Whither Martell?
Since we talked about Sergio last week it seems apropos to shine the spotlight on one of the other under-mentioned members of the Blazers’ rotation: Martell Webster. Despite being in the starting five, Martell evokes less comment than even Steve Blake right now. Most of those comments are about how fragile his position may be. Travis Outlaw has supposedly (because we never truly know until it happens) been switched over to small forward full time. The excitement over Rudy Fernandez has people speculating that either he or Brandon Roy will begin usurping some small forward minutes as well. The victim of the time crunch in these scenarios is inevitably Martell…at least the way most folks tell it. How realistic is that? And what does Webster’s future hold?
Martell’s most obvious gift, and the oft-repeated reason for him retaining his starting position, is his outside shooting. He shot a career-high 38.8% last season, good for 44th in the league. He was 21st in three-point percentage among players who attempted 300 or more. He appears more comfortable with his shot and his distance percentage has improved each year of his career, so there’s reason to think he’s still growing into himself.
Martell also has a couple of overlooked gifts. Without sounding like a bath gel commercial, his body is incredible. There’s no other way to put it. You look at the height, decent weight and width, and his physique and you think he should be able to develop into a Ron Artest-like greyhound with some bulk besides. Last season he developed a straight-ahead charge to the hoop which netted him a few highlight dunks, showing off that athleticism. He also managed to acquit himself decently on defense compared to his first two seasons. While not a strong point yet, he’s not an embarrassment anymore on that end of the floor.
So what’s the down side to Martell?
First of all, everything he does well somebody else on the team does as well or better. James Jones and Steve Blake both shot a higher percentage from the three-point arc last season, and even Travis Outlaw edged him out, albeit with far fewer attempts. The team has a handful of better scorers. Almost everybody in the backcourt handles the ball better. There are few clear individual defensive standouts on the team but Martell isn’t that either. Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, Travis Outlaw and now possibly Greg Oden and Jerryd Bayless all take more advantage of their athleticism than Martell does. He’s good at a few things, but he’s not the first guy you’d point to for anything.
Second, he’s not consistent in his production. Admittedly the small forward is often the odd man out in
The issue that’s been dogging Webster his whole career continued last season as well. Long-time readers know what’s coming here but you can’t talk about Martell’s game seriously without mentioning it. If you run plays for Martell and give him the ball, he’s going to score well for you. If you expect him to play a supporting role he’s probably going to fade away. Granted he did more non-scoring things last season to justify his minutes. It was clearly his best year so far in those terms. Even so his best games clearly came when he had double-digit shot attempts…the higher the better. Minutes are almost immaterial to his production. It’s how many times he gets to put it up that matters.
This is what brings up the Martell Quandary. He’s a decent player already and may develop into a legitimately good one. But how many shots can he earn on this team? The de facto reason for him remaining in the starting lineup is that his shooting better complements the interior players. The unspoken assumption there is that Martell will flourish as a complementary player. I’m not convinced that’s so. That’s not a knock on Martell either. Some guys just play better and feel better when they’re central to the offense. Martell’s proclamations as far back as his rookie year have been of the “I want to lead this team, be an All-Star, be one of the great players in this league” variety. If that’s his self-assessment, he may not be able to fulfill it here.
It was fairly easy to come up with a list of things Sergio Rodriguez could to in order to solidify his position. The Martell Quandary makes Webster’s list harder. You want to say he needs to fit in with the starting lineup and fill that complementary role well. But if that’s not his gift then you’re trying to cement him in a role he’s not meant (or not willing) to play. It’s like saying, “If you really want to be a chocolate maker concentrate on the broccoli.” You can slice, dice, sauté, and fricassee broccoli as much as you want. It ain’t gonna get you to the Hershey’s factory. That may be where Martell sits right now.
For these reasons, plus his contract situation, plus the aforementioned possible time crunch, my gut tells me that Martell may be one of the guys the Blazers consider moving in the near future.
What do you see coming up for Martell and what do you wish for him to show?
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
0 recs |
117
comments
Comments
i have to disagree......
When did Webster say he wanted to lead the team? I think he is a pretty good complementary player on this team…and with the addition of Oden, he will be an important part in this team’s success. He’s been getting better every year and he will be better next year. I dont know why people think TO should start, the guy doesn’t complement ANYONE, he has one thing on his mind: shoot.
by coolness on Sep 8, 2008 12:04 AM PDT 0 recs
Actions speak louder than words.
