2 Better Than 1

by Oppy on Dec 1, 2008 12:56 PM PST

I already touched on this subject once when I mentioned the name of our championship-caliber PG Stevio Blakeriguez, but I think it's worth examining in greater detail.

In a lot of ways, the Blazers are a team of the future. They are young, full of potential, and seemingly have years of dominance ahead of them. But just as importantly, I think the structure and makeup of this team is also an example of where the league is headed. As we've seen the NBA develop in the post-MJ era, we've seen how it takes more than one superstar to win a title. The Lakers needed Shaq AND Kobe, the Pistons needed Sheed, Billups AND Co., the Spurs need Duncan, Parker and Ginobili, and the Celtics needed their "Big Three." The Blazers have continued this trend with our own (hopefully) version of a Big Three, but I think we are also taking it a step farther.

This team (with a few notable exceptions) seems to rely on multiple players to fill the individual positions on the team. We use the combined powers of Blake and Sergio to satisfy the point guard duties (with a dose of Brandon, as necessary). We use GregZilla to man the center spot. We use Batum, Outlaw and (soon) Martell to fill the 3 spot, and LaMa gets key help from Outlaw and Frye to add some scoring punch to the 4. Apart from Brandon, and possibly LaMa, this team doesn't have any one player that really gives us everything we need by themselves. And even though many of us clamor for trades to give us the all-in-one-package PG/Small Forward/etc. the truth is that the Blazers' depth is moving us beyond that sort of setup.

This team is all about diversification. We're not putting our eggs in one basket. If Blake is getting torched and is cold from distance, Sergio can hit the occasional 3 and push the pick and roll more. When LaMa loses his stroke or can't rebound, let Frye or Outlaw spread the defense more. Martell can run and shoot, but if he's cold, so can Batum (and Rudy and Travis). Having one guy that can do all of these things is great, but when that one guy is off, who picks up the slack?

With this team, we're spreading the minutes enough that full-time starters are a thing of the past. Guys might start and then not come back in. Bench players might play more than starters. It's a new NBA, and that requires a new way to win. I think this Blazers team is going to win multiple titles, and in doing so, they are creating the blueprint for NBA success for other teams.

Let's just hope we stay healthy and get ours before other teams get wise.

Oppy

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

still don't buy it

1. This is the regular season
2. Our amazing success with this “new NBA” style (it is not new) does not have a big sample size.
3. Finding and playing the right guy down the stretch on a team this deep and young will continue to be difficult for Nate.

Boycott Rose Garden Concessions!!!
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/11/8/657044/boycotting-rose-garden-con

by idoltime on Dec 1, 2008 1:19 PM PST reply actions

it might be early, but that doesn't make it true

1. Regular season success is necessary to get anywhere in the postseason, and usually, it tends to be a good predictor of postseason success

2. This style is “new” in the sense that for a long time now, most teams tend to have a few (if that) established stars and then they try to put role players around them. We are playing (several) guys off the bench that could be full-time starters elsewhere. People forget that Trader Bob was seen as revolutionary for trying to amass a similar collection of talent (the difference, of course, being that those guys were overpaid and didn’t have any chemistry). That didn’t work out because he didn’t have KP’s patience or foresight. Then again, few GMS do.

3. We’re seeing Nate evolve along with the team. Case in point, he played Batum down the stretch last night when it was clear that Travis didn’t have it going and Batum was making the right play. Those kind of judgment calls are what Nate will be able to provide.

by Oppy on Dec 1, 2008 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

hey I couldn't be happier if you are right

Many people cite the ’77 Blazers vs. 76ers matchup as a great example of loaded teams and stars surrounded by role players.

The problem is twofold… first, can we succeed with a large active roster where a subset (7ish) of guys are not getting 25+ minutes? second.. does having two (or more) guys splitting a role make up for not having top level talent at that position? Sergio/Blake/Bayless and Batum/Outlaw/Martell are very possibly less talented right now than the average starter on playoff caliber teams.

So in a seven game series against.. anyone.. we are going to really be hoping for these different looks and combinations to be a good thing but what if we just find that we cannot put a team on the court that can matchup once a team figures out our weak players?

Just a bit of realism here.. no big deal.. again.. I’d love it if we could sport 15 guys who all could just ball like crazy and would all be ready so that we were resilient against injury and could matchup with any team and play crazy full court presses because our players rarely need to play more than 30 mins..

but I’m just not sure how realistic this all is

Boycott Rose Garden Concessions!!!
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/11/8/657044/boycotting-rose-garden-con

by idoltime on Dec 1, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions

We can handle two starters

that are less talented than opposing starters.

