Anyone wanna address the elephant in the room??

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Who cares if he is carlito or mixum. He comes in here to try and push Blazer fanatic buttons by trying to bring in a does of "reality." Thing i,s this board and the posters are too good for that . . . doesn't sound like he is getting under anybody's skin these days.

Now if the Blazers start losing, that is when we have dig deep and not let this joker get to us. Should be easy enough considering we know what he is doing.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Bromixolito, the Blazers are going to have to fix their interior defense ... it's jut not an "elephant in the room," which is meant to imply that nobody around here will acknowledge that the interior defense is a problem.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
Who cares if he is carlito or mixum. He comes in here to try and push Blazer fanatic buttons by trying to bring in a does of "reality." Thing i,s this board and the posters are too good for that . . . doesn't sound like he is getting under anybody's skin these days.

Now if the Blazers start losing, that is when we have dig deep and not let this joker get to us. Should be easy enough considering we know what he is doing.
Click to expand...

I don't really care one way or the other. I was just making a comment about another poster. The frequency (or infrequency) of posts and lack of new threads by carlito/brock compared to the old mixum is enough for me to not care one way or the other about it.
 
magnifier661 said:
Well at least we know the true elephant is the one that won't be happy ever. The elephant that wants to smash anything positive to feed his ever so large appetite for attention. It's a little pathetic, but every platform has them. There always needs to be that bacteria to feed off of shit that no one will eat.
Click to expand...

I just want to point out, Mixlitock is very different than MediocreMan. MM loves to point out the positives when he sees them, but he's a pessimistic realist. Not a troll.
 
Eastoff said:
I just want to point out, Mixlitock is very different than MediocreMan. MM loves to point out the positives when he sees them, but he's a pessimistic realist. Not a troll.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

And personally I think this word "troll" gets thrown around way too often. To me it's analogous to crying "communist" as a way to instantly demonize your opponent and halt all debate.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Precisely.

And personally I think this word "troll" gets thrown around way too often. To me it's analogous to crying "communist" as a way to instantly demonize your opponent and halt all debate.
Click to expand...

However mixilitock is a troll by definition.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Precisely.

And personally I think this word "troll" gets thrown around way too often. To me it's analogous to crying "communist" as a way to instantly demonize your opponent and halt all debate.
Click to expand...

^Communist^
 
Boob-No-More said:
Since the subject of the pachyderm in the parlor has been broached, I will offer this observation...

Our high rate of points allowed in the paint is by design. This is the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about during training camp. Our major off season acquisitions were all made to give Stotts the personnel he desired to implement his system at both ends of the court.

Clearly Stotts places a premium the 3-point shot as an offensive weapon. That's precisely why Olshey signed Dorrel Wright and Mo Williams, two very prolific 3-point shooters to fill major roles off our bench. It is also why C.J. McCollum, a very prolific 3-point shooter in college, was chosen with the 10th pick in the draft.

So, if he places such a high premium on 3-point shooting at one end of the court, it is only natural he wants to take away that same advantage at the other end. Stotts' defense is not designed to limit points in the paint, it is designed to limit opponents making 3-pointers.

This is where the Lopez acquisition comes in. Yes, other teams are killing us inside, because we don't double team inside or play aggressive help defense. Why, because when you do, you leave someone open at the 3-point line, and a wide open, uncontested 3-pointer is the most effective offensive weapon in all of basketball. So, in the Stotts defense, Robin Lopez is left on an island, to defend his man one-on-one and to defend the paint against guards and wings penetrating - which happens a lot because our perimeter defenders overplay the 3, which means they are more likely to get beaten off the dribble. And while this makes Lopez look like he's losing the battle with his counterpart, the team, by shutting down the 3-point line, is winning the war - to to the tune of an 8-2 record.

And, if you think Lopez is getting abused by opposing centers, imagine how bad it would be if J.J. Hickson was alone on that same island. And that's why Hickson had to go and they brought in Lopez. Let's face it, a talented offensive player, close to the basket has a decided advantage, even over an above average defender, and would absolutely kill an inferior defender like Hickson. That's why most teams elect to double team when an opponent receives the ball with deep post position.

