Please Trade Sergio!

[MARIS61]

What has really perplexed me is that I haven't seen the same chemistry between Sergio and Rudy for the last ten or so games.

Because Nate stopped playing them together. Mostly it's Roy or Bayless out there with Sergio lately, which takes the ball out of Sergio's hands half the time and prevents his fastbreaks from getting started. Probably why Rudy has had a rocky month also. Roy tends to ignore him when he's wide open for a 3. So does Steve. Several posters have commented on it.

Part of it is just Nate trying to get Bayless some PT, part of it has been injuries.

The Spanish Armada is still the most effective guard duo in the league, and virtually unstoppable.

Here's a good read on the magic of the Spanish Armada:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/12/rodriguez_fernandez_tight_as_t.html

 

[MARIS61]

In years to come, it will seem silly that Sergio ever played in front of Bayless. He is retarding Bayless's growth.

Funny you should mention retardation.

Now Sergio is the excuse for Bayless not transforming himself into a PG?

I'm pretty sure Bayless himself would call BS on your assertion.

 

[MARIS61]

I really do think that Sergio was a better player his rookie year than he is now, and even the stats seem to prove it.

Why?

Because teams have now figured out Sergio isn't a real threat from outside (unlike Blake), meaning defenders can sag off of him and narrow his passing lanes and driving opportunities.

A 35% FG shooter and <30% from 3 pt range is lucky to still get any minutes at all, let alone averaging over 14/game.

A veteran back-up PG should be at or near the top of KP's deadline wish list.

We have one. His name is Steve.

I guess you think Bayless should get no minutes at all since he currently shoots 28%.

FG% increases and decreases with the amount of PT provided, regardless of skill. It's all about getting into a rhythm.

Drop Roy to 10 minutes a game for awhile and watch him go in the tank also.

 

[Boob-No-More]

felt that Nate caused Telfair to take a step back too.

Interesting theory. Care to back it up with some facts?

The one, and only season, Telfair played for Nate, he had by far his best NBA season. His PER that year was 13.0, which for a 20-year old PG looks very promising. So, promising, in fact, that it convinced Danny Ainge there wouldn't be a better player available at the 7th spot in the 2006 NBA draft.

So, exactly how did Nate cause Telfair to take a step back?

Before Nate:

PER = 9.7

With Nate:

PER = 13.0

After Nate:

PER = 8.6
PER = 10.4
PER = 9.6

It seems to me that Telfair thrived under Nate's guidance compared to how he's done elsewhere.

I also don't think it's just coincidence that the three years Steve Blake has played for Nate are the three best of his career.

BNM

 

[maxiep]

In years to come, it will seem silly that Sergio ever played in front of Bayless. He is retarding Bayless's growth.

That's true, but that's only because Bayless is going to be an exceptional fit next to Brandon. It says nothing about Sergio.

Sergio's game has holes, but he also has skills that cannot be taught. I've been heartened to see his improved jumper (although he's struggling recently) and his effort on defense. We need to remember how young these guys are. Sergio will improve. I only hope it's on the Blazers.

 

[graybeard]

Interesting theory. Care to back it up with some facts?

The one, and only season, Telfair played for Nate, he had by far his best NBA season. His PER that year was 13.0, which for a 20-year old PG looks very promising. So, promising, in fact, that it convinced Danny Ainge there wouldn't be a better player available at the 7th spot in the 2006 NBA draft.

So, exactly how did Nate cause Telfair to take a step back?

Before Nate:

PER = 9.7

With Nate:

PER = 13.0

After Nate:

PER = 8.6
PER = 10.4
PER = 9.6

It seems to me that Telfair thrived under Nate's guidance compared to how he's done elsewhere.

I also don't think it's just coincidence that the three years Steve Blake has played for Nate are the three best of his career.

BNM

Awesome post, Boobs! There's been a few times that I've questioned to myself Nate's ability to develop pg's... mostly due to the lack of development of Sergio. I never asked in this forum though. Kinda glad I didn't... or I'd be laying over there bleeding with Natebishop, trying to pull my post out of my ass.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Yesterday isn't quick enough.

 

[Natebishop3]

Interesting theory. Care to back it up with some facts?

The one, and only season, Telfair played for Nate, he had by far his best NBA season. His PER that year was 13.0, which for a 20-year old PG looks very promising. So, promising, in fact, that it convinced Danny Ainge there wouldn't be a better player available at the 7th spot in the 2006 NBA draft.

