tell me about ray felton

[Pinwheel1]

I think Bernie had a lot of input on this. They have wanted Felton for a year now. I am guessing they did some research and it was not a desperate move.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

As Miller is old as dirt and getting older, what are the chances that next season he'd be worse?
Meanwhile, as Felton has been steadily improving, what are the chances that he'll be better?

so san antonio should trade tim duncan for marcin gortat? brilliant!

 

[Ed O]

As Miller is old as dirt and getting older, what are the chances that next season he'd be worse?
Meanwhile, as Felton has been steadily improving, what are the chances that he'll be better?

Felton hasn't been steadily improving. Let's look at his PER over his career:

14.2
13.5
13.8
13.7
15.2
16.6

Two years of improvement. Very nice.

BUT... if you take the NY time out, it looks like this:

14.2
13.5
13.8
13.7
15.2
14.7

He's perhaps improved in the last couple of years, but it's not a clear upward trend I don't think.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

The Blazers offense like shooting a lot of 3. This means spacing. Even if Felton is not as good a player as Miller is (which he probably is not) - he is a better fit. Add the fact that he is probably a better defender when motivated - and personally, I think the team got better today - or at least, said, this is our system, we believe in it, we are going to give ourself a better chance to win with it.

Miller always felt like a round peg, square hole kind of guy to me.

 

[Mediocre Man]

[video=youtube;j2TxLxr5blw]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but were any of his points within a set offense like he will be in here?

 

[B-Roy]

The Blazers offense like shooting a lot of 3. This means spacing. Even if Felton is not as good a player as Miller is (which he probably is not) - he is a better fit. Add the fact that he is probably a better defender when motivated - and personally, I think the team got better today - or at least, said, this is our system, we believe in it, we are going to give ourself a better chance to win with it.

Miller always felt like a round peg, square hole kind of guy to me.

He's not even a good shooter though. A average one at best. There will be nights where teams will dare him to shoot, and he'll go 1/7 from three and keep jacking shots.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

so san antonio should trade tim duncan for marcin gortat? brilliant!

If Tim Duncan were as old as Andre, then yes.

[Edit: just checked - he's one month younger. Better change my argument.]

If Tim Duncan weren't the face of the franchise and the best power forward in history and so MASSIVELY better than Marcin Gortat to make your comparison even remotely analogous, THEN yes.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Larry Brown LOVED Raymond Felton. That in itself is a good sign. No, he's not the natural talent that Miller was, but he seems to have improved and hell, I'll take him over Jameer Nelson any day.

Also: why do his critics keep saying "if you ignore his NY stats..."
Why should we? Yes, D'Antoni plays uptempo, but that's factored in for most of the new stats. And he's not Paul fucking Westhead - his teams actually WIN.

 

[B-Roy]

Larry Brown LOVED Raymond Felton. That in itself is a good sign.

That's all fine and dandy, but if he never produced for him, why should we get excited about it?

 

[craigehlo]

That's all fine and dandy, but if he never produced for him, why should we get excited about it?

There's actually a chance Felton can close out on a 3 point shooter. Get excited about that. Miller was the worst offender on a team full of crappy perimeter defenders.

 

[B-Roy]

There's actually a chance Felton can close out on a 3 point shooter. Get excited about that. Miller was the worst offender on a team full of crappy perimeter defenders.

I refuse to.

 

[HailBlazers]

Add the fact that he is probably a better defender when motivated - and personally, I think the team got better today

I think your on to something here, having him thrust into a starting role coupled with Sarge the motivator as his coach should give him quite the spark. Not to mention, all the new bad ass teamates he'll want to impress (G,B,LMA,Camby)

 

[Ed O]

Why should we? Yes, D'Antoni plays uptempo, but that's factored in for most of the new stats. And he's not Paul fucking Westhead - his teams actually WIN.

But he's not coaching in Portland, and the systems are entirely different. Felton's production in NY was an aberration. A result of a particular system.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

He's not even a good shooter though. A average one at best. There will be nights where teams will dare him to shoot, and he'll go 1/7 from three and keep jacking shots.

Average is much better than god damn awful. He is no Steve Nash for sure - but he improves our spacing because, quite frankly - there is probably no starting PG (*) in the league that is worse at creating space for his team-mates.

(*) maybe Rondo? But Rondo at least is super-quick and can create that spacing by having people collapse on him.

 

[Minstrel]

Average is much better than god damn awful. He is no Steve Nash for sure - but he improves our spacing because, quite frankly - there is probably no starting PG (*) in the league that is worse at creating space for his team-mates.

