Dan

the 13 minutes he was out, the team flowed better. And there were stretches were the team "flowed" good with him.
he's not a very good basketball players. very good basketball players can play defense, and pass. he's a good offensive black hole. And the team is better with him than without him. why do you think they are trying to trade him (and believe it, they ARE trying to trade him) if they're better with him than without?

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

Schilly

Ok your right my agenda is to state an opinion I have had for 2 years now...The offense stagnates with Zach in the game, so like any good forum nerd I spent the time to find the numbers that support my opinion.

Agenda or not...can you find concrete evidence other than simply questioning my agenda, to counter what I am showing you? Show me a figure that would indicate that his presence makes the team that much better. And again Don't give me any garbage about simply cutting him, only Canzano would think that is the answer.

Dan

well, travis had 12 and 6, so obviously he must've played really good the whole game, right?

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

Schilly

Ohh yeah I forgot how did we do when Damon scored what was it 53? That's right we lost...Individual performances mean very little when the only stat that counts is the 1 in the Loss column.

Now explain to me what the numbers I've presented tell you?

Ed O

Of all the points you've raised, this is the one that I find the weakest.

If all that matters is wins and losses, why do we discuss who's the best player? Why are you arguing AGAINST Zach and FOR Roy?

Roy was in the game last night, too, and they lost. Does that mean he didn't have a good game? Clearly not, by any reasonable standard. And yet you seem willing to discount Zach's production merely because the team lost.

Ed O.

__________________
"In the end, it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win -- if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth, and nice guys with no talent finish last."

-- Sandy Koufax

Schilly

BTW BR at least read the box score...he had 27 and 12.

The numbers I have posted are fact plain and simple. You can't debate them, period go ahead try to do it I dare you. Show me how a team can score more points and give up less points with a certain player off the floor compared to on the floor, and debate that he is the positive difference maker on that team.

Hmm let's see...Player goes out...Scoring and defensive efficiency goes up...Player comes in Scoring and Defensive efficiecy both drop....

Go ahead debate it.

Dan

because the -+ #'s of Brandon, were positive. That tends to imply the team he was playing for scored more points than the opponents..and that (get this) usually is how you win games.

and the -+ #'s for Zach, were negative. That tends to imply the team he was playing for scored less points than the opponents..and that (get this) usually is how you lose games.

__________________
A Buddhist walks up to a hot dog vendor and says "Make me one with everything".

when will the loss of life end?

The world respects the power of our example, not an example of our power.

I'd like to say I made this, but I didn't

Schilly

Nah Ed you kinda misinterpreted what I said there. I have not discounted Zachs performance in any way. All I was saying in the post you qouoted is a guy can have a monster game and it doesn't make them more successful.

BTW you are right it's not a strong argument, but neither is trying to say I discounted Zachs performance.

Stats don't lie...Zach had a good game...The numbers indicate that the team performed at a lower level with him in the game vs out of the game...we lost. I selected Brandon Roy because we keep hearing via Mike Barrett that he is the best player at practice, in the scrimmages etc etc... I also think he is our best player. I also have the numbers to show how the team performed with those 2 players individually without the other on the floor.

Schilly

Brandon, No Zach
Portland 31
Golden State 28

Zach, no Brandon
Portland: 24
Golden State: 32

So with Roy and no Zach Portland +3
With Zach and no Roy Portland -8

Net in favor of Roy +11

Blazer Ringbearer

Sorry, was posting quickly and saw mook's post about 27 and 10. Does it help the argument that he got two more rebounds? Would you like me to add in all of the other stats he picked up, like how he shot 59% from the floor and 88% from the FT line and picked up 3 assists?

So now I read the box score, and it only makes his performance look better. It looks like he was incredibly efficient on offense, and most of the comments I read in the game thread were very complimentary to his effort on defense. Not sure what else you want him to do...

If you're point is to argue that Brandon Roy is better than him, then I don't think you have enough data. If your point is to argue that the team would have done better without Zach on the floor last night, then please let me know who we have on the team that is going to replace that level of production - or even who we could trade for? If everybody could score the way Zach does down low, then we wouldn't have given him that contract.

As far as the numbers you posted, they just don't pose a compelling argument. We're talking about very small fractions of the game - part of which as someone pointed out Roy, Jack and Martell were fouled out.

Is it Zach's fault that 6 Blazers were in foul trouble, or is it to his credit that he was able to stay in the game with only 2 fouls and finish up the game?

If you want to track this though and keep us posted on this once the season gets under way and we have some serious data to look at, then feel free, but please understand our skepticism when you post +/- stats from a single preseason game with two players who played most of the game and expect it to prove something.

handclap problematic

Speaking of Zach, there is a thread tearing him to shreds on the NBA General forum. I hope that after the season is over, those people will feel embarassed. There are also a couple of nice unnecissary jailblazer barbs. Awesome.


Prunetang

__________________
The Artist formerly known as Prunetang.


" I hate admitting that my enemies have a point. " ..........Salman Rushdie

Blazer Ringbearer

He got 3 assists and the guy he was guarding shot 33% and scored 13 less points than he did.

Fine, better without Zach?

Take him out of the game last night... who is going to score 27 more points and grab 12 more rebounds?

You can look at +/-'s and all kinds of fun ratings, but the fact is - Zach can flat out score, and he was incredibly efficient last night. There is nobody on the team right now that poses the same level of a threat on offense and if you take that away, regardless of the potential of your young guys, you will struggle even more.

Do I think Zach is an All-Star? No. But that doesn't mean that he can't be the best player on one of the worst teams in the league. Maybe Roy is going to be better this year, but so far he has only had one good preseason game. He has a lot more to prove than Zach does.

The fact that Roy gets the benefit of the doubt that he is already better on very little data amidst an obvious resurgence in Zach's game is troubling.

yakbladder

I hesitated on replying to this because the rest of the thread is much more entertaining but then I thought..nyuh, why not?

I think you are vastly mis-interpreting my statement about Zach and I also think you're wrong.

You HAVE to have a low post option. HAVE to. I don't care if it's 3 or 4 touches a game, there is no team alive that won't at least throw it in there once or twice. Does it have to be the bulk of your game? No. But you have to have the threat of being able to score within the first five feet of the basket. I think that's where you are misinterpreting things. I'm not saying you have to have a primarily post-based offense, I'm saying you have to have that option. And while Shaq was supporting Wade in a portion of the playoffs, I'd hardly dismiss Shaq as just supporting cast.

Zach may not be a special player but he is, for the most part,