So, with Lopez, the team no longer doubles in the post or plays aggressive help defense. All other defenders stay home on their man and extent the perimeter defense all the way to beyond the 3-point line.

And it's working. The Blazers are 1st in the league in opponent's 3FG% at 29%. That's amazing 3-point defense (lowest Opp 3FG% in the nba.com database that goes back to 2007-08). The Blazers are doing a fantastic job of taking the most effective offensive weapon away from their opponents. All the while using that same weapon very effectively at the other end, where the Blazers are 4th in the league in 3FG% at 42% - that's a 13% advantage in 3FG% the Blazers have over their opponents. The Blazers are averaging over twice as many made 3-pointers per game (10.0) as their opponents (4.9). On offense, the Blazers are 4th in both 3FG% and 3FGM per game. On defense, they are 1st in both opponent 3FG% and 3FGM allowed per game.

This combination of great 3-point shooting on offense, the best 3-point defense in the league and great team rebounding is exactly why the Blazers are 8-2. THAT'S the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about. He now he has the personnel to implement it, and we are seeing the results.

And if anyone thinks shutting down your opponent from 3-point point range is a gimmick, or some kind of fool's gold, here are the won-loss records of the teams that led the league in Opp 3FG% over the past six regular seasons (as far back as the database at nba.com goes):

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32

That's an average winning percentage of .712, which equates to a 58-24 record over an 82-game schedule. I'm not predicting the Blazers will win 58 games, there are a lot of other factors involved, I'm just pointing out that in today's NBA, league leading 3-point defense has a very strong correlation to a good won-loss record.

BNM
Click to expand...

Such a good post. I shared it over on the Reddit NBA board, since it's the kind of thing I like reading over there. Hope you don't mind.
 
Eastoff said:
I just want to point out, Mixlitock is very different than MediocreMan. MM loves to point out the positives when he sees them, but he's a pessimistic realist. Not a troll.
Click to expand...

I have a high level of respect for MM and Nik, whom may seem like Blazer fandom isn't a bunch of roses. What I'm calling out are those that are simply trying to goat the forum for their own personal attention. In fact, I have reason to believe that the said poster probably doesn't believe half the shit he puts in here. He simply wants to get a rise out of this forum.
 
Back in the day at bbb.net Mixum was banned and a few days later a new poster named Carlito started posting the exact same things the exact same way and from the exact same IP address. But hey they aren't the same person, just saying... pffffffpppphhhtttbbb...
 
A few days ago I made THIS THREAD about blazer Defense. I framed the issue in a non-troll way, but when i do that there were only 12 responses. Mixum makes this current thread in an obviously inflammatory fashion and it's like attracting bees to the hive. You wonder why trolls troll? It works a whole lot better than being level headed.
 
Further said:
A few days ago I made THIS THREAD about blazer Defense. I framed the issue in a non-troll way, but when i do that there were only 12 responses. Mixum makes this current thread in an obviously inflammatory fashion and it's like attracting bees to the hive. You wonder why trolls troll? It works a whole lot better than being level headed.
Click to expand...

It's why Fox News is a ratings winner, and Al Jeezera America (or whatever it's called) isn't.
 
Further said:
A few days ago I made THIS THREAD about blazer Defense. I framed the issue in a non-troll way, but when i do that there were only 12 responses. Mixum makes this current thread in an obviously inflammatory fashion and it's like attracting bees to the hive. You wonder why trolls troll? It works a whole lot better than being level headed.
Click to expand...

Further, I hardly call ye "level-headed". :lol:
 
Boob-No-More said:
This combination of great 3-point shooting on offense, the best 3-point defense in the league and great team rebounding is exactly why the Blazers are 8-2. THAT'S the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about.
Click to expand...
Interesting analysis. I'm still not sold on the philosophy, but am interested to see how it pans out over the course of the season. I simply don't see how you can expect to advance in the Playoffs when you're near the bottom in allowing shots in the paint.

