The "8-Man Rotation" Revisited
So I know this is something that has been talked about, but I personally feel like it wasn't resolved. Coach Nate recently commented that he plans to narrow the roster down to an 8-man rotation during the season. With many of the other statements he's made, I just don't understand how such a lineup could work.

Keep in mind that an 8-man rotation would have three guys off the bench: most likely a guard, a medium sized player, and a big.
It's a given that Roy will see lots and lots of minutes this season, and we don't need to discuss this. The other guard who is supposed to start with him is Blake (based on comments by the coaching staff); yet does this mean that Bayless and Rudy will both have time off the bench? What about Nate's statements after the Olympics that Rudy will definitely have playing time? What about Bayless's summer league performance?
In theory, this only leaves one other man in the rotation. How can this possibly work? Frye, Outlaw, and Przybilla are all worthy players.
Perhaps only one of the guards between Bayless and Rudy will get a good bulk of minutes off the bench. On the contrary, maybe Blake will be replaced in the starting lineup.
In the end, who gets edged out? Many people seem to think that Frye won't play much, but I think he's improved too much to rule him out. Would an absence of Joel leave the team too small?
What is the most likely 8-man rotation?
2 recs |
26 comments
Comments
My ideal rotation:
Starters
PG Bayless
SG Roy
SF Webster
PF Aldridge
C Oden
Bench
G Rudy
F Trout
C Frye? Przybilla?
--
by CaptainSexyJacob on
Aug 30, 2008 8:17 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
i don't think that the Blazers will use a tight 8 man rotation until just a few weeks before the playoffs.
Even then, i think we might use a nine man rotation
PG: Bayless & Blake
SG: Roy & Rudy
SF: Webster & Outlaw
PF: Aldridge & Outlaw
C: Oden & Pryz
I also think that if Rudy or Roy can be shown adequately play the SF then Martell and Travis might be moved for a improved starting SF. If that happens this is the rotation if see
PG: Blake/Bayless
SG: Roy/Rudy
SF: New SF/Rudy or Roy
PF: Aldridge/Frye
C: Oden/Pryz
by Zaron5551 on
Aug 30, 2008 8:25 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Can you quote?
If Nate said that you need to link it. Jason Quick said he thought it would be KP’s intention to whittle down the roster like the other winning dynasty’s of late (SA, LA) have shown to be a proven strategy. Weeks ago I fanposted Quick’s story, the comments there are worth revisiting.
"You can't buy your woman a watch because she got a clock on the stove."-Sir Charles Barkley
by shwa on
Aug 30, 2008 8:51 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2008/08/it_is_his_own_basketball.html
Paragraph 11
And that’s in reference to another article written up by J Quick in which Nate says that Blake will be the starter. I’ll try to dig that one up as well.
--
by CaptainSexyJacob on
Aug 30, 2008 9:19 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It' would be easier to use a 10 man rotation
But if we have to narrow it down to only 8 I would go with:
PG:Blake/Roy
SG:Roy/Rudy
SF:Roy/Outlaw
PF:Aldridge/Frye
C:Oden/Przybilla
I think it is a good idea to keep 4 bigs in the rotation since they pick up fouls easily. Frye showed at the end of last year that he can be a very good player, and Przybilla’s lack of offense shouldn’t be a huge problem given how much firepower we have in the rest of the rotation. It’s hard to cut Webster out of the rotation when he is improving at a good pace and seems to fit well with the other starters, but I just don’t think he is as good as Outlaw or Rudy right now. If Bayless plays well he could end up displacing Blake, although not having a real PG in the rotation could cause some problems, especially when Roy is out.
by trk on
Aug 30, 2008 9:19 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I love Roy as much as the next guy.
I’m not so sure about having him start 2 positions though.
by Bskey on
Aug 31, 2008 3:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If anybody can do it, Roy is it
Odenied: Asked whether he noticed Oden favoring his right knee, Frye dismissed it entirely. "He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors."
by Norsktroll on
Aug 31, 2008 4:34 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's a good question
but also keep in mind that what Coach tells us and what actually happen are often two different things. I don’t know if that’s because things don’t go as planned or because he knows it’s not all that important to hold strictly to what he tells us…it being more important to get things right. I have learned that most statements he makes about the future should be taken with a grain of salt, and none more so than the ones he makes in the off-season.
I suppose this could also be attributed to having a young team where you don’t know exactly how things will shake out.