WIth Martell he may shoot near 40% from 3pt land but the way he shoots it is bad. He will go on tears in a game and go 8-10 one game and then he will go 1-4 and 2-6 in the next 2 games because he does not get enough shots. What we need is a SF who can hit 3-7 in back to back to back games, consistently.
The problem with Martell is that he cannot shoot consistently with out getting consistent shots, so even though he may not SAY that he wanted to lead a team his play suggests that he is unable to play any other way, that is just the way he plays.
The season cannot get here soon enough.
by SpyderRyder on
Sep 8, 2008 2:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
During his first two years
in the league, Martell indeed said that he wanted to lead the the team and be an All Star…
Now things have changed and maybe he’s made up his mind, I hope so by the way since he’s one of my favorite players on the team, but I’m affraid Dave’s doubts on his future with the team are pretty founded.
by Blenzer on
Sep 8, 2008 3:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Unless Martell can start hitting 3's even more consistently than James Jones did and be able to put the
ball on the floor, get to the rim and finish, I see him being traded. This is Outlaw or Webster’s last chance. The Blazers need one of them to be the go to small forward, no more auditioning for it.
by BRoyInThe4th on Sep 8, 2008 12:30 AM PDT 0 recs
3s more consistently than James Jones?
I would not agree with that.
Martell needs to, in basketball terms:
1. Improve his 3pt percentage by 2-3%, with a little more consistency than he’s shown.
2. Improve his defense another notch, so that instead of an adequate defender, he’s a good one.
3. Improve his ball handling marginally. He doesn’t have to be great, but it would help if he’s better than he has been.
In non-basketball terms:
1. Show a willingness to be a role player who can shine from time to time, and especially when there are injuries to other key players, but mostly just does his job well.
2. Be willing to extend his contract for an amount based on what he has done, rather than an amount based on what he thinks he can do someday.
Will Martell do those things? I don’t know. But he doesn’t need to shoot 50% on 3s to stay on this team. I would suggest that a big improvement in his defense will do more for him than improved 3 pt shooting. If he goes from adequate defense to good defense, that will win a lot of support among the decision makers. If he can take that further step and become a real lock-down defender, we could live with his shooting as it was last year. Being basically greedy, I’d love to see him become that defender AND hit 50% of his 3s, AND take it to the hoop from time to time. But we don’t need an all-star at SF, and that is what we’re describing here….
One of my fan posts got 50 signatures. And you thought I was egotistical before. But nobody can do Ego like I can.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 1:46 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I will add in one more there
In non-basketball terms:
1. Show a willingness to be a role player who can shine from time to time, and especially when there are injuries to other key players, but mostly just does his job well.
2. Be willing to extend his contract for an amount based on what he has done, rather than an amount based on what he thinks he can do someday.
3. If he doesnt get a call on the offensive side, GET HIS ASS UP AND GET BACK ON D AND DO NOT COMPLAIN TO THE REF WHILE YOUR GUYS IS DUNKNG ON THE FAST BREAK!!
Too many times have I seen his sit and pout instead of getting up and Ding up his guy.
I tend to think that Webster isthe most likely to be moved, along with Raef, before the deadline. If he does not show us a more consistent 3pt shot, as I mentioned above, and an good improvement on D and hustle, I say we move him.
While Travis has been in the league 3 years more, in terms of nba age TO only has an extra 700mins on Webster so there is not as much a disparity in their “actual” nba age. Add in the fact that Martell was this highly polished, NBA ready body and shot in HS and TO was a uber athlete who also can dribble a basketball, their development is about the same.
I’ll say it again: out of all the players that were here in 2006, only Jack, Sergio and Webster did not improve significanthly on a per 36min basis. Jack is gone Sergio is on thin ice and Webster is starting. The only reason for the increase in stats was solely from more PT.
The season cannot get here soon enough.
by SpyderRyder on
Sep 8, 2008 2:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm sorry but that is a terrible argument
First of all, “TO > Webster” is based on one thing, scoring. That is biased because TO is the focus of the second unit. He gets more shots and as a result, he scores more points. He’s shown a great ability to create his own shot and he’s performed well in the fourth. That gets him on the floor when you need those skills and in that regard he’s a little bit ahead of Webster. But that’s where TO’s advantage ends.