I guess I have two minor bones to pick with your argument that THIS is what Stotts wants and the comparison between our team and previous leaders in Opp3%:

1 - Stotts wanted to force teams to take mid-range shots - not shots in the paint. Yes, guarding the 3-point line is a point of emphasis, but we were suppose to chase them off the line, protect the paint, and force mid-range jumpers. We haven't done that.

2 - I suspect that the teams you mentioned all had good interior defense too. Without looking up the specific rosters I'm guessing those teams had KG, Perkins, Varejao, Bynum, Noah, and Hibbert. Also, Thibideau was involved with at least two of those teams, implementing a very solid team-defense system. I'd be interested to know where their interior defense ranked. Was it merely that they were good at defending the 3-point shot? Or is it that they were really good defensive teams?
 
blue9 said:
Interesting analysis. I'm still not sold on the philosophy, but am interested to see how it pans out over the course of the season. I simply don't see how you can expect to advance in the Playoffs when you're near the bottom in allowing shots in the paint.

I guess I have two minor bones to pick with your argument that THIS is what Stotts wants and the comparison between our team and previous leaders in Opp3%:

1 - Stotts wanted to force teams to take mid-range shots - not shots in the paint. Yes, guarding the 3-point line is a point of emphasis, but we were suppose to chase them off the line, protect the paint, and force mid-range jumpers. We haven't done that.

2 - I suspect that the teams you mentioned all had good interior defense too. Without looking up the specific rosters I'm guessing those teams had KG, Perkins, Varejao, Bynum, Noah, and Hibbert. Also, Thibideau was involved with at least two of those teams, implementing a very solid team-defense system. I'd be interested to know where their interior defense ranked. Was it merely that they were good at defending the 3-point shot? Or is it that they were really good defensive teams?
Click to expand...

here's a rebuttal from another board:

"Wizenheimer wrote:my first reaction was: this is bull$hit

after I thought about it a while, my second reaction is: this is still bull$hit

that's not to say I discount the value of having good 3 point defense. I think it can help a lot.

But in the interest of possibly refuting my own perspective on this...which I've advanced here a few times...I'll 'examine' the argument and post the 'results' in this reply as I find them. I could end up looking dumb at the end of this post (ha!...as if that would be a big change)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be pretty simple to boil it down into the only statistical support for the argument in the OP, that being this list:

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ok then....the first thing I notice, since my memory is freshest, is the 2012-13 season. Indiana led the league in 3 point% and of course was a top team. But then, I remember something else about 2012: Portland was 3rd in the NBA in opponent 3pt% last season at 0.340

Wait a minute, opponent 3 pt % was a key to success, and the Blazers were 3rd in that metric last year, why did they suck?

hmmm...what I wonder is that while the Blazers were 3rd in this supposed critical metric, how did they do in opponent points in the paint?...well will you look at that, they were dead last in the league allowing 47.4 a game. Of course, that could just be an anomaly. How to test it further?

I know, how did Indiana do?...gosh, they were 1st in opponent points in the paint allowing 35.5. So, the Pacers somehow managed to have the best 3 point defense and the best in-the-paint defense. Kind of difficult to say one (3pt%) was responsible for their success and the other was irrelevant.

as long as we're dealing with last season, how about this:

top-10 opponent 3pt% teams:

Indiana Pacers*
Memphis Grizzlies*
Portland Trail Blazers
Boston Celtics*
Oklahoma City Thunder*
Chicago Bulls*
Golden State Warriors*
Milwaukee Bucks*
Philadelphia 76ers
Washington Wizards

that's 6 playoff teams and 4 lottery teams. Doesn't really seem to support the argument that well

how about bottom-10 points-in-the-paint teams:

Orlando
Detroit
New Orleans
Brooklyn
Charlotte
LA Lakers
Sacramento
Phoenix
Milwaukee
Portland

lol...I see 2 playoff teams and 8 lottery teams. And one of those playoff teams (LAL) would have been a lottery team without the aid of some really questionable officiating in 3 or 4 games

that sure doesn't support the argument in the OP, but maybe last season was some sort of outlier
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

how about the rest of the examples?