As far as an 8-man rotation, I’m not as concerned about numbers of players playing as I am about minute distribution. I mean, by default you will be able to name the eight players getting the most minutes on our team. That doesn’t mean much. What means more is how many minutes those 8-9-10 guys are getting. Is Brandon playing 37 minutes per game again? That may mean Blake having to play fewer in order to make room for young guards. Or it may mean the young guards playing fewer in order to give us a surer chance to win. Will we have three guys in the 8-9-10 rotation spots playing 10 minutes a game each? Or will guys like Przybilla, Rudy, and Bayless be playing 20 each? To me that’s more indicative of the rotation.
—Dave
by Dave on
Aug 30, 2008 9:29 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
An end of the season 8 man rotation
Coach McMillan will experiment a lot with lineups during the season. In March/April he will narrow to an 8-man rotation. My guess is:
Front court: Oden, Aldridge, Frye
Wing: Webster
Back Court: Roy, Fernandez, and B, where B = Bayless or Blake
Utility: Outlaw or a player to be acquired later
I will swim upstream and predict that Nate picks Frye over Pryzbilla due to Frye being a better all around contributor statistically. Roy was effective at small forward last season and will play there more as Rudy earns playing time at the 2. Greg + LaMarcus + Brandon + Rudy will be devastating.
There seem to be two wild cards.
We don’t know how quickly Bayless will earn playing time, and we don’t know whether anyone but Blake on this team is capable of playing point. Bayless is so competitive that you expect, with his talent, he will find a way to eclipse his competition, but he has sooooo far to go to replace Blake.
Outlaw is a fan favorite, but, clutch play aside, overall he is not as effective as the other 3s and 4s, and we are acquiring a team full of clutch players. Given that Outlaw’s trade value is high, he seems to be the most plausible target as the first player shipped out to bring in someone new before the trading deadline. But if KP cannot find a way to significantly upgrade without breaking up the rest of the core, expect Travis to remain a Blazer through next season.
These predictions are governed by the usual terms, conditions, qualifiers, and disclaimers. Your real mileage may vary.
by jaywalker on
Aug 30, 2008 10:04 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
lets keep outlaw for his clutch play
be real, who do you want at the end of the game more, webster or outlaw?……….
im as big a webster fan as anybody, but he’s not as important as outlaw….
sure we got a lot of other clutch players(Roy, Rudy,soon to be bayless), but we’re likely not goin to a 3 guard set to end the game………when the game is on the line, we’re going to need outlaw on the wing for brandon to kick it to, Rudy also (though i see more of rudy cutting to the basket)..Also, his athleticism would be missed. There are so few guys with his combination of physical atributes. He truly is a matchup nightmare……….with webster in the game theres more pressure for roy to create, cuz when the shot clock is winding down, he struggles creating a high percentage shot.
I guess don’t trade outlaw unless it’s for a point forward like Tmac…or somebody with the Defensive and physical skills of a Shawn Marion………that element of athleticism is one aspect of the game we do not want to lose, and Travis gives us that.
by BroyTheTruth on
Aug 31, 2008 1:18 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
From a fan's perspective I couldn't agree more
Thanks; I really appreciate your point of view and sympathize with it, and even want events to work out as you say. Travis is fun to watch and a great guy, and very, very clutch. But question asked us to play Coach for a moment, and cranking the numbers from last season says that Travis is the most expendable of our big men from last season. The numbers that seemed most relevant to answer the question posed are comparisons of the “By Position” numbers, which may be found in the section by the same name on 82games. This is because we have to construct an 8 man roster, so, as Coach, we have to figure out who can contribute most at each position, and also amortize the contributions of the players chosen across different positions.
Travis’ PER at small forward (13.7) was lower than Webster’s (13.9), Jones’ (15.3), or Roy’s (23.4, the team lead among players who received at least 10% of the small forward minutes). On defense against small forwards he struggled even more; Travis’ opponent PER against small forwards was 19.3, while Jones’ was 17.2, Webster 16.6, and Roy’s 16.5. None of these defensive numbers are good, but Webster’s and Roy’s are at least within striking distance of average (15.0).
The Blazers’ power forward slot was filled only by LaMarcus and Travis more than 10% of the time, so the comparison has to be restricted to them. It is no comparison; while LaMarcus wins the PER minutes at the 4 race 20.7 against Travis’ very respectable 18.9, LaMarcus also held the opponent power forward’s PER to 15.9—almost average—while Travis struggled with at 19.9.
