Courtside is On

[andalusian]

I got my numbers from www.databasebasketball.com


I am not sure where these numbers are from - but Seattle had Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis for more games after Nate left and they still won only 35 games. Also - the 37 wins team had Lewis for more games than the 52 wins team.

Allen, their best player, missed the majority of the games.

If you want to ignore that year because of the injury problem - that's fine with me - look at the 52 vs 35 wins - in both Allen played in 78 games, Lewis actually played 6 more games on the 35 wins team. So - basically the same team, different coach and different pace - and the slower pace fit that team. Or ... you can go for the 35 vs. 37 wins team - the Nate team, playing slower, with less games by Ray Ray still won 2 more games.

I still think it shows that Nate had a pretty good idea how to win with that team - they were an awful defensive team - he needed to slow them down to control the pace.

This was also pretty true for Portland as well until last year - this year, while the pace seems the same - the big upswing in offensive rebounds tell you that Portland was actually a little faster than last year - and it was really clear after the ASG - when the team was faster.

I think that this team, as it gets better defensively and mature - will increase the pace - you actually saw Nate trying to push these guys in the playoffs to push the tempo.

The real way this team will be a faster team will be if we get a better PG - Blake is good in slow pace - his turn-over rate when he was on the Bucks (faster) or Denver (much faster) - was a lot higher. Sergio is a turn-over machine - you will not win many games when your PG has a 25% turn-over rate, Jarret was a half-court player and his problems on the break were well documented. Bayless seemed OK on the break this year - but did not get much burn.

So - I expect this team to be a little faster next year, not a huge amount - however - assuming the same roster, specifically the PG - but it made sense for the roster Nate had in Seattle to play slow - and it made sense for this team as well.

So far - Nate achieved exactly what you wanted from this team and more - until he fails - I just do not see a real reason to criticize him given the results - but that's just me.

 

[Mediocre Man]

If you want to ignore that year because of the injury problem - that's fine with me - look at the 52 vs 35 wins - in both Allen played in 78 games, Lewis actually played 6 more games on the 35 wins team. So - basically the same team, different coach and different pace - and the slower pace fit that team. Or ... you can go for the 35 vs. 37 wins team - the Nate team, playing slower, with less games by Ray Ray still won 2 more games.

I still think it shows that Nate had a pretty good idea how to win with that team - they were an awful defensive team - he needed to slow them down to control the pace.

This was also pretty true for Portland as well until last year - this year, while the pace seems the same - the big upswing in offensive rebounds tell you that Portland was actually a little faster than last year - and it was really clear after the ASG - when the team was faster.

I think that this team, as it gets better defensively and mature - will increase the pace - you actually saw Nate trying to push these guys in the playoffs to push the tempo.

The real way this team will be a faster team will be if we get a better PG - Blake is good in slow pace - his turn-over rate when he was on the Bucks (faster) or Denver (much faster) - was a lot higher. Sergio is a turn-over machine - you will not win many games when your PG has a 25% turn-over rate, Jarret was a half-court player and his problems on the break were well documented. Bayless seemed OK on the break this year - but did not get much burn.

So - I expect this team to be a little faster next year, not a huge amount - however - assuming the same roster, specifically the PG - but it made sense for the roster Nate had in Seattle to play slow - and it made sense for this team as well.

So far - Nate achieved exactly what you wanted from this team and more - until he fails - I just do not see a real reason to criticize him given the results - but that's just me.

You can't really compare those years at all because it was an entirely different staff. Different language, different sets, different approach to the game. And as much as I bash Nate, he is a lot better than Weiss.

All that I said originally to Michael was when will he stop thinking Nate will push the ball. I showed that he never has. That's it. Whether you want the team to run or not, Nate's teams have never played with a quicker pace. That's what I said. Not arguing whether that is good or not.

 

[andalusian]

You can't really compare those years at all because it was an entirely different staff. Different language, different sets, different approach to the game. And as much as I bash Nate, he is a lot better than Weiss.

I disagree - but at this point - we are just arguing in order to argue - so let's stop because it just becomes repetitive.