2007-08...so Boston leads the league in 3 point defense. how did they do in paint defense?

well look at that...the team that led the league in opponent paint scoring was...wait for it...the Boston Celtics

so now we have the bookend teams, Boston in 07/08 and Indiana last season, that are used as examples of success being dependent on 3 point percentage also being tops in paint defense

not looking good for the argument
----------------------------------------------------------------
2008-09, CLE. ? they were 4th in the NBA in paint defense

2009-10, LAL ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense

2010-11, CHI ? they were 2nd in the NBA in paint defense

2011-12, BOS ? they were 10th in the NBA in paint defense (but 3rd the year before)

in case you're keeping track, that's a 1st, 4th, 10th, 2nd, 10th, 1st...all top-10 teams, and 4 out of 6 were top-4 teams
------------------------------------------------------------------

now, I'm not going to post the lists here, but as I was 'investigating' those numbers, what I noticed was that top-10 teams in opponent points in the paint were mostly playoff teams, and a lot of those teams were in the conference finals. Meanwhile, the bottom-10 teams in paint defense were in most cases, lottery teams...like to the tune of around 80% of the time
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, it sure looks like in order to have success as a top 3 point% defense team, you actually need to be a good defensive team overall.

in other words, My 1st and 2nd reactions to this argument as being bull$hit were the same as my 3rd reaction

it's great to be good at defending the 3 point line, but if the goal is actually to be a horrible team at opponent points in paint....which is exactly what is argued in the OP....then the goal sure seems like total idiocy - See more at: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1284560&p=37506785#p37506785
 
Boise Blazer said:
And another side note about the three point shooting. We have in fact put together a deadly 3 point team. Another advantage of this strategy is that we just need a few of our many 3 point weapons hitting to make this work. But the flip side is that if everyone is hitting we are basically unstoppable and can beat ANYBODY.

Yes, there is the live by the three, die by the three philosophy but when you have your team set up like this its a lot harder to die by three and even easier to live by the three. And then when you compound that with taking away that same weapon from the opposing team it makes your three point makes even more impactful.

Kinda brilliant if you have the right players to keep it up.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to point out that ORL tried this already, and they actually did it the right way by putting a guy in the middle who could dominate the paint. And it didn't quite work out for them. I don't see how a worse version of that system, in a much stronger conference, is expected to have better results.
With that said, if we could somehow ride this system to the Finals I'd be ecstatic! I just think it's a seriously flawed system AND a flawed roster to implement that system.
 
Blazinaway said:
So, it sure looks like in order to have success as a top 3 point% defense team, you actually need to be a good defensive team overall.
Click to expand...
Thanks! That's what I suspected, but didn't feel like doing the leg-work to confirm.
 
How was Dallas's Points in the Paint during their title run? I know they had Chandler (who was just a slightly better defender....), but I would guess this teams offense is being built to a similar theme.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Since the subject of the pachyderm in the parlor has been broached, I will offer this observation...

Our high rate of points allowed in the paint is by design. This is the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about during training camp. Our major off season acquisitions were all made to give Stotts the personnel he desired to implement his system at both ends of the court.

Clearly Stotts places a premium the 3-point shot as an offensive weapon. That's precisely why Olshey signed Dorrel Wright and Mo Williams, two very prolific 3-point shooters to fill major roles off our bench. It is also why C.J. McCollum, a very prolific 3-point shooter in college, was chosen with the 10th pick in the draft.

So, if he places such a high premium on 3-point shooting at one end of the court, it is only natural he wants to take away that same advantage at the other end. Stotts' defense is not designed to limit points in the paint, it is designed to limit opponents making 3-pointers.