There are four ways to offset that:
1. More talent at the other three starting positions. That’s going to be the case against almost every team, even in the playoffs. Few have a SG/PF/C combo better than ours.
2. More talent off the bench at those two positions. In general, our backups at those two positions appear to be at least equal in talent to the backups they would face. Even if the opposing starter plays 40 minutes, you’ll make up some of the talent deficit when he sits.
3. More talent off the bench at the other three positions. Again, our depth comes through.
4. Better team chemistry. I don’t know if we’ll have that or not, but it’s certainly trending good right now.

You don’t have to be better at every position, but if you are deep at all positions, it definitely helps. It isn’t just our starters vs. theirs, it’s 48 minutes at SF, 48 minutes at PG, etc.

The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
The pick and roll this year will emphasize "roll" followed by "dunk", followed by the wailings and lamentations of your women.

by jscot on Dec 1, 2008 2:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I’m not sure I agree that “Sergio/Blake/Bayless and Batum/Outlaw/Martell are very possibly less talented right now than the average starter on playoff caliber teams.” And while I agree that it’s still early, and this team isn’t in a position to win a title right now, I think the point is that we are set up to have 9-10 guys (at least) contribute meaningful, regular minutes. Obviously we can’t play 15 guys every night, but I think that these guys are showing that a lot of guys can still contribute if they’re not given starter type minutes.

And while it’s possible that some of these guys just won’t handle taking a backseat, I think that what we’re seeing is a league where guys are more and more willing to share the spotlight for success. It’s why Kobe and Garnett and AI and LeBron are looking for more talent around themselves to win it all, as opposed to carrying a team singlehandledly. Yes it would be nice to have Deron Williams or Chris Paul, but this way we aren’t reliant on them alone. When Chris Paul is off, the Hornets are done. But if you look at LA now, when Kobe doesn’t score 20 points, the can still dominate. Why? Because they go almost 10 deep. Like the Blazers.

Nothing is guaranteed obviously, but just because teams haven’t won with this type of distribution of minutes doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In fact, it merely illustrates my point that we are creating a new blueprint for success.

by Oppy on Dec 1, 2008 2:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Sergio/Blake/Bayless and Batum/Outlaw/Martell are very possibly less talented right now than the average starter on playoff caliber teams.

Even if you accept this premise to be true, playoff basketball is not a group of five 1 on 1 matchups; it’s one team vs another team. I think that the players the Blazers have, both starting and on the bench, are there because they complement their teammates. No matter who we play in the playoffs, they’re going to have a hard time stopping the Blazers because 8 guys in that group can shoot out to 3 point range (more or less), and Oden demands double-teaming (Joel, I guess, demands not to be totally ignored).

I recognize the point you are making about having one great player at a position being better than 2 good players, but it’s all in context of how they fit in our team.

Travis Outlaw is an alien, but in a good way.

Awesome Graphic was provided by CIC, because he felt like he should be hazed.

by Clevelander among roses on Dec 1, 2008 6:36 PM PST up reply actions

Having one weak position will kill you in the playoffs.

If Blake/Sergio can’t guard the apposing teams PG guard it’s really going to hurt in a seven game series. Our big guys are going to get into foul trouble early and the other team will exploit it to no end.

Look at the point guards on playoff contenders in the West.

Tony Parker
Steve Nash
Chris Paul
Deron Williams
Jason Kidd
Chauncy Billups
Rafer Alston
Steve Blake

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others,
By the time I finish singing my song?

OK, Alston doesn’t fit either, but maybe that’s part of the reason Houston loses in the first round of the playoffs every year.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 1, 2008 1:59 PM PST reply actions

That is pretty scary when you put it like that!

My favorite teams are the Blazers and any team that is playing the Lakers.

by OCBlazerFan1 on Dec 1, 2008 2:30 PM PST up reply actions

I don't find it all that scary...

none of those guys can play 48 minutes all by them self. Who is backing them up? Every team has to have a bench. I think our bench is better, and some of those starters are past their prime.

Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
It is Official! LMA is BACK!!!
39:33 Mins 11-19 FGs 5-5 FTs +23 3 Off 4 Rebs 2 Stl 1 Blk 27 Points! - LMA vs Det 11-30-08

by LaMarvelous on Dec 1, 2008 11:06 PM PST up reply actions

I don't see Derek Fisher on that list

That is important because he plays next to K@be; likewise Blake plays alongside Roy. The spurs (and marginally Dallas) are the only teams that resemble having nearly two stars at the guards. My point is that you need one unstoppable guard (ie must be double teamed) and one competent guard. The best two guard combo of recent years was Billups & Hamilton or Rondo & Pierce (but I think of Pierce as a 3 not a 2).

by NWfan on Dec 1, 2008 2:38 PM PST up reply actions

Right

Seems like we managed to beat the Spurs with Mr. Longoria and the Hornets with Chris Paul. We shut down Wade (I know, he’s not a PG, but he’s an Everything Guard).

You need a great PG or wing (SG or SF). Cleveland made the Finals without a good PG on the basis of one great player.

