Thread Tools

Display Modes

ZBoFanatic · 10-18-2006, 03:57 PM

You guys are beating a dead horse. Zach will get blamed for every loss, and no one will give up their position. If the team wins, everyone but Zach will get the credit, and when Zach doesn't play and the team loses, no one will say anything, and no one will respond to statements such as "the team was winless without Zach playing last year", but a thread about how the Blazer's offense is stagnant because of Zach in a preseason game where he plays 40 minutes and the team scores 120 points is like the topic of the century. Nothing new here.

mook · 10-18-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Seriously though I think we might be surprised once Aldridge is cleared to play. Let's not forget his importance on Texas last year and their succes as a top 5 team throughout the year. Lamarcus + Raef + return for Zach...I don't think IMO that we would see a big dropoff.

Hard to drop off much from 20 wins.

I (and many others) are optimistic about Aldridge. however, I was also optimistic about Bonzi, Outlaw, Webster, Khryapa, Monia, Telfair, uh, I'm probably forgetting some guys. I was never that optimistic about Ha, I'll admit.

anyway, my point is that Aldridge is certainly no sure thing. his upside is that he'll produce offense and rebounding like Zach, with better defense and passing. he may never come close to reaching that potential. there's a pretty long list of big men drafted in the top 5 who never became nearly as good as Randolph.

Portland's done pretty well for itself in the power forward department. Grant, Rasheed, Jermaine, Rahim, Randolph--that's a pretty nice list of guys. But I think it makes fans think a quality PF is pretty easy to get. Seattle's had one guy that good in the last decade (Kemp). Ditto with a number of other teams. Zach may be the best PF Portland sees for a number of years.

Masbee · 10-18-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schilly

I want to say To ringbearer or anyone else who thinks I am saying that simply benching Zach makse us a better team, you have totally mis-interpereted me. So far with the new configuration of this team...Yes I know 2 games is too small of a sample, but all that per 100 posessions stuff was for last season, big sample... Zach makes the team less efficient when he is in. It's pretty hard to debate that based on the performance per minute with/without him. DOes he make the team worse? Don't know but for 2 games I think it's definately debateable.

My contention is this Portland needs a PF that is better suited to the other players on the floor. It appears through 2 games that Roy has a better positive impact on the game than Zach does, and having watched both games in person it seems that he simply plays within the flow of the rest of his team. The ball moves around alot as long as it stays out of Zachs hands.

We need a PF that fits the rest of the players on the floor. As good as Zach may be, I personally don't believe he is that guy. And based on his impact (+.8 per 100 posessions last year?) He may be much more replaceable than people contend.

To use +/- statistics for a small sample time is to waste your time and everybody elses time. The numbers are garbage.

It is like saying, hey I just rolled 7 four times in a row, thus I will keep rolling sevens. Small sample size give you no reliable information.

I also find it completely ridiculous that you are attempting to make this argument after Zach dropped 27 on a good percentage. Talk about filtering through hate filled lenses.

As for Zach's poor "best player" plus/minus numbers last season I have some comments:

Every player on the Blazers had a poor plus/minus rating last season. It was very much a "team" effort in being the suckiest team in the West. Everybody "contributed". The large number of blowouts messed with the numbers too.

Zach was playing on surgically repaired knees. It clearly affected his game. He wanted to play anyway. The team wanted him to play. He tried to contribute in contrast to many other players in similar situations who didn't even try.

Guards are independant and can put up good numbers on teams with poor bigs. Bigs (like Zach) MUST rely on decent guard play to have a chance to put up solid numbers. As I have said many times, last year's Blazers had a poor group of guards - undersized, rookies getting big minutes, bench players starting - yech.

Zach played a fair number of minutes out of position at Center, and was statistically worse in those lineups. Is it his fault that he is unable to play Center effectively or that the team actually had him do it?

Zach should be healthier this season and more confident in his knees.

Roster changes and another year experience look to have improved the guards on paper. We will see if that translates into better guard production this season.

Roster changes look to have improved the dept at Center, eliminating the need to play Zach there.

Sheed30 · 10-18-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZBoFanatic

You guys are beating a dead horse. Zach will get blamed for every loss, and no one will give up their position. If the team wins, everyone but Zach will get the credit, and when Zach doesn't play and the team loses, no one will say anything, and no one will respond to statements such as "the team was winless without Zach playing last year", but a thread about how the Blazer's offense is stagnant because of Zach in a preseason game where he plays 40 minutes and the team scores 120 points is like the topic of the century. Nothing new here.

You could not have said it any better

**Schilly** · 10-18-2006, 04:13 PM

Fair enough guys. BTW Masbee the best player numbers themselves aren't relevant. Bad teams are going to generate lowe +- numbers because they get beat alot. But you can to some degree look at it and determine a persons impact on his own team. That's all I was pointing out.