This is where the Lopez acquisition comes in. Yes, other teams are killing us inside, because we don't double team inside or play aggressive help defense. Why, because when you do, you leave someone open at the 3-point line, and a wide open, uncontested 3-pointer is the most effective offensive weapon in all of basketball. So, in the Stotts defense, Robin Lopez is left on an island, to defend his man one-on-one and to defend the paint against guards and wings penetrating - which happens a lot because our perimeter defenders overplay the 3, which means they are more likely to get beaten off the dribble. And while this makes Lopez look like he's losing the battle with his counterpart, the team, by shutting down the 3-point line, is winning the war - to to the tune of an 8-2 record.

And, if you think Lopez is getting abused by opposing centers, imagine how bad it would be if J.J. Hickson was alone on that same island. And that's why Hickson had to go and they brought in Lopez. Let's face it, a talented offensive player, close to the basket has a decided advantage, even over an above average defender, and would absolutely kill an inferior defender like Hickson. That's why most teams elect to double team when an opponent receives the ball with deep post position.

So, with Lopez, the team no longer doubles in the post or plays aggressive help defense. All other defenders stay home on their man and extent the perimeter defense all the way to beyond the 3-point line.

And it's working. The Blazers are 1st in the league in opponent's 3FG% at 29%. That's amazing 3-point defense (lowest Opp 3FG% in the nba.com database that goes back to 2007-08). The Blazers are doing a fantastic job of taking the most effective offensive weapon away from their opponents. All the while using that same weapon very effectively at the other end, where the Blazers are 4th in the league in 3FG% at 42% - that's a 13% advantage in 3FG% the Blazers have over their opponents. The Blazers are averaging over twice as many made 3-pointers per game (10.0) as their opponents (4.9). On offense, the Blazers are 4th in both 3FG% and 3FGM per game. On defense, they are 1st in both opponent 3FG% and 3FGM allowed per game.

This combination of great 3-point shooting on offense, the best 3-point defense in the league and great team rebounding is exactly why the Blazers are 8-2. THAT'S the new defensive philosophy Stotts was talking about. He now he has the personnel to implement it, and we are seeing the results.

And if anyone thinks shutting down your opponent from 3-point point range is a gimmick, or some kind of fool's gold, here are the won-loss records of the teams that led the league in Opp 3FG% over the past six regular seasons (as far back as the database at nba.com goes):

2007-08, BOS, 66-16
2008-09, CLE. 66-16
2009-10, LAL, 57-25
2010-11, CHI, 62-25
2011-12, BOS, 39-27 (lockout shortened season)
2012-13, IND, 49-32

That's an average winning percentage of .712, which equates to a 58-24 record over an 82-game schedule. I'm not predicting the Blazers will win 58 games, there are a lot of other factors involved, I'm just pointing out that in today's NBA, league leading 3-point defense has a very strong correlation to a good won-loss record.

BNM
Click to expand...

I nominate this post for post of the year so far. (can we do that?)

Repped!
 
BNM is pointing out that Portland is using a system that focuses on both ends of the floor on three point shooting. He's not saying that if we just stop 3's, we'll win. The system is predicated on stopping threes and making a shit-ton of them on the other end. No effort was made in that reply to address our own three point shooting. I suspect a lot of those lotto teams with great 3pt% defense happen to be pretty lousy at shooting threes, unlike Portland.

I would also add that the real focus is to force teams to take long twos. You start by eliminating threes. Check! Next, you eliminate points at the rim. Not-so-check. We're better than we were last year with Hickson, but we have a ways to go. Now that they've got opponent 3pt% dialed in as well as any team can hope to, I hope they start moving the focus to rim protection. You have to guard the three point shot, but if it's clear the guy with the ball is going to force it to the rim we need to sag off, and in a hurry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Carlito
Elephant in the room (part 2)
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
blue32
blue32
Further
The real elephant in the room
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
blazedanugz
B
MarAzul
Alright Homers, What's wrong with the PG?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
4K
MarAzul
MarAzul
Norman Dale
Salary cap room
Replies
14
Views
1K
hasoos
hasoos
MIXUM
I just wanna say something here....
Replies
11
Views
1K
magnifier661
magnifier661

Users who are viewing this thread

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