Looks like more Oden means less Outlaw

[alex42083]

It depends on what kind of lineup Nate wants on the floor late in the games.
I wouldn't mind seeing Outlaw playing with Roy, Rudy, LaMarcus and Greg. But I think Nate prefers having either Blake or Sergio out on the floor to have more ball handling.
But I think it'd be interesting to see a bigger lineup out there, have Roy and Rudy in the back court, Outlaw or Martell at SF, and Aldridge and Oden up front.
There's a lot of combos we can go with.

 

[Haakzilla]

TO must GO!!!

 

[anonymous gambler]

I think that the big number crunch will come when Webster is back.

 

[Minstrel]

The main problem with Outlaw in end-game situations is that his defense is poor. So, ideally, if the team has plenty of timeouts, you can do offense/defense substitutions. He's a definite and big plus on offense at the end of the game.

 

[PapaG]

The main problem with Outlaw in end-game situations is that his defense is poor. So, ideally, if the team has plenty of timeouts, you can do offense/defense substitutions. He's a definite and big plus on offense at the end of the game.

Poor defense or not, the team has won 18 out of the last 23 5 point games he has finished on the court.

 

[Minstrel]

Poor defense or not, the team has won 18 out of the last 23 5 point games he has finished on the court.

Yes, that's nice trivia. Maybe it would be 23 of 23 with a better player. Or maybe not. But correlation doesn't imply causation. The team has also won 7 of the last 7 games within 5 points that I've watched. But I wouldn't yet say that Portland should pay me millions to watch their games, so that they win. (I'm not turning it down, either, if they choose to go that direction.)

In any case, I'm not saying Outlaw is a net negative. Just that he's not a complete positive in end-game situations, so it's definitely worth considering that there may be better choices than Outlaw at the ends of games.

 

[PapaG]

Yes, that's nice trivia. Maybe it would be 23 of 23 with a better player. Or maybe not. But correlation doesn't imply causation. The team has also won 7 of the last 7 games within 5 points that I've watched. But I wouldn't yet say that Portland should pay me millions to watch their games, so that they win. (I'm not turning it down, either, if they choose to go that direction.)

In any case, I'm not saying Outlaw is a net negative. Just that he's not a complete positive in end-game situations, so it's definitely worth considering that their may be better choices than Outlaw at the ends of games.

That doesn't matter. Maybe your opinion on his defense isn't valid? I don't know, all I can go on in terms of definitives are the actual results. The results tell me Outlaw, for whatever reason, is on the court as the team wins a disproportionate portion of close games.

 

[PapaG]

The team has also won 7 of the last 7 games within 5 points that I've watched. But I wouldn't yet say that Portland should pay me millions to watch their games, so that they win. (I'm not turning it down, either, if they choose to go that direction.

I assume you are trying to be funny? When the facts ruin your argument, make stuff up? That sorta thing?

 

[Minstrel]

That doesn't matter. Maybe your opinion on his defense isn't valid? I don't know, all I can go on in terms of definitives are the actual results. The results tell me Outlaw, for whatever reason, is on the court as the team wins a disproportionate portion of close games.

The "results" are that they've won; it takes more than a simple correlation to tie those results to Outlaw's presence on the court. Maybe they win those games despite Outlaw, and with a better defensive player, they'd have won them more easily.

Simply saying that they've won a high percentage of close games with him on the floor isn't terribly valid statistical analysis, because it's not a one-on-one sport. Results aren't fueled entirely by Outlaw...there are tons of confounding factors, like the performances of all the other players, the quality of the opposition and the lack of a control (how would the team have done with other players...if they would have won all the same games, Outlaw didn't add anything).

I'm not saying Outlaw wasn't part of it, but the factoid you're using is simply too crude to tell us much. Maybe my evaluation of his defense is off...or maybe it isn't and the team would be better off in close games with someone who plays better defense.

I assume you are trying to be funny? When the facts ruin your argument, make stuff up? That sorta thing?

Just pointing out that correlation doesn't imply causation, a maxim of statistical and logical analysis.