TO, as much as I like the guy is a black hole on offense, he can’t and doesn’t make plays, he takes shots (and hits them – he’s good for what his role was last year).
On defense he’s a good help defender but hasn’t shown the lateral quickness to defend the premiere SFs that a “lockdown” defender needs to have (indeed lateral quickness is one of the traits “needed” to reach that “lockdown” designation). This is where Webs’ real advantage comes in; his body and his speed. Webs has a real chance at becoming an elite defender in this league. He has all the tools and this season he took huge steps forward as a defender.
Webs is a better outside shooter too (look at how many shots he made, not just the %).
Finally, this “NBA miles” thing is silly. TO finally broke out his fourth and really his fifth year. You argue that Webs has more playing time and the premise of that, it seems, is that he is somehow almost as developed as TO because he’s gotten more minutes in a shorter amount of time.
I couldn’t disagree more.
What that tells me is that Webs overall game has come along much faster than Travis’ game has. Webs has earned more PT under a harder coach (Cheeks < Nate Mac) and was indeed the starting SF from preseason all through this season which was arguably very much a breakthrough season this past year, not the truly dark days of this losing era when TO could barely get off the inactive list.
Bottom line is Webster has shown a much more complete game than Outlaw has in two years less service time.
“Hey hey! Ho Ho! Travis Outlaw has got to go!”
by BlazerD on
Sep 8, 2008 2:56 AM PDT
up
1 recs
I'm sorry but that is a terrible argument
Even if you are right about Martell’s future, what’s this “Outlaw has to go” rubbish? Even if Martell is going to be an all-star, Travis has broken out, as you yourself acknowledge.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 6:06 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually, his argument is very good.
The only part I’d disagree with is the last point about Outlaw having to go.
But that could possibly be a response to the people here so willing to write off Webster.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on
Sep 8, 2008 8:34 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually
that was the only part of his argument I was saying was terrible.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 11:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Both arguments are good,
But reality is….They are both very long shots at filling the 3 position in the future…Everyone would like for one of them to step up and take this role…But it sure does look like they won’t or can’t…..They both have so far to go to become the more complete player they will need at this spot…They are both suited in a backup/role player type that, could be put in, certain game situations…
I am sure, that if the right trade came into focus, or a longer term deal that may get them a a young veteran in the future, would be a direction they would heavily lean….And the question about them being the"star" sixth man off the bench, doesn’t look too appealing to either of them……Rudy may be that guy, now
I would say that the 3 position is still the biggest question on this team…..This is why their names are brought up so often….
I invented boxer shorts
by 67 on
Sep 8, 2008 12:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Exception!
you say “First of all, "TO > Webster" is based on one thing, scoring”
that is actually quite wrong. Outlaw is not only better then Webster at scoring, he also collects more rebounds, assists, blocked shots, steals, & free throw attempts. And he does this while turning the ball over at a lesser rate then webster as well.
That’s a pretty broad area of the basketball court that outlaw outperforms webster on.
You also say, in reference to playing time “What that tells me is that Webs overall game has come along much faster than Travis’ game has”.
That is also incorrect, at least it is if you only look at their Blazer careers. The fact is that outlaw was completely raw as a rookie. Webster was exceedingly more NBA-ready as a rookie. As a matter of fact, in the 05/06 season when martell was a rookie and Travis a 3rd year player, It’s arguable that Martell was better then. He averaged more minutes, scored more points, and shot better from the 3pt line and the FT line.
Since that season, it’s been Travis that has come along faster, since he has surpassed Martell in just about every category.
Martell has improved every season, but the improvements have been small. As a matter of fact, he actually scored at a better rate as a rookie then he did last year. And he’s only pulling down 0.5 more rebounds per36 then he did as a rookie.
I think Dave’s analysis is pretty accurate. Offensively, Martell needs his touches, otherwise he’s not effective and begins to drift.
And I don’t really agree with your commendations of his defensive prowess either. Last season, he had good defensive games and bad defensive games. Like most areas of his game, he has improved on defense, but picturing him as a lockdown defender is based a ton more on “potential” then reality. And waiting on potential in a 4th year player is likely to be a disappointing pursuit.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 9:15 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Just like waiting on the 4th year potential of TO was disappointing?