So, exactly how did Nate cause Telfair to take a step back?

Before Nate:

PER = 9.7

With Nate:

PER = 13.0

After Nate:

PER = 8.6
PER = 10.4
PER = 9.6

It seems to me that Telfair thrived under Nate's guidance compared to how he's done elsewhere.

I also don't think it's just coincidence that the three years Steve Blake has played for Nate are the three best of his career.

BNM

His first season was a tale of two halves. The first half, under cheeks, Telfair sat on the bench quite a bit behind Stoudamire and Van Exel. The second half, under Pritchard, he was the starter and his play improved. If there was a way to look at his PER from the second half of 2005, after March 2nd when Cheeks was fired, that would be interesting.

March 5th, 2005 - Telfair 18 pts 8-15 shooting, 7 assists, 3 steals
March 17th, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 8-16 shooting, 6 assists
March 19th, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 6-15 shooting, 5 assists, 4 rebounds, 2 steals
March 28th, 2005 - Telfair 17 pts 7-13 shooting, 6 assists, 3 steals
April 1st, 2005 - Telfair 18 pts 8-12 shooting, 8 assists, 1 steal
April 2nd, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 5-15 shooting, 10 assists, 1 steal

These are obviously just a small sampling, and he was inconsistent that year, but the guy showed promise. I just never felt that Telfair built on what he did at the end of 2005, worse I felt his passing took a step back and I blamed McMillain at the time. At the very least, I don't believe his play improved under McMillain, as your numbers showed. I think his first year was just adversely affected by a lack of playing time for the first half of the season.

 

[craigehlo]

So now his foot injury has become chronic? I also have never shared your opinion that Webster is a one-dimensional player, so I guess that's where we must forever disagree.

chron·ic
adj.
1. Of long duration; continuing:

Webster's offensive game is the spot up 3-pointer. It's as one-dimensional as it gets in the NBA due to his lack of handle to create his own shot.

 

[Natebishop3]

chron·ic
adj.
1. Of long duration; continuing:

Webster's offensive game is the spot up 3-pointer. It's as one-dimensional as it gets in the NBA due to his lack of handle to create his own shot.

I don't understand, you claim that Webster got most of his points off dunks (he did) and alley-oops in the preseason game against the Kings, but here you say he's just a spot-up three point shooter. Which is it?

 

[craigehlo]

I don't understand, you claim that Webster got most of his points off dunks (he did) and alley-oops in the preseason game against the Kings, but here you say he's just a spot-up three point shooter. Which is it?

The dunks on the break were freebies in transition, not off a set offense. They were dunks that any NBA scrub could have flushed. It just as easily could have been Batum or Frye depending on who was close when the PG made the steal.

In the actual half-court offense when the defense was set, it was the same old Marty. All his other shots were 3's where he shot 25% (shot cart available at NBA.com).

 

[Natebishop3]

The dunks on the break were freebies in transition, not off a set offense. They were dunks that any NBA scrub could have flushed. It just as easily could have been Batum or Frye depending on who was close when the PG made the steal.

In the actual half-court offense when the defense was set, it was the same old Marty. All his other shots were 3's where he shot 25% (shot cart available at NBA.com).

Wrong, I remember at least three of them were from Rudy, and were in the halfcourt. I rarely see Batum cutting to the hoop, and Frye doesn't know he can move within 10 feet of the basket.

 

[Boob-No-More]

His first season was a tale of two halves. The first half, under cheeks, Telfair sat on the bench quite a bit behind Stoudamire and Van Exel. The second half, under Pritchard, he was the starter and his play improved. If there was a way to look at his PER from the second half of 2005, after March 2nd when Cheeks was fired, that would be interesting.

March 5th, 2005 - Telfair 18 pts 8-15 shooting, 7 assists, 3 steals
March 17th, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 8-16 shooting, 6 assists
March 19th, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 6-15 shooting, 5 assists, 4 rebounds, 2 steals
March 28th, 2005 - Telfair 17 pts 7-13 shooting, 6 assists, 3 steals
April 1st, 2005 - Telfair 18 pts 8-12 shooting, 8 assists, 1 steal
April 2nd, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 5-15 shooting, 10 assists, 1 steal

These are obviously just a small sampling, and he was inconsistent that year, but the guy showed promise. I just never felt that Telfair built on what he did at the end of 2005, worse I felt his passing took a step back and I blamed McMillain at the time. At the very least, I don't believe his play improved under McMillain, as your numbers showed. I think his first year was just adversely affected by a lack of playing time for the first half of the season.