 

[STOMP]

I would bet you that Rudy can make 70 percent in practice when he gets hot. I wouldn't be surprised to see him hit nothing but net on 10-15 in a row if he is feeling it.

Here is the thing, you don't want your power forward shooting 40 percent on threes when you can have a guard shooting 40 percent. The other 60 percent of the time you will have guards trying to rebound if the power forward is shooting threes.

you came up just short of thinking this all the way through. When you have a versatile Big who has to be respected from the outside, he pulls the Big guy guarding him out of the paint too. Your guards are rebounding vs other guards and Oden is rebounding vs somebody less likely to get the board then him. If Rudy and Roy are the two guards in at the end when the club needs a hoop, I really like the PTB's chances of garnering a rebound/loose ball.

Here's a quote for you from last night which echos this...

"With Rasheed Wallace at the 5, and his ability to stretch the floor, it opened up the lanes for the guards," Bryant said.

If LA can pop 3's at a 40% clip in games, I'm all for him taking them when he gets a good look.

btw... back in the day on separate occasions I saw Drazen and Paxson shooting with a ball boy in a gym I was playing pickup in. Believe me, 70% is nothing for these guys once they get in a rhythm. Petro was especially amazing... he'd hit 50+, clang! and then make the next 30 before the next miss over and over. Heck, I've made fifteen 3's* in a row practicing more then a few times.

STOMP

*college 3's

 

[PapaG]

The "results" are that they've won; it takes more than a simple correlation to tie those results to Outlaw's presence on the court. Maybe they win those games despite Outlaw, and with a better defensive player, they'd have won them more easily.

Simply saying that they've won a high percentage of close games with him on the floor isn't terribly valid statistical analysis, because it's not a one-on-one sport. Results aren't fueled entirely by Outlaw...there are tons of confounding factors, like the performances of all the other players, the quality of the opposition and the lack of a control (how would the team have done with other players...if they would have won all the same games, Outlaw didn't add anything).

I'm not saying Outlaw wasn't part of it, but the factoid you're using is simply too crude to tell us much. Maybe my evaluation of his defense is off...or maybe it isn't and the team would be better off in close games with someone who plays better defense.



Just pointing out that correlation doesn't imply causation, a maxim of statistical and logical analysis.

Yeah, I've made that argument plenty of times. That said, why so much negativity towards a player who plays a key role when the team wins close games?

 

[Minstrel]

That said, why so much negativity towards a player who plays a key role when the team wins close games?

Saying that his defense is lacking, so it's possible that another player may be a better option late in games isn't much negativity, unless you feel that any criticism at all of Outlaw is too much negativity. I also said he's a definite plus, and a big one, on offense in those situations.

 

[PapaG]

Saying that his defense is lacking, so it's possible that another player may be a better option late in games isn't much negativity, unless you feel that any criticism at all of Outlaw is too much negativity. I also said he's a definite plus, and a big one, on offense in those situations.

I admit I am taking parts of irrational Outlaw arguments and applying it to your "perhaps" analysis.

Why not just say the team is good with Outlaw on the court at the end of close games? Meh

 

[Minstrel]

Why not just say the team is good with Outlaw on the court at the end of close games? Meh

I took that for granted. I was interested in pondering the different possibilities that the Blazers' proliferation of talented players allows, and which would be optimal. It could be with Outlaw...he's a fairly classic end-game dagger kind of player. His defense is the only thing that gives me pause; late-game stops are crucial too.

 

[bodyman5001]

you came up just short of thinking this all the way through. When you have a versatile Big who has to be respected from the outside, he pulls the Big guy guarding him out of the paint too. Your guards are rebounding vs other guards and Oden is rebounding vs somebody less likely to get the board then him. If Rudy and Roy are the two guards in at the end when the club needs a hoop, I really like the PTB's chances of garnering a rebound/loose ball.

Here's a quote for you from last night which echos this...

"With Rasheed Wallace at the 5, and his ability to stretch the floor, it opened up the lanes for the guards," Bryant said.