(*) maybe Rondo? But Rondo at least is super-quick and can create that spacing by having people collapse on him.

Miller is also excellent at driving to the hoop and collapsing the defense. He may be one of the worst at creating space by stretching the defense with perimeter shooting, but saying he's simply the worst at creating space for teammates is obviously absurd hyperbole. He's been a great play-maker for others through his career which would be impossible if he were even just average at creating space for teammates--let alone the worst or close to the worst.

If you feel he wasn't the best "fit," that one thing. I think claiming that he's arguably the worst in the NBA (at his position) at essentially the key point guard skill borders on irrational.

 

[andalusian]

Miller is also excellent at driving to the hoop and collapsing the defense.

He is good at it somewhat - but excellent, at a Rondo level? No. He is great at posting up people down-low - which is great in a center and a nice and unusual feature for a PG - but he can not make the defense collapse as well as Rondo at all. Rondo's eFG% is higher than Miller's for a reason - he is much more of a threat to score close to the basket because he is so quick. If you actually look at the break-down of eFG% for jump shots and close to the basket - Miller is actually better than Rondo - and yet Rondo's over-all eFG% is better - the reason - he is really quick and can get places and dunk much much better than Miller.

He may be one of the worst at creating space by stretching the defense with perimeter shooting, but saying he's simply the worst at creating space for teammates is obviously absurd hyperbole. He's been a great play-maker for others through his career which would be impossible if he were even just average at creating space for teammates--let alone the worst or close to the worst.

You've generally had a bias toward Miller because you perceived him as "rocking the boat" for Roy, while Blake made Roy comfortable, but I think claiming that he's arguably the worst in the NBA (at his position) at essentially the key point guard skill borders on irrational.

I have a very rational thing against Miller - he is a killer for spacing for any team that does not play fast pace - and John Wooden has defined spacing as the #1 ingredient for the offense that UCLA ran. My bias is very clear - he is a round peg in a square hole. Always was. If this team were to run a different offense - he would be a better fit. But, it seems that even with Roy out for large portions of the year - the Blazers still had trouble getting quality open shots in the half-court - and having a PG that can not space the floor is a gigantic part of it.

Andre Miller and Nate McMillan's offense are not a good fit. I saw it the first game I attended in person - and it seems that the Blazers have really got to the point where they see it as well - when they traded for Felton which is at best "as good a player" as Andre Miller individually (he is probably not as good, but not a huge drop-off).

If believing a perimeter player that can't space the floor for a team that likes to play half-court and excels when it hits jump-shots is a bias - sure, I am biased. Dude did not fit and does not fit. The Blazers have committed to McMillan for good or for bad - and as such - Miller was a bad fit.

Of the starting PGs in this league - which one is worse at creating spacing for his team-mates for half-court offenses?

Kidd? No - good 3P shooter.
Chalmers? No - decent 3P shooter.
Capt. Kirk? No - more than decent 3P shooter.
Rondo? Maybe - but I do not think so - because Rondo is so, so quick
Rose? No - OK 3P shooter and great speed.
Baron Davis? Not really - streaky as hell - but much better long range shooter than Miller
DJ Augustin? No - OK at shooting the 3, pretty quick
CP3? No - really quick, maybe the best handling guard in the league, shoots better than Miller.
Stucky? A potential candidate - still shoots better than Miller and is quicker.
Curry? No.

Honestly, I am getting pretty bored with this - there might be some miserable team out there with a PG that is slow and a bad shooter - but the statement stands - Miller is great in fast pace, he is a spacing killer for half-court like the Blazers play.

 

[Minstrel]

But, it seems that even with Roy out for large portions of the year - the Blazers still had trouble getting quality open shots in the half-court

You say "even with Roy out" like the team should have had a much easier time without their best player. Roy being out (and then back as a non-elite player) obviously made the offensive situation worse. No one has ever represented Miller as a guy who can carry an offense, but Aldridge flourished with him. Batum and Fernandez and Matthews got plenty of wide open shots that they missed. I don't think when the offense bogged down it was primarily due to Miller's inability to hit outside shots. Would Miller have helped more as a dead-eye shooter? Of course...being a better player obviously helps. But Miller has proved throughout his career that he was one of the best in the league at creating open opportunities for teammates and getting them the ball.

Andre Miller and Nate McMillan's offense are not a good fit. I saw it the first game I attended in person

Yes, I remember your post that night and I thought, and still think, that was irrational. The first games a player plays in a new system is pretty obviously not a good measure for whether a player can fit. Down the stretch of that season (about the only time that a healthy Roy played with Miller as a starter) Miller and Roy and the Blazers in general were all playing very well and team looked excellent. Then Roy got hurt again, the team struggled in the playoffs and Roy was basically done as an elite player.

