though. He sees what isn't working early on and makes the right adjustments.

It's easy in hindsight to say, for example, that Batum shouldn't be coming off the bench over Outlaw. But Batum was a 19 year old rookie, and opening night he'd have had to start against Kobe Freakin' Bryant. You can see why Nate decided to go with Outlaw.

Anyway, Miller has outplayed Blake. I think he'll wind up being a starter within a few games. If not, though, he might work well as a super-sub like Ginobili, logging 30 mpg from the bench. In some ways it may make it simpler for Nate to always be sure to have either Roy or Miller on the floor (which is a much bigger priority than who starts).

This is all a little concerning. But as zagsfan says, at least Sergio is out of the picture, and as hasoos pointed out the other day, no matter how grim it gets it'll never come close to starting a lineup of Blake/Dixon/Miles/Khryapa/Ha.

 

[mook]

As far as Nate saying he works hard, big fuckin deal. Bayless works harder than anyone, and will be rewarded with multiple DNPCD's this year.

No doubt. If the NBA was just about effort, Shaq would've been out of the league a decade ago. Talent matters. Miller has a lot more of it.

 

[Schilly]

i think brandon roy would be more likely to get portland the lead(along with aldridge and oden). miller would then come in to have someone to run the offense when roy comes out of the game and so roy doesn't have to carry the load all the time when he's in the game(though i'd assume to start games he'd be pretty fresh so would be ok with initiating the offense then).

and really, i think nate starting the guys he feels fit together best is a good thing. because he's shown that if games that matter start to prove him wrong, he'll make the switch to what's working best.

Not to be picky, but what from last your gives you the idea that Roy will contribute to fast starts in games? Brandon notoriously starts slower and picks up the level of his play as the game goes on. That is why we are able to come from behind so much.

 

[MIXUM]

well the good news for miller....

when blake bolts next summer... nate will have no choice but to start miller. same thing with oden. joels gone next summer.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Not to be picky, but what from last your gives you the idea that Roy will contribute to fast starts in games? Brandon notoriously starts slower and picks up the level of his play as the game goes on. That is why we are able to come from behind so much.

On a separate but related note, I'm holding out hope that the insertion of a fully-recovered Greg Oden into the starting lineup in place of the offensively-challenged Przybilla will alleviate the "slow-start" issues. If that proves to be the case, then Blake starting shouldn't be a problem at all.

 

[andalusian]

Not to be picky, but what from last your gives you the idea that Roy will contribute to fast starts in games? Brandon notoriously starts slower and picks up the level of his play as the game goes on. That is why we are able to come from behind so much.

If you actually look at the game log of last season - you will see that we usually got in a big hole in the 2nd quarter when our 2nd unit was stinking up the place. My gut feeling is that Roy knew that was going to happen and he knew he was going to have to go like gangbusters in the 3rd and 4th to fix it - so he coasted in the first.

My gut feeling is also that if he trusts the 2nd unit not to do it this way, he will go out and drop 17 points in the first quarter to seal the game from the get-go.

Hmmm....

 

[STOMP]

All signs point to Miller being the better PG of the two... regardless of who starts, I'm pretty sure he'll play both more minutes and have the more substantial role on the club this season.

I don't get why some people get so hung up on the starting honor.

STOMP

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

I can tell you one reason why Miller coming off the bench could be considered a bad thing. Slow starts and playing from behind. Steve as the PG doesn't do much to exploit the opponent which is something Miller does very well. Take the lead hold the lead.

A slow start to games is what was most frustrating last year. Miller seems like he would have fixed that with his style of play. But we'll just have to wait and see how it works out. We've got too much talent with Roy, Aldridge, Oden, & a decent bench NOT to win a lot of games this year.

Not to be picky, but what from last your gives you the idea that Roy will contribute to fast starts in games? Brandon notoriously starts slower and picks up the level of his play as the game goes on. That is why we are able to come from behind so much.

This is what I want to avoid more than pretty much anything--the Goddamned slow starts. I really hope it isn't an issue this year, otherwise I may just end up intentionally missing the first quarter, because it absolutely drives me crazy, only because in most cases it's so unnecessary.

On a separate but related note, I'm holding out hope that the insertion of a fully-recovered Greg Oden into the starting lineup in place of the offensively-challenged Przybilla will alleviate the "slow-start" issues. If that proves to be the case, then Blake starting shouldn't be a problem at all.

Unless Blake got better at this in the offseason or preseason, Oden won't be getting the ball much in the post from Blake. Even with Oden in the starting lineup (which I'm very happy to hear), the slow starts could continue as Oden really doesn't have anyone to effectively (and consistantly) feed him the ball.

 

[andalusian]

I don't get why some people get so hung up on the starting honor.