If LA can pop 3's at a 40% clip in games, I'm all for him taking them when he gets a good look.

btw... back in the day on separate occasions I saw Drazen and Paxson shooting with a ball boy in a gym I was playing pickup in. Believe me, 70% is nothing for these guys once they get in a rhythm. Petro was especially amazing... he'd hit 50+, clang! and then make the next 30 before the next miss over and over. Heck, I've made fifteen 3's* in a row practicing more then a few times.

STOMP

*college 3's

So you say I didn't think it all the way through and then proved my point with a little btw action. Nice.

 

[STOMP]

So you say I didn't think it all the way through and then proved my point with a little btw action. Nice.

I disagreed with you pretty clearly... I'm not sure where the confusion is here. I'm sure LA hits 70+ % from deep when working out with ball boys too. Good shooting knows no size limitation

STOMP

 

[bodyman5001]

I disagreed with you pretty clearly... I'm not sure where the confusion is here.

STOMP

The only one confused is you. Find a way to spin what I said that makes it sound like I am confused.

I will point you to the "I'm not sure" part of your post as an indication of which one of us is confused.

 

[bodyman5001]

I disagreed with you pretty clearly... I'm not sure where the confusion is here. I'm sure LA hits 70+ % from deep when working out with ball boys too. Good shooting knows no size limitation

STOMP

Nice edit, but going by your logic Larry Bird must have hit 99 percent in practice. He was a billion times the shooter that LA is and I love me some LA.

 

[bodyman5001]

I usually don't like to do this, but I declare victory on this one. As in OWNED.

The time stamps on the quotes tells the story.

 

[STOMP]

I usually don't like to do this, but I declare victory on this one. As in OWNED.

The time stamps on the quotes tells the story.

what are you talking about? I added something immediately after I posted it while flipping back and forth between the Ducks and the Blazer game. It had nothing to do with you.

Victory?

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

19 out of the last 24 with Outlaw in a 5 point of less game at the end.

I'm sure it was because Minstrel was there watching the game!!

Clown Town.

 

[bodyman5001]

what are you talking about? I added something immediately after I posted it while flipping back and forth between the Ducks and the Blazer game. It had nothing to do with you.

Victory?

STOMP

24 minutes later while you quoted me. Facts is facts.

Oops, my bad. You quoted me and added your edit three minutes later. I think you just lost all credibility. Start a poll and find out.

 

[KingSpeed]

We lost to NO cuz Outlaw only played 14 minutes.

 

[PapaG]

We lost to NO cuz Outlaw only played 14 minutes.

No, you see, Outlaw is the reason the Blazers haven't won 24/24 when he is in a close game at the end!

Amazing what it takes to be a moderater.

 

[KingSpeed]

Fez just slinked away. Didn't even comment on the win.

 

[Nate4Prez]

I will say this about Nate/Outlaw tonight. While I love Rudy, Nate (as he rarely does) realized tonight Rudy wasn't playing well, and intelligently had Outlaw in there when it mattered. And Outlaw shined.

 

[STOMP]

24 minutes later while you quoted me. Facts is facts.

I added something to my original post 3 minutes after I posted it and well before you responded. Is there some sort of prize for being the pettiest most ridiculous poster that you're going for, or are you just trying to avoid responding to me calling you out on your silly BS... that a Big shooting a quality percentage from the outside is somehow a bad thing for an offense? I'm sure I could dig up some quotes from Phil Jackson from when the Pistons whitewashed the Lakers because of (in his opinion) Wallace's ability to stretch the D as well. A Big who can pull a defensive Big out of the lane and drop 4th quarter 3's is a good thing.

STOMP

 

[ehizzy3]

No, you see, Outlaw is the reason the Blazers haven't won 24/24 when he is in a close game at the end!

Amazing what it takes to be a moderater.

will you just shut up about the mods.

 

[PapaG]

will you just shut up about the mods.

Why, because I called it correctly on the BBF boards after a certain someone was selected? Look how that ended up.

That said, Ed O, Minstrel, and Barfo seem to all be fair yet opinionated.

 

[Minstrel]

19 out of the last 24 with Outlaw in a 5 point of less game at the end.

I'm sure it was because Minstrel was there watching the game!!

Clown Town.

You get awfully bitter when people don't agree with you.

That was a nice steal by Outlaw. He's still not a good defender.