So, no, I don't think Miller proved a poor fit. I think he showed, like all very good and intelligent players, that he could adapt and lend his strengths to what the team did, even if his strengths weren't optimized for what McMillan wanted to do.

 

[andalusian]

Seems like Mr. Hollinger agrees with me.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...ist=hollinger_john&page=draftbreakdown-110624

The Felton-Miller trade is a rarity: It's almost entirely about basketball. The two have virtually identically contracts that both expire after this season. Portland gets eight years younger at the point guard spot, although Felton looked very heavy by the end of last season and really needs to get that potbelly under control if he's going to continue playing at his current level.

The two were roughly equal as players a year ago, but each fits better in the other team's system -- Miller's lack of shooting was a real problem in Portland but shouldn't be an issue on an up-tempo Denver team that has a lot of bombers, while Felton bristled as a backup in Denver but will be a full-time starter with the Blazers.

At the end - I do not think I am irrational. I have an opinion which you have all the right in the world to disagree with - but it is actually a pretty good rational opinion - one that values spacing over other things that Miller brings to the table. It seems that after 2 years - the Blazers have come to the same conclusion that I have, or at least this is what I am reading into their actual actions and the following McMillan quote:

"He's a legit starting guard that is in his prime who's going to be solid," McMillan said. "I think he's going to give us a different option than Andre."

 

[Minstrel]

Seems like Mr. Hollinger agrees with me.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...ist=hollinger_john&page=draftbreakdown-110624


At the end - I do not think I am irrational. I have an opinion which you have all the right in the world to disagree with - but it is actually a pretty good rational opinion - one that values spacing over other things that Miller brings to the table. It seems that after 2 years - the Blazers have come to the same conclusion that I have, or at least this is what I am reading into their actual actions and the following McMillan quote:

I never said you were being irrational in saying that Miller didn't fit (in fact, in a previous post, I quite clearly distinguished that saying Miller wasn't a good fit was not what I was criticizing). The two things (in separate posts) that I considered irrational were 1. that Miller is arguably the worst point guard at creating space for teammates (which would make being a high level point guard for many years impossible) and 2. that the early part of Miller's first season in McMillan's system showed that Miller couldn't fit.

I can understand the viewpoint that he didn't fit and I, myself, said Miller's strengths weren't optimal for what McMillan wanted to do. However, I disagreed that Miller caused the team to struggle. He adapted and found a game for himself that fit how McMillan wanted the team to play and, to my observation, he made the team better.

 

[andalusian]

I never said you were being irrational in saying that Miller didn't fit (in fact, in a previous post, I quite clearly distinguished that saying Miller wasn't a good fit was not what I was criticizing). The two things (in separate posts) that I considered irrational were 1. that Miller is arguably the worst point guard at creating space for teammates (which would make being a high level point guard for many years impossible) and 2. that the early part of Miller's first season in McMillan's system showed that Miller couldn't fit.

Name a worst starting PG in the league at creating space? That's an easy way to prove it wrong. I think that if not the worst of the 30 starting PGs - he is very close to the bottom at this very specific point - which is, because of the way the Blazers play - a very important point.

As for #2 - the only way this would prove to be wrong is if Roy became a really good player off the ball - which we pretty much have seen that he has not - so, again, I am not sure how it is irrational. The best of Roy that we have seen was when he could break the defense with the ball with his hands. I thought at the time that we take his #1 strength and this brings the team's efficiency down. I do not think it changed now. What we have learned is that even without Roy - when playing to Miller's strength more because Roy was not a factor - the Blazers still had issues with spacing and shooting.

I can understand the viewpoint that he didn't fit and I, myself, said Miller's strengths weren't optimal for what McMillan wanted to do. However, I disagreed that Miller caused the team to struggle. He adapted and found a game for himself that fit how McMillan wanted the team to play and, to my observation, he made the team better.

Any time you put a mismatched piece into a machine - it is going to cause problems - and that is not the piece's fault. I think we have seen that a player like Capt. Kirk, which is not as good a player as Miller - had a fantastic impact on the Hawks - and I suspect that if the Blazers had gone for him before they went for Miller - their last two years would have been much better. You put oil in tea and it tastes awful, you put oil on a grill and it tastes great. The Blazers are tea. They need sweet shooting sugar, not oil. Miller is Oil. It just did not work and it was not irrational to think it would not from the very beginning.

 

[Minstrel]

Name a worst starting PG in the league at creating space? That's an easy way to prove it wrong. I think that if not the worst of the 30 starting PGs - he is very close to the bottom at this very specific point - which is, because of the way the Blazers play - a very important point.

