Game Thread Game #59 - BLAZERS @ GRIZZLIES - FEBRUARY 16, 2022 - WEDNESDAY - 5:00 PM (PDT) ROOT SPORTS

[DDolla]

Don’t tell me we’re beating the Grizz too

 

[blazerfan11]

Don’t tell me we’re beating the Grizz too

I think they are are capable of beating the team that won in New Orleans tonight.
Memphis was physical on defense, fighting for all rebounds and loose balls and maybe getting away with some fouls that weren't called. They grabbed 18 offensive rebounds and had 10 steals. Tyus Jones scored repeatedly on short jump shots in the paint after his man was picked off. Besides Jones, Memphis's offense was not a thing of beauty, it didn't look what we've seen from the Blazers lately. The Pelicans offense didn't look very good either.
If the Blazers can keep Memphis off the offensive boards and re-direct Tyus Jones from the easy shots he was getting, they should have a good chance to win.

 

[blazerkor]

Don’t tell me we’re beating the Grizz too

I know I'm gonna get killed for this because there's no way of knowing for sure either way but we definitely will have a lot better shot at it if Ja isn't playing... and I still won't know just how real this win streak is if we get another win with the opponent's all star sitting out. I really want to win this game and I really want Ja to be playing in it.

At this time, unless this is the start of a very possible 11 game losing streak, I just want us to make the playoffs so we can convey the pick to the Bulls and have all of our future picks free for us to trade. Without a huge losing streak, right fucking now, I don't think we'll get a pick that will matter as much as being able to trade future firsts would. If on March 9th we've lost seven straight I'll start being conflicted about the tank again but until then I really just wins, for that pick to convey to Chicago and for the Pelicans pick to be as high as possible up to the fifth.

Also we get to watch this team play basketball the right way and that's really fun.

 

[wizenheimer]

First of all, its impossible for us to beat the Grizzlies tonight because we play them tomorrow. They play tonight and then they play us tomorrow.

But I sort of agree with Eric on his point though. The Blazers have 3 quality wins in a row and those teams were trying to win. LeBron and Davis wanted to win and the two of them alone should trump whatever else is on these rosters. Middleton was trying to carry the load offensively, he won a title with Jrue but we shut him down.

I don't see you posting a bunch of reasons about why our prior losses had factors assisting the opponent, in that case the Blazers just suck. So why do the wins need to discount our opponent?

I don't necessarily disagree with the philosopy. I just wanted to set the Laker win off to the side because the Lakers have lost 8 of their last 10, and one of those wins was against the Blazers. Lakers are one of the worst teams in the league right now and I would not call that a quality win. I also would not call the Knicks win a quality win. They have close to the same record at Portland, but have lost 6 of their last 7, 9 of their last 11, and 12 of their last 15. They suck right now, maybe worse than the Lakers.

The Bucks win was the only quality win of the three, IMO, even with Giannis not playing. I didn't hear the reason he didn't play...?

 

[Wade Garrett]

I don't necessarily disagree with the philosopy. I just wanted to set the Laker win off to the side because the Lakers have lost 8 of their last 10, and one of those wins was against the Blazers. Lakers are one of the worst teams in the league right now and I would not call that a quality win. I also would not call the Knicks win a quality win. They have close to the same record at Portland, but have lost 6 of their last 7, 9 of their last 11, and 12 of their last 15. They suck right now, maybe worse than the Lakers.

The Bucks win was the only quality win of the three, IMO, even with Giannis not playing. I didn't hear the reason he didn't play...?

The Knicks are a 5 game winning streak from contending for home court in the east.
The East is really a clusterfuck, all bunched together.
The Laker game was a solid win because of how they did it..Our first glimpse of the new style with defense really winning the game.
Giannis has a ankle thing, resting for Philly on TNT Thursday.

 

[blazerfan11]

The Milwaukee Bucks have gone 11 games without a quality win. They lost to Phoenix , Denver , and Cleveland in those 11 games (and Portland). Does that mean anything much?

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I hate it when people shortchange wins because of the opponent. It’s like wins only matter if we beat the Suns who, by the way, we beat by 29 though we were a different team then.

So you hate when someone shortchanges a win and then go on the shortchange a win?

