So how many people believed Nate

[Wheels]

Maris, you shouldn't have chosen to be a mailman for your career. You would have made a much better comedian. I love it!

Sergio sure proved it worldwide last year in the Olympics. Oh wait... he couldn't even make the team.

not saying I agree at all with Maris.. but I didnt see him say anything about last year in the Olympics.

 

[BengalDuck]

TOV% ignores totals (numbers) - it shows percentages - so you can ignore the number of possessions. Facts are that Miller at a fast pace is much better than Blake was at a fast pace.

What these numbers tell you is that Blake at a slow pace protects the ball a lot better than in a fast pace. In a fast pace - one out of 5 possessions he lost, at a slow pace one out of 8.5 possessions he lost. What we see, also, is that Miller, at a pace much faster than the Blazers played last year - was about as good at protecting the ball as Blake was in the Blazer's snail-pace. What this should tell you is that Miller will be a much better PG to push the ball and protect it at the same time.

So - again, the crux of the matter remains that for this team, in it's current incarnation - Miller is the first PG that can actually push the tempo and play efficient basketball. Blake is not good at it, Jack was not good at it in Portland, Sergio was just god-damn awful at it.

My gut feeling is that a Miller lead Blazers team will probably be around 20th-22nd in the league in pace, up from bringing up the rear. The fact of the matter is that our best player is still Roy who thrives in half-court and our biggest potential mismatch is still Oden who is not a running player, offensively. So - I suspect that we will be faster - but I do not think anyone will consider us a fast-pace team.

FACTS!

Congrats, you've won the thread!

 

[Ed O]

FACTS!

Congrats, you've won the thread!

I dunno. It ignores four years in Seattle, where three of the four the team plodded along. Was Nate saddled with PGs unable to run there, too?

It seems weird that people keep looking for a reason to think that Nate is finally going to change.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

McMillan had one good PG in his tenure as head coach in Seattle - and he had him for a year and a half with the half part being pretty disgruntled to the tune of being traded.

If you really want to argue the merits of Kevin Ollie, Luke Ridnour, Mateen Cleaves and Antonio Daniels as elite NBA point guards that excel in fast-pace basketball (or any kind of basketball, to be fair) - be my guest.

 

[BlazersBlood]

I dunno. It ignores four years in Seattle, where three of the four the team plodded along. Was Nate saddled with PGs unable to run there, too?

It seems weird that people keep looking for a reason to think that Nate is finally going to change.

Ed O.

Yup, I'm taking the "I'll believe it when I see it" approach.

 

[Ed O]

McMillan had one good PG in his tenure as head coach in Seattle - and he had him for a year and a half with the half part being pretty disgruntled to the tune of being traded.

If you really want to argue the merits of Kevin Ollie, Luke Ridnour, Mateen Cleaves and Antonio Daniels as elite NBA point guards that excel in fast-pace basketball (or any kind of basketball, to be fair) - be my guest.

What kind of coach can only run with an elite NBA point guard? Did the 23+ teams that have run more than his teams in 7 of the 8 years he's been coaching have elite NBA point guards?

That's bending over backwards to explain why he doesn't run, in my opinion. Making up a nearly impossible standard to explain past behavior and justify that suddenly things are going to change THIS time.

Ed O.

 

[rocketeer]

Bottom line: Who cares?

Not that I have any objection to some fast breaks now and then, but if the Blazers can continue to improve their win total as a halfcourt team, I'm happy with that.

seems like everyone skipped over the most reasonable post in the thread.

some people here appear to care a lot more about running than they do winning.

 

[Blazed Mania 52]

And remember when Nate said Taurean Green would be the factor that would help us win more games, yea that never panned out.

 

[hasoos]

TOV% ignores totals (numbers) - it shows percentages - so you can ignore the number of possessions. Facts are that Miller at a fast pace is much better than Blake was at a fast pace.

What these numbers tell you is that Blake at a slow pace protects the ball a lot better than in a fast pace. In a fast pace - one out of 5 possessions he lost, at a slow pace one out of 8.5 possessions he lost. What we see, also, is that Miller, at a pace much faster than the Blazers played last year - was about as good at protecting the ball as Blake was in the Blazer's snail-pace. What this should tell you is that Miller will be a much better PG to push the ball and protect it at the same time.

So - again, the crux of the matter remains that for this team, in it's current incarnation - Miller is the first PG that can actually push the tempo and play efficient basketball. Blake is not good at it, Jack was not good at it in Portland, Sergio was just god-damn awful at it.

