From Rookie to MVP

[Natebishop3]

What about Oden or Durant? That's the trickier question.

No, that's the obvious question, and it's the one that we will ponder for years to come.

The reason why I phrased it, who would be the better FIT is because it would be obvious whether someone would rather have Durant or Batum. I'm just curious which player everyone thinks would FIT better with this team, not which player IS better.

 

[Minstrel]

The reason why I phrased it, who would be the better FIT is because it would be obvious whether someone would rather have Durant or Batum. I'm just curious which player everyone thinks would FIT better with this team, not which player IS better.

IMO, they are generally the same thing, when talking about players at the same position.

If you have Chris Paul, who fits better beside him: Michael Jordan or Reggie Miller? Well, you already have great play-making ability, so why duplicate that...isn't the pure shooting, non-play-making Miller the best fit next to the penetrating, distributing Paul? Maybe in some abstract, synergistic realm, but in reality, you'd be crazy not to install Jordan at the 2. Sure, he's also a play-maker and slasher and not quite the long-distance spot-up shooter that Miller is...but he's so much better. You're going to win many more games with Paul/Jordan than with Paul/Miller. More wins = better fit.

So, give me the better player. Roy/Durant/Aldridge/Oden wins more than Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden.

 

[rocketeer]

IMO, they are generally the same thing, when talking about players at the same position.

If you have Chris Paul, who fits better beside him: Michael Jordan or Reggie Miller? Well, you already have great play-making ability, so why duplicate that...isn't the pure shooting, non-play-making Miller the best fit next to the penetrating, distributing Paul? Maybe in some abstract, synergistic realm, but in reality, you'd be crazy not to install Jordan at the 2. Sure, he's also a play-maker and slasher and not quite the long-distance spot-up shooter that Miller is...but he's so much better. You're going to win many more games with Paul/Jordan than with Paul/Miller. More wins = better fit.

So, give me the better player. Roy/Durant/Aldridge/Oden wins more than Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden.

but more wins doesn't equal better fit. at least not to me. fit would be about how the players play together and how their games complement each other.

in both the example you give and the batum/durant question i think the team would be better off and get more wins with the player who would be a worse fit with the other players but the worse fit is so much better and fits pretty well themselves so that more than makes up for it.

 

[Natebishop3]

IMO, they are generally the same thing, when talking about players at the same position.

If you have Chris Paul, who fits better beside him: Michael Jordan or Reggie Miller? Well, you already have great play-making ability, so why duplicate that...isn't the pure shooting, non-play-making Miller the best fit next to the penetrating, distributing Paul? Maybe in some abstract, synergistic realm, but in reality, you'd be crazy not to install Jordan at the 2. Sure, he's also a play-maker and slasher and not quite the long-distance spot-up shooter that Miller is...but he's so much better. You're going to win many more games with Paul/Jordan than with Paul/Miller. More wins = better fit.

So, give me the better player. Roy/Durant/Aldridge/Oden wins more than Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden.

It will be interesting to revisit this question in five years. One thing that Batum has over Durant, is his ability to guard... four positions? At the very least three positions. Batum's defense is going to be such a huge part of our team concept over the next decade.

I do not necessarily agree with you this time Minstrel (crazy, I know). I think past experience has shown that you can not have an All-Star at every position. This team dangerously walks that line. With Roy, Aldridge, and Oden, we have at least three players on this team that could be the first option on offense. If you added Durant, you would need to find another piece to the pie. I'm not convinced he would fit well. Batum, on the other hand, fits perfectly. He's a slasher, a runner, and a decent spot up shooter. He plays excellent defense, he rebounds, and he passes. He will only get better.

If I could get Kevin Durant for Batum, would I do it? Yes, but the experiment could fail, and one of our four young stars would have to go. Batum might not ever be an All-Star, but he might end up being Shawn Marion with a better looking jump shot. We just don't know.

 

[BengalDuck]

Both. The point is that Oden compares very favorably to two MVPs/Champions. I'd say Oden is having a better rookie season than both of them. In other words, Oden is not a dud.