 

[wizenheimer]

The Milwaukee Bucks have gone 11 games without a quality win. They lost to Phoenix , Denver , and Cleveland in those 11 games (and Portland). Does that mean anything much?

no it doesn't mean much, but they are the same team that went 16-7 in the playoffs and won a championship 7 months ago. They are 3rd seed in the east and that's with Holiday missing 13 games, Middleton 12 games, Giannis 11 games, and Portis 9 games. The current champions aren't gauged by 'quality wins' until the playoffs start

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I don't understand why people are arguing that we need to have quality wins against the top playoff teams at full strength? Do @blazerkor and @wizenheimer actually think anyone is debating about the Blazers being a contender this year?

At the trade deadline I thought we had one of the worst rosters in the league. However we have often seen lesser talented teams give max effort and go on a good run for ~20 games. Teams also often win a lot of games at the end of the year when most teams aren't trying. If the Blazers are winning games against playoff teams even with a starter sitting out, and winning most games against horrible teams, and having one of the easiest schedules in the league; the Blazers will likely make the play in tournament.

 

[wizenheimer]

I don't understand why people are arguing that we need to have quality wins against the top playoff teams at full strength? Do @blazerkor and @wizenheimer actually think anyone is debating about the Blazers being a contender this year?

I'm not arguing that. It's not my gauge for Portland. I was just debating what defined a quality win, and 2 wins, at home, over 2 teams that have combined for a 7-24 record over their last 31 games are not quality wins. That winning percentage would generate 18-19 wins over an 82 game season.

 

[stampedehero]

There is no way we win this one is there?

 

[PCmor7]

I'm going to make the argument that the Blazers shooting is sustainable to a degree, because the shots they are taking aren't being taken in a vacuum. I'm looking at how they get those shots and who's taking them.

One thing about the way the Blazers have approached the past few games is they aren't following the crowd in how they generate their 3s, or even their shots. They look more like an old-fashioned NBA team. They push the pace a lot but not looking specifically to generate 3s. For the most part, not always, but the most part, the Blazers are looking to take shots at the rim. They realize that maybe shooting 33% from 3 is as good as shooting 50% from 2, but when you have numbers and are getting right to the rim, that's not the situation -- it's more like 75% made 2s vs. 40% made 3s. That doesn't even include foul shots.

Hart's getting probably as many 3s as he's been getting in his career. He's not forcing contested shots against the shot clock. He's been getting clean, open looks that he can take in rhythm. He's a pro and a good if not spectacular shooter. If he's getting open looks that aren't tenaciously contested, I like his chances to make a good percentage of those. Our other 3s are being generated now by penetration, pitching and good ball movement. That's going to get more open looks.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm going to make the argument that the Blazers shooting is sustainable to a degree, because the shots they are taking aren't being taken in a vacuum. I'm looking at how they get those shots and who's taking them.

One thing about the way the Blazers have approached the past few games is they aren't following the crowd in how they generate their 3s, or even their shots. They look more like an old-fashioned NBA team. They push the pace a lot but not looking specifically to generate 3s. For the most part, not always, but the most part, the Blazers are looking to take shots at the rim. They realize that maybe shooting 33% from 3 is as good as shooting 50% from 2, but when you have numbers and are getting right to the rim, that's not the situation -- it's more like 75% made 2s vs. 40% made 3s. That doesn't even include foul shots.

Hart's getting probably as many 3s as he's been getting in his career. He's not forcing contested shots against the shot clock. He's been getting clean, open looks that he can take in rhythm. He's a pro and a good if not spectacular shooter. If he's getting open looks that aren't tenaciously contested, I like his chances to make a good percentage of those. Our other 3s are being generated now by penetration, pitching and good ball movement. That's going to get more open looks.

That was what I saw and was so excited about when we played Phoenix in game 2--so much penetration and attacking the rim. It seemed like that was going to be Chauncey-ball's calling card, but then it slowly dried up.

 

[illmatic99]

That was what I saw and was so excited about when we played Phoenix in game 2--so much penetration and attacking the rim. It seemed like that was going to be Chauncey-ball's calling card, but then it slowly dried up.

