Henry Abbot is a smart fella

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
I found this through Ben from Blazersedge.com as posted on Hornets247.com talking a bit about the upcoming matchup, but more or less breaks the Blazers down on offense and defense.

Great stuff:http://www.hornets247.com/blog/2009/02/02/time-to-be-pitfall-and-catch-some-trailblazers#more

Hornets247: The third best team so far in the West has been the Portland Trailblazers. It's pretty bizarre seeing the team with the 20th worst defense in the league sitting that high on the charts, but their offense has, quite simply, been that good.

The Blazers are an odd group, flying in the face of the stereotype that teams looking to simply outscore their opponents try to run the opponent out of the building. Portland, far from being a running team, is by far the slowest team in the league, averaging only 87.2 posessions per game. Looking at the raw numbers, it seems to me like Portland lures its opponents into a trap. The opponent knows if they just settle into a half-court offense, they'll eventually pick the Blazers apart and get a decent shot, so they slow the game down, work the ball and score. Unfortunately, they've just played into Nate McMillan's hands, because he too wants a slow game, because his guys are even better at picking a defense apart.

So what happens when Portland is forced into a fast-paced game. Is that a good way to attack them?

Henry Abbott: This pace thing is really weird, when it comes to the Blazers, and I think it's a bit of a red herring.

It's plain to see that Portland really really wants to space the floor with shooters, to give Brandon Roy room to penetrate and create a shot for himself or a teammate. That's the plan, and it's plainly efficient. It's also just not something you do in four seconds.

Just about every player Kevin Pritchard has ever acquired can shoot, so the Blazers are happy to work the ball around to find the open man. An early good look is not something they feel they have to pounce on. They can get good looks late in the clock. So they don't rush. They'll wait for the defense to make a mistake. Or Roy will put the ball on the floor, and pull up from mid-range, get to the rim and get fouled, or hit wide-open LaMarcus Aldridge, Travis Outlaw, Steve Blake, and Rudy Fernandez. (When Roy drives late in the clock, teams always leave those guys.)

So, yes, they are pretty slow.

But they are also two things that totally skew the pace factor: Fantastic at offensive rebounding, and not prone to turnovers.

Pace stats are based on number of possessions. But if the Blazers get five consecutive offensive rebounds, as happened the other day, they'll keep the ball for more than a minute. That all counts as one possession. In terms of pace, they look SLOW. But they shot the ball, as I recall, every 12 seconds on that possession. So they're not so slow, you know? Also, a turnover by either team is a change of possession, which makes each team faster in terms of the pace measurement. But it doesn't mean either team is actually faster than if they didn't turn it over. As it happens, Portland does not force a lot of turnovers, nor do they commit many of them.

Put all that together, and I suspect the Blazers are not as fantastically slow as they may appear to be in that pace factor. I have proposed some other measure (adding FGAs, defensive fouls against, turnovers committed, offensive fouls committed, for instance) as a more meaningful measure of how fast a team actually plays. Because when I see Portland play, I see a team that's pretty slow. But I don't see a team that's clearly the slowest in the NBA, as the pace factor suggests.

Rebounding is a factor. Portland sends players like Brandon Roy to the defensive glass -- which keeps him from streaking down the wing and catching a pass like he might do on a different team.

There is also a personnel thing. Our starting point guard for most of the season, Steve Blake, is not Mr. Fast Break. And know that his backup, Sergio Rodriguez, loves to run, but tends to get benched when he gets cute on the break and starts causing turnovers. Neither one finishes at the rim all that well, so their aggressive breaking really relies on teammates finishing, and that's not the efficient way to break, and Nate McMillan doesn't play inefficient basketball.

I can't prove it, but I bet that if you look it up the team is pretty fast when Jerryd Bayless is in. He thinks fast break, and has been empowered to play that way a little bit. And he loves to attack the rim every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. He also has a growing collection of dump-off assists to his credit.

So, to make a long story longer ... Portland has assets like Rudy Fernandez, Travis Outlaw, Jerryd Bayless, Sergio Rodriguez, Nicolas Batum, and LaMarcus Aldridge (if there's a faster big man down the floor, I don't know who it is) who love to run. But somewhat like the Cavaliers under Mike Brown, I think the Blazers will really only let that unit run if and when the system to do so is very efficient. (I half think they should make a run at Andre Miller to anchor a speedy second unit.) Until then, they really only do it opportunistically.