Quotes in my sig kind of contradict that, eh?

 

[Minstrel]

but more wins doesn't equal better fit. at least not to me. fit would be about how the players play together and how their games complement each other.

To what purpose? I thought the only reason for putting players together was to maximize wins. What other purpose would you want to put players together for, that "better fit" measures?

 

[Natebishop3]

To what purpose? I thought the only reason for putting players together was to maximize wins. What other purpose would you want to put players together for, that "better fit" measures?

Not that I disagree with you on this particular part of the argument Minstrel, but I guess you could argue that the Blazers specifically have put together a team based on chemistry AND talent, and not necessarily just talent. If any team would pass on a potentially bad chemistry guy, despite his undeniable talent, it would be the Blazers. In Portland you have to factor in more than just wins, would you not agree?

With that said, I'm still not convinced that the fans have returned because of the chemistry. The team is winning. Period. Obviously the chemistry and the smiling faces help, but I think there's a good chance we would still see some of the worst attendance in the league if we had a team that was winning 17-20 games this year.

 

[bigbailes]

i love the 180 that kingspeed has done on oden, now it's all roses with him. wasn't it fez with the avitar of "the big mistake"? that mistake was you choosing that as an avitar.

 

[Minstrel]

Not that I disagree with you on this particular part of the argument Minstrel, but I guess you could argue that the Blazers specifically have put together a team based on chemistry AND talent, and not necessarily just talent. If any team would pass on a potentially bad chemistry guy, despite his undeniable talent, it would be the Blazers. In Portland you have to factor in more than just wins, would you not agree?

I think you're slightly off. I don't think Pritchard values chemistry as a separate factor. I think he believes chemistry is a factor in winning. So, he's still really only looking to win, but feels chemistry is a tool to win.

I guess the question would be, if he could have Player A or Player B and KNEW (magically) Player A would help the team win more games and give them a better chance to win the title, but Player B was a much better person, would he select Player A or B? I think A, but it's impossible to know.

With that said, I'm still not convinced that the fans have returned because of the chemistry. The team is winning. Period. Obviously the chemistry and the smiling faces help, but I think there's a good chance we would still see some of the worst attendance in the league if we had a team that was winning 17-20 games this year.

I agree with you. I also think a big reason everyone on the team is smiling is because they're winning. Remember, Zach Randolph was actually a fan favourite when he was the young kid who had a nose for rebounds and baskets on a playoff team. It was only after he struggled coming back from microfracture surgery and the Nash-ruined team crashed into suckitude that Randolph became All The Was Wrong With The Team.

If Randolph was drafted in the 2008 draft and joined this ascending team as the rebounding/scoring dynamo he was (and really still is), would he still be a "cancer" or would he be one of the smiling faces and one more amazing piece backing up Aldridge?

Personally, I think winning breeds chemistry, not the other way around.

 

[rocketeer]

To what purpose? I thought the only reason for putting players together was to maximize wins. What other purpose would you want to put players together for, that "better fit" measures?

obviously the goal is to maximize wins. that's why you would take durant over batum or jordan over miller regardless of "fit". i would say that putting together players that fit together better is a way to maximize each of those players. like we can all agree that durant is much better than batum, but i say that batum fits better. i think if you put durant is batum's place, the amount the blazers improved would not simply be the same amount that durant is better than batum, it would be less than that due to batum's better fit.

in the end it doesn't really matter and i don't really have an answer to the "to what purpose" question.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think you're slightly off. I don't think Pritchard values chemistry as a separate factor. I think he believes chemistry is a factor in winning. So, he's still really only looking to win, but feels chemistry is a tool to win.

I guess the question would be, if he could have Player A or Player B and KNEW (magically) Player A would help the team win more games and give them a better chance to win the title, but Player B was a much better person, would he select Player A or B? I think A, but it's impossible to know.