"chauncey-ball" really is a thing now, huh? see this mentioned so often. I think I'm just gonna wait until we're at least .500 before making too much of it.

 

[wizenheimer]

I'm going to make the argument that the Blazers shooting is sustainable to a degree, because the shots they are taking aren't being taken in a vacuum. I'm looking at how they get those shots and who's taking them.

One thing about the way the Blazers have approached the past few games is they aren't following the crowd in how they generate their 3s, or even their shots. They look more like an old-fashioned NBA team. They push the pace a lot but not looking specifically to generate 3s. For the most part, not always, but the most part, the Blazers are looking to take shots at the rim. They realize that maybe shooting 33% from 3 is as good as shooting 50% from 2, but when you have numbers and are getting right to the rim, that's not the situation -- it's more like 75% made 2s vs. 40% made 3s. That doesn't even include foul shots.

Hart's getting probably as many 3s as he's been getting in his career. He's not forcing contested shots against the shot clock. He's been getting clean, open looks that he can take in rhythm. He's a pro and a good if not spectacular shooter. If he's getting open looks that aren't tenaciously contested, I like his chances to make a good percentage of those. Our other 3s are being generated now by penetration, pitching and good ball movement. That's going to get more open looks.

Hart has shot 53% on three's when his career mark is under 35%; and that's with a 282 game sample size. 53% isn't sustainable over the long term. Simons has shot 46% over the 3 wins. That's probably not sustainable either but there may not be much of a drop off. As a team, they shot 37.4% over the 3 wins. That's sustainable, but if either Simons or Hart have a slump, it could drag the team down a ways

 

[PCmor7]

That was what I saw and was so excited about when we played Phoenix in game 2--so much penetration and attacking the rim. It seemed like that was going to be Chauncey-ball's calling card, but then it slowly dried up.

There are so many variables, aren't there? You have a new coach trying to develop his philosophy, but you also need players to buy in, you need guys to be able to fill different roles when injuries affect the rotation, etc.

I think Chauncey's done a good job in a couple of respects. First, I think he's seen what this assemblage of talent needs to do to have the best chance to survive. Second, I think he understands that the Warriors success changed basketball to an extent, but it didn't revolutionalize the game entirely; there are multiple ways to win, multiple ways to create disadvantages and use them to make your team the better team. You just have to be able to impose your style, your most advantageous position over the opponent.

It's chess.

OK, some team like the Rockets is going to play five guys under 6-7 and hope that all those guys are going to offset the other team getting a lot of shots inside the restricted area. If you use the 33% v 50% rule, that works. If it's 33% v 60% or 25% v 50%, though, it fails.

All sports follow trends that to some degree take a major tactical move that pays off (we don't remember all the ones that failed) and then everyone tries to emulate them or run some kind of variation of them ... which in turn leads to a market inefficiency that will make a team that uses a variation of the older, proven methods effectively a big advantage in many situations.

 

[PCmor7]

Hart has shot 53% on three's when his career mark is under 35%; and that's with a 282 game sample size. 53% isn't sustainable over the long term. Simons has shot 46% over the 3 wins. That's probably not sustainable either but there may not be much of a drop off. As a team, they shot 37.4% over the 3 wins. That's sustainable, but if either Simons or Hart have a slump, it could drag the team down a ways

You're arguing degrees, though, and partialities of my statement. I specified that they were sustainable to a point ... good, not spectacular 3-point shooting might be sustainable, especially when you consider the manner and circumstance those shots are being taken.

It's part of the reason I'm not sold on analytics as the be-all, end-all. A guy might have a great year shooting inside the 3-point line and it skews his statistics. Except then you look at the tape and see other years he was the second option instead of the third option, that he was playing with guys who couldn't get him the ball in positions where he was comfortable shooting. Suddenly he's cast in another role and he's getting the ball 12 feet from the hoop with less defensive resistance than he's faced before. Maybe he has a point guard who just sets him up really well. That can lead to a deviation from the previous norm that is reasonable to see as largely sustainable.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

"chauncey-ball" really is a thing now, huh? see this mentioned so often. I think I'm just gonna wait until we're at least .500 before making too much of it.

Figured I'd use the term before it became passé

But I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that the team seemed to try to play a certain way at the beginning of the season, then kinda drifted into something else, and is playing a different style now than they were 2 weeks ago.

