Are we setting ourselves up for disappointment?

[blazerboy30]

Your math is wrong. Pryzbilla played 23.8 MPG last year. that's a half of a game. The other half - the team was undersized and underpowered.

If all you get is another Pryzbilla - it means you are not undersized and underpowered for the 2nd half of the game (since you will have Pryzbilla coming to replace Oden when he goes out and vice versa). It means this team no longer gets outrebounded.

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming that Joel was somehow physically limited to 24MPG, and couldn't play more.

I'm a Joel fan, but I think the reason he only played half the game was because he didn't give us enough of what we needed at various parts of the game.

The point is: We had more than 24MPG worth of "Joel" that we could have used last year, and we CHOSE not to use them. If we only get "Joel" productivity out of Oden, we don't get that much of an upgrade, because we could have played with 35MPG or more of "Joel Minutes" last year, and we didn't.

 

[andalusian]

The problem with this logic is that you are assuming that Joel was somehow physically limited to 24MPG, and couldn't play more.

Joel probably could play a bit more - but he had other issues - like foul problems and the need for more offense.

Of course, with the addition of Rudy and Bayless for Jack/Jones solves the more offense issue (You have more than just Travis as a reliable scorer on the 2nd unit) - and foul problems will be much less of an issue going forward.

The makeup of this year's team makes even a 2nd Joel a huge upgrade over the last year.

 

[blazerboy30]

Joel probably could play a bit more - but he had other issues - like foul problems and the need for more offense.

Of course, with the addition of Rudy and Bayless for Jack/Jones solves the more offense issue (You have more than just Travis as a reliable scorer on the 2nd unit) - and foul problems will be much less of an issue going forward.

The makeup of this year's team makes even a 2nd Joel a huge upgrade over the last year.

By this logic, we could have a huge upgrade this year just by playing Joel more, which I agree with, and which could easily have been done without the addition of Oden. Joel averaged 3 PF/game last year. LMA averaged 3.2 PF/game.

We could have played Joel more last year, and chose not to. The fact that having Rudy and Bayless allows us to absorb his lack of offense is true, but that doesn't mean that another Joel would be a huge upgrade. We could just use the one we have for more minutes.

 

[andalusian]

By this logic, we could have a huge upgrade this year just by playing Joel more, which I agree with, and which could easily have been done without the addition of Oden. Joel averaged 3 PF/game last year. LMA averaged 3.2 PF/game.

We could have played Joel more last year, and chose not to. The fact that having Rudy and Bayless allows us to absorb his lack of offense is true, but that doesn't mean that another Joel would be a huge upgrade. We could just use the one we have for more minutes.

First of all - you assume that Joel can go 48 minutes a game - this is not true - I suspect that Joel could see another 5 minutes per game - but if Joel's health history is any indication - limiting him to 24 minutes per game is a blessing. He played more games last year than any other year in his NBA career.

Second - the comparison for fouls per game to Lamarcus is not reasonable - since Lamarcus played almost 35 MPG... Joel fights the other bigs and goes for the blocks and hard fouls - his foul rate is higher than Lamarcus's - and for a good reason.

Again - a 2nd Joel is a blessing for this team. Since I fully expect Oden to be a better center than Joel within 20 to 30 games - this team is in for a huge upgrade.

 

[mook]

First of all - you assume that Joel can go 48 minutes a game - this is not true - I suspect that Joel could see another 5 minutes per game - but if Joel's health history is any indication - limiting him to 24 minutes per game is a blessing. He played more games last year than any other year in his NBA career.

Second - the comparison for fouls per game to Lamarcus is not reasonable - since Lamarcus played almost 35 MPG... Joel fights the other bigs and goes for the blocks and hard fouls - his foul rate is higher than Lamarcus's - and for a good reason.

Again - a 2nd Joel is a blessing for this team. Since I fully expect Oden to be a better center than Joel within 20 to 30 games - this team is in for a huge upgrade.

Good post. He fouls a lot, he has a bruising style that's tough to maintain over big minutes, and he gets injured all the time. It's tough to play that kind of guy more than 26 mpg, which coincidentally is the most he's ever averaged in his career.

On the flip side, though, he has the lowest Roland rating of any of our big minute players:
http://www.82games.com/0708/0708POR.HTM

Guys with similar styles (Dampier, Ben Wallace, Nesterovich, Diop) don't rank nearly as bad in that ranking relative to their teams.