Telfair did show some promise during the last 26 games of his rookie season, after Cheeks was fired and Pritchard stepped in as interim coach. However, his increased production was mostly a result of increased minutes. I don't know of a site that lists PER splits, but if you just look at his percentages and per minute stats as a starter and reserve, you'll see that his FG% went up, but his 3FG% went down, as did his FT% (slightly). His PTS/36 actually went down, but his AST/36 went up slightly. His TOV/36 also went down as a starter.

Overall, since PER is adjusted based on playing time, I suspect his PER as a starter was slightly higher, but not much, than as a reserve. Also, I don't think any statistical improvement was due to coaching, but due to opportunity (increased PT) and natural growth (adjusting to the NBA game).

His PER his second season, under Nate, was still substantially higher than it would have been as a starter his rookie year. His PTS/36 was much higher (14.5 vs. 11.6), but his AST/36 was lower (5.4 vs. 6.3). His TOV/36 was also down under Nate (2.4 vs. 3.1) compared to as a starter under Pritchard. So, his AST/TOV ratio was better under Nate. However, keep in mind that PER adjusts for both playing time and pace, and as we all know, ever since Nate started coaching the Blazers his teams have been at, or near the bottom of the league in game pace.

Again, I don't know of a site that gives splits on advanced stats like PER, but given that he played over twice as many minutes as starter than as a reserve his rookie year, had a PER of 9.7 for the year, and his scoring (PTS/36) went down as a starter, I doubt if his PER as a starter would have been above 11.0. Most likely, it was somewhere between 10.5 and 11.0. Actually, if you look at his PER 36 numbers as a rookie starter, you will see they are very similar to what they were last season in Minnesota when he had a PER of 10.4. Under Nate, in his second season, Telfair's PER was a career best (by a substantial margin) 13.0.

BNM

 

[craigehlo]

Wrong, I remember at least three of them were from Rudy, and were in the halfcourt. I rarely see Batum cutting to the hoop, and Frye doesn't know he can move within 10 feet of the basket.

I stand by they were plays that 90% of NBA SFs would have finished. Webster is solid on the break, but nothing special.

I'm looking forward to the return of Webster to prove me wrong, but he's disappointed he thus far in his career.

 

[LittleAlex]

I would love to see Sergio in New York so he can run as much as he wants. He would get huge stats, be considered the break out player of the year and lead his team to a first round exit in the playoffs every single year.

 

[BrianFromWA]

His first season was a tale of two halves. The first half, under cheeks, Telfair sat on the bench quite a bit behind Stoudamire and Van Exel. The second half, under Pritchard, he was the starter and his play improved. If there was a way to look at his PER from the second half of 2005, after March 2nd when Cheeks was fired, that would be interesting.

March 5th, 2005 - Telfair 18 pts 8-15 shooting, 7 assists, 3 steals
March 17th, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 8-16 shooting, 6 assists
March 19th, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 6-15 shooting, 5 assists, 4 rebounds, 2 steals
March 28th, 2005 - Telfair 17 pts 7-13 shooting, 6 assists, 3 steals
April 1st, 2005 - Telfair 18 pts 8-12 shooting, 8 assists, 1 steal
April 2nd, 2005 - Telfair 16 pts 5-15 shooting, 10 assists, 1 steal

These are obviously just a small sampling, and he was inconsistent that year, but the guy showed promise. I just never felt that Telfair built on what he did at the end of 2005, worse I felt his passing took a step back and I blamed McMillain at the time. At the very least, I don't believe his play improved under McMillain, as your numbers showed. I think his first year was just adversely affected by a lack of playing time for the first half of the season.

So what you're saying is that "Coach" KP gets the best out of players, especially young, talented ones?

Bake it! KP is Betty Crocker!

 

[BrianFromWA]

I would love to see Sergio in New York so he can run as much as he wants. He would get huge stats, be considered the break out player of the year and lead his team to a first round exit in the playoffs every single year.

Wow. Sergio, LeBron and Bosh could have me as their starting SG and make it out of the first round.

