Excerpts from John Hollinger's Per Diem.

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Nikolokolus

There's always next year
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
30,704
Likes
6,198
Points
113
He had a pretty interesting analysis of the Blazers woes today (he also covered the Wiz).
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-091202

We can draw a similar profile in Portland, where the "What's Wrong With the Blazers?" alarm bells reached DEFCON 4 after Tuesday night's dispiriting home loss to the Heat. As with the Wizards, the Blazers' main problem is that two of their three key players have underperformed. While Greg Oden has emerged as an All-Star-caliber force when fouls don't put him on the bench, Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge are both falling well short of last season's output.

Roy was a superstar in 2008-09 but his production is way off this season. He's lost nearly three points per 40 minutes compared to last season, has a lower TS% and a higher turnover rate and just an 18.89 PER compared to last year's 24.08.

Aldridge's numbers have also slipped a bit. He is rebounding more but has lost 1.4 points off his 40-minutes average without any uptick in his percentages. As a result, his PER of 16.96 pales next to last year's 19.13.

Ancillary issues also haven't helped. Steve Blake and Joel Przybilla both have declined after unexpectedly strong campaigns a season ago; injuries to Travis Outlaw and Nicolas Batum have robbed Portland of its wing depth and ability to play small; and the team has struggled to incorporate Andre Miller into the rotation.

That said, the intense focus on Miller may be overblown. He's been better than Blake, for one. Plus, the combined production of those two isn't much different from what Blake and Sergio Rodriguez gave the Blazers a season ago. About the only difference Miller's addition has made is that Roy virtually never plays point guard anymore, but that would be the case anyway in light of the multiple injuries on the wings.

Thus, the Blazers rank only 10th in offensive efficiency after finishing second last season. Portland has defended decently, if not great -- the Blazers are seventh in defensive efficiency, thanks in equal parts to Oden's ascension and the fact that they've played Minnesota three times -- but just like the Wizards, this team needs to be a top-five offense to win big.

So far, they haven't been, and that may influence their decisions at the trade deadline. Andre Miller would seem to be the most likely trade asset, but the expiring contracts of Outlaw -- who won't return until late in the season, if at all -- and Blake also could prove juicy for trade partners looking to shave costs. (And if you're reading between the lines of this story: Yes, I do believe Butler would fit well in Portland. But we're still a long, long way away from connecting those two dots.)

Regardless, I can't imagine the Blazers will stand pat with this group if they continue to underperform. While Roy and Aldridge are a big part of the reason, Portland won't be parting with either of them anytime soon, especially after signing both to extensions over the past four months. Instead, they'll likely use their other assets to bring in more weaponry, especially long-range shooters who could give their two stars more offensive breathing room.

We still have more than two months to the trade deadline, and it's very possible that a couple of hot weeks by either of these clubs could turn today's chatter into a distant memory. Nonetheless, these two teams bear close watching in the coming weeks. If things don't change, I suspect each will be among the league's biggest movers and shakers come February.

And there it is in a nutshell, the people we expected to perform at or near their production last year aren't even close, and the role-players' inconsistent play coupled with injuries (the one to Nic seems especially important to me) have put this team on pretty unsteady footing offensively.

I thought the note about Butler was pretty intriguing.
 
Yea I was talking with LittleAlex and we were wondering if Joel is hurt, or sick or something. He hasn't been the Joel Pryzbilla we knew over the last few years. The reason being, that Joel was all about effort. Right now Joel only shows that in spurts.

I don't think KP will trade in the middle of the season. Just because he tends to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, and the names being mentioned are guys he didn't trade when good deals were on the board in the past. If he didn't trade them then, why would he now?
 
Yea I was talking with LittleAlex and we were wondering if Joel is hurt, or sick or something. He hasn't been the Joel Pryzbilla we knew over the last few years. The reason being, that Joel was all about effort. Right now Joel only shows that in spurts.

I don't think KP will trade in the middle of the season. Just because he tends to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, and the names being mentioned are guys he didn't trade when good deals were on the board in the past. If he didn't trade them then, why would he now?

I don't know, maybe he won't/can't :dunno: but in the past he could make the argument about not messing with a good thing, at this point I think it's OK to say he'd be messing with a bad thing.
 
I don't know, maybe he won't/can't :dunno: but in the past he could make the argument about not messing with a good thing, at this point I think it's OK to say he'd be messing with a bad thing.

I think that's a/the key. While I didn't entirely agree with the philosophy, Pritchard seemed to have a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality at mid-season. I still think he would have made any clearly (to him) good move, but I think the value of RLEC was somewhat overrated by media/fans.

This season, it is broke. I think/hope he'll be more aggressive this season.
 
I think that's a/the key. While I didn't entirely agree with the philosophy, Pritchard seemed to have a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality at mid-season. I still think he would have made any clearly (to him) good move, but I think the value of RLEC was somewhat overrated by media/fans.

This season, it is broke. I think/hope he'll be more aggressive this season.

I'm this close \.../ to believing that, but ... I guess I'll believe it when I see it.
 
I don't know, maybe he won't/can't :dunno: but in the past he could make the argument about not messing with a good thing, at this point I think it's OK to say he'd be messing with a bad thing.

You know I would hope so. But the one weakness I see on this franchise is the lack of ability to learn from past mistakes. It starts at the top. It goes down through the coaching staff. That is why I am concerned. They repeat the same mistakes over, and over, and over, and over.
 
While the article is statistically correct, it does sound like it was written with the box scores as the only source. I think there are a number of writers out there, who don't get to see the Blazers play, so their analysis is pretty pointless.
 
While the article is statistically correct, it does sound like it was written with the box scores as the only source. I think there are a number of writers out there, who don't get to see the Blazers play, so their analysis is pretty pointless.

I don't think he was referring to that one particular game. He is referring to the teams play in general.
 
It just that statistics only tell a very small part of the story....very small.
 
Why would Butler fit here? His defense is atrocious and he needs the ball to be effective. Makes no sense. Hollinger should stick to his numbers and not play GM. That quote somebody had in their .sig about letting Hollinger do your taxes but... is apt.
 
Why would Butler fit here? His defense is atrocious and he needs the ball to be effective. Makes no sense. Hollinger should stick to his numbers and not play GM. That quote somebody had in their .sig about letting Hollinger do your taxes but... is apt.

I don't agree. Butler has shown the ability to defend in the past. The last couple of years with Arenas and Jamison out, he has had to shoulder almost the entire offensive responsiblity for the wizards, and IMO, that left little room for effort on defense. He has had to put up huge numbers just to keep the wizards close in games.
 
It just that statistics only tell a very small part of the story....very small.

That's silly. Statistics are far from perfect but they encapsulate information much better than our minds can after merely watching the team... either you watch a few games (and have a small sample size) or you watch a lot of games (and your brain simply can't retain that much information).

Ed O.
 
While the article is statistically correct, it does sound like it was written with the box scores as the only source. I think there are a number of writers out there, who don't get to see the Blazers play, so their analysis is pretty pointless.

Hollinger used to live in Portland and while I wouldn't say he roots for the Blazers he watches them and writes about them quite a bit. He's not just a bean counter, he is an actual analyst, he just happens to also be a statistician, so he mixes his numerical analyses with his eyeball analyses.
 
Why would Butler fit here? His defense is atrocious and he needs the ball to be effective. Makes no sense. Hollinger should stick to his numbers and not play GM. That quote somebody had in their .sig about letting Hollinger do your taxes but... is apt.

I think his defense has been pretty good in the past if you subtract last year. But I do agree he needs the ball in his hand to be effective so that would be interesting to see how that worked out. And I wonder if some of his effectiveness had more to do with playing in Jordan's Princeton offense, cause he certainly seems to be floundering in Saunders point-guard dominant offense.

When I think about it seems like it could work on paper, but in practice it could be a problem. I guess I tend to lean more towards the "trade for Shane Battier type" move (if possible).
 
I think that's a/the key. While I didn't entirely agree with the philosophy, Pritchard seemed to have a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality at mid-season. I still think he would have made any clearly (to him) good move, but I think the value of RLEC was somewhat overrated by media/fans.

This season, it is broke. I think/hope he'll be more aggressive this season.

To be fair, it was from KP's mouth that the line "RLEC is the most valuable expiring contract in history" came (at the M&G). Was it our fault for extrapolating that since, in past years, expiring contracts held a high value then RLEC must be worth a lot? Sure. But I don't think that assigning this as a fan/media wet dream is realistic.
 
Who could the team possibly bring in who wouldn't suffer the same problems as Miller?
 
Who could the team possibly bring in who wouldn't suffer the same problems as Miller?

Well that all depends on if you view the problem with Miller, or the coaches. If we bring in say, another SF of quality, and then Nate plays him behind Martell, the problem isn't the new guy is it?
 
Well that all depends on if you view the problem with Miller, or the coaches. If we bring in say, another SF of quality, and then Nate plays him behind Martell, the problem isn't the new guy is it?

Unless the new guy is a Miller type SF who doesn't fit in . . .
 
To be fair, it was from KP's mouth that the line "RLEC is the most valuable expiring contract in history" came (at the M&G).

That's not really relevant to my point. I'm not assigning "blame," I'm simply saying that I don't think RLEC was as valuable as it was commonly portrayed.

And of course Pritchard would say that. He's the guy selling. The seller tends to overstate value in an attempt to get a buyer. What would you expect him to say publicly, that RLEC isn't really all it's cracked up to be? It was an asset he couldn't hold onto indefinitely, so he needed to try to create the illusion of multiple teams being interested.
 
Hollinger is a geek, a nerd, a numbers cruncher.

He has no ability to calculate/incorporate players' feelings, personalities, or even skillsets into his bone-dry conclusions.
 
Hollinger is a geek, a nerd, a numbers cruncher.

He has no ability to calculate/incorporate players' feelings, personalities, or even skillsets into his bone-dry conclusions.


He does, in fact, incorporate "skill sets" into his opinions.

Personalities? Feelings? When you are making a 7 or 8 figure salary, you aren't entitled to those things. I don't care if Miller is boffing Roy's mother - on the basketball court, they are paid to get along. Period. No F'n excuses.
 
He does, in fact, incorporate "skill sets" into his opinions.

Personalities? Feelings? When you are making a 7 or 8 figure salary, you aren't entitled to those things. I don't care if Miller is boffing Roy's mother - on the basketball court, they are paid to get along. Period. No F'n excuses.

Additionally, none of those things have much of anything to do with an analysis of production. In terms of PROJECTING production, those intangibles can certainly increase or decrease future efficacy, but the fact that Oden might have been in a bad mood all season last year had precious little relevance when comparing him to other NBA centers.

Ed O.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top