We are a great rebounding team right now. We are a great shot-blocking team. We have 12 fouls to burn at center — we will have a great shot-blocker in the game for 48 minutes. A great PG may singlehandedly win a game against us here or there. A great PG will not singlehandedly win a 7 game series. He needs a lot of help over seven games.

by jscot on Dec 1, 2008 2:52 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I hear you.

If the Blazers continue to improve their team defense it might not matter much. Steve Blake isn’t terrible, but he still makes me nervous as a 28 year old guy who seems to be losing a step defensively. In a few years I’m not sure he will even make the rotation. I’m not holding my breath for a new PG; maybe one of the little three (blake, sergio, bayless) will step it up a notch. Still, it’s probably the Blazers weakest position and it wouldn’t hurt to improve it if at all possible.

Tony Parker destroyed Cleveland in the finals and was named MVP for the series. They might have not gotten swept if they could have contained Parker even just a little.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 1, 2008 3:15 PM PST up reply actions

I think

both Sergio and Jerryd will be better than Steve within a couple of years. I also think Petteri will be rotation-quality in 3-4 years.

I think Steve can fill the role adequately, and that we have guys growing into doing much more than that. When we drafted Jerryd, I said that the Big Three just became the Big Four. I am extremely high on him, I think he is eventually going to be an all-star caliber player. He may never make the all-star game just because guys like Parker are around, but I think he is going to be good enough to be in that conversation.

by jscot on Dec 2, 2008 6:39 AM PST up reply actions

Bayless certainly has the tools.

The fact that they aren’t playing him makes me wonder. What other top 10 draft prospect is getting almost no minutes? I guess it doesn’t matter much. He’s cheap and no one cares if he sulks on the bench (which he doesn’t seem to be doing). It would make things really simple if Bayless could fill that roll.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 2, 2008 1:46 PM PST up reply actions

Recent history

Last year, Sergio sat a lot, this year he’s getting a chance. I can guarantee everyone is reminding Jerryd of that. Learn, baby, learn, that’s his job this year. Watch and learn and practice and memorize game tapes and shoot, etc.

by jscot on Dec 3, 2008 2:17 AM PST up reply actions

I forgot about Fisher.

That’s a good point. I think the Lakers make up for it by being stacked at every other position and maybe the Blazers could do the same thing in a couple years.

Having said that, Derek Fisher still brings more to the table than Blake. He’s got tons of playoff experience, hits big shots, and is a much better defender than Blake. He might be slowing down a bit, but Fisher/Farmar is still a much better duo than Blake/Sergio.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 1, 2008 3:04 PM PST up reply actions

"Much"

not by much.

RLEC Trades Galore!

by TheGreatDane17 on Dec 1, 2008 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

Good call on Rafer

Skip was good at street ball, average at NBA

"Why would we lie to ourselves dude?"
"Be excellent to each other."
"All we are is dust in the wind, dude."
"Strange things are afoot at the Circle K."

The Wisdom of Bill S Preston Esquire and Ted Theodore Logan

by GreatOden'sRaven on Dec 1, 2008 2:59 PM PST up reply actions

The gang over at The Dream Shake are constantly complaining about Rafer Alston.

Blazer's Edge Ambassador to The Dream Shake Blog
It is Official! LMA is BACK!!!
39:33 Mins 11-19 FGs 5-5 FTs +23 3 Off 4 Rebs 2 Stl 1 Blk 27 Points! - LMA vs Det 11-30-08

by LaMarvelous on Dec 1, 2008 11:09 PM PST up reply actions

Sergio

Proved to me he can hang with any PG in the league defensively, as long as we can execute our team defense those PG’s shouldn’t bother us.

RLEC Trades Galore!

by TheGreatDane17 on Dec 1, 2008 3:58 PM PST up reply actions

We have yet to play three of the point guards listed above by Nick (Williams, Billups, Kidd)

One of them we couldn’t contain (Nash). Two barely from going double double (Parker, CP3). Sergio has proven that he has literally improved. He has not proven to be a defensive force yet. Or that he can hit his outside shot. Look at NBA Hotspots if you don’t believe: Dude is better, but still has a lot of cold areas.

by Norsktroll on Dec 1, 2008 4:35 PM PST up reply actions

this is a moot point

as we have Roy and they have who at sg, so you have to look at the entire backcourt in that case. Once again I bring up this

Stockton
Nash
Kidd
Paul
Kevin Johnson

ZERO titles

and

BJ Armstrong
Steve Kerr
Kenny Smith
Jason Williams
Rajon Rondo

8 titles.

Having a start pg is a nicety as with Parker and Billups bot NOT a necessity. I have been preaching this over and over again but no one listens to me.

Lastly we have done pretty well against Paul last game and his entire career. His splits against us are pretty low compared to other teams he has faced. 16, 6, 6 and 5 tos last game is proof.