My gut feeling is that a Miller lead Blazers team will probably be around 20th-22nd in the league in pace, up from bringing up the rear. The fact of the matter is that our best player is still Roy who thrives in half-court and our biggest potential mismatch is still Oden who is not a running player, offensively. So - I suspect that we will be faster - but I do not think anyone will consider us a fast-pace team.

Well I sure as hell hope Miller improves it. Because up anything at this point is improvement. My problem being, I don't buy that Nate is going to let it happen. I have seen what happens when something goes down he doesn't like. All of you have to. You know what happens. The bench. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Ed O]

seems like everyone skipped over the most reasonable post in the thread.

some people here appear to care a lot more about running than they do winning.

Whether we care about running or not is an entirely different question than whether we believe that we will run more or not.

It's entirely possible to go into ANY thread and say, "Who cares?" It just doesn't add a lot of value.

I don't see many people in this thread saying we SHOULD (or should not) run. Just discussing whether we will or not.

Ed O.

 

[Peaceman]

It's obvious Nate is harder on players when they turn the ball over. He got on Sergio and Outlaws case on several occasions. I think he will run more, but I doubt we will be in the top 15 in running. For all of you who want us to run more, why? Tell me all the coaches that preach running that are consistantly in the playoffs? Not many. It is more fun to watch at times, but taking care of the ball, defense and running a good half court offense will get you further in the playoffs. Would everyone rather have Don Nelson here who runs all the time? Phil Jackson, and Popovich don't have running teams, but I like where they are at in the playoffs every year over Golden State. I don't think Nate is a elite coach right now, but he is a good coach in my opinion. I don't think we could hire a better one so I won't be hard on him if we run less then other teams. Miller will help and maybe we run a few times more every game.

 

[andalusian]

That's bending over backwards to explain why he doesn't run, in my opinion. Making up a nearly impossible standard to explain past behavior and justify that suddenly things are going to change THIS time.

Nothing is bending over backwards if I tell you that I expect the situation to get better but the team still will not be a fast pace team.

There are two elements needs for efficient fast-pace teams - good execution on offense from the PG position and good defense.

The Seattle Supersonics under Nate were horrible defensively - not a big surprise when the best big-man he had was probably Danny Forston (or was it Reggie Evans? Does it matter?). Add the fact that he had pretty crappy point-guards for most of time - and it is clear that his record in Seattle (over .500) was actually fantastic. He tailored a good system to a team with good shooters but crappy defense and sub-par creation from the PG position.

The Blazers, under Nate have gone from a weak rebounding team with sub-par defense to a very good defensive team with fantastic rebounding - the next step will clearly be something that is willing and capable of pushing the ball in transition. Blake, valuable as he was - is not that player - as shown during his Denver tenure. Brandon is well known for imposing his own pace on the game than the other way around and Sergio was a running disaster.

Miller, has historically been a much better PG in fast pace than anyone we have seen in the red and black for quite some time. Adding the fact that this team has good rebounding, is not bad defensively anymore and now has a willing and capable point to push the ball - yes, I expect them to get better.

If you choose to look at history but ignore the picture as a whole and point only to the facts that support your pre-determined theory - sure, why expect change. I think that when one realizes that the combination of defense, rebounding and good ball handler that can push the ball and make good decisions in transition is a unique combination in Nate's history as a head coach - so yes, I do expect things to change.

I do not think this will be a fast pace team - but I think it will be faster. My expectation is a San Antonio like pace when they were winning all the time, 20-25th (they were 27th in pace last time they won but 23rd and 20th the times before) - Good defense, Great half-court execution and when the opportunity is there to push - they will. The now have the athletes and the basketball IQ to do it. It is not Nate that will determine it - it is the players. Good coaches tailor the system to maximize the talent of their roster. Nate finally has the roster that will be good pushing the ball - and I expect him to allow them to do that.

 

[LameR]

TOV% ignores totals (numbers) - it shows percentages - so you can ignore the number of possessions. Facts are that Miller at a fast pace is much better than Blake was at a fast pace.

What these numbers tell you is that Blake at a slow pace protects the ball a lot better than in a fast pace. In a fast pace - one out of 5 possessions he lost, at a slow pace one out of 8.5 possessions he lost. What we see, also, is that Miller, at a pace much faster than the Blazers played last year - was about as good at protecting the ball as Blake was in the Blazer's snail-pace. What this should tell you is that Miller will be a much better PG to push the ball and protect it at the same time.

So - again, the crux of the matter remains that for this team, in it's current incarnation - Miller is the first PG that can actually push the tempo and play efficient basketball. Blake is not good at it, Jack was not good at it in Portland, Sergio was just god-damn awful at it.

My gut feeling is that a Miller lead Blazers team will probably be around 20th-22nd in the league in pace, up from bringing up the rear. The fact of the matter is that our best player is still Roy who thrives in half-court and our biggest potential mismatch is still Oden who is not a running player, offensively. So - I suspect that we will be faster - but I do not think anyone will consider us a fast-pace team.

This. Repped.

 

[rocketeer]

Whether we care about running or not is an entirely different question than whether we believe that we will run more or not.

It's entirely possible to go into ANY thread and say, "Who cares?" It just doesn't add a lot of value.

I don't see many people in this thread saying we SHOULD (or should not) run. Just discussing whether we will or not.

Ed O.

i guess it's just been maris and hasoos who seem to have the idea that "nate will never let it happen" and are saying so in a negative way.

i think it's pretty simple. if nate thinks the team will win more games by running more, he'll encourage them to run more. if not, he won't.

 

[Tince]

And remember when Nate said Taurean Green would be the factor that would help us win more games, yea that never panned out.

And because of that we should never believe a word he says and assume he's wrong...?

 

[Tince]

i guess it's just been maris and hasoos who seem to have the idea that "nate will never let it happen" and are saying so in a negative way.

i think it's pretty simple. if nate thinks the team will win more games by running more, he'll encourage them to run more. if not, he won't.

Bingo!

 

[andalusian]

I would like to point to an interesting thing about pace - since offensive rebounds basically "extend" a possession instead of start a new one - good offensive rebounding teams basically seem slower than they are.

For example - in the 2007-2008 season the Blazers pace was 87.9 and they collected 901 offensive rebounds. In the 2008-2009 season the Blazers pace was down to 86.6 possessions per game - but they actually collected 1060 offensive rebounds - or on average, an extra 2 per game. So, in theory - the Blazers were actually up to 88.6 possessions per game when you compare their pace to the pace of the previous year's team. You can also see it in their points per game - they went up from 95 PPG to 99 PPG.

When you actually adjust pace and offensive rebounds - The Blazers were not dead last in offensive possessions as they seem from raw pace numbers - they were probably 25th in the league in "effective possessions".

 

[Ed O]

I would like to point to an interesting thing about pace - since offensive rebounds basically "extend" a possession instead of start a new one - good offensive rebounding teams basically seem slower than they are.

For example - in the 2007-2008 season the Blazers pace was 87.9 and they collected 901 offensive rebounds. In the 2008-2009 season the Blazers pace was down to 86.6 possessions per game - but they actually collected 1060 offensive rebounds - or on average, an extra 2 per game. So, in theory - the Blazers were actually up to 88.6 possessions per game when you compare their pace to the pace of the previous year's team. You can also see it in their points per game - they went up from 95 PPG to 99 PPG.

When you actually adjust pace and offensive rebounds - The Blazers were not dead last in offensive possessions as they seem from raw pace numbers - they were probably 25th in the league in "effective possessions".

So if they didn't get those offensive rebounds, then they would be running more? I guess if they only were average in offensive rebounds, then the opponent would get the ball faster, which means that they MIGHT run more often, but... I don't think it's that big of a deal.

That criticism or pace is a real one, but I don't think it significantly impacts pace's ability to determine if a team runs compared to the rest of the league or not.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

That criticism or pace is a real one, but I don't think it significantly impacts pace's ability to determine if a team runs compared to the rest of the league or not.

Pace measures possessions - and proper possessions - as in, proper attempts at making a field-goal or get to the foul-line are impacted by offensive rebounds. Was New Orleans a faster team than the Blazers last year? Their pace was higher by 1.1 possessions than the Blazers - but they also took 4 less offensive rebounds per game than the Blazers. This tells me that in reality, the Hornets, while on paper a faster team than the Blazers - were not...

 

[Nikolokolus]

I don't get the obsession with running. More easy buckets would be nice after stops, but I couldn't give two shits if this team still ends up with a snails pace if it's able to execute and win at a high rate.

 

[MARIS61]

Actually, his Sonics teams ran more than our current Blazers.

As did every other team in the history of the game.

And the Sonics did it in spite of Nate, not because he told them to.

They were just used to playing that way and had enough balls to defy him. Probably why he left Seattle.

What's your point?

 

[Ed O]

Pace measures possessions - and proper possessions - as in, proper attempts at making a field-goal or get to the foul-line are impacted by offensive rebounds. Was New Orleans a faster team than the Blazers last year? Their pace was higher by 1.1 possessions than the Blazers - but they also took 4 less offensive rebounds per game than the Blazers. This tells me that in reality, the Hornets, while on paper a faster team than the Blazers - were not...