I guess that the future will really tell us if the Blazers are held back by Nate or not. My guess is that until a better PG emerges (JB) or is acquired - (draft/FA/trade) - this team will not be much faster. You can not expect the team to run when the point guards or the SG that handles the ball a lot - are more comfortable in a slower system.

All that I said originally to Michael was when will he stop thinking Nate will push the ball. I showed that he never has. That's it. Whether you want the team to run or not, Nate's teams have never played with a quicker pace. That's what I said. Not arguing whether that is good or not.

They did play a little faster on the 37 wins team - not a huge amount - but they were mid-pack in the NBA based on BBR - which is probably what this Portland team will also be when all is said and done - given that they are built for the half-court with Roy/Oden inside out game.

 

[hasoos]

I wish I could find playoff fastbreak pts, but I can't.

The regular season this year shows Orlando was the closest team to us in fast break points at 11.2. (we were 9.0. 10.5 at home and 7.6 on the road)

Portland needs more easy baskets period.

There is a difference between easy baskets and being a full out running team. Do you not agree? The good teams take advantage of every easy opportunity they get, whether it is due to full running, or some easy transition hoops. IMO though, teams that just run in order to get the tempo "in their favor" are going to fail in the playoffs. You need to run, but only to take advantage of the situation that is given.

So let's be clear. I believe in easy buckets. But I don't believe in running for the sake of running. Capiche?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Don't we score the most points per possession?

 

[shamelessblazer]

Orlando plays at a pretty fast pace, but they aren't a run and gun team.

I think people are talking about speeding up Portland's pace from the slowest in the NBA to something in the middle of the pack.

Exactly, people say that 'fast break teams' never win championships, but I'd like to know how often teams that are bottom five in the league in fast breaks win championships? We're just asking for average execution.

 

[Mediocre Man]

There is a difference between easy baskets and being a full out running team. Do you not agree? The good teams take advantage of every easy opportunity they get, whether it is due to full running, or some easy transition hoops. IMO though, teams that just run in order to get the tempo "in their favor" are going to fail in the playoffs. You need to run, but only to take advantage of the situation that is given.

So let's be clear. I believe in easy buckets. But I don't believe in running for the sake of running. Capiche?

I think we are in 100% agreement on this. I don't wanna be Phoenix NW. I think there were multiple games and multiple opportunities in those games where Portland could have gotten easy baskets but didn't. I really wish at some point the team would get the ball out of the basket and push it hard on every possession though. I had a college coach tell me one time that it cuts down on offensive rebounding by the opponent because they know they have to get back. But I certainly don;t want to run down and jack up a 20 foot jumper with 20 seconds on the shot clock.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I agree that we should hurry the ball up the court and see if there is an easy opportunity, and if there's not, just set up the offense. That would be much better than Blake letting the ball roll to the half court line very slowly then passing to Brandon, IMO.

 

[hasoos]

I think we are in 100% agreement on this. I don't wanna be Phoenix NW. I think there were multiple games and multiple opportunities in those games where Portland could have gotten easy baskets but didn't. I really wish at some point the team would get the ball out of the basket and push it hard on every possession though. I had a college coach tell me one time that it cuts down on offensive rebounding by the opponent because they know they have to get back. But I certainly don;t want to run down and jack up a 20 foot jumper with 20 seconds on the shot clock.

That will be the difference a agressive attitude PG will make, and anybody who has watched the Blazers be the victims of said type PG, should undertand this. Over and over for almost the last decade, the Blazers have been a team that is overmatched every night at PG. You are either a team that has a fast, paint penetrating PG, or you are a team that gets taken adavantage of them every night. You can't stop them for the most part, so your best bet is to have one of your own to go back at them.

Portland will never get there with Steve Blake, because he doesn't attack the paint. They will never get there with Sergio, because he isn't a threat to score, so nobody bothers to guard him.

That leaves Bayless or whoever comes in. If we go into another season with a jump shooting PG filling the spot, it will be the SSDD.

 

[andalusian]

Exactly, people say that 'fast break teams' never win championships, but I'd like to know how often teams that are bottom five in the league in fast breaks win championships? We're just asking for average execution.

I do not know how to get this information - but San Antonio won multiple championships being among the slowest teams in the league (by pace), Detroit won a championship being a very slow team, the Celtics were in the bottom half in pace when they won last year.

The Heat were a little above average on pace when they won.

The real issue for championship teams is mostly defense, not pace.

 

[Tince]

And the 5 years prior to that, the teams in the finals generally are in the bottom half of the league in PACE. In fact, you have to go all the way back to the 01-02 season to find the two finals teams in the top half of the league in PACE when LA and New Jersey met.

The stats don't really help your case here. And I would say these PACE stats are often inflated for these championship teams because they are generally very good on the defense end which leads to more fast break opportunities.

Let me repeat myself: Our half court offense is very good and that might be one of the most important traits in a championship team. Once our defense improves, the fast break points will follow (increasing our PACE).

Some people like watching the Warriors, Suns, and Raptors score quickly and more often. I would prefer our team execute on both end of the floor like the Spurs, Cavs, Celtics, Pistons, and Lakers have over the past 10 years.

 

[Tince]

I think we are in 100% agreement on this. I don't wanna be Phoenix NW. I think there were multiple games and multiple opportunities in those games where Portland could have gotten easy baskets but didn't. I really wish at some point the team would get the ball out of the basket and push it hard on every possession though. I had a college coach tell me one time that it cuts down on offensive rebounding by the opponent because they know they have to get back. But I certainly don;t want to run down and jack up a 20 foot jumper with 20 seconds on the shot clock.

What games?
Who was on the court and who was situated where?
Who do you feel (on the court) prevented us from pushing the ball?

 

[Mediocre Man]

And the 5 years prior to that, the teams in the finals generally are in the bottom half of the league in PACE. In fact, you have to go all the way back to the 01-02 season to find the two finals teams in the top half of the league in PACE when LA and New Jersey met.

The stats don't really help your case here. And I would say these PACE stats are often inflated for these championship teams because they are generally very good on the defense end which leads to more fast break opportunities.

Let me repeat myself: Our half court offense is very good and that might be one of the most important traits in a championship team. Once our defense improves, the fast break points will follow (increasing our PACE).

Some people like watching the Warriors, Suns, and Raptors score quickly and more often. I would prefer our team execute on both end of the floor like the Spurs, Cavs, Celtics, Pistons, and Lakers have over the past 10 years.

Our half court offense is horrible I think. Our offensive rebounding though is very good.

 

[Tince]

I do not know how to get this information - but San Antonio won multiple championships being among the slowest teams in the league (by pace), Detroit won a championship being a very slow team, the Celtics were in the bottom half in pace when they won last year.

The Heat were a little above average on pace when they won.

The real issue for championship teams is mostly defense, not pace.

While MM might find something off in the stats you've cited, your main point is 100% spot on.

People can find small holes in stats, but if you use the eye test, I believe it's clear that PACE has little to no factor in the success of teams. If anything, the fastest teams in the league, never win championships.

 

[Minstrel]

Our half court offense is horrible I think.

Wow, I think that's crazy. If you had said "merely decent," I'd disagree but it would be in the realm of reason. But Portland's offensive efficiency was top-three all season. That simply doesn't happen with a horrible half-court offense.

Half-court offense and rebounding were Portland's big, 54-game winning strengths. Perimeter defense was their weakness.

 

[Tince]

Our half court offense is horrible I think. Our offensive rebounding though is very good.

We could go round and round about this but this is an area where stats are not going to help your case. We were top 10 in FG%, our offense gets the ball in the hands of our best scores, and rebounded a higher percentage of our misses than any other team.

The last stat to me says the most. The shots were were taking and missing, often came when the other teams defense had broke down and guys like Greg and Joel were free to get the offense rebound. That is a great thing!

Again, the eye ball test, as a basketball coach, is what I use more than anything to say that we run a very high efficient offense.

 

[andalusian]

Our half court offense is horrible I think. Our offensive rebounding though is very good.

How can our half-court offense be horrible when we are a slow team and have the highest offensive efficiency in the league? This just does not compute.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Wow, I think that's crazy. If you had said "merely decent," I'd disagree but it would be in the realm of reason. But Portland's offensive efficiency was top-three all season. That simply doesn't happen with a horrible half-court offense.