WE PLAY D AS A TEAM.

Watching Blake/Sergio and Oden/Pryz overload the D on one side and force Paul to said side was done amazingly and we are finally starting to learn how to play D together, which is scary.

"Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. They are working the rest of the league like a speed bag." - Bill Simmons 6/26/08

by SpyderRyder on Dec 1, 2008 4:16 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Good points.

I would argue however that BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Kenny Smith, and Rajon Rondo are (were) far superior to Blake or Sergio. I would be super happy with a Rondo type player. BJ Armstrong led the league in 3 point percentage. I think Steve Kerr still holds the all time record for the highest 3pp in a single season. Kenny Smith holds the Rockets record for career 3pp.

Recap

BJ Armstrong- Led league in 3pp in 1992. (2nd in 1994)
Steve Kerr- Holds record for single highest season 3pp.
Kenny Smith- Holds record for highest Rockets 3pp.

If only Steve Blake could shoot .524% from the 3 point line an entire season. Then we would be onto something. Until then I’m hoping the Blazers can improve the PG position in some fashion. Maybe Bayless will do it for them at some point. Maybe Blake can shoot .50% for an entire season. Who knows, we should be finding out soon enough.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 1, 2008 9:17 PM PST up reply actions

kinda of

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&=s&p1=smithke01&y1=1995&=k&p2=kerrst01&y2=1996&=b&p3=blakest01&y3=2009&=a&p4=armstbj01&y4=1993

the #s are very similar on a per 36 min basis but Blake has th highest career a/to ratio of all of them meaning that he was widely viewed as a pass first pg with not as good a shot but coming here he has been forced to play off the ball more with Roy, leading to an increase of 3pt atts, which he takes the most of out of the group on a per 36 min basis.

There were sections that Blake hit 50%+ last year and I think that now he has been asked to be that 3pt shooter it should only get better as he practices and grows into his role more.

"Damn the Blazers. Damn them to hell. They are working the rest of the league like a speed bag." - Bill Simmons 6/26/08

by SpyderRyder on Dec 1, 2008 11:23 PM PST up reply actions

Wow

I never knew they won because BJ shot so high. I’m sure they wouldn’t have if he’d only shot, oh, 42% or something.

OK, sorry if that’s too sarcastic. That level of 3pp is obviously a valuable weapon, but it doesn’t negate the point that overwhelming firepower at other positions means you only need a role player at the point.

by jscot on Dec 2, 2008 6:43 AM PST up reply actions

A little sarcastic.

It’s just my humble opinion. I think most people would agree that Blake isn’t the same caliber roll player that Kerr, Armstrong and Kenny Smith were. Again, it’s just my opinion.

This might be the last time the Blazers have an opportunity to upgrade the roster without giving much away. If I was Kevin Pritchard (which I’m not) and I’m looking at the roster what would be my number one cause for concern? I’m probably looking at the PG position, which by most statistical measures is the weakest by far.

Even though Blake is a serviceable role player, am I comfortable having him lead my championship contending team to a title? If it’s game seven of the Western Conference finals do I want Steve Blake guarding Chris Paul? Probably not. That doesn’t mean Blake gets traded. He would be a PERFECT roll player coming off the bench. I’m just not sure he is a good enough roll player to start. Especially if we don’t start winning titles for another five years.

Time will tell. This will probably be a moot point by next season.

by Nick Van Excellent on Dec 2, 2008 1:43 PM PST up reply actions

Rafer Alston is not that good.

And like SpyderRider said, how many of those guys have not won a title, and how many titles has BJ Armstrong won? just curious…

by Bust a Bucket on Dec 1, 2008 4:30 PM PST up reply actions

Blake is the only one with

Playoff experience. Technically, he’s known to be more reliable in a playoff setting than even Roy. Though I obviously think Roy will be more impactful, Blake will do fine.

by IsaacFHarris on Dec 1, 2008 3:10 PM PST reply actions

Mathematically speaking

less dependece on any one piece makes for a much more resilient system…

like..LeBron has the flu…cavs lose for a week…

add examples here ______________ :-)

that doesn’t happen in Portland right now…

and anyone who has made it to the NBA has clutch potential that can only be shown when there is an opportunity…then an experience…then re-inforcement..

by LetsBlaze on Dec 1, 2008 6:28 PM PST reply actions

PROBLEM

The major “problem” of having to many good young players is, at the end of the day, they all want to play. If you have the ability to start in the NBA, you will want to play for the team that will start you. If you are C Frye, or S Rod, or even Rudy or Bayless, wouldn’t you rather play 34 min per night? I know what all of you will say, but I don’t care how much money P Allen throws around, players will want to go somewhere they can start, and yes even if that means playing for a worse team.

by bad karma on Dec 1, 2008 8:11 PM PST reply actions