Roy says we blew the 4th quarter lead because Outlaw was out

[hasoos]

That is complete bullshit that we almost lost that game because Outlaw was out. The Blazers almost lost that game, because the played the NBA equivelent of the prevent defense in the 4th quarter instead of playinng to kick somebodies teeth in. Every posession they were looking over at Nate for the call, then they were milking the clock down and jacking up a forced shot with little time left. They were passing up easy shots and open shots for bad shots. In fact, since that seems to be Travis specialty these days, making easy shots into tough ones, he might have felt right at home there.

 

[alex42083]

The good Travis will be missed. The bad Travis where he goes 1-9, 1-8 or 3-11 will not. But I don't think Detroit makes their comeback last night either if Travis is in there.

 

[Ed O]

The good Travis will be missed. The bad Travis where he goes 1-9, 1-8 or 3-11 will not. But I don't think Detroit makes their comeback last night either if Travis is in there.

I doubt we win by as much as we did. We either win by 20 or we lose.

I'll take the win like we got it, rather than risking the loss.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

I think the team is worse because Outlaw is out. Outlaw wasn't a star, but he was a solid contributor (on average, even if his night-to-night variance was significant). Losing a roughly average player hurts the team, since it will force less-than-average options to fill that void.

So yes, the team will miss Outlaw's play. As they will miss Batum's play.

 

[THE HCP]

The good Travis will be missed. The bad Travis where he goes 1-9, 1-8 or 3-11 will not. But I don't think Detroit makes their comeback last night either if Travis is in there.

The frustrating part is that of the 1 or 3 shots Travis made, they were almost always huge down the stretch!

 

[PapaG]

I think the team is worse because Outlaw is out. Outlaw wasn't a star, but he was a solid contributor (on average, even if his night-to-night variance was significant). Losing a roughly average player hurts the team, since it will force less-than-average options to fill that void.

So yes, the team will miss Outlaw's play. As they will miss Batum's play.

It was promising to see Blake hit that huge three with the Blazers up by 1 with 25 seconds left in the game. I also like how he sealed the game by hitting two dagger FTs.

I also like what LMA had to say about Blake, and his confidence in him, after the game.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/11/post_6.html

After (Blake) missing a three-pointer, he corralled the rebound and started the offense, passing inside to LaMarcus Aldridge. After drawing a double team, Aldridge passed back to Blake, who swished a three-pointer with 25.9 seconds left to give the Blazers an 81-77 lead.

"I just told (Blake) to stay with it," Aldridge said. "They doubled down to me and I threw it out to him. And 10 times out of 10 I'll pass it to him, even if he's missed 15 shots in a row because I know that Steve Blake will always come through for us."

LMA had better not read this board, because I'm sure the experts here would sway his opinion.

 

[Minstrel]

Blake is a solid reserve point guard. I'm not a huge fan of his playing starter minutes, but I like that he's on the team.

 

[handiman]

Let's remember that we have been without Travis in the 4th quarter for 3 games now, and in all 3 games the other team came back and either got much closer or overtook us (ATL) in the 4th.

One could also argue that not having Outlaw's inconsistency is what allowed us to build those leads through the first 3 quarters. He's always been a guy that drives you crazy for 75% of the game and then makes you bit your tongue the last 25%.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It was promising to see Blake hit that huge three with the Blazers up by 1 with 25 seconds left in the game. I also like how he sealed the game by hitting two dagger FTs.

I also like what LMA had to say about Blake, and his confidence in him, after the game.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/11/post_6.html



LMA had better not read this board, because I'm sure the experts here would sway his opinion.

Roy and Aldridge, come on, those guys don't have a clue.

 

[PapaG]

Roy and Aldridge, come on, those guys don't have a clue.

Neither of them have ever coached in the NBA, just like us!

 

[andalusian]

One could also argue that not having Outlaw's inconsistency is what allowed us to build those leads through the first 3 quarters. He's always been a guy that drives you crazy for 75% of the game and then makes you bit your tongue the last 25%.

One could, but one would likely be wrong based on this year. In the 10 full games we played with Outlaw - we were down at the end of the 3rd quarter only in 2 of them.

 

[BrianFromWA]

He's also played in many more NBA games than anybody on this board. He knows better than either of us, or any other posters, what an "easy" shot is. According to the metrics of others, that makes us "clueless".

Good. I'm quoting the coach, you're making up whether or not Brandon knows what an easy shot is. Glad we agree.