 

[wizenheimer]

You're arguing degrees, though, and partialities of my statement. I specified that they were sustainable to a point ... good, not spectacular 3-point shooting might be sustainable, especially when you consider the manner and circumstance those shots are being taken.

It's part of the reason I'm not sold on analytics as the be-all, end-all. A guy might have a great year shooting inside the 3-point line and it skews his statistics. Except then you look at the tape and see other years he was the second option instead of the third option, that he was playing with guys who couldn't get him the ball in positions where he was comfortable shooting. Suddenly he's cast in another role and he's getting the ball 12 feet from the hoop with less defensive resistance than he's faced before. Maybe he has a point guard who just sets him up really well. That can lead to a deviation from the previous norm that is reasonable to see as largely sustainable.

3ptFG% is not an analytic

 

[PCmor7]

3ptFG% is not an analytic

Wiz, stop it. You're being unnecessarily pedantic. Every statistic is by its nature somewhat analytic, unless you are going to take the unusual position that a shooting percentage is not a measurement to analyze someone's ability to shoot 3s. The very way you presented it in your post was analytical.

 

[Wade Garrett]

I'm not arguing that. It's not my gauge for Portland. I was just debating what defined a quality win, and 2 wins, at home, over 2 teams that have combined for a 7-24 record over their last 31 games are not quality wins. That winning percentage would generate 18-19 wins over an 82 game season.

If you were to ask those who truly know, because they are actually doing it, they will 100% tell you that Every Win Is A Quality Win.
This is the NBA. There are millionaires on every team.

 

[wizenheimer]

Wiz, stop it. You're being unnecessarily pedantic. Every statistic is by its nature somewhat analytic, unless you are going to take the unusual position that a shooting percentage is not a measurement to analyze someone's ability to shoot 3s. The very way you presented it in your post was analytical.

lol...ok. It was "analytical" in the sense that I compared a 3 game sample to a career sample....for the same player. But the stat itself is not analytics. It's simply a raw mark, like wins and losses. The only formula used was made shots divided by total shots. basic math

 

[Hoopguru]

To me the biggest difference is we push the ball more and even look to fast break. Thats not been blazer bb over the last number of years. Not so predictable with dame walking the ball up.
Im reading “Kersey” and Ramsey didn’t plan on playing him much but he couldn’t be denied, he earned more minutes even though he wasn’t a good shooter. What he brought was energy and super athleticism. We have few players like that now, JWin and Hart. Kersey was good on the break and so are a few blazers now. Ball movement and allowing more than one person to push the ball which can put defenders on their heels.
The nice blend of youngsters and vets that are willing to-stay in front if their guy makes a difference.
Even CJE brings energy and a knack for being a disrupter, a floor pirate.

 

[illmatic99]

Figured I'd use the term before it became passé

But I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that the team seemed to try to play a certain way at the beginning of the season, then kinda drifted into something else, and is playing a different style now than they were 2 weeks ago.

opponents are admittedly taking us lightly and guys like Hart and Winslow are playing at levels they have never played before. I have a healthy dose of skepticism about its sustainability.

While I LOVE the aggressive way we're playing (and it's something I've been begging for us to adopt for nearly a decade) , i'm also cautious about making too much of this. It wasn't too long ago that we got trampled on by the hapless Magic at home while playing this same "chauncey ball."

 

[Hoopguru]

Oh, and dont forget the fun factor, Im sure stats back that up.

 

[Wade Garrett]

Oh, and dont forget the fun factor, Im sure stats back that up.

Stats tell the entire picture.
Everybody knows that.
(he sarcastically quips)..

 

[THE HCP]

So nobody down here in Memphis wears masks….. ANYWHERE. Just trying to completed why…. Then I see this posted in the bathroom of the hotel lobby. Maybe they got bigger problems to deal with!!!

 

[James lamphear]

One thing this team is playing the right way on both ends of the floor

 

[DDolla]

Guys, one thing I observed with these young Blazers. They defend, Rebound and Run. I never seen a Blazers team that runs after the rebound since Scottie Pippen as our PG. Dame and Roy slows the game down.

 

[BlazerBeav]