And as for making opponents slow, my take is that Portland has a deep roster loaded to the gills with long healthy athletes. They play hard. You're not going to catch them napping. They get back and make you play. They are also sneaky with zones, which makes teams think. Which takes time. But they're super young. And when you put them in situations where they need to be very savvy, with a lot of helping, switching, and picking and rolling, you can find good shots.

So ... Portland can find good shots, but only with time. Opponents can find good shots, but again, only with time. So a Portland game is fairly slow. And Portland has some quirks with offensive rebounding and low turnovers that makes it seem like they're even slower than they really are in the pace factor.

And yet, they have plenty of players who excel going both ways on the break, and I am quite certain they'd like to break more than they do. It's a matter of sorting out the proper formula, and point guard, to do so. Until then, I don't think Nate McMillan will be giving them enough rope to hang themselves by running -- as he's a coach with a long track record of being allergic to turnovers.

But can you freak Portland out by making them go fast? I doubt it. You're not going to make their offense fast without giving them uncontested layups. And on defense, you have to beat some focused young athletes down the floor, or else you're not running either. So I don't think speed is their kryptonite.

Point guards who can get into the lane at will, however ... that seems to work against Portland. And the Hornets have a guy like that.

The bolded part is mine for emphasis ... talk about hitting the nail on the head.
 
Portland did its best against the Hornets earlier this year when they doubled Paul early, and often time just sandwiched him with 2 taller players and denied him the ball.

I would not be surprised to see Batum get a run on him tonight defensivly.
 
The banner in that blog in the OP rocks. Just freakin' awesome to see Chandler and Przybilla facing off, with Blake in the background.
 
I don't really understand the criticism of Pace here... he doesn't "see" the slowest team in the NBA? I don't think that it's possible to just watch the Blazers and watch other teams and make a conclusive statement about speed.

Fast break points are one way. Average shot clock usage is another.

I don't have either of those stats in front of me, but I'd be rather surprised if Portland is not on the "slow" end of both of those stat rankings.

Ed O.
 
We shoot 19% of our shots in the last 4 seconds of the shot clock, with an eFG% of 45%.

Our opponents shoot 16% of their shots in the last 4 seconds, eFG% 42.5%.

We shoot only 29% of our shots in the first 10 seconds, while our opponents do it 34% of the time (our eFG% is 57% vs. opponents' 56%)

trying to dig up fastbreak points, though I think we're almost DFL in that one.

EDIT: 28th in the league, at 8.9. Ahead of HOU and TOR
 
Last edited:
Here is the thing I don't see a lot of you taking from this read though. It doesn't matter that Portland is slower pace. Portland is better at a slower pace than most teams, that is why they have a winning record. Part of basketball and winning is being able to force the game to your tempo, and hopefully, play at a tempo your opponent does not like to play at. The numbers on the post up above show this. Portland is more efficient at their pace of game then most other teams. They outrebound their opponent constantly, a staple of dominating half court play If you eventually get the defense to match the intensity of the offense, it will all come together. Scoring seems easy enough. Its getting the stops that needs to improve.
 
Here is the thing I don't see a lot of you taking from this read though. It doesn't matter that Portland is slower pace. Portland is better at a slower pace than most teams, that is why they have a winning record. Part of basketball and winning is being able to force the game to your tempo, and hopefully, play at a tempo your opponent does not like to play at. The numbers on the post up above show this. Portland is more efficient at their pace of game then most other teams. They outrebound their opponent constantly, a staple of dominating half court play If you eventually get the defense to match the intensity of the offense, it will all come together. Scoring seems easy enough. Its getting the stops that needs to improve.

C'mon. That style never worked for San Antonio.:crazy:
 
C'mon. That style never worked for San Antonio.:crazy:

But it sure has worked in Phoenix. Too bad Phoenix wasn't playing that style in the playoffs!:drumroll:

I could not resist that one!
 
actually, when you break apart our wins and losses, it's not like that. Our "pace" and "#of possessions" are almost exactly equal in our wins and losses. We don't "play slow better than others play slow", we generally blow teams away when we shoot anything average or above, and generally get

Here are some comparisons (wins first/then losses)
FGA: 78.6/78.8
3ptA: 19.1/20.3
FTA: 25.9/23.4
Reb: 42.9/37.7
Assist Ratio: 17.3/15.4
PPG: 103/91
Possessions per game: 88.4/88.9
EFF: 120.4/94.65

Notice, I didn't put it %s or makes. Here are the percentages in wins and losses (wins first):
FG%: 47.5/42.8
3pt%: 39.9/34.4
TS%: 57.0/51.3
FT%: 78.3/72.6

It's not a matter of pace, it's a matter of shooting. We only play better slow if we're making an above-average percentage of jump shots (we shoot 69% of our shots as jumpers...I don't have a win/loss split on that). We're only shooting above our averages in 6 of our 17 losses (amazingly enough, all of them against the teams in the WC playoff hunt). We've shot less than our average in 9 of our 29 wins (all except HOU and DEN against below-.500 teams). Yet in those, our total shooting (except for SAC) was higher-than-normal, and our FTA were higher-than-normal.