Of course it doesn't make it an "easy" shot. It makes it a "stupid" shot based on percentages. I agree with Roy in that Outlaw can get off "easy" shots that aren't actually half-court heaves.

Wait, so you're using percentages to base whether a shot is "stupid" or "easy"? I keep hearing around here that Travis can "get his shot off against anyone", which makes it "easy". That's not what you're saying here. And since Travis's percentages on his "can get it off against anyone" jumper is 44%, that percentage for a 2-point shot makes it a "stupid" one. I disagree with Roy (and you, it seems) that Travis can get an "easy" shot against anyone, unless (which, to his credit, he's shown flashes of and I've applauded him for this year) he's using that "get his shot off against anyone" ability to get closer than 20 feet from the rim.

That's a great opinion. Again, I'll side with the All-NBA player and my own eyes.

So, your eyes and the all-NBA player didn't see the following 4th-quarter possessions last night?
"Missed 3pt jumper by Rudy"
"Missed 3pt jumper by Webster"
"Missed 3pt jumper by Rudy"
"Offensive foul by Przy"
"Missed 3pt jumper by Webster"
"Offensive foul by Przy"
"LMA made 8-footer"
"blocked layup attempt by Przy"
"2 missed FTs by PG"
"missed 18-footer by LMA"
"missed 17-footer by LMA"
"made 18-footer by backup PF"
"Rudy travels"
"Blake misses jumper"
"Blake turnover"
"Rudy misses"
"Oden turnover"
"Roy misses jumper"
"Miller misses long jumper"
"shot clock violation"
"LMA makes 2 FTs"
"Miller misses 2 FTs"
"Blake bad pass"
"Blake misses 3pt"

Then Blake makes his heroic, game-saving 3 with 25 seconds left. So, for 11:35 of the 4th quarter as our team was blowing a 20-point lead, we had our designated 3pt shooters (Webster, Blake, Rudy) missing 3s. Our backup PF made the shot he took. Our guards contributed 4 missed FTs and 3 TOs. What does the All-NBA player and your eyes tell you Travis might've done differently? We had 2 shots inside 16 feet. One went in and one was blocked. Travis doesn't have the history of being the guy to take the ball to the hole in these types of droughts--he shoots 80% of his shots from outside of 18 feet. I'll grant you that he might've taken a couple of the shots that Blake or Rudy or Webster ended up taking, and maybe would've launched something that beat the one shot clock violation; but if that's what you and Roy mean by "Travis would've helped" I consider those 2 or 3 shots he might've carved out as a very small part of what went wrong.

Well, when you put it that way, it does make it easy to say Outlaw would have helped. Which seems to be Roy's point.

Because Travis is a more efficient shooter than Blake or Rudy? Handles the ball better than Blake or Miller? Plays better defense than Webs or LMA? Attacks the rim more than any of our other rotation players? 0 for 4, sorry.

Perhaps they wouldn't be as tired with Outlaw available.

Perhaps. You think that's what Brandon was saying? The team would've been less tired with Outlaw in for Howard? really?

Honestly, I don't understand your entire post, it seems to be based on strawmen and hypotheticals, but since you addressed me, I thought I'd respond to the best of my ability.

I don't see how it "seems' that way, since I brought up specifics ("Roy's coached as much as you and I, and since Nate and Quick say that those who haven't coached are clueless, what does that make Roy?"; I brought up a specific instance of where your definition of "easy shot" is totally invalidated; 4 specific instances of problems with our team in the 4th quarter that Travis's strengths don't have bearing on). I sincerely appreciate you writing back, since I enjoy the discussion and requires me to stay sharp when pointing out my discussion items.

 

[handiman]

One could, but one would likely be wrong based on this year. In the 10 full games we played with Outlaw - we were down at the end of the 3rd quarter only in 2 of them.

That isn't quite the antithesis of blowing a 20 point lead, however.

 

[andalusian]

That isn't quite the antithesis of blowing a 20 point lead, however.

No. But discrediting Outlaw for what he does bring to the team - is not exactly astute either. Outlaw has his problems - but being a scorer in tough situations in the 4th quarter is usually not one of them.

 

[ebott]

I'm not a big fan of Outlaw. IMHO all he does is jack up shots. But every now and then a team gets on a cold spell and they need a guy that just jacks up shots to make a bucket and snap them out of it.

The first five minutes of the forth quarter is a good example of that. During that time Rudy missed two threes, Webster did the same, Aldridge makes one of his four shots, Joel missed a layup and Miller clanked a couple free throws.