We'll have to see how it goes.

Oil Can · 10-18-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mook

do they really? I'm trying to think of recent Blazers who are universally loved. Sabonis. Pippen. not exactly going out on a limb to love two of the hundred or so greatest players to ever play the game.

uh, anyone else?

Brian Grant comes to mind.

blakeback · 10-18-2006, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mook

do they really? I'm trying to think of recent Blazers who are universally loved. Sabonis. Pippen. not exactly going out on a limb to love two of the hundred or so greatest players to ever play the game.

Show me a Portlander who doesn't love Porter, and I'll show you a Portlander who thought you were talking about a type of beer.

yakbladder · 10-18-2006, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oil Can

Brian Grant comes to mind.

The mere fact that several of us still root for Travis Outlaw to do well also speaks about the Portland mindset. Now we may want to trade him by the deadline but we've also given him the benefit of the doubt several times out.

I think you're (Mook) much too harsh on Portlanders. But then, maybe you're (Mook) just referring to the California transplants.

As for Zbo, I know ZboFanatic would like to have us believe we are all evil, despicable people for ever saying one thing bad about Zach and everyone constantly posts about the fact that Zach is to blame for the end of the garden of Eden, etc. etc. but really Schilly was just putting some statistical analysis out there (however flawed) that SEEMS to me to be an extension of an earlier debate he and Ed had about who the best player on the team is.

mook · 10-18-2006, 05:31 PM

Porter is a recent Blazer? I wish.

Grant is still generally well-liked, mostly because management at the time went against popular opinion and (thankfully) refused to re-sign him. had we made the mistake of re-upping him, I'm pretty sure he'd be loathed here as a contract albatross.

It's_GO_Time · 10-18-2006, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schilly

I was at both games....LOL

No my argument the other day was that it is hard to simply look at the play by play transcript and determine the flow of the game and how certain players affect it. I also think you are right on, you can't simply look at a players individual production and guage their impact on the game. For Example last night, Zach had a monster game, but breaking it down the team was better offensively and defensively when he wasn't in the game.

When you read the Play by Play, at say ESPN, it doesn't say "Zach dribbling, dribbling cribbling, lazy pass to Sergio, Now Sergio has to rush the shot with 3 on the clock" it says "Rodriguez Missed Jumper 3 seconds on Sot Clock".

I still don't get it. If, according to you, stats don't show the impact a player has on the game, why are you using stats to show the impact players have on the game?

It's_GO_Time · 10-18-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hap

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?

Edit: forget it, not worth it

ZBoFanatic · 10-18-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yakbladder

As for Zbo, I know ZboFanatic would like to have us believe we are all evil, despicable people for ever saying one thing bad about Zach and everyone constantly posts about the fact that Zach is to blame for the end of the garden of Eden, etc. etc. but really Schilly was just putting some statistical analysis out there (however flawed) that SEEMS to me to be an extension of an earlier debate he and Ed had about who the best player on the team is.

I don't despise everyone who says one bad thing about Zach. I only despise the people that blame him for the end of the garden of Eden. There's actually a lot of those.

Contrary to what every you read between the lines I wrote, I had no problem with the statistical analysis. I did think a lot of the comments afterwards labeling Zach as the problem on offense were offbase. I mean come on... 120 points... led the team in scoring, rebounding, assists. 10-17 from the field (10 for 16 before the 3 pointer w/ 4 seconds to go in the game). He's obviously worked on his passing, and still needs to work on it more, but why is he getting ragged about that right now? Aren't the guards supposed to have a lot of assists? I don't see anyone screaming trade the guards because they aren't doing their job. But I'm not expecting that though.

Anyway, keep telling everyone what you know man. I appreciate it.

**Schilly** · 10-18-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

I still don't get it. If, according to you, stats don't show the impact a player has on the game, why are you using stats to show the impact players have on the game?

If you don't get it thats not my problem. Your talking apples to oranges. An individuals stat line isn't entirely indicitve of their impact on the game, as it doesn't factor alot of elements. It's like looking at assists but not aknowledging turnovers. Or saying hey my guy had a great game...without taking note of the fact that the guy he was defending had a better game.Simply looking at Blocks can't tell you how good of a defender a player is.

Now to me the best stat to guage a players affect on the game is the teams efficiency offensively and defensively when they are in, and comparing that to when they are out. In theory your team should be less efficient when your best player is out of the game.

The reason I look at it this way is because there are players that are walking stat machines, but their overall contribution to the teams success is low, a lot of times due to their dominance of the ball on offense and their lack of defense at the other end.

Scoring 20 doesn't make much difference if the guy you are defending scored 24. As a whole thats a -4.

Stats are a funny thing they can be interpreted in many ways, but regardless of how you interpret them they are fact.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes