Courtside is On

[BrianFromWA]

All that said, I have no statistically evidence to back this up. It would interesting to check into, however. Where were these stats gathered in the first place?

I charted all the box scores (ours and opponents') until around the All-Star Break. Ran spreadsheets charting advanced team metrics. Made a post about it, few cared, it took a lot of time, so I stopped doing it.

 

[Minstrel]

The correlation wasn't that we lost when our D was poor. It was when our efficient offense wasn't.

That isn't surprising. Portland's defense was consistently mediocre. Therefore, that wasn't going to be the determiner of wins and losses. When Portland's strength failed them, they lost. Since it was their strength, it didn't fail them a lot (relatively) and so they won a lot of games.

And if our efficient offense is worse than the worst teams' in the league 1/3 of the time, I don't know that it's that efficient.

I don't think this makes sense. Efficiency is charted over the average. Those "worst teams" were likely even worse in their worst games. Portland's worst games were surely more efficient than those team's worst games. Over the entire sample of games, Portland was excellent. Clearly the down games weren't bad enough and didn't happen often enough to sink Portland's overall efficiency or wins.

Resting on the laurel of saying "were the most efficient on average, but not consistently" won't cut it for a championship contender, imo.

I don't think any team is consistently the best, without any poor games. The team should always strive to be better, but building a team means having a clear evaluation of what the team's strengths and weaknesses are. Saying that Portland had one of the best offenses in basketball isn't "resting on their laurels." It's understanding what the team did this past year. Knowing the team had one of the best offenses, but a mediocre defense, suggests that the team can make more gains toward winning more games and series by improving the defense. It's not that Portland has reached unimproveable perfection on offense...it's that Portland's efforts at improvement are probably best focused on defense, where they have more room for improvement.

 

[Minstrel]

Made a post about it, few cared, it took a lot of time, so I stopped doing it.

I cared, buddy. We argued about this back then, too!

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think that is a product of our youth. I truly believe guys like Rudy, Martell, GO, Batum, and Bayless will all become more consistent. My guess is, that will be closer to the way they played in our wins this season.

But what will they become "more consistent" in? Maybe they'll be better at shooting 3's, but Rudy and Batum were well above league average in that. Webs was around Batum level his first 3 years. Bayless and Oden may get more consistent, but I don't know if that's happening if we're running a significant amount of iso's for Roy or Pick-and-Pops for LMA. That's why I (and, to put words in his mouth, MM) think that it's an x's-and-o's issue, not a player personnel issue. A way to get more consistent is to get more efficient points more easily. That means: 1) Getting more free throws, or shooting higher % on those FTs you do get. 2) Getting more dunks. 3) Getting more open 3's, or making higher %. 4) Increase touches per second. Three of those have to do with getting the ball into the paint more (whether to bigs, or guards driving). Two have to do with passing (out of the post to an open 3pt shooter, and increasing touches per second). That can all be game-planned, and (aside from better form on Oden's part) we already have the personnel to do those things, if Nate and our guards were more inclined.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I cared, buddy. We argued about this back then, too!

'Tis true.

 

[Tince]

But what will they become "more consistent" in? Maybe they'll be better at shooting 3's, but Rudy and Batum were well above league average in that. Webs was around Batum level his first 3 years. Bayless and Oden may get more consistent, but I don't know if that's happening if we're running a significant amount of iso's for Roy or Pick-and-Pops for LMA. That's why I (and, to put words in his mouth, MM) think that it's an x's-and-o's issue, not a player personnel issue. A way to get more consistent is to get more efficient points more easily. That means: 1) Getting more free throws, or shooting higher % on those FTs you do get. 2) Getting more dunks. 3) Getting more open 3's, or making higher %. 4) Increase touches per second. Three of those have to do with getting the ball into the paint more (whether to bigs, or guards driving). Two have to do with passing (out of the post to an open 3pt shooter, and increasing touches per second). That can all be game-planned, and (aside from better form on Oden's part) we already have the personnel to do those things, if Nate and our guards were more inclined.

Would you go on record to say that you don't think Rudy and Batum will become more consistent? Even if Rudy and Batum become more consistent in 3's, that is a huge advantage to our offense. The nights Batum is hitting from the outside, teams are forced to stay out on the perimeter and help out less on Roy and Aldridge. Greg is by far the most important, when it comes to being consistent. If he can bring it every night, this team will be near impossible to stop on offense.

I understand you don't like their offense, and you would rather see the team run more of a motion style offense, but I disagree. I coach basketball, and I love playing against teams who try to spread the ball all night. It allows us to pick where certain players are going to get open looks. Whenever the teams best two players are not touching the ball, we instantly become a much better defensive team, and are given so many options. It is much easier to deny a star player the ball, than take it out of their hands once they get it.

I also firmly believe that a large majority of people underestimate the number of plays and sets that Portland runs that involve the entire team, and focus on getting the ball to players outside of Brandon or LMA in isolation situations.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

A way to get more consistent is to get more efficient points more easily. That means: 1) Getting more free throws, or shooting higher % on those FTs you do get. 2) Getting more dunks. 3) Getting more open 3's, or making higher %. 4) Increase touches per second. Three of those have to do with getting the ball into the paint more (whether to bigs, or guards driving). Two have to do with passing (out of the post to an open 3pt shooter, and increasing touches per second).

So you're saying we need Rubio!

 

[BrianFromWA]

My question was "what will Rudy and Batum become more consistent in?" If it's "more consistent attacking the hoop", then I'm ok with that, but I don't think that's in our offensive plan. Maybe I'm wrong. If it's "being able to be another option at starting the P&R", then I'm ok with that, but I don't see that happening in our offense. What do you think that "becoming more consistent in 3pt%" means? Are they going to become 50% 3pt shooters? If Batum did, he'd go up another .25 3's a game, so another .75 points added (1.5ppg for Rudy). Is that what's holding the offense back?

Or, instead of hoping that they go up 10-12% in 3pt%, we could just have 2 p&R plays for Oden or LMA per game. That seems easier, more efficient and effective. That's kind of what I'm talking about.

And yes....I'm a Rubio fan.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I understand you don't like their offense, and you would rather see the team run more of a motion style offense, but I disagree. I coach basketball, and I love playing against teams who try to spread the ball all night. It allows us to pick where certain players are going to get open looks. Whenever the teams best two players are not touching the ball, we instantly become a much better defensive team, and are given so many options. It is much easier to deny a star player the ball, than take it out of their hands once they get it.

Who on this team are you choosing to give an open look to? And you can't deny the ball to everyone at once. And once you double, you're hosed on two fronts, right? So you're basically guaranteeing single coverage for one of the two "stars", while also saying that you're going to choose someone on the squad to leave open? I haven't coached at a high level, but it seems odd to me that that would be the case.

 

[LittleAlex]

I charted all the box scores (ours and opponents') until around the All-Star Break. Ran spreadsheets charting advanced team metrics. Made a post about it, few cared, it took a lot of time, so I stopped doing it.

You should thing about sending that in to a site like basketball prospectus (spelled wrong, probably) instead of posting it here. That site lives for such things.

Hell, start your own blog called Blazer Breakdown or some such. Post your findings there. I for one would be very interested in what it shows.

 

[Tince]

Who on this team are you choosing to give an open look to? And you can't deny the ball to everyone at once. And once you double, you're hosed on two fronts, right? So you're basically guaranteeing single coverage for one of the two "stars", while also saying that you're going to choose someone on the squad to leave open? I haven't coached at a high level, but it seems odd to me that that would be the case.

I understand your point, and maybe I didn't explain myself well.

When I gameplan against a team who runs a motion offense, our coaching staff locates the 5 main areas on the court where players receive the ball. We then identify the players who shoot a low percentage in a specific area, and make sure to leave them open in those spots, while overplaying their star players at the same time. It usually results in the other team having to reset their offense or a lesser player on the team taking low percentage shot.

The hardest gameplans to execute are against the teams who put the ball in the best players hands the majority of the time. The reason being is that while we can run double teams and show different defensive fronts; great players often find a way to make great plays for themselves or their teammates. I notice Brandon doing this all the time. Brandon doesn't always make the "easy pass" that the defense gives him. He'll get past one defender, and force another defender to pick him up, totally breaking down the defense. When you have a special player that can do that, you would be crazy to not go to him as much as possible.

 

[cloudydays]

hey brian do you still have that box score thing? you should most definitely finish it and then post it all over blazer related sites like Blazers Edge, here, RealGM, etc.

 

[Wheels]

so I'm only through hour 1 of the podcast.. and I must admit... Rice is annoying the hell out of me.