There is another factor that may have contributed to the Blazers’ decision to move Outlaw to play mostly small forward this year, and certainly contributed to mine: Channing Frye. Channing did not play sufficient minutes at power forward for his numbers to be statistically meaningful, but after receiving 4% of the power forward playing time, they are nonetheless suggestive: average offense with a 15.1 PER, but stellar defense by holding the opponent power forward to an eye-popping 12.7. I picked Frye on the 8 man roster on the basis of this and his similar opponent center PER of 14.8—significantly better even than Pryzbilla’s 17.6. A year’s worth of data says Channing can play D.
When evaluated at least against the statistics I thought were most important for this exercise, Travis was the weakest of our regular big men last season. He played clutch, but next season we expect to have more offensive weapons during the 4th quarter, and we also expect to be playing catch up less, putting more emphasis on defense at closing time. Travis was an ideal go-to guy on last year’s roster, but the numbers say he has some major catch up to do himself as the squad has been constituted for the future.
We know there are lies, darn lies, and statistics, but, other than the memory of the thrills Travis has given us, statistics are all I had to go on. Remember, your actual mileage will vary.
by jaywalker on
Aug 31, 2008 5:23 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It should be fine
besides Blake, Raef, Roy, and Pryz who one this team really qualifies as a man other than in a biological sense?
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on
Aug 31, 2008 12:36 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
8-man rotation is down the line
It may be by the end of this season, it come next year or the year after. But it won’t happen this year unless our rookies are truly phenomenal and we make a trade by the deadline. Why do I say this? Because eventually that 8-man won’t include Blake. It will be Bayless, Roy, Rudy, Martell, Trout, Frye, Lma and Oden. If a trade is needed one of these guys will go, most likely Martell Trout or Frye. Blake will remain part of the rotation until Bayless shows he can take over PG duties. Both Blake and Pryz will not be rotation players but role players who will step up when called or fill voids in the event of injury. BUt it will take at least one year and quite probably two until the ley players are identified. Until then Trout Martell Bayless, Rudy, Frye, Ike, Batum and Sergio will just be trying to cement their way onto the core of the team or take a reserve role or be traded.
by NWfan on
Aug 31, 2008 1:53 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Sergio will average 35 minutes a game
Pee Chee it!
The first day I ever met him he said: "Hi, I'm Ritchie White. I'm on probation."
by tominhawaii on
Aug 31, 2008 4:41 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Let's not get carried away
Tom, lets stick with something more reasonable like 33 minutes.
Free Sergio! http://www.freesergio.com
by sergioFTW on
Aug 31, 2008 2:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bargain over: 34.
The Midnight Rambler
by amlmart1 on
Aug 31, 2008 3:08 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ike will start in the All-Star game over LaMarcus
Odenied: Asked whether he noticed Oden favoring his right knee, Frye dismissed it entirely. "He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors."
by Norsktroll on
Aug 31, 2008 4:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I couldn't disagree more
because I believe that our advantage against the rest of the NBA is our DEPTH! We are 10 deep and that will limit the injuries to our players. If no one is needed to play over 30 minutes a game then no one should. We play Roy too much as it is. I know at the end of the day, their averages will suffer but if we are winning then it won’t matter. Admittedly we still don’t know how Rudy and Bayless will fare in the NBA but in time this is how I see it.
While we wait patiently for Rudy and Bayless to get comfortable with their new roles, I expect that we might start the season with a shorten rotation. But as the season progresses, we should see a 10 deep rotation.
by VinnyB on
Aug 31, 2008 5:42 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
For what it's worth.
Like many, I suspect that the rotation won’t gel until the end of the season. Aside from the fact that we are bringing in 3 rookies, is the fact that the SF position is still unsettled, and until it is, we won’t know if we keep what we have, or trade one or more players – and that likely won’t happen until next spring or even the summer. Further, our experience with rookies, particularly someone as young as Bayless, is that it could take a year or more for him to settle in, whereas Rudy, given that he has 4 more years of experience, and Mac’s comment that he’ll be getting a lot of playing time, may be easier to peg.
Having said this, the first condition of an 8 man rotation is typically that you have five starters, and then three backups who can play two positions. Further, the starters will also often be able to rotate into a second position.