Most point guards are worse. Again, you're confusing "stretching the defense with perimeter shots to create space" with "creating space" (which simply means open opportunities for teammates). The entire job of the point guard is to create open opportunities for teammates (space) and deliver them the ball. Unless you're saying Miller is arguably the worst point guard in the NBA, it's irrational to say he's arguably the worst at creating space for his teammates. That's the job of every point guard (actual point guards, not Damon Stoudemire-like "lead guards").

As for #2 - the only way this would prove to be wrong is if Roy became a really good player off the ball - which we pretty much have seen that he has not - so, again, I am not sure how it is irrational.

Two things:

1. Once again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I've said several times now, I wasn't saying that you believing Miller was a bad fit was irrational. What I was saying was irrational was deciding that early on, before Miller had any real chance of adapting to a new system. So, whether or not Miller actually was a bad fit is actually irrelevant.

2. On the subject of whether he actually was a bad fit, evidence that weighs against that is how well the team (Miller and Roy included) were playing down the stretch of Miller's first season in Portland. I remember most people here excited about how the team seemed to be heading toward the post-season with real momentum. That, of course, screeched to a halt with Roy's getting injured again.

 

[andalusian]

Most point guards are worse. Again, you're confusing "stretching the defense with perimeter shots to create space" with "creating space" (which simply means open opportunities for teammates).

No I am not. Creating space means exactly what it is - providing spacing for clear jump shots or a place to operate with the dribble. Miller excels in the open floor, he is fantstic with the lob - but his inability to play as a catch and shoot player from the perimeter - and his lack of speed to get into the seams of the defense quickly in a set offense - are clearly a spacing issue - and that's why it was easy for good defensive teams to clog the middle when he is in the game.

The entire job of the point guard is to create open opportunities for teammates (space) and deliver them the ball. Unless you're saying Miller is arguably the worst point guard in the NBA, it's irrational to say he's arguably the worst at creating space for his teammates. That's the job of every point guard (actual point guards, not Damon Stoudemire-like "lead guards").

In set offenses - creating said space is done in two or three ways - stretching the defense because you are a fantastic shooter (Miller is not one of these). Having the defense collapse because you are too fast for opposing defenders (as Rose and Rondo do, for example) - Miller is not great there - or having fantastic handling ability with quickness that can allow you to get into the lane and collapse the defense from there - Miller has the great handling - and he is mostly quick - but once you put an athletic longer defender on him down-low - this is lost - which is exactly what the Suns did last year in the playoffs to neutralize him.

Given a good half-court defense - Miller is certainly a liability for teams that like to shoot a lot of jump shots or have penetration from good ball-handling guards. Again, simple way to disprove it - find me worst starting PGs for this kind of offense. If it is such a silly idea - surely it would not be hard to find these?

Again - you goal, should you choose to accept it, is to find me a starting PG that would be easier for a good defensive team to clog the middle against and remove spacing for jump shooters. Go.

1. Once again, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I've said several times now, I wasn't saying that you believing Miller was a bad fit was irrational. What I was saying was irrational was deciding that early on, before Miller had any real chance of adapting to a new system. So, whether or not Miller actually was a bad fit is actually irrelevant.

It was not irrational at all unless you believe that two items so well set in their ways (Miller's excellence in the fast pace and lack of shooting on one side and the Blazers and McMillan's jump shooting system with Roy's preference for ball handling) would be easy to change. If you look at some extreme cases of players that remade their abilities (see Jason Kidd and 3P shooting, for example) - you will see that even when something so unlikely happens - it happens at a glacial pace.

2. On the subject of whether he actually was a bad fit, evidence that weighs against that is how well the team (Miller and Roy included) were playing down the stretch of Miller's first season in Portland. I remember most people here excited about how the team seemed to be heading toward the post-season with real momentum. That, of course, screeched to a halt with Roy's getting injured again.

The regular season, with many different opponents and the frantic pace of playing different teams at different places was a big contributing part to this, imho. Miller is a fantastic individual player - and with the talent of a healthy Blazers team - the collective individual excellence triumphed. Once the pace slowed down for the playoffs with teams actually able to prepare for you defensively - the same issues would raise their head again, imho.

Do I think that the Blazers would have been able to pass the 1st round if Roy was healthy against the Suns? Sure. They would still have a real issue against the Spurs in the 2nd round and no chance at all, I am afraid, against the Lakers.

The long term analysis is not irrational - even if there are short periods of time where things seem to click. Unfortunately for you - even this short term is not as good as you think it is.