As far as assists go, that’s an awful argument to make. Their per minute assist numbers are nearly identical, which is ridiculous when you consider that TO’s usage rating was greater than Steve Nash’s has ever been throughout his career and was pretty close to Z-Bo’s during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 seasons. If he’s handling the ball that much and still averaging only .1 APG more than Martell, that’s hardly a good thing. That’s far more indicative of him being an offensive “black hole” than a playmaking machine.
With rebounds and blocks, you have to keep in mind that TO played the vast majority of his minutes at the 4, and so was constantly around the bucket for defensive rebounds. Just like you’d expect any 4 to outrebound almost any 3, you’d expect TO to outrebound Martell in flat numbers. Looking at the On/Off court numbers, we were an awful rebounding team with TO on the court compared to when he was off.
Looking at raw stats is what leads to guys like Z-Bo getting max contracts. I mean, you can look at 3pt % and assume TO is a better shooter, or you can see that Webster took over 3 times as many shots from downtown and from all around the arc while TO mainly took the corner 3 (a closer and easier shot) and was horrible on the few shots he took from straight on or from the wing.
I can’t say Martell is definitely better than TO now, but it’s easy enough to make the argument that it’s largely a toss up given the rest our personnel right now.
by Royster on
Sep 8, 2008 9:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Stats vs Stats
first…I was responing to a comment that said categorically the only thing Travis did better was score. In that vein, it was important to point out that Travis was better then Martell in just about every statistical category.
Now, as to assists: I defy you to find where I said Outlaw was a “playmaking machine”. That’s your nonsensical hyperbole, not mine. About his usage rate: Steve Nash plays with Amare, Marion, Shaq, to name a few. Starters and good ones at that. His usage rate will reflect that. Travis plays with 2nd unit players and was asked last year to create his own shot. Nate has said he was the one asking, so hanging travis for his usage rate in that context is off-base. And again, my post was in response to a direct comparison of webster/outlaw by another poster. Neither player is a good passer, but not only does travis make more assists per36, he also has a higher assist % per 100 possesions, which tends to negate your argument about usage rate.
Your rebounding argument is weak in my view. Some PF’s hang around the basket, many don’t. And if travis is in a position battle with PF’s outweighing him by 40 pounds, expecting him to have rebounds just fall into his hands is unrealistic. Again, the assertion I responded to was that travis was only better at scoring. Clearly, he was better at rebounding. And by the way, arguing that playing PF helped his rebound numbers, also means that it would hurt his assist numbers as it’s easier to accumulate assists from the SF position.
You’re reluctant to argue Martell is better. I understand that. On the other hand, I’m more comfortable with arguing Travis is better, and the numbers back them up. And I’m not talking about just"raw number" like you assert. The numbers are more detailed and refined then ‘raw’. And if you want to shock yourself, go to 82games.com and compare Outlaw’s clutch play numbers versus martell’s. Travis was about the best on the blazers last year, while martell’s numbers were fairly pathetic. It’s certainly easy to make a case that how a player performs when the game was on the line is integral to their value and abilities.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 10:48 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Just a question: Could Martell's clutch numbers be so low because he was almost always on the bench then?
I like 82games stats, yet sometimes I find them misleading. I agree just from watching him that Outlaw seems to be more “clutch”. But could the fact of him being much more on the floor in these situations artificially lift him up and push Martell down in this category? E.g. their on/off stats are not that much different, with Martell actually ranking a few positions above Travis. http://www.82games.com/ONSORT6.HTM
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
Sep 8, 2008 10:55 AM PDT
up
0 recs
It's possible
at least it’s possible martel’s numbers could be low because he
didn’t play that much. However, considering that Martell averaged 28 minutes a game last year (more then Travis), the excuse of not enough playing time is pretty worn out for martell. He had opportunities in crunch time, he simply didn’t deliver.
On the other hand, when the game was on the line, Travis played excellently. His numbers were up over his seaon averages across the board. That can’t be overlooked, and it stands in stark contrast to how webster performed.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 11:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
The clutch stat only takes into account the play in the last five minutes afaik
http://www.82games.com/CSORT11.HTM: 4th quarter or overtime, less than 5 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 5 points
Super Clutch even less:
http://www.82games.com/SCSORT11.HTM: 4th quarter or overtime, less than 2 minutes left, neither team ahead by more than 3 points
So if he sits most of these time frames while Outlaw plays, he naturally can’t have good numbers in that category, right? That was the point I was trying to make.