Maybe Outlaw's in the game he hits a couple of his whacky circus shots and rights the ship.

 

[handiman]

No. But discrediting Outlaw for what he does bring to the team - is not exactly astute either. Outlaw has his problems - but being a scorer in tough situations in the 4th quarter is usually not one of them.

I'm not discrediting his clutch 4th quarter play. What I'm saying is that he screws up so much during the rest of the game, I'm not convinced his 4th quarter heroics are a net positive, or at least not a big one.

 

[andalusian]

I'm not discrediting his clutch 4th quarter play. What I'm saying is that he screws up so much during the rest of the game, I'm not convinced his 4th quarter heroics are a net positive, or at least not a big one.

Even with 2 games and 50 seconds of play on a bad foot - his PER is 15.1 - which is an average starter in this league. Before these games he had PER of 20 (dropping to 17 after the first one).

So, this year, as far as offense is considered, his production was very efficient. The numbers just do not support that claim.

You want to tell me he is not a star? No problems, you want to tell me sometimes he will shoot you out of a game - happens to pretty much all players but I am willing to accept that maybe it happens more often to Travis - but overall, his individual production numbers and win% with him on the floor (82games.com has him at 63.6% this year) does not support that claim at all.

http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR7.HTM

Travis is a productive player, and before his injury seemed like he was on track for his best season so far.

 

[BlazerWookee]

this is as pathetic as saying the poor shooting night was because of the ball. guess what roy, travis is out for the season, get used to it. they all need to pick their games up and stop making lame excuses.

Making lame excuses? Sounds more like taking ownership and making an astute and honest appraisal of the situation to me.

 

[handiman]

So, this year, as far as offense is considered, his production was very efficient. The numbers just do not support that claim.

You answered the question for yourself... Outlaw is not well defined by just a PER analysis.

 

[PapaG]

You answered the question for yourself... Outlaw is not well defined by just a PER analysis.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the same goes for Blake, but on steroids.

 

[BlazerWookee]

The good Travis will be missed. The bad Travis where he goes 1-9, 1-8 or 3-11 will not. But I don't think Detroit makes their comeback last night either if Travis is in there.

In part because it would have been much harder for Detroit's bigs to crash the boards if they were chasing Travis around instead of Juwon.

 

[andalusian]

You answered the question for yourself... Outlaw is not well defined by just a PER analysis.

No I did not. Win% of 63.6 includes defense - PER just does not measure it by itself, so I did not refer to it when talking about PER.

I think that a win% of 63.6% shows you that we win more with Outlaw on the court than we lose. When you consider that he plays a large portion of his minutes on the 2nd unit - that's not bad at all.

You argument was that his misses shoot us out of the game, PER shows you that his offensive production (where shooting is considered) is very efficient even with the misses, especially for a bench guy, and win% shows you that overall we win more than we lose when he is on the court - and that part includes defense.

The idea that we would be better off without Outlaw is just not supported by the stats.

 

[STOMP]

The reason we lost our 4th quarter lead is that the Pistons scored more points than us in the 4th quarter. Now, if we could find a way to score more points in the 4th quarter or stop the other team from scoring as many points in the 4th quarter, maybe we wouldn't lose our 4th quarter lead. Also if we could find a way to do this for 48 minutes, maybe we could go 82-0.

the reason they lost their 4th quarter lead was they were burning as much time off the clock as they could on each possession. They'd run it down to 20 seconds or so before running an iso for someone. Those Go! situation looks are tough shots for anyone to hit but with a 20 point lead its not a bad strategy to burn clock... but it's even better when you have someone that can get their shot off on most anyone. Certainly last nights game played to Travis's greatest strength so I don't see whats even debatable with what Roy said... it's true

STOMP

 

[handiman]

I think that a win% of 63.6% shows you that we win more with Outlaw on the court than we lose.

Maybe I don't fully understand what win% measures, but isn't that worse than the team's actual winning percentage? Unless I'm reading the wrong thing into the stats, that would indicate that other players contribute more to the win that does Outlaw.

 

[andalusian]

Maybe I don't fully understand what win% measures, but isn't that worse than the team's actual winning percentage? Unless I'm reading the wrong thing into the stats, that would indicate that other players contribute more to the win that does Outlaw.

The stat shows how much we won when a player is on the court. Since players are going in and out and play in different lines - the numbers are somewhat related to other players - but do not add up to the team's actual win% (unless a player plays every minute of every game). Of course, the numbers show you that we win more often when some other players are on the field - but overall, when Outlaw plays - we win more than we lose.