I agree with you. I also think a big reason everyone on the team is smiling is because they're winning. Remember, Zach Randolph was actually a fan favourite when he was the young kid who had a nose for rebounds and baskets on a playoff team. It was only after he struggled coming back from microfracture surgery and the Nash-ruined team crashed into suckitude that Randolph became All The Was Wrong With The Team.

If Randolph was drafted in the 2008 draft and joined this ascending team as the rebounding/scoring dynamo he was (and really still is), would he still be a "cancer" or would he be one of the smiling faces and one more amazing piece backing up Aldridge?

Personally, I think winning breeds chemistry, not the other way around.

Well put. Although I think a better comparison would be, player A will get you more wins, but could have long term effects on the overall chemistry, whereas player B might be slightly less talented, but will not have those negative effects. I'm not saying Durant is that first player, but I do believe there are players available that could present those choices to KP.

Bob Whitsitt would have gone with player A every day of the week, and twice on Sunday. I'm not so sure about KP. He seems very unwilling to gamble with the team's chemistry. It's a benefit and a cost. Sometimes you have to roll the dice. If this team could get Durant, I think most people would do it, even though it might throw the chemistry off. It's a gamble that would be hard to pass up.

I am left wondering, however, if Batum wouldn't end up being the better fit with the Blazers in the long run. If Nic ends up being as good as we all think he will be, he could easily lessen the blow of missing out on Durant (whether Oden is a success or not). Durant might end up being the scoring champ, but this team isn't lacking scorers. We have Roy, who is turning out to be one of the best players in the league. We have Aldridge, who has the potential to be one of the best players in the league, and we have Rudy... who is a Spanish version of Vinny Johnson. How would Durant fit into all that?

 

[Deebag]

Durant is like Carmello. Batum is like Tayshaun. I'd take Tayshaun over Carmello, honestly. Tayshaun rarely takes a bad shot, is an excellent defender, has a decent offensive game, and is the ultimate team player. Carmello just scores a lot of points. Yes, hes very efficient at it but many people can put points on the board. Its the hustle and heart that Batum and Tayshaun provide that makes things easier for teammates and that is just invaluable IMO.

 

[andalusian]

How many shots are there in a game and who guards the perimeter?

Haven't we learned from the 2004 USA Olympic team or the 2006 version world championship? Haven't we learned from Houston bringing a post-banger (Barkley) to hang in there with Hakeem reducing both of their effectiveness?

Batum is a better fit, Durant is a better player. The way the Blazers are built right now - Batum is a better fit and the team wins more because of that. If we had Durant instead of Batum - the make-up of the team and it's style would have to change to be effective. It's really not that complicated.

The same answer obviously also applies to Oden vs. Durant - only twice as much. Oden was the right selection at the time - and he still is today.

 

[BengalDuck]

Durant is already better than Carmello.

Durant is one of the five best young players in the game.

 

[MAS RipCity]

Kd is the better player but Batum is the better fit.
We don't need any more players commanding 15 shots a night, we need a lock down defender

 

[Hank The Dwarf]

While we're at it....

In his rookie year, he scored 3.3 ppg, dished 2.1 apg, and shot 42.3% from the field in 10.5 mpg. In 2005 & 2006, he won the NBA's MVP Award.

In his rookie year, he scored 8.2 ppg, grabbed 3.4 rpg, and shot 40.5% from the field, including 20.5% from the three point line in 20.4 mpg. In 2007, he won the NBA's MVP Award.

Oden stacks up pretty well, doesn't he?

Do you really need me to show you the list of rookies who have posted similar numbers to Oden this year and flamed out of the league?

If Oden can stay healthy - he will be a good player and contribute on a championship level team. That is a HUGE if.

 

[jwhoops11]

Both. The point is that Oden compares very favorably to two MVPs/Champions. I'd say Oden is having a better rookie season than both of them. In other words, Oden is not a dud.

Another way I look at Odens progress is this. Him and Pryzbilla are putting up essentially the same numbers in about the same minutes. Joel with more boards and Oden with more points.

When I think of Joel I feel like he's having a career year.

When I think of Oden I think of him not meeting expectations.

How many teams in the league would love to have Joel Pryzbilla as a starting center?

...I don't know, kind of simplifies things for me. Oden not meeting expectations is still in the top 3rd in the league at his position. What happens when he gets consistant minutes, is injury free, and has his micro-fracture two years behind him?

He's going to be unbelievably dominant if he stays major injury free....

 

[Natebishop3]

Durant is already better than Carmello.

Durant is one of the five best young players in the game.

Yeah, it's not even close. Durant probably already is better than Melo now, and is going to be waaaaaay better than Melo in the future.

 

[Masbee]

Durant is like Carmello. Batum is like Tayshaun. I'd take Tayshaun over Carmello, honestly. Tayshaun rarely takes a bad shot, is an excellent defender, has a decent offensive game, and is the ultimate team player. Carmello just scores a lot of points. Yes, hes very efficient at it but many people can put points on the board. Its the hustle and heart that Batum and Tayshaun provide that makes things easier for teammates and that is just invaluable IMO.

To be more accurate;

Durant is NOW like Carmelo.

Batum MAY BE like Tayshaun.

So, you are presenting a false choice, Carmello vs. Prince. That choice doesn't exist.

Some people prefer the bird in the hand.

 

[Masbee]

Here's a question, who would be a better fit for this current Blazers team: Kevin Durant or Nic Batum?

I guess I don't fully understand your question?

Is this 100% lala fantasyland, where in Natebishop's world, the Blazers get to trade Batum straight up for Durant?

In which case, you take Durant yesterday, today and tommorow. Even, if for some strange reason, Durant turned out to be a terrible fit for the Blazers, you could move him a player that is a "better fit" plus more. With Durant as a centerpiece we could swing a trade that netted the Blazers a very good "glue" player at small forward, PLUS a big upgrade at point guard.

If it is more reality based, then trading for Durant would have to be Batum plus more - a lot more. Say, Durant for Batum and Aldridge. Even that probably would not be enough. Then, your question is, what is a better "fit":

Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden, OR
Blake, Roy, Durant, Outlaw, Oden?

Or, is the thought, what if we took Durant with our draft pick instead of Oden. Then, the question would be what is the better fit:

Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden, OR
Blake, Roy, Durant, Aldridge, Pryz?

 

[Natebishop3]

I guess I don't fully understand your question?

Is this 100% lala fantasyland, where in Natebishop's world, the Blazers get to trade Batum straight up for Durant?

In which case, you take Durant yesterday, today and tommorow. Even, if for some strange reason, Durant turned out to be a terrible fit for the Blazers, you could move him a player that is a "better fit" plus more. With Durant as a centerpiece we could swing a trade that netted the Blazers a very good "glue" player at small forward, PLUS a big upgrade at point guard.

If it is more reality based, then trading for Durant would have to be Batum plus more - a lot more. Say, Durant for Batum and Aldridge. Even that probably would not be enough. Then, your question is, what is a better "fit":

Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden, OR
Blake, Roy, Durant, Outlaw, Oden?

Or, is the thought, what if we took Durant with our draft pick instead of Oden. Then, the question would be what is the better fit:

Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden, OR
Blake, Roy, Durant, Aldridge, Pryz?

The question is simple, which player would be a better fit with this current Blazers roster? Who would fit our long term goals better? Who would make the team better? I never said anything about being able to trade for either one. I never proposed some mythical trade that nets us Durant. I was just curious what Blazer fans would say.

 

[RoyToy]

I just don't want to imagine this team in the future without Batum. He's going to be the one guarding Deron/Paul/Parker/Kobe/Westbrook/Durant/LeBron/etc you get the point, just like Pippen would. Batum will be a very valuable piece. He fits so perfectly and really adds a lot.

 

[KingSpeed]

i love the 180 that kingspeed has done on oden, now it's all roses with him. wasn't it fez with the avitar of "the big mistake"? that mistake was you choosing that as an avitar.

All I did was post facts. Doesn't mean I don't get frustrated with Oden's poor play.

 

[hasoos]

Which if anything, is more proof the NBA age limit is bull shit.

 

[andalusian]

To be more accurate;

Durant is NOW like Carmelo.

He is? 'Melo - for all of his faults, has never missed the playoffs - and Denver was a bottom feeder before he came on board. Durant is going for his 2nd year in a row 20-something wins season...

Durant is a magnificent offensive player as a #1 option - but each and every team he was on since (and including) his college days was an under-achieving team.

 

[Masbee]

The question is simple, which player would be a better fit with this current Blazers roster? Who would fit our long term goals better? Who would make the team better? I never said anything about being able to trade for either one. I never proposed some mythical trade that nets us Durant. I was just curious what Blazer fans would say.

Ummm. Ok.

A simple question is: Who is a better player, A or B?

Your question is: Who is a better fit?

That requires knowing who is on the team that relates to the fit? Knowing what the roster WOULD be is important in being able to answer the question.

So, forget the whole thing if you don't want to clarify. As any pollster will tell you, how the question is phrased can dramatically affect the answers.

 

[BrianFromWA]

All-Star 29y/o PG, lottery picks at the 2 and 3 playing pretty well, a 20/10 guy at PF, and DPOY at center. Ladies and gentlemen, your 2008-09 18-win LA Clippers! Is that talent 30 wins worse than ours? Nope. It's not just about "talent".

Baron Davis is a better player than Steve Blake. I say he's a "worse fit", and some of you spent the deadline saying how "we didn't need more talent, we needed to let it bake". Whether or not you're right about that, it seems a tad hypocritical that you're saying you'd take Durant over Batum all day every day for this team but not Vince Carter for RLEC.

Gilbert Arenas is a much better player than Steve Blake. And yet, most in here wouldn't trade to WAS RLEC and a young player or two for Arenas and their high lotto pick.

Seems like a lot of flip-flopping in here when Durant's involved.

 

[Natebishop3]

Ummm. Ok.

A simple question is: Who is a better player, A or B?

Your question is: Who is a better fit?

That requires knowing who is on the team that relates to the fit? Knowing what the roster WOULD be is important in being able to answer the question.

So, forget the whole thing if you don't want to clarify. As any pollster will tell you, how the question is phrased can dramatically affect the answers.

I said THIS team. You follow the team Mas, you know who is on the team. You can have either Durant or Batum on THIS team, who is a better fit? I thought the question was pretty simple...

It wasn't meant to be a serious discussion. It doesn't have it's own thread. I was just curious what people thought.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Here's a question, who would be a better fit for this current Blazers team: Kevin Durant or Nic Batum?

Depends what you mean by "fit". But I think the Blazers are better off in the long haul with Batum. Durant is only good at scoring. He does it well, but not necessarily better than than his teammates would be as a whole if you spread his shots around. And that's true in OKLAHOMA - it would be so much more true when his teammates include Aldridge, Roy and Oden. And at the moment Batum is a lot better then Durant at defense, and in general, is a better teammate.

Why is it that people are so dazzled by Durant? He's a Carmelo Anthony type player. In fact, he's a poor man's Carmelo because Carmelo took his College team to a title, while Durant led his team to a worse record than the years before and after he was there.

Durant is the EPITOME of a big scorer on a bad team. OKC's best stretch this season came when he was out, and even a fan of the team said Sefolosa and Kyle Weaver were better basketball players than Durant.

Durant's ceiling is George Gervin/Alex English.
Batum's ceiling is Scottie Pippen.

(That's pretty fatuous to say, because how would I know? So sue me, I can be fatuous if I want.)

 

[Deebag]

Durant is NOT better than Melo at the moment. Anthony has been putting up big numbers on a playoff team and is proven to be one of the, if not the best clutch shooter today.

I'm not even sure Durant has that much higher of a ceiling than Melo. The guy can light it up but I havent seen enough from him on the other side of the court to start crowning him as anything but a damn fine shooter.