Since Blake hasn't led us anywhere, running as much as Nate wants, which do you prefer?

 

[Natebishop3]

Telfair did show some promise during the last 26 games of his rookie season, after Cheeks was fired and Pritchard stepped in as interim coach. However, his increased production was mostly a result of increased minutes. I don't know of a site that lists PER splits, but if you just look at his percentages and per minute stats as a starter and reserve, you'll see that his FG% went up, but his 3FG% went down, as did his FT% (slightly). His PTS/36 actually went down, but his AST/36 went up slightly. His TOV/36 also went down as a starter.

Overall, since PER is adjusted based on playing time, I suspect his PER as a starter was slightly higher, but not much, than as a reserve. Also, I don't think any statistical improvement was due to coaching, but due to opportunity (increased PT) and natural growth (adjusting to the NBA game).

His PER his second season, under Nate, was still substantially higher than it would have been as a starter his rookie year. His PTS/36 was much higher (14.5 vs. 11.6), but his AST/36 was lower (5.4 vs. 6.3). His TOV/36 was also down under Nate (2.4 vs. 3.1) compared to as a starter under Pritchard. So, his AST/TOV ratio was better under Nate. However, keep in mind that PER adjusts for both playing time and pace, and as we all know, ever since Nate started coaching the Blazers his teams have been at, or near the bottom of the league in game pace.

Again, I don't know of a site that gives splits on advanced stats like PER, but given that he played over twice as many minutes as starter than as a reserve his rookie year, had a PER of 9.7 for the year, and his scoring (PTS/36) went down as a starter, I doubt if his PER as a starter would have been above 11.0. Most likely, it was somewhere between 10.5 and 11.0. Actually, if you look at his PER 36 numbers as a rookie starter, you will see they are very similar to what they were last season in Minnesota when he had a PER of 10.4. Under Nate, in his second season, Telfair's PER was a career best (by a substantial margin) 13.0.

BNM

The explanation for the increase in shooting, decrease in assists, and decrease in turnovers is easy to explain. McMillain took the ball out of Telfair's hands. I remember Bassy would bring the ball up the floor and hand it off to Joel at the top of the three point line. 2006 was the last year I covered the team, and I remember asking him about it. Telfair needed the ball in his hands to be effective (in his mind). He hated giving the ball up so quickly.

The ball in his hands less equates to a decrease in assists and turnovers.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The explanation for the increase in shooting, decrease in assists, and decrease in turnovers is easy to explain. McMillain took the ball out of Telfair's hands. I remember Bassy would bring the ball up the floor and hand it off to Joel at the top of the three point line. 2006 was the last year I covered the team, and I remember asking him about it. Telfair needed the ball in his hands to be effective (in his mind). He hated giving the ball up so quickly.

The ball in his hands less equates to a decrease in assists and turnovers.

Then why did he score at a 35% higher rate under Nate than at any other time during his career? How can he score so much if he doesn't have the ball in his hands?

Actually his assists were down only slighty, and that had more to do with pace than anything else.

So, why hasn't Telfair thrived elsewhere after getting out from under the repressive Nate McMillan? His next year in Boston was an absolute disaster, and both years in Minnesota are very similar to his rookie year. I don't see how you can blame the guy who coached him during his second season (and, by far his most productive) for the fact that he plays no better in his 5th season than his rookie year.

If Nate has a fault, it's that he tries to force players to play his way, to fit his system. Not all players are able to play the way he wants. Telfair and Sergio were both young enough when they started playing for Nate that he probably thought he could teach them to protect the ball and play defense. It hasn't worked out, but I blame the players more than the coach for their lack of improvement.

As I said, Telfair has played substantialy worse after leaving Portland than he did his one season here under Nate. Sergio is now in his third season and has the EXACT same faults he had as a rookie. He's still a horrible shooter and can't play a lick of defense. Those who think his shooting is better this year need to do two things - look at his stats and watch him shoot the ball. His FG% and 3FG% are now both worse than the were last year. And, he has to have the ugliest looking shot I've ever seen on an NBA player. I was watching him during warm-ups before the GS game on Saturday. His alignment and form are both horrible. He brings the ball to the right side of his head, cocks it back and then flings it at the basket. The result is a flat shot with little or no rotation and little chance of going in. Joel Przybilla has better shooting form than Sergio these days. When he drives the lane, he just flips up some weak looking shot and hopes the refs will bail him out. I figured that was just his own way of getting a shot off in traffic, but he actually shoots the same way in warm-ups with no one guarding him (and misses most of them, too). They are the type of casual, goofing around shots you throw up in a game of horse against your nine year old brother, not the kind you should be shooting in an NBA game.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

Then why did he score at a 35% higher rate under Nate than at any other time during his career? How can he score so much if he doesn't have the ball in his hands?