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
Sep 8, 2008 11:59 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I Thought
I did respond to your post.
Yes, Outlaw had more opportunities at the end of close games. But that certainly demonstrated that the coaching staff had a lot more confidence in Outlaw then in Webster. I’d say they have a better idea of who is the best player for those situations. And they were right because outlaw took advantage of the opportunities and performed at a high level. Meanwhile, webster performed poorly with his ‘limited’ opportunities. once again confirming the coaches judgement.
In this debate, it a rather weak tactic to discount or ignore an area of statistics that so drastically favors one player over the other on several levels. it just seems like more excuses for martell, and there have been three years of that already.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Discussion tip....
It is generally advised to acknowledge when the other party has a very valid point. Trying to blur the point with statistical gobbledy gook doesn’t improve your credibility.
by upper left corner on
Sep 8, 2008 9:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Explain
If you’re referring to the point that Outlaw had more opportunities in clutch play then webster, I have acknowledged that more then once.
And here’s a tip for you: don’t take things so personal that you feel compelled to throw out some insults. Don’t let an opposing view “rub you the wrong way”. Just because you don’t agree with my arguments doesn’t mean you have to call me “disingenuous” or that I’m spouting "gobbledy gook "
You made a point of calling me aggressive, and then you turned around and became quite aggressive yourself in a somewhat pesonal way.
So that’s enough of this for me. Discussion doesn’t need to go further in this vein.
by moldorf on
Sep 9, 2008 8:28 AM PDT
up
0 recs
And by the way, if you read my original post below you will see that I actually think Travis IS better right now
Yet that makes him also more likely to be included in a trade this year. Yes, I said it, the worse player is more likely to stay longer on the team in my opinion.
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
Sep 8, 2008 12:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I've said that sa well
I think there is little doubt that Travis has substantially higher trade value, so if KP decides to make a big trade, it’s quite likely Travis would be a part of it.
Travis’s contract is much more attractive as well. Martell will be difficult to move with his impending RFA status.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 1:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree
unless the better player is seen as the long term solution, he is more likely to be traded, because you are going to have to give up something that the other team wants to get your long term solution.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 11:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
well
think about it, if TO is in the fouth quarter playing crunch time and Martell is on the bench what does that tell you about TO? Im not saying nothing bad about Martell, but clearly Nate wants TO in crunch time. I think that its bacause TO can shoot and score by himself and does not need Roy to set him up. But I think why TO was late in the game because Blazers where usually down in the fourth so the needed fire power and ISO player. Lets say Blazers were down by 2 or three points then we might see Martell in the game, espesially if we are down by three points. But I would say that TO playes in the crunch time cuz he won that game in Memphis, so Nate started to trust in him more and he won the game for us in Atalnta too. Martell scored 24 points in the third quarter on the Jazz, but I dont remember him winning a game for us.
by RipCity on
Sep 8, 2008 6:54 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Look at almost every other stat on 82games.com
dealing with TO and Martell, and Webster comes out ahead. We shoot better with Webster on the floor, he gives up a significantly lower PER to guys he’s guarding compared to TO when they’re playing SF, and his True shooting % and effective FG% blow TO’s out of the water. Not too mention that despite TO’s supposed slashing abiilty and Webster’s complete inability to put the ball on the floor, a slightly greater % of Webster’s shots are “inside shots”: dunks/layups. Not to mention that, over the course of the season, we scored more relative to our opponents than with TO on the floor. Single game +/-’s are usually off, but over the course of the season, they tend to show trends.
And as to the rebounding argument, the vast majority of rebounds are defensive rebounds and usually pretty short. If TO is guarding the PF, more often than not he’s around the basket where most of those rebounds will go, as opposed to Webster, who’s out on the perimeter where fewer rebounds go. Just because TO hangs out on the perimeter on the offensive end when he’s playing the 4 doesn’t mean that he’s not around the basket on the defensive end, especially considering there are very few “perimeter” 4’s on team’s second units.
With assists/usage ratings, the point is that Martell barely handled the ball on offense, compared to TO who had the ball in his hands at the top of the key on almost every possession he was in the game for, and yet their assist numbers are almost exactly the same, especially per minute, when TO is only .1 better per 36, hardly enough of a difference to cite it as something TO is “better” at, given their respective roles. And yeah, he was playing against PFs on offense, but he was one of the main ball handlers on offense in the second unit, which I would say makes it far easier to pick up assists for him than being a 3rd/4th option on the first team like Webster was.