When I look at it this way, what I see is that both Frye and Aldridge, our two designated PF’s can, if necessary provide some serviceable minutes at Center. Oden and Pryz, however, would seem to be stuck pretty much in the Center.
At SF, we have the thoughts that Webster can also provide some minutes at SG, and that Outlaw can provide some minutes at PF.
At guard, we have Roy who we already know can provide minutes at both SG and PG. And yesterday, Mac commented that he might rotate Roy over to SF at times when Rudy is on the floor (implying the small ball some of you have talked about).
Rudy appears to be a classic SG, but with his nice passing skills, may be serviceable at times to run the point in the 1/2 court. And it is hoped that Bayless, more of a combo right now, can also eventually provide time at either guard position. It’s a maybe as to whether or not Rudy could also shift to SF in a small ball format, but it’s certain that Bayless could not.
Blake, on the other hand, appears to be more of a PG, not an SG or SF.
Purely on this basis (and assuming everyone mentioned continues to improve this year) , then my rotation would likely be Oden, Frye and Aldridge in the front court, Webster and Outlaw, and then Roy, Fernandez and Bayless.
This does not mean I don’t like Blake or Pryz, nor that Batum may not eventually be a player we can use. It would certainly be a luxury to keep Blake or Pryz, because they’re excellent insurance – and solid players. And Batum can be kept for the next 3-4 years or so simply because he has a low 1st round rookie contract and he won’t cost a lot.
by Eben Calder on
Aug 31, 2008 8:32 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree that by the end of the year Pryz may well see his minutes reduced
At first, I think he’ll get a lot of minutes because of Oden playing himself into shape and his potential for foul trouble. By the end of the year though, they’re going to need to find more minutes for Frye and can see LMA or Frye playing some center.
While Nate played Pryz a lot at the end of the year, he seemed to do it out of desperation and not choice so much. Pryz brings good defense but he makes every one else on offense worse by allowing double teams on the Blazers PF and SF because he is zero offensive threat.
by raoulduke on
Aug 31, 2008 10:21 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Small Ball?
Honestly I don’t “really” get the idea that having Roy in instead of Web Slinger is really “small ball” Isn’t Roy just 1 inch shorter and 5 maybe 10lb lighter? Thats not a huge difference in basketball terms for offense or defense to my thinking. Maybe I’m off but I don’t think so.
by DephlatorMouse on
Sep 1, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If Nate puts in an 8 man rotation before the playoffs...
He should be fired. This team is loaded. Loaded with young talent that needs to play and develop. 1 to 11 needs to play. Rafe will be there for emergencies. If Sergio can’t get it done than he will not see much time and will be the emergency 3rd point option. Ike will get some minutes as our banger. Otherwise the rest of those guy have to get time.
Blake/Bayless
Roy/Rudy
Oden/Zilla
Ald/Frye
Web/Outlaw
That’s ten studs have to get time. Injuries, should there be any, will make our depth look all the better and not such a ‘problem’.
If Nate doesn’t use all those fresh hungry legs, which is one of our biggest, scariest weapons, than he isn’t the coach for this team.
by Blazersaurus on
Aug 31, 2008 8:53 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
A ten man rotation
assumes no injuries. There will be people, at a minimum, nicked up here and there through out the season. That’s the nature of the game. Of those ten, I wonder, in how many games all ten will be ready to go at the same time?
by raoulduke on
Aug 31, 2008 10:24 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m in favor of the old 77 platoon
Five in five out. Keep them fresh and running.
"Was that a elbow in the face of Lamarcus? KG"
Well here comes Pryz (you remember him right?) off the bench with big elbows and 5 fouls to give.
"You getting tired of chasing Roy all over the court? k*be"
Well here comes Rudy (you remember hi right?) and his non stop moving, off the bench.
The pictures kinda small, but Im giving the C's a big thumbs down
by Blazermaniac77 on
Aug 31, 2008 10:56 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
We could definitely get away with 5 in 5 out
against some teams, but 2 completely self contained units would hamper one of our biggest advantages: flexibility.
The street lights is on.
by Magnum on
Aug 31, 2008 3:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed
you have to play it that way. but like you said against some teams it could work. I think it would be great in certain games to be able to let some of the starting line up play limited roles so they can get some rest.
The pictures kinda small, but Im giving the C's a big thumbs down
by Blazermaniac77 on
Aug 31, 2008 3:11 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs

