So it basically comes to this: when we've played good teams, shooting above-average from 3 doesn't necessarily get it done. Against poor teams it really doesn't matter how we shoot from 3 as long as we're still above 46% FG. We are 28th in the league in Fastbreak points. We shoot among the highest teams in the league in # of shots in the last 4 seconds of the clock. I fear that until we shoot more "efficient" shots (dunks/layups, FTs, open 3's, not buzzer-beaters) we'll continue to "die by the jumper" in a way that this team shouldn't.
 
I see some of what you are saying, and earlier this season when the Blazers were playing more of the "Live by the 3, die by the 3" game, I would agree. The team has been much better at attacking the paint lately, which kind of throws a wrench into things.
 
They've been playing much better lately, and I don't know that I want to bring up the Sergio/Bayless vs. Blake statement, but in our last 8 wins we're shooting 16 3's per game, vs the 19.1 we've averaged in wins and the 20 we've averaged total. Our FG% has also (funnily enough) gone up the more we attack the hoop (going with what you're saying about the "wrench"). I hope it's less of a gimmick and more of a purposeful offensive development.

I'm not trying to put out an end-all, be-all hypothesis--just saying that I think our "pace" is really overrated as an indicator of our efficiency or winning.
 
trying to dig up fastbreak points, though I think we're almost DFL in that one.

EDIT: 28th in the league, at 8.9. Ahead of HOU and TOR

Ah, but because of our slow Pace, you should convert fastbreak points to a percentage. Doing that, we wouldn't be 3rd lowest in fast breaks as a percentage of our scoring.
 
Here is the thing I don't see a lot of you taking from this read though. It doesn't matter that Portland is slower pace. Portland is better at a slower pace than most teams, that is why they have a winning record. Part of basketball and winning is being able to force the game to your tempo, and hopefully, play at a tempo your opponent does not like to play at. The numbers on the post up above show this. Portland is more efficient at their pace of game then most other teams. They outrebound their opponent constantly, a staple of dominating half court play If you eventually get the defense to match the intensity of the offense, it will all come together. Scoring seems easy enough. Its getting the stops that needs to improve.

This team has a lot of good players. I think we'd have a winning record regardless of the style we play.

The question is whether we're optimizing our talent. I doubt that playing slow makes sense UNLESS it helps our defense, and I don't think that it does.

Ed O.
 
Ah, but because of our slow Pace, you should convert fastbreak points to a percentage.

No. In this context, fast break points are an absolute measurement of speed... a potential replacement for Pace. Normalizing them for Pace doesn't make sense here.

Ed O.
 
I'm not trying to put out an end-all, be-all hypothesis--just saying that I think our "pace" is really overrated as an indicator of our efficiency or winning.

Is it overrated in terms of determining the speed of the game that the team plays at, though?

I think it's hard to argue that the team wins or loses because of its Pace... the team has been consistently slow and so alternatives are speculative.

Ed O.
 
I don't really understand the criticism of Pace here... he doesn't "see" the slowest team in the NBA? I don't think that it's possible to just watch the Blazers and watch other teams and make a conclusive statement about speed.

Fast break points are one way. Average shot clock usage is another.

I don't have either of those stats in front of me, but I'd be rather surprised if Portland is not on the "slow" end of both of those stat rankings.

Ed O.

All he is saying is that "slow" and Pace are not identical. Roughly related, by not closely.

He thinks people confuse the two, and call low Pace = slow = no fastbreaks = running the shot clock down most possessions.

He agrees that the Blazers ARE "slow", just not dead last in the league "slow" which Pace numbers would indicate.
 
All he is saying is that "slow" and Pace are not identical. Roughly related, by not closely.

He thinks people confuse the two, and call low Pace = slow = no fastbreaks = running the shot clock down most possessions.

He agrees that the Blazers ARE "slow", just not dead last in the league "slow" which Pace numbers would indicate.

And he has ... what as evidence? He has his gut level reaction from watching games?

The fast break points indicate that the team is one of the three slowest teams in the NBA. I would imagine that shot clock data would, too. Coupled with Pace... how much more evidence do we need that we're super-slow?

Ed O.
 
This team has a lot of good players. I think we'd have a winning record regardless of the style we play.

The question is whether we're optimizing our talent. I doubt that playing slow makes sense UNLESS it helps our defense, and I don't think that it does.

Ed O.

The one thing I do see though, is Portland has a lot of players who seem to be what I would call "fast break challenged." That is changing as personnel gets further from the Patternash years, but there are definitly guys on the team, that to say the least, when they are on the break, I have the worst feeling in my gut that nothing positive is going to happen. I won't go into names, I am sure each fan has a few of their own they feel that way about.

I do agree though that you should always get cheap buckets whenever you can. Sometimes speeding things up gets more of those. Some young teams though speeding up the game increases the number of mistakes.

The one thing I look at is Portlands record when their opponent scores over 100 points. Its pretty bad. I don't necessarily think that is the total indicator though, IMO it is more important Portland is the first team to reach 100. That is usually a better indicator, and shows the team is playing agressive.
 
I don't really understand the criticism of Pace here... he doesn't "see" the slowest team in the NBA? I don't think that it's possible to just watch the Blazers and watch other teams and make a conclusive statement about speed.

I don't think how the team "looks" is terribly useful, but he makes good points about how being good at offensive rebounding will affect Pace (assuming it's measured the way he says it is...I'm too lazy to check) and turnovers will too.

If getting two possessions instead of one due to an offensive rebound counts as "one possession," being good at offensive rebounding is going to make your Pace look slower than you actually play.
 
No. In this context, fast break points are an absolute measurement of speed... a potential replacement for Pace. Normalizing them for Pace doesn't make sense here.

Ed O.

Why not?

Team A scores 110pts and gives up 110pts per game.

Team B scores 80pts and gives up 80pts per game.

Both are .500 in record.

Team A scores 14 fast break points per game. 12.7%

Team B scores 10 fast break points per game. 12.5%

I consider those similar percentages of total scoring just as valid as the 40% difference in total points when comparing their fast break offenses.

Sure, I agree that Team A is much more of a fast breaking team. But, I also think that Team B is not 40% less prone to fast breaking. They have fewer opportunities to attempt break with the overall slower pace. Of course, if they forced the issue more then their Pace would be higher.
 
Ah, but because of our slow Pace, you should convert fastbreak points to a percentage. Doing that, we wouldn't be 3rd lowest in fast breaks as a percentage of our scoring.

Good point. I'll have to look at that.

EDIT: I did a quick "possessions per fast break bucket scored"...we're 26th, ahead of TOR, HOU and SAS. We average 20.1 possession per fast break score. PHI leads the league at 10 poss per FB bucket, and DEN at 11.
 
The one thing I do see though, is Portland has a lot of players who seem to be what I would call "fast break challenged." That is changing as personnel gets further from the Patternash years, but there are definitly guys on the team, that to say the least, when they are on the break, I have the worst feeling in my gut that nothing positive is going to happen. I won't go into names, I am sure each fan has a few of their own they feel that way about.

Portland players that are not rookies that Masbee considers above average on the break for their position:

LaMarcus Aldridge


Therein lies the problem.

Roy walks the ball up the court and wants to run half-court plays.

Blake cannot pass well on the run.

Sergio can't finish, which makes his breaks less effective. He must have players break with him.

Joel. Enough said.

Travis is below average for forwards on the break.

Webster is average on the break. Been out anyway.

Who else we got? Frye, Diogu. Fast Break challenged.

However, wait a year or two and some of the rookies have good potential. Batum runs the floor very well. Bayless is a guard that can finish and is extremely agressive. A one man break. Rudy loves to run and knows how to do it properly.

Depending on what happens to the team in the next year, the Blazers could field an excellent "Press and Break" unit with any combination of: Sergio, Bayless, Rudy, Webster, Batum, and LaMarcus, or 4 of those and a rebounding center.

Right now, with the rookies getting their sea legs and on short leashes, I wouldn't expect a team with this roster to break all the time. It would surprise if they did.
 
This has been one of the more interesting threads in a while. I am at work and unable to add much, but thanks.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top