So it may be that Przybilla is more exposed on a team like last year where we had fewer offensive options.

Anyway, this is all pretty moot. Przybilla can't catch an alley oop (or anything else not carefully handed to him at 3 mph). Przybilla hits free throws at 68%. Przybilla's idea of a creative pass is clearing it out to the guard at center court. Przybilla hasn't been the focus of any offensive team since junior high. Przybilla wasn't a highly anticipated center when he was a sophomore in High School.

Setting Przybilla as the baseline of offensive expectations for Oden this year is just flat out aiming too low. It would be viewed as a disaster by everyone if Oden put up 4.8 ppg this year.

 

[blazerboy30]

First of all - you assume that Joel can go 48 minutes a game - this is not true - I suspect that Joel could see another 5 minutes per game - but if Joel's health history is any indication - limiting him to 24 minutes per game is a blessing. He played more games last year than any other year in his NBA career.

Nope, not assuming Joel can go 48MPG. I would expect him to have been able to go another 10MPG, for a total closer to 35MPG. It seems that you are assuming that one of Joel or Oden to be on the court at all times for the 48MPG of "Joel Time". It remains to be seen if this will happen, or if Nate will still choose to go with a faster lineup that can spread the defense at times.

Second - the comparison for fouls per game to Lamarcus is not reasonable - since Lamarcus played almost 35 MPG... Joel fights the other bigs and goes for the blocks and hard fouls - his foul rate is higher than Lamarcus's - and for a good reason.

Agreed, it isn't a great metric for comparison. It was just a quick check to see how Joel compared. Scaling Joel up to 35MPG, he definitely fouls more than LMA. But, I think he still could have played more minutes than he did last season. His foul rate shows he probably could have played the 35MPG that I expected.

Again - a 2nd Joel is a blessing for this team. Since I fully expect Oden to be a better center than Joel within 20 to 30 games - this team is in for a huge upgrade.

I agree that having a 2nd Joel is a blessing. I'm just not buying the argument that having two identical Joels would instantly make a HUGE impact, because like I said, we could have played him him more, and chose not to. It is similar to the fact that I don't think adding, say, Erick Dampier this year would have made a HUGE impact. Yes, he would help, but not in a HUGE way.

I expect Oden to be a much better player than Joel on both ends of the court very quickly. So, this conversation is probably moot, anyway.

 

[andalusian]

I agree that having a 2nd Joel is a blessing. I'm just not buying the argument that having two identical Joels would instantly make a HUGE impact, because like I said, we could have played him him more, and chose not to. It is similar to the fact that I don't think adding, say, Erick Dampier this year would have made a HUGE impact. Yes, he would help, but not in a HUGE way.

I disagree. Even if all we get from the Bayless/Rudy combo is the same we got last year from Jack/Jones - a 2nd Joel will do the following for you:

Rebound the ball more. The team 1 rebound less than the opposition per game last year. Joel lead the team in rebounds (8.4 per game). Aldridge was 2nd at 7.6. The person a 2nd Joel would be replaced is a combination of Frye/Raef (and out of position Aldridge). Let's ignore the Aldridge thing (because it means that the team is under-sized and you have a small Travis Outlaw at the 4. You will basically get 8.4 RPG from a 2nd Joel vs. 5.2 from the Raef/Frye combo. This falls into 1 more offensive rebound and 2 more defensive rebounds. Opposing teams shot against the blazers at 0.451 (probably more on offensive rebounds since they are usually caught near the basket) and the blazers converted at 0.448% - so these 3 more possessions per game will decrease the opponents points against the Blazers by more than 1 point per game and increase their production by around 2 points per game.

So now the Blazers have gone from -1 point per game against the opponents - to +2. Last year the Golden States Warriors had a +2 per game against opponents and they won 48 games (compare to the Blazers win 41 wins and -1 point per game vs. opponents). I am willing to bet that 48 wins gets you in the playoffs this year.

Just a 2nd Pryzbilla gets you a much better team this upcoming year - and with the upswing of adding Rudy/Bayless and continued improvements to rest of the team's core - I am standing by my assumption that 47 is about the worst I can see this team doing (assuming no major injuries) - and I will not be surprised to see them winning closer to 50.