Look at Blake. There's a perfect example. Blake doesn't have the ball in his hands most of the time, yet he is scoring more this season than any other. It's pretty obvious that McMillain fancies point guards who can shoot the ball, Telfair couldn't shoot so he was moved (for Roy thank god).

Our offense favors players who can run the pick-and-roll (IE Blake, Roy, Aldridge, etc). If our point guard can't hit the open jumper, he becomes worthless in this system. Roy can hit a jumper, Blake can hit a jumper, Sergio can not, Frye can not. If Bayless proves he can't hit a jumper either, we'll probably end up moving him for someone who can.

Telfair is a point who needs to dominate the ball. He needs to dribble around the key until he sees an opening. I'm not saying it's effective, but that's how he plays. Sergio is very similar. They need the ball in their hands to make plays. Nate doesn't like to have his point guard dribbling around the key until something opens up. He pushes them to pass it off to Oden or Przybilla at the top of the key (something that drives me nuts). I will never understand why our center is above the free throw line at the beginning of the play, instead of working for position in the paint.

They end up shooting a lot of three's or mid-range jumpers. A higher volume of shots would raise Telfair's ppg. His three pointers attempted nearly tripled in this year under nate, from 69 his rookie season up to 162 under McMillain.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Look at Blake. There's a perfect example. Blake doesn't have the ball in his hands most of the time, yet he is scoring more this season than any other. It's pretty obvious that McMillain fancies point guards who can shoot the ball, Telfair couldn't shoot so he was moved (for Roy thank god).

I understand your point in general, but I still don't see how it explains Telfair's much higher scoring rate the season he played for Nate. You say he needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but that Nate's system prevents that (thus, you claim fewer assists and fewer turnovers). Then you claim Nate's system favors guys who can shoot, and Telfair can't shoot. So, if he didn't have the ball in his hands, and he's not a good spot up shooter, how on earth did he score at a much higher rate the year he played for Nate than during the other 4 years of his NBA career? It just doesn't add up.

IMHO, Nate's system forced Telfair to slow down and play more under control. The slower pace negatively impacted his raw stats, but made Telfair a better, more efficient player. His AST/TOV ratio was better under Nate. So, he was taking better care of the ball and committing fewer mistakes. He also had the highest TS% and eFG% of his career (again, by significant margins), which means his shot selection was better. He was getting open looks within the flow of the offense and that resulted in the highest and most efficient scoring rates of his career.

Was Telfair's skill set a good match for Nate's system? No, definitely not. But, that one year he played for Nate remains, by a large margin, the best season he's had in the NBA.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

I understand your point in general, but I still don't see how it explains Telfair's much higher scoring rate the season he played for Nate. You say he needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but that Nate's system prevents that (thus, you claim fewer assists and fewer turnovers). Then you claim Nate's system favors guys who can shoot, and Telfair can't shoot. So, if he didn't have the ball in his hands, and he's not a good spot up shooter, how on earth did he score at a much higher rate the year he played for Nate than during the other 4 years of his NBA career? It just doesn't add up.

IMHO, Nate's system forced Telfair to slow down and play more under control. The slower pace negatively impacted his raw stats, but made Telfair a better, more efficient player. His AST/TOV ratio was better under Nate. So, he was taking better care of the ball and committing fewer mistakes. He also had the highest TS% and eFG% of his career (again, by significant margins), which means his shot selection was better. He was getting open looks within the flow of the offense and that resulted in the highest and most efficient scoring rates of his career.

Was Telfair's skill set a good match for Nate's system? No, definitely not. But, that one year he played for Nate remains, by a large margin, the best season he's had in the NBA.

BNM

Basically what I'm saying BNM is that Nate made Telfair into a scorer, instead of a passer and playmaker. I guess if you want to point to his scoring as improved under nate, that's fine. I never cared much for Bassy as a scorer, so I think it's a dubious honor.