Thread Tools

Display Modes

Ed O · 12-24-2004, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dkap!
He just isn't/wasn't a good fit for this team, and it seems we've currently got a good example of addition by subtraction. Both Darius and Ruben are significantly better with Shareef out of the lineup, and it appears NVE, Damon, and DA might be, too.

I don't see this at all. I think that the Blazers have been no better without SAR in the lineup. Miles has been better, but the team has received better play from Damon in a couple games than they had all year and they still have been embarassed by Cleveland and Chicago without SAR in the lineup.

They've had one nice win in Detroit, but I don't think SAR's injury had anything to do with Rip shooting 3-22, and without that atrocious shooting Portland loses.

Ed O.

dkap · 12-24-2004, 01:58 AM

They've been as good or better than they were with Shareef, based on two big factors:

1) win-loss record
2) energy

Is there any disagreement that Darius, Ruben, Damon, DA, and NVE have all been better on average since Shareef went down? I actually can't think of anyone that's played worse in his absence.

Dan

TheBlueDoggy · 12-24-2004, 04:42 AM

With SAR as our starting SF, or with Darius as our starting SF, we are the same team. Different tempo, same mediocre .500 team.

I don't think the change has made the team any better or worse, the question now though is this: which is more entertaining to watch?

Honestly, I think with Miles there are spurts that are entertaining, but there's also a lot more spurts of ugly ugly play. I'd prefer to have SAR back in the starting lineup to give the team more shooting and stability.

Ed O · 12-24-2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dkap!
They've been as good or better than they were with Shareef, based on two big factors:

1) win-loss record
2) energy

3-2 is better than 10-10, but considering they've been outscored in those 5 games, I don't think that there's evidence of significantly better play on the scoreboard.

As for energy: *yawn*. That seems too wishy-washy for me to worry about too much. We've played some teams playing bad basketball (Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee) and we've taken advantage of it. The Pistons game is the only one on the road trip that I feel was a particularly good win, and again Rip's horrible shooting was more to blame for that than SAR's absence was an explanation.

Quote:

Is there any disagreement that Darius, Ruben, Damon, DA, and NVE have all been better on average since Shareef went down? I actually can't think of anyone that's played worse in his absence.

I don't think Patterson has been any better. He's played more minutes, so has had more chances to make plays, but he's been producing at about the same rate. I haven't done the math, but on a per-minute basis he might actually be worse in the last five games.

NVE has had one good game and 4 where he shot 40% or lower, and his shooting percentage is at 35.4% over these five games, which is lower than his season average of 34.6%. He's had more turnovers than assists in 2 of the 5 games, and I think that it would be a stretch to say he's played better in SAR's absence.

Damon's been better, but I attribute that to coming off the bench and getting his mental kinks worked out (or at least loosened).

Miles is the one player that I feel has been better with SAR out, and I think that it's totally expected. Whether Miles playing better is better for the team than SAR playing the 3 spot is TBD.

Ed O.

dkap · 12-24-2004, 01:46 PM

Quote:

With SAR as our starting SF, or with Darius as our starting SF, we are the same team. Different tempo, same mediocre .500 team.

I don't think the change has made the team any better or worse, the question now though is this: which is more entertaining to watch?

Exactly what I was getting at. The net result is about the same, but individual components appear to be better, based on early returns.

Quote:

3-2 is better than 10-10, but considering they've been outscored in those 5 games, I don't think that there's evidence of significantly better play on the scoreboard.

I said the team has been as good or better, not significantly better. It's the individual players that I've said have been significantly better in SAR's absence.

Quote:

and his shooting percentage is at 35.4% over these five games, which is lower than his season average of 34.6%.

Come again?

Dan

**KingSpeed** · 12-24-2004, 02:21 PM

Yo, we would've beaten Hawks, Pistons, and Bucks WITH SAR.

ABM · 12-24-2004, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NathanLane!
Yo, we would've beaten Hawks, Pistons, and Bucks WITH SAR.

Nahh.... he's a loser.

Ed O · 12-24-2004, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dkap!

Exactly what I was getting at. The net result is about the same, but individual components appear to be better, based on early returns.

So how is that "addition by subtraction"? If you end up in the same place, it's not addition.

Quote:

Come again?

Typo. NVE's shooting 35.6%, rather than 34.6%, on the year.

Ed O.

dkap · 12-24-2004, 05:50 PM

Quote:

So how is that "addition by subtraction"? If you end up in the same place, it's not addition.

Easy.

1) Several players are performing better.

2) No one seems to be performing worse.

3) The record is slightly better.

4) Level of intensity seems to have increased.

It may not be a big improvement, but it's definitely an improvement. There are gradients, ya know.

It's still an unbalanced roster lacking in good chemistry, so it isn't terribly reasonable to expect a huge improvement from just a few lineup changes. Roster changes are needed in order for that to happen.

Dan

Target · 12-24-2004, 05:58 PM

hmmm...

Play's departure and reports that SAR's injury is bogus...

Perhaps there is no room for plausible deniability.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes