Hollinger chat up now

[BrianFromWA]

http://espn.go.com/boston/chat/_/id/29790

Couple of snippets:

Ben (Portland)

John, do the Blazers have to make a deal this year? KP has struggled to complete in season trades so far, but with only 9 healthy players and really only 6 healthy rotation playres left he has to make something happen right? Would Orlando give up Bass? Or Washington give up Miller for what the Blazers can offer?

John Hollinger (12:58 PM)

Blazers will look really hard at any deal for a stretch 4 who can replace what Outlaw was giving them. That's the big priority right now. I also think they wouldn't mind dealing for a true 3, and it's my sneaking suspicion that if Caron Butler came available they'd say yes in a nanosecond.

Matt (Portland)

Do you think Roy and Aldridge have become complacent after signing long-term contracts?

John Hollinger (12:21 PM)

I actually think they've become impatient. They want to badly for all the good stuff to start happening that everyone's told them is coming that even minor doses of adversity have been really frustrating for them. Roy needs to re-learn how to play off the ball -- he's actually really good catch-and-shooting off screens but rarely does it, and that type of thing could make Miller-Roy a lot more workable.

And...

Jeff (Portland)

Why do Steve Blake play SO MANY minutes for the Blazers when they have better players on the bench?

John Hollinger (12:36 PM)

Brandon Roy loves playing with Blake and McMillan has given Roy a lot of rope, but they need to look really hard at this. Blake is a backup. Period. If Blazers are going anywhere this year, and I'm not necessarily sure they are, it will be with either Miller or Bayless running point

 

[hasoos]

Hollinger is definitly one of the writers who truly does know his basketball. I respect him for that. I don't always agree with him, but he has good reasoning behind his arguments, and you have to respect that.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

A stretch four....

Marvin Williams, anyone?

 

[hasoos]

Intersting the one poster mentiones Miller from the wizards. Last I knew he was hurt and out for weeks as well. That does us no good. Mabye things I have changed and I am off my rocker.

The information about Roy liking to play with Blake is kind of upsetting. I guess the question is, where does he get his information from. That is the kind of thing that lends credence to certain folks theories that we can't win a championship with a player who is so inflexible that he cannot play with others. I hope that is not the case. It also says that Nate is not in control of the team, and is basically just riding some talented players to some wins and allowing them to do whatever they want.

 

[hasoos]

A stretch four....

Marvin Williams, anyone?

And why would Atlanta F up a good thing? They are playing great right now.

 

[Minstrel]

Hollinger is definitly one of the writers who truly does know his basketball. I respect him for that. I don't always agree with him, but he has good reasoning behind his arguments, and you have to respect that.

Yeah, the main thing is that Hollinger doesn't make snap judgments and doesn't seem to have axes to grind. So whether or not you like his style of analysis, at least it isn't knee-jerk emotional responses.

David Aldridge is another good basketball writer from that standpoint, though his style is very very different from Hollinger's.

 

[hasoos]

Yeah, the main thing is that Hollinger doesn't make snap judgments and doesn't seem to have axes to grind. So whether or not you like his style of analysis, at least it isn't knee-jerk emotional responses.

David Aldridge is another good basketball writer from that standpoint, though his style is very very different from Hollinger's.

Aldridge is much better about talking to sources behind the scenes and getting the scoop. I enjoy watching him on the NBATV show where they get 3 writers and talk hoops rumors for half an hour a day. I can't remember what it's called.

 

[Minstrel]

A stretch four....

Marvin Williams, anyone?

I'd love to grab Marvin Williams, but it all depends on the cost. I was interested in him even in the off-season. I think he's still quite promising and already plays at a solid level of production. He'd also solidify our razor-thin front court right now, yet is young enough to fit in around the core long-term.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Hollinger is definitly one of the writers who truly does know his basketball. I respect him for that. I don't always agree with him, but he has good reasoning behind his arguments, and you have to respect that.

It's funny, I have the exact opposite impression. I don't think he knows basketball, and I don't think he gives arguments. Whenever he does offer evidence, it's always wrt his stats, specifically PER, which are very limited in their explanatory capacity. Whoever said "I'd let Hollinger do my taxes but I wouldn't let him be my GM" spake the truth.

For example, his comment on Blake. Why is Blake a backup? Presumably because his PER is bad. Why should (excuse me while I stifle my snorts of derision) Bayless "run the point" (no, I can't do it)? Presumably because he puts up good numbers. Never mind that the team sheds a bunch of points overall with Bayless playing, but with Blake playing -- magically! -- the team does better. Maybe there's more to basketball than can be measured by PER? Just maybe?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

As for frontcourt players: why aren't Brandon Bass or Marcin Gortat playing much for Orlando?

I'm sure Orlando would like Steve Blake because Nelson seems to be pretty injury-prone (not that there's anything wrong with that!) and they can't really want to rely on White Chocolate, can they?

But we're (i.e., Blazers' front office [yes, that includes me, at least in my happy place it does] rather than the screaming legions of Blake-haters on this board) much more likely to want to offer Andre Miller, and I can't see him fitting in Orlando's all-threes-all-the-time system.

 

[hasoos]

It's funny, I have the exact opposite impression. I don't think he knows basketball, and I don't think he gives arguments. Whenever he does offer evidence, it's always wrt his stats, specifically PER, which are very limited in their explanatory capacity. Whoever said "I'd let Hollinger do my taxes but I wouldn't let him be my GM" spake the truth.

For example, his comment on Blake. Why is Blake a backup? Presumably because his PER is bad. Why should (excuse me while I stifle my snorts of derision) Bayless "run the point" (no, I can't do it)? Presumably because he puts up good numbers. Never mind that the team sheds a bunch of points overall with Bayless playing, but with Blake playing -- magically! -- the team does better. Maybe there's more to basketball than can be measured by PER? Just maybe?

While PERS is his baby, I don't agree with you, he doesn't PERS everything to death. He discusses it a lot because it is brought up in topic a lot. I didn't see anything in his paragraph where he even brought up PERS. He said it was because Blake was a backup, period. You presumed it was because of PERS.

 

[Nikolokolus]

While PERS is his baby, I don't agree with you, he doesn't PERS everything to death. He discusses it a lot because it is brought up in topic a lot. I didn't see anything in his paragraph where he even brought up PERS. He said it was because Blake was a backup, period. You presumed it was because of PERS.

See I would have assumed it's because he's shooting 37% from the floor and 36% from three that he's a backup. The PER composite just wraps that up along with all of the other measurable offensively related things he does on a court. Having said that, I can live with the defense Blake plays most of the time and he does have some value as a floor spacer even when his averages from distance are very pedestrian (for a long range shooting specialist at leat).