Actually, it doesn't tell me one way or the other.

Offensive rebounds create possessions but NOT possessions that can result in fast breaks... so the Blazers getting more offensive rebounds has no bearing on whether the team runs more or not as far as I can figure.

Ed O.

 

[mgb]

Ya, I don't want to be a fast pace team, just one that takes advantage when the numbers are there. If you have a advantage take it, but if not play a half court game. Kind of like Nate's first 7 secs or last 7 secs.

Another factor in fast breaks is the outlet pass. If we are controlling the boards and we can cheat getting back we should get more fast breaks regardless of the PG if we get good outlet passes.

 

[MARIS61]

Blake's TOV% when running in Denver was more than 20.2% - that's bad, in comparison - his TOV% last year - about 8th best in the league for a starting PG was 13.6%

Sergio's TOV% last year 24.7% which is not average - it is world class bad - only Chucky Atkins was worse last year in the NBA.

Jarret Jack's TOV% last year was 16% playing for a much faster pace Indiana team - not great, not bad. In Portland, where he was bad - it was 19.6% (which is still better than Blake's when playing fast pace or Sergio's any pace).

Just for reference - Andre Miller's TOV% last year, playing a much faster pace than Portland's was 14%. This is the first PG we had that can really push the ball and make good decisions while protecting the ball for quite some time.

I will finish in Kingspeed fashion - learn the statistics and then post. Yahtzee.

Andulusian, I post with Kingspeed: I know Kingspeed; Kingspeed is a friend of mine. Andulusian, you're no Kingspeed.

As always, you submit a meaningless arguement. TO% is less than useless without assists, assists-to TO%, steals, rebounds, and overall team efficiency. By themselves, TO's are not an indication of anything specific

Portland was 8th in offensive efficiency last year while Philly was 13th. Which is why Philly was happy to let Miller move west.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...//insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats

As for Sergio's uncharacteristic increase in TO's last year, it is simply a by-product of being reined in by Nate constantly, which helped the defense get set when they wouldn't have been otherwise.

 

[andalusian]

Andulusian, I post with Kingspeed: I know Kingspeed; Kingspeed is a friend of mine. Andulusian, you're no Kingspeed.

So we are not friends anymore Maris? Am I not allowed to bask in the glory of beautiful central Oregon with you anymore? Sear bananas on the hot flaming grill, bask in the glow of the setting sun or practice synchronized swimming? Oh, Maris, Maris, Maris. If I had only known...

... I would have still not cared one bit...

The facts are the facts. Sergio was traded for a 7 places bump in the draft, in the 2nd round - and Miller was signed for pretty much every penny available in the cap - so I am pretty sure that these bastards that want to sign Kobe agree with me...

Allow me to channel another one of your friends and point you south to Sacramento...



Oh, and BTW - you still can not read statistics. The stats you linked to were playoffs stats. Portland was actually 2nd best in the league during the regular season - but it was not with Sergio in the lineup - since the team's offensive rating was 113.9 while Sergio's was 103 - the team was 10.9 points better per 100 possessions as a whole than they were when Sergio was in the line-up...

 

[Nikolokolus]

Andulusian, I post with Kingspeed: I know Kingspeed; Kingspeed is a friend of mine. Andulusian, you're no Kingspeed.

As always, you submit a meaningless arguement. TO% is less than useless without assists, assists-to TO%, steals, rebounds, and overall team efficiency. By themselves, TO's are not an indication of anything specific

Portland was 8th in offensive efficiency last year while Philly was 13th. Which is why Philly was happy to let Miller move west.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...//insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats

As for Sergio's uncharacteristic increase in TO's last year, it is simply a by-product of being reined in by Nate constantly, which helped the defense get set when they wouldn't have been otherwise.

Finally, you admit Sergio can't beat a set defense. I'm glad to see you've come around.

 

[LittleAlex]

It is hard to allow your team to run when you want to call every play from the sidelines.

 

[PapaG]

If the idea is to make Outlaw the backup PF then we are totally fucked again.

Do you want the team to run, or don't you? Because if you do, Outlaw will be playing some PF on a running second unit.

 

[Tince]

It is hard to allow your team to run when you want to call every play from the sidelines.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your story...

 

[Mediocre Man]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your story...

Actually, wouldn't the "facts" be that Nate's teams have always finished at or near the bottom in pace?