Just for fun, let's look at the game log for the "good period" before Roy went down last year - when he and Miller seemed to have clicked. Let's take games 41 (around all-star weekend) to 65 (Roy going down). The Blazers went 18-7 in this period (excellent). Now let's actually look at this record against teams that went to the Playoffs (and thus, pretty decent defensively). It was actually 4-7 (not so excellent). They won tons against bad teams. Did not do too well against actually good teams. The Miller/Roy fantastic era was not as fantastic as you think. It was actually a good schedule (thanks to the Blazers brutal start of that year - when they played a really tough schedule early).

 

[Minstrel]

Again - you goal, should you choose to accept it, is to find me a starting PG that would be easier for a good defensive team to clog the middle against and remove spacing for jump shooters. Go.

I don't have any interest in arbitrary missions you want to set me. As I've noted, and you've attempted to dance around, "creating space" is identical to "creating open opportunities for teammates." A point guard who cannot create open opportunities for teammates is not a point guard. Miller has been considered a very good point guard for many years. It's cut-and-dry, you're wrong; Miller is very good at creating space. Again, to claim Miller is arguably the worst at creating space for teammates would require you to claim Miller is arguably the worst point guard. Being the primary job description, the two claims are one and the same.

And how he does it is through a combination of things. He's very good at getting into the paint and collapsing defenses (he may or may not be as good as Rondo, but eFG% on shots in the paint is somewhat irrelevant...I never said he was an elite slashing scorer), he's smart about positioning himself and teammates (directing an offense) and he's a great lob passer. The result is that he's a tremendous point guard in the half court (he's also obviously a great fastbreak point guard, but no one disputes that and it's somewhat wasted under McMillan).

It was not irrational at all unless you believe that two items so well set in their ways (Miller's excellence in the fast pace and lack of shooting on one side and the Blazers and McMillan's jump shooting system with Roy's preference for ball handling) would be easy to change.

I didn't think it would be easy to change, but I thought that intelligent and versatile players like Roy and Miller would be able to each adapt their games to maintain effectiveness given some time to play together. That's actually quite common. And, IMO, that's exactly what did happen and it would have sharpened the following season (the one just completed) had Roy not had the elite part of his career cut short.

Just for fun, let's look at the game log for the "good period" before Roy went down last year - when he and Miller seemed to have clicked. Let's take games 41 (around all-star weekend) to 65 (Roy going down). The Blazers went 18-7 in this period (excellent). Now let's actually look at this record against teams that went to the Playoffs (and thus, pretty decent defensively). It was actually 4-7 (not so excellent). They won tons against bad teams. Did not do too well against actually good teams. The Miller/Roy fantastic era was not as fantastic as you think.

Considering I never rendered an opinion on "how fantastic" I thought that "era" was, we'll let that comment of yours go as the meaningless, throw-away comment that it is.

What I said was that the two players were clearly playing well and the team was playing well. I'm basing that on how they looked together. How they performed against playoff teams has other factors involved, most notably defense. The team was never poised to go deep in the playoffs (as constituted at that point) because their defense was weak (something I had hoped Oden would help remedy, if he could have stayed healthy). But we're not talking about the overall team ability, just about Roy and Miller co-existing offensively. And to my observation (and I was far from the only one) they were playing well together. If they had had more than 20 or so games together, they probably would have meshed even further.

 

[ABM]

This may have already been discussed, but didn't Felton play with Crash? If so, I wonder what Gerald's opinion of him is as a player/teammate?

 

[Pinwheel1]

This may have already been discussed, but didn't Felton play with Crash? If so, I wonder what Gerald's opinion is of him as a player/teammate?

Yes he did. And Bernie Bickerstaff was there too.

 

[handiman]

I have a very rational thing against Miller ... he is a round peg in a square hole.

Try again?

I just hope my impression of Felton's shooting ability is wrong, because from what I've seen of him, he's a guy you dare to shoot just as much as you do with Miller.

 

[MickZagger]

Feltons a streak shooter, very streaky. Takes tough shots sometimes too, especially when teammates defer to him. But when he's hitting, he's one of those unstoppable guys.

 

[barfo]

Yes he did. And Bernie Bickerstaff was there too.

"Oh, but anyway, Toto, we're home! Home! And this is my team - and you're all here!
And I'm not going to leave here ever, ever again, because I love you all! And -
Oh, Auntie Nate, there's no place like home!"

barfo

 

[MickZagger]

Felton's as streaky as Barfo's skivvies.

 

[KingSpeed]

Felton was top 8 in the league in assists and steals last season. Only three other players did that: Rondo, Kidd, and Paul.