And, yeah, I’ve seen the clutch stats, they’re great, but Webs really barely played then, with Jones getting the lion’s share of the minutes. Like I said, TO is a great player, but does A-Rod choking in the clutch mean he’s definitely a worse hitter than Jeter, even though he hits like .320 with 50 HRs a year? I love the clutchness, but like I said, I don’t think that based on that one thing, you can categorically say that TO’s overall game is better than Webster’s.
by Royster on
Sep 8, 2008 12:22 PM PDT
up
0 recs
You're responding
to a post titled “Stats vs Stats”
and you prove the point I was making or at least implying. We can all find stats to support out perspective.
But to a couple of your points: “The team shoots better with webster on the floor”….duhhh. Webster played with Roy, Aldridge, & Blake as a starter. Those guys were the most efficient on the team. Outlaw spent time playing with Sergio, Jack, Frye, and Pryzbilla a lot (when he was 2nd unit). He also had the advantage of playing with Jones when he was hot, but the disadvantage of playing with him when he was cold. Giving Webster credit for the skew of that stat is quite frankly absurd.
As to the rebounding numbers: Again, the comparison was between webster and Outlaw and Outlaw was clearly the better rebounder of the two. I’ll also point out that Nate asked the 2nd unit to play zone defense a great deal of the time and that’s not good for anybody’s rebounding numbers on the defensive end.
As to assists: you’re right…Martell barely handeled the ball. That’s because he’s such a poor ballhandler for a starting SF. You’d be hard pressed to name a worse one. And again in this case, you seem to be giving credit for anything positive the 1st unit does to webster, while blaming outlaw for the deficiencies of the 2nd unit. If outlaw made passes to Sergio who bricks the shot, or to jarret who ignores the open jumper to drive head-down to the basket, his passing numbers aren’t going to look that good.
That’s not to say travis was a good playmaker for his teammates…he wasn’t. he was just better at it then Webster. They are both pretty weak as playmakers, but at least Outlaw can create his own shot. Webster can’t.
As to clutch play…I think it speaks for itself. Yes, Outlaw got more opportunities, but that in and of itself, is a postive for Travis. And given the opportunities, Travis performed excellently; Martell performed poorly. Discounting that is simply making more excuses for Martell, and frankly, the time for Martell excuses should be about over.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 1:47 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Bruce Bowen, for one
Not so hard pressed to find a bad ball handler starting at the 3, and he happens to have 4 rings in the decade. And that’s a strawman argument, anyways. Martell is as good or better of a ball handler than Jones, but neither one was ever asked to put the ball on the floor because that’s not their strong point, and none of us were complaining about Jones’ ability to handle the ball.
And as much as I’m “making excuses” for Martell, you’re doing the same thing with Travis. Sergio/Jack shooting, zone defense, etc. Jones was easily our best shooter last year, and Webster never played with him because they split time. While TO may have played with Sergio some (hardly reasonable excuse given how little Sergio played), he also played a fair amount with Roy and LA (like Webs) and with Jones/Frye rather than Blake/Pryz. Given that TO was able to handle the ball far more than Webster, I really don’t see how the fact that they had almost the exact same number of assists can possibly be a plus to TO given that the shooting ability of their teammates was almost a wash.
And the fact of the matter is that we were simply awful as a rebounding team with TO in. Obviously some of this is due to playing zone as we also rebounded slightly worse with Jones or Sergio on the court compared to off it and they were the guys who played the greatest % of zone during their time on the court, I’d say, but they’re nowhere close to the difference that there was for TO on/off. Also to be noted is that TO was actually slightly outrebounded by opposing SFs when he played there while Martell was even with them on that count. Not exactly a huge sample size for TO, but given his height advantage, you’d expect him to at least dominate opposing SFs there. Also, the fact that his effective FG% from the SF position was a pretty miserable 43.8% (compared to 52.2% for Webster), I’d say it’s no guarantee that TO would be able to keep up effectively shooting when guarded by smaller quicker players. Dirk has the same problem, which is why teams put guys like Bowen on him instead of Duncan, so he has to constantly elevate and shoot over them and is unable to use his quickness advantage to get easy shots.