Because all signs point to a lot of people making the wrong connection between their ability to watch TV and type on a keyboard and their ability to coach an NBA team.

 

[PapaG]

All signs point to Miller being the better PG of the two... regardless of who starts, I'm pretty sure he'll play both more minutes and have the more substantial role on the club this season.

I don't get why some people get so hung up on the starting honor.

STOMP

Probably because Andre Miller seemed to be hung up on it in his comments to Yahoo Sports.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Two things I haven't seen anyone talk about in the thread.

This is only from listening, and not seeing, but I didn't hear of a single pass of Blake's last night that was more than a pass to a jump shooter for a made shot. That's great when LMA and Roy are both hitting >55%, but not so much when they're not. A "good" stat line of 7pt/7ast on 40% FG in one preseason game doesn't alleviate that. Oden had 7 shots, but 5 came off of offensive rebound putbacks and one was a "Moses Malone Special"...throwing the ball near the hoop so you could get around your man, get the rebound and put it back in. So our boy Greg got the ball passed to him one time in 24 or so minutes in a position to take a shot.

Blake's good at making the safe pass to one of our two stars, and shooting the open 3. That's it. That's great in a guy who's not playing a lot of minutes, and if starting Blake is some grand scheme to get Blake 10 minutes with Roy at the start of a game so Roy can get a quick 17, then ok. But it's not someone you want on the floor against teams who play a modicum of defense...which could be a reason we went 1-12 against the WC Top 9 on the road last year and got spanked in the playoffs.

And I know that Oden's recovered for the most part, where last year he was sluggish...but the starting unit that was just reported had the 3rd-worst win% of any five-man unit the team trotted out there last year at 40%. I ask the people happy with the lineup--what's changed from last year to this year in this lineup? Sure, Oden's healthier. But if he got the ball passed to him one time in 24 minutes, that's not alleviating our reliance on the jump shot--one of the major weaknesses in our super-efficient offense (which, btw, wasn't very efficient with this lineup playing last year).

#

Unit Min Off Def +/- W L Win%
1 Blake-Roy-Batum-Aldridge-Przybilla 560 1.19 1.01 +174 29 16 64.4
2 Blake-Roy-Batum-Aldridge-Oden 276 1.14 1.10 +6 10 15 40.0

Second point: for all of you LOL'ing about the "doom-and-gloom", what would be your reaction if Joel started over Greg Opening Night? Would you say "INMIT"? "Coach knows best"? B/c that's what the coach said last week. As I said then, I'm fine if Nate says "we're trying out lineups, seeing what works" or "we'll play the best fit for the team" or whatever coach-speak he wants....that's the way the game is played. The way the game isn't played is by announcing to the media, team and fanbase that you're starting an inferior player on Opening Night, when Opening Night is two weeks away.

I guess the moral of the story is: don't pay attention to Nate when he's talking about lineups. He's either confused or not telling the truth. Just see who trots out there before tip-off.

 

[Mediocre Man]

If you actually look at the game log of last season - you will see that we usually got in a big hole in the 2nd quarter when our 2nd unit was stinking up the place. My gut feeling is that Roy knew that was going to happen and he knew he was going to have to go like gangbusters in the 3rd and 4th to fix it - so he coasted in the first.

My gut feeling is also that if he trusts the 2nd unit not to do it this way, he will go out and drop 17 points in the first quarter to seal the game from the get-go.

Hmmm....

Statistically speaking, the 1st quarter was our worst. Assuming you don't include OT.

http://www.82games.com/0809/QSORT11.HTM

 

[Blaze01]

Also, how would you feel if you were Miller and you clearly outplayed Blake, but you're relegated to the bench because Brandon Roy wants Blake in the starting lineup. Think that will cause a rift between the two?

But...but...that is not true!!!!!!

Take it back....



Some people here are so enamored with Roy that they can see no wrong in anything he does...

He is wrong here....

 

[andalusian]

Statistically speaking, the 1st quarter was our worst. Assuming you don't include OT.

http://www.82games.com/0809/QSORT11.HTM

Yes, but when we were behind - it was often by a small amount, a point or two or a couple of buckets, when we went down big - it was usually in the 2nd quarter (and you can do the exercise yourself by going over the game logs, as I did).

Being behind by 1, 2 or 3 points in the first because Roy was conserving his energy is, honestly, not a concern.

Being down big in the 2nd quarter and having to fight back in the 3rd and 4th is what we want to reduce. Notice, that Roy, played 36 mpg on average, that's 3 quarters - and he usually plays most of the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Look how much more we won the 3rd and 4th - my gut feeling is that Roy is smart enough to know that he can dominate and take a game over for 1-2 quarters per game - he is amazing, but he does not have unlimited energy - and because he did not trust his 2nd unit - he would coast in the first.