When you consider that Outlaw is a bench player - and a nice portion of his time on the court does not come with out better players - it is not a bad value.

For example, Webster, who played, in theory, more with the starters - because he was one in 5 of our games - has a win% of 53%, Miller, who was a starter in 8 of our 13 games has a win% of 61%, Rudy, who like Outlaw is a regular rotation guy who comes from the bench has a 38.5% value (not good), Joel (another backup) is at 50%.

Outlaw's numbers are not bad at all, especially when you consider how the other bench players did.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I don't see how it "seems' that way, since I brought up specifics ("Roy's coached as much as you and I, and since Nate and Quick say that those who haven't coached are clueless, what does that make Roy?"; I brought up a specific instance of where your definition of "easy shot" is totally invalidated; 4 specific instances of problems with our team in the 4th quarter that Travis's strengths don't have bearing on). I sincerely appreciate you writing back, since I enjoy the discussion and requires me to stay sharp when pointing out my discussion items.

Keep that in context . . . Nate said something along those lines with regard to a topic that you disagree with him about.

It seems your taking that statement out of context and very personally.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

You answered the question for yourself... Outlaw is not well defined by just a PER analysis.

I agree and will take it a step further . . . most players are not well defined by just a PERS analysis.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Keep that in context . . . Nate said something along those lines with regard to a topic that you disagree with him about.

It seems your taking that statement out of context and very personally.

Sure it's about a topic I disagree with him about, but I don't quite understand where you're going with this. PapaG agrees with him, but since he hasn't coached an NBA game he's "clueless" also, according to Nate and Quick.

Yes, I do have difficulty in someone who happens to be in a very public position attempting to deflect criticism by saying his critics are "clueless". Especially in, but not limited to, the times when I'm lobbing that criticism. You see, I have reasons/stats/observations about my opinion. Nate and Quick didn't address those: they said that since I hadn't coached an NBA game, I'm clueless. I guess Coach K is also clueless. Same with David Blatt. Same with HS coaches.

He didn't come out and say "I use advanced metrics to show that Blake should be playing the most b/c he has the highest Win%", or "Outlaw's clutch #'s tell me he should be out there", or "Miller's PER with the 2nd unit is 34% higher than when starting alongside an All-Star"---he said that since I don't coach in the NBA I (and every other non-NBA coach critic) am/are clueless. Yes, I have difficulty with that.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Sure it's about a topic I disagree with him about, but I don't quite understand where you're going with this. PapaG agrees with him, but since he hasn't coached an NBA game he's "clueless" also, according to Nate and Quick.

Yes, I do have difficulty in someone who happens to be in a very public position attempting to deflect criticism by saying his critics are "clueless". Especially in, but not limited to, the times when I'm lobbing that criticism. You see, I have reasons/stats/observations about my opinion. Nate and Quick didn't address those: they said that since I hadn't coached an NBA game, I'm clueless. I guess Coach K is also clueless. Same with David Blatt. Same with HS coaches.

He didn't come out and say "I use advanced metrics to show that Blake should be playing the most b/c he has the highest Win%", or "Outlaw's clutch #'s tell me he should be out there", or "Miller's PER with the 2nd unit is 34% higher than when starting alongside an All-Star"---he said that since I don't coach in the NBA I (and every other non-NBA coach critic) am/are clueless. Yes, I have difficulty with that.

Where I am going with this is I don't think you apply Nate's response to all issues.

If someone told Nate he should use the triangle offense, or employ more pressure on the ball or concentrate more on feeding the post . . . Nate wouldn't say you never coached in the NBA so you are clueless.

That response was to repeated barrage of why he isn't starting Miller (or something like that . . . what was it) . . . he got so tired of people focusing on something he doesn't think is relevant he said that. He has never said that before to answer questions and probably won't again.

I remember reading the comment and not thinking it was a big deal. But clearly you were insulted by it and are having a tough time letting it go.

I hope you see the reality of the situation, that Nate doesn't think all people who haven't coached in the NBA are clueless . . . at most the people who disagreed with him on that one issue . . . and in a candid conversation he would probably say he was fed up with that stupid issue and gave a frustrated response. It happens . . .

 

[PapaG]

Keep that in context . . . Nate said something along those lines with regard to a topic that you disagree with him about.

It seems your taking that statement out of context and very personally.

I didn't even know what Brian was referencing in his "clueless" post to me.

That said, I agree with Nate McMillan. We're all clueless compared to the coaches. That's why we have statistics to support arguments, isn't it?