 

[gatorpops]

Somehow Cheeks was able to get games where Joel would score about ten pts per game with the pick-and-roll and I can't remember who was the guard. Anyway Joel can score so we may very well get his additonal scoring in adition to Gregs.

g

 

[blazerboy30]

I disagree. Even if all we get from the Bayless/Rudy combo is the same we got last year from Jack/Jones - a 2nd Joel will do the following for you:

Rebound the ball more. The team 1 rebound less than the opposition per game last year. Joel lead the team in rebounds (8.4 per game). Aldridge was 2nd at 7.6. The person a 2nd Joel would be replaced is a combination of Frye/Raef (and out of position Aldridge). Let's ignore the Aldridge thing (because it means that the team is under-sized and you have a small Travis Outlaw at the 4. You will basically get 8.4 RPG from a 2nd Joel vs. 5.2 from the Raef/Frye combo. This falls into 1 more offensive rebound and 2 more defensive rebounds. Opposing teams shot against the blazers at 0.451 (probably more on offensive rebounds since they are usually caught near the basket) and the blazers converted at 0.448% - so these 3 more possessions per game will decrease the opponents points against the Blazers by more than 1 point per game and increase their production by around 2 points per game.

So now the Blazers have gone from -1 point per game against the opponents - to +2. Last year the Golden States Warriors had a +2 per game against opponents and they won 48 games (compare to the Blazers win 41 wins and -1 point per game vs. opponents). I am willing to bet that 48 wins gets you in the playoffs this year.

Cool, seems like one reasonable analysis. I'd love to see it work out that way.

If I am reading this correctly, you are getting the added rebounding of 8.4RPG because you are assuming that the 24MPG Joel didn't play is being filled by "2nd Joel". Is that correct? As I mentioned, we still need to see if Nate keeps Joel and 2nd Joel on the court for a total of 48MPG. This is where I think we disagree. I'm not convinced, that given the option, Nate plays Joel for 48MPG. I think he would still choose to go small-ball and spread the defense at times. In that case, we don't get to add another 8.4RPG.

 

[andalusian]

If I am reading this correctly, you are getting the added rebounding of 8.4RPG because you are assuming that the 24MPG Joel didn't play is being filled by "2nd Joel". Is that correct? As I mentioned, we still need to see if Nate keeps Joel and 2nd Joel on the court for a total of 48MPG. This is where I think we disagree. I'm not convinced, that given the option, Nate plays Joel for 48MPG. I think he would still choose to go small-ball and spread the defense at times. In that case, we don't get to add another 8.4RPG.

I am willing to bet that Joel's minutes were monitored and limited - and that the small ball option was forced on Nate because he was very likely to be in a size disadvantage once Joel went out of the game. If this was the case - there was very little incentive to play standard half-court basketball from a position of disadvantage - so going with a 3 guard lineup and playing small ball - to try and force the opposition to adjust to him made sense.

Time will tell, I guess - but I really thought that the obvious holes this team had last year - PG play and SF play - were less of an issue than interior defense and rebounding when Joel was not in the game.

 

[blazerboy30]

Time will tell, I guess - but I really thought that the obvious holes this team had last year - PG play and SF play - were less of an issue than interior defense and rebounding when Joel was not in the game.

I'm right there with you on that.

However,

One clear example of what I'm talking about was when we played Toronto last year. I know many people on the board, myself included, were completely confused as to why Nate did not put Joel in. If you remember, Toronto kept running the pick-and-roll, ended up with Roy on Bosh. We were totally abused in the paint for the last several minutes, and it lost us the game. To me, this was a perfect example of Nate having the choice to give Joel just a few more minutes to fill the obvious holes, but he chose not to.

 

[andalusian]

One clear example of what I'm talking about was when we played Toronto last year. I know many people on the board, myself included, were completely confused as to why Nate did not put Joel in. If you remember, Toronto kept running the pick-and-roll, ended up with Roy on Bosh. We were totally abused in the paint for the last several minutes, and it lost us the game. To me, this was a perfect example of Nate having the choice to give Joel just a few more minutes to fill the obvious holes, but he chose not to.

If memory serves Nate said that he wanted to have LaMarcus there so he will learn how to deal with pressure situations and late game issues and he wanted Travis in there as well because Travis was pretty good at the end of regulations (he had the 4 point play to tie the game and send it to overtime).

I might be confusing this game with another - but I think that was the case you refer to.

Anyway, while Nate can not always guess right what to do - I thought he did a pretty good job overall last year -including Joel's time - given by the fact that he played 77 games...