 

[BrianFromWA]

If the 2nd unit was "always down big in the 2nd", while we were only "down 1,2,3 points b/c Roy conserving his energy", why did we outscore teams on average in the 2nd more than we did in the first?
I guess I'll have to go back through the game play-by-plays to see the scores at first substitution, b/c it doesn't quite make sense to me. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't jive with my memory of the games. I'll see what I can do.

 

[MrSelfDestruct]

Yes, but when we were behind - it was often by a small amount, a point or two or a couple of buckets, when we went down big - it was usually in the 2nd quarter (and you can do the exercise yourself by going over the game logs, as I did).

Being behind by 1, 2 or 3 points in the first because Roy was conserving his energy is, honestly, not a concern.

Being down big in the 2nd quarter and having to fight back in the 3rd and 4th is what we want to reduce. Notice, that Roy, played 36 mpg on average, that's 3 quarters - and he usually plays most of the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Look how much more we won the 3rd and 4th - my gut feeling is that Roy is smart enough to know that he can dominate and take a game over for 1-2 quarters per game - he is amazing, but he does not have unlimited energy - and because he did not trust his 2nd unit - he would coast in the first.

Regardless of who dug us into the deep(er) hole, if we come out fast and secure a comfortable lead, many non-playoff caliber will teams will often give up. If they don't give up, they often deviate from their game plan and turn into 1 on 5 each time they go down the court, in other words they aren't a threat to come back.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Yes, but when we were behind - it was often by a small amount, a point or two or a couple of buckets, when we went down big - it was usually in the 2nd quarter (and you can do the exercise yourself by going over the game logs, as I did).

Being behind by 1, 2 or 3 points in the first because Roy was conserving his energy is, honestly, not a concern.

Being down big in the 2nd quarter and having to fight back in the 3rd and 4th is what we want to reduce. Notice, that Roy, played 36 mpg on average, that's 3 quarters - and he usually plays most of the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Look how much more we won the 3rd and 4th - my gut feeling is that Roy is smart enough to know that he can dominate and take a game over for 1-2 quarters per game - he is amazing, but he does not have unlimited energy - and because he did not trust his 2nd unit - he would coast in the first.

Facts are that we were down by more points in the first than in the second, according to the numbers. Refardless of your reasoning, this is how it went down.

 

[andalusian]

If the 2nd unit was "always down big in the 2nd", while we were only "down 1,2,3 points b/c Roy conserving his energy", why did we outscore teams on average in the 2nd more than we did in the first?

Because we played a lot of cupcake teams and went big on them. There is a difference between average and between digging a hole.

The issue we are talking about is the big double-digit deficits.

A classic example was the first Celtics game. We were 21-24 after the first quarter, but they went on a run in the 2nd quarter and out-scored us by 10 points in the 2nd.

I just suspect that Roy was coasting so much because he expected to play hard in the 2nd half.

 

[Mediocre Man]

If the 2nd unit was "always down big in the 2nd", while we were only "down 1,2,3 points b/c Roy conserving his energy", why did we outscore teams on average in the 2nd more than we did in the first?

Because we played a lot of cupcake teams and went big on them. There is a difference between average and between digging a hole.

The issue we are talking about is the big double-digit deficits.

A classic example was the first Celtics game. We were 21-24 after the first quarter, but they went on a run in the 2nd quarter and out-scored us by 10 points in the 2nd.

I just suspect that Roy was coasting so much because he expected to play hard in the 2nd half.

There are examples the other way too though.


SA outscored us by 1 in the 1st, and we outscored them by 7 in the 2nd

Pho outscored us by 6 in the 1st, and we outscored them by 7 in the 2nd

 

[oldmangrouch]

Could all these people with "bad feelings" post their prediction for what is going to happen? 43 wins? Miss the playoffs? Rudy demands a trade?

What are you predicting will happen?

It would be fun to revisit in 6 months.

I'd put the odds of Rudy demanding a trade at about 60/40. Too early to tell on the other stuff.

 

[southnc]

well i am very dissapointed miller wont be starting but like i said along time ago....

if blake starts... batum starts so im okay with that as long as oden starts.

but my ideal lineup would be....

Miller/Blake/Bayless/Mills
Roy/Rudy
Webster/Batum
LA/Howard/Doubtlaw/Cunningham
Oden/Pryz

I like this lineup too. However, that starting unit would really rely on Webster for perimeter damage and, so far, Webster has been underwhelming.

Also, Roy, Miller, Oden, and LMA are going to command shots. How do you satisfy everyone?

 

[MARIS61]

We need Miller in the 2nd unit... Someone needs to be able to post up in that unit.

Webster is better at that than Miller, if he ever gets the ball.

We need Miller like my Xeterra needs a boot.

 

[Schilly]

Webster for his career is not much of an improvement over Batum in terms of outside shooting.