Half-court offense and rebounding were Portland's big, 54-game winning strengths. Perimeter defense was their weakness.

I know I am all but alone with that thinking, but the reason the EFF was so high is because of offensive rebounding. If you have any games recorded, watch how many shots we get that are contested in the last few seconds of the shot clock. To me that is bad offense. Joel, Oden and Aldridge save us all the time because they are all elite offensive rebounders.

 

[Mediocre Man]

We could go round and round about this but this is an area where stats are not going to help your case. We were top 10 in FG%, our offense gets the ball in the hands of our best scores, and rebounded a higher percentage of our misses than any other team.

The last stat to me says the most. The shots were were taking and missing, often came when the other teams defense had broke down and guys like Greg and Joel were free to get the offense rebound. That is a great thing!

Again, the eye ball test, as a basketball coach, is what I use more than anything to say that we run a very high efficient offense.

As a coach I use the eye ball test as well. I see it differently.

 

[Tince]

I know I am all but alone with that thinking, but the reason the EFF was so high is because of offensive rebounding. If you have any games recorded, watch how many shots we get that are contested in the last few seconds of the shot clock. To me that is bad offense. Joel, Oden and Aldridge save us all the time because they are all elite offensive rebounders.

Aldridge is an elite rebounder? He gets knocked for his lack of rebounding a lot around here.

Haven't you seen guys like Roy break down the defense, miss a shot taken of the other teams big, and have one of our bigs clean up the mess? I think that's a sign our offense is working, not something you should hold against Nate.

How do you when 54 games when your offense is horrible, you defense isn't very good, and you don't get any easy buckets? Rebounding alone won't get you 54 wins.

 

[Tince]

As a coach I use the eye ball test as well. I see it differently.

Fair enough. We clearly value things different and see the game from different angles.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Aldridge is an elite rebounder? He gets knocked for his lack of rebounding a lot around here.

Haven't you seen guys like Roy break down the defense, miss a shot taken of the other teams big, and have one of our bigs clean up the mess? I think that's a sign our offense is working, not something you should hold against Nate.

How do you when 54 games when your offense is horrible, you defense isn't very good, and you don't get any easy buckets? Rebounding along won't get you 54 wins.

7 people in the entire NBA grabbed more offensive rebounds than Aldridge did last year. I would say that is elite, yes.

I think Roy and Aldridge make our offense a lot better than it really is.

 

[andalusian]

I think Roy and Aldridge make our offense a lot better than it really is.

This really makes no sense - our offense is based on the roster. If we had Shaq in his prime - our offense will look different. The offense is based on Roy/LMA - and as such it is super efficient.

It's like saying that Tea does not taste good because it does not taste like coffee...

 

[Tince]

I know I am all but alone with that thinking, but the reason the EFF was so high is because of offensive rebounding. If you have any games recorded, watch how many shots we get that are contested in the last few seconds of the shot clock. To me that is bad offense. Joel, Oden and Aldridge save us all the time because they are all elite offensive rebounders.

Your reasoning for our EFF being so high, is the same reason our PACE would be so low? Correct?

This week I watched the Laker and Denver games (at home) near the end of the season, and I would say without a doubt, those two teams took way more bad shots than Portland. Especially Denver, who takes a ton of horrible, low percentage shots. I don't know why taking a horrible shot with 10 seconds left in the shot clock is better than taking a contested shot with 2 seconds left on the shot clock?

 

[Tince]

7 people in the entire NBA grabbed more offensive rebounds than Aldridge did last year. I would say that is elite, yes.

I think Roy and Aldridge make our offense a lot better than it really is.

I don't disagree with either thing you said here. I haven't jumped LMA for being a poor rebounder.

I also agree that Nate has done an excellent job in going to our bread and butter, putting them in a position to have a high impact on our offensive efficiency.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't disagree with either thing you said here. I haven't jumped LMA for being a poor rebounder.

I also agree that Nate has done an excellent job in going to our bread and butter, putting them in a position to have a high impact on our offensive efficiency.

I think it's a matter of consistency.

I had charted every box score for the first 55 or so games, and it was actually kind of telling.

Our "#2 in the league efficient" offense WAS efficient on average, to the tune of (at the time) 110.8, behind the L*kers 111.2. But there's a kicker to this.

In games we won (where you'd expect the efficiency to be high), it was. 128.8 in wins. Far and away the best in the League. In our losses (where you'd expect it to be lower), it was...97. Below MIN, LAC, SAC, all the crappy teams.

You saw it again in the playoffs. Yes, Roy and LMA are our bread and butter. But they both play perimeter games, aside from when Roy drives and gets buckets or fouls (and he wasn't getting many of either against HOU). Our shooters were just that...one-dimensional shooters. Blake, Rudy, Batum were all good ON AVERAGE during the season. But aside from a few Rudy plays (and a couple of Batum dunks), there wasn't a lot of motion or passing. http://www.82games.com/dribbles.htm shows a clear correlation not between "touches" per possession, but in touches per second. The quicker the ball moves around, the significantly better return on pts per possession you get.

I'm more with MM on this than most. Our offense, when Roy and LMA were clicking (or when Oden and Przy and LMA were rebounding) was great. 3pt % or # of attempts didn't have as high a correlation (actually, we generally shot better % against good teams, but still lost). When we weren't getting the "easy, efficient" buckets (FTs, dunks and open 3's) or having a high touch-per-second pace, we were worse than SAC and LAC on offense. That's NOT where I think we should be...and I think that has less to do with Nate himself and more to do with how the players run the system he's designed. I think he'd LOVE to have more running opportunities--we heard him screaming it from the sidelines a lot this year and during timeouts--but the team didn't really ever respond to that. Roy seems not to like to run at all, Oden had a hard time getting up and down the court, and Blake made me almost wish for Jack back when he ran the break (Almost). More passing, more running = more efficient and consistent offense.

 

[Minstrel]

Our "#2 in the league efficient" offense WAS efficient on average, to the tune of (at the time) 110.8, behind the L*kers 111.2. But there's a kicker to this.

In games we won (where you'd expect the efficiency to be high), it was. 128.8 in wins. Far and away the best in the League. In our losses (where you'd expect it to be lower), it was...97. Below MIN, LAC, SAC, all the crappy teams.

Why is that a kicker? It's fairly obvious that games the team loses would be a picked population of the games in which the team played more poorly than normal. Is that different from any other team?

Team lose when they play badly and win they play well. The best teams are the ones that play well most of the time, which describes Portland. They played well offensively most of the time, which is why they had the #2 offense and won 54 games.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The correlation wasn't that we lost when our D was poor. It was when our efficient offense wasn't. 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. Statistics guys can overrule me on this. I didn't do an analysis like this of the entire league, since it was a lot of work just to do ours, so I get your point. I think our offense DOES need a boost...maybe even moreso than our D. Resting on the laurel of saying "were the most efficient on average, but not consistently" won't cut it for a championship contender, imo. HOU proved that. But that's another thread.

 

[LittleAlex]

Why is that a kicker? It's fairly obvious that games the team loses would be a picked population of the games in which the team played more poorly than normal. Is that different from any other team?

Team lose when they play badly and win they play well. The best teams are the ones that play well most of the time, which describes Portland. They played well offensively most of the time, which is why they had the #2 offense and won 54 games.

Perhaps the issue was more the over all difference then the fact they played better when they won. A difference of 31 points seems rather high. I wonder if there is anywhere you can see a split of win/loss and see where Portland falls out in the difference.

All it tells me is when Portland plays well, they play REALLY well and when Portland plays bad they play REALLY bad.

Which explains a great deal about the season, come to think of it.

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?

 

[Tince]

Perhaps the issue was more the over all difference then the fact they played better when they won. A difference of 31 points seems rather high. I wonder if there is anywhere you can see a split of win/loss and see where Portland falls out in the difference.

All it tells me is when Portland plays well, they play REALLY well and when Portland plays bad they play REALLY bad.

Which explains a great deal about the season, come to think of it.

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 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.