And to be honest, I don’t see why you’re so quick to throw Webster under the bus after 3 seasons when it took TO almost 4 and half to even show a glimpse of anything and as another poster stated, TO played on some awful teams that you’d expect him to be able to work his way into the lineup on, whereas the only year we’ve been truly horrendous since Webster was around was his rookie year, and he’s still earned PT in every year.
by Royster on
Sep 8, 2008 2:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm not throwing
martell under the bus, nor am I truly defending or excusing outlaw.
I’ll repeat: I don’t think portland has a long-term starting SF on the roster right now.
I like outlaw in the role he appears to be a little unhappy with. That’s as a 6th man.
On the other hand, I have little confidence that Webster will develop enough or have time enough (considering his contract) to remain the starting option.
Personally, I’m getting a bit tired of the outlaw/webster debate. Dave made a post specifically about webster, and as always happens, webster fans and outlaw haters couldn’t refrain from bringing outlaw into the conversation and making the comparison. It’s actually not necessary to compare the 2 in order to evaluate webster.
My evaluation of Webster is similar to dave’s only a little less optimistic. I don’t believe his ceiling is nearly as high as many do. I expect him to be a little better this season, but I have a hunch that won’t be enough for KP.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 3:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Fair enough
I like Outlaw in his current role, too. He did a great job last year there, I just don’t see him fitting in with the starting unit as well as Webster could, potentially if he improves. I agree with Dave’s evaluation, too, but maybe slightly more optimistic than him, so basically just the opposite direction than yours.
I didn’t mean to turn it into another major Webster/TO debate, it just got me when you posted that waiting on a 4th year player’s “potential” is a bad idea when we have such a glaring exception to that rule on our roster. Not that I wouldn’t mind seeing Webster go if he doesn’t make the improvements jscot discussed above.
by Royster on
Sep 8, 2008 3:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Given that you were the most aggressive person in this entire thread, it strikes me as a bit disingenuous for you to be discounting those who disagree with you as “outlaw haters,” and assailing their inability to “refrain from bringing TO into the conversation.”
Try being a bit more generous to those with other viewpoints and you may encounter less push-back.
by upper left corner on
Sep 8, 2008 10:08 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Go back
and browse through the thread and see how quickly negative comments about outlaw were introduced to a thread specifically about webster. As a matter of fact, read the first response.
And this is not the first time a thread has devolved into an outlaw versus webster argument. it’s happened numerous times at this site and other blazer forums.
You say I was aggressive. Of course I did have several people taking exception to things I said and I was defending my perspective. You’ve been rather aggressive yourself. I don’t mind though.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 11:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Trying to clarify
You have a point, although it is pretty inevitable that TO is going to come up in any thread about MW, given that they are sharing/competing for the same position.
My point is that you seem to be engaging in exactly the same kind of behavior (only with Webster substituted for Outlaw) that you are criticizing in others.
I am fairly new around here and don’t want to make too much out of a small disagreement. I am not interested in causing trouble or making enemies. I just didn’t feel it was fair or accurate for my position to be labeled as “Outlaw hating.” I like TO and hope he continues to prosper in a sixth-man role. I just think that his skill set is not a good match for what I believe the team needs in a starting 3.
I think Webby has a chance to match up pretty well if he continues to develop. If he doesn’t I acknowledge that we may need to bring in a veteran three. I just want us to give Webster as much chance as we can before making a trade. Obviously, if a home-grown player who is 21 can fill our needs that has advantages over trading for a substantially older player and having to give up other assets.
My complaint is primarily about your rather dismissive tone towards Webster and towards those who do not share your views. Let’s agree to disagree. I hope we have many respectful exchanges in the future.
by upper left corner on
Sep 8, 2008 11:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Moldorf's first comment
was in response to “Heigh ho, Travis Outlaw’s got to go.”
I think Moldorf’s perspective on Martell is extremely negative, more so than is justified by the facts. But I can’t fault him for pushing back in this thread.
I do not see Travis as our long-term solution at SF. He may surprise me. But if he stays on the team, I expect it will be as a sixth man offensive dynamo off the bench, who will also make some spectacular defensive plays, and hopefully shore up some of the other holes in his game.
I do see Martell as potentially our long-term solution at SF, but he’s got a ways to go. If he stays on the team, I expect it will be as our starter, because he has upped his game in the areas already discussed. I do not think he will be here if he has not improved to the point of legitimate starter on a championship team. I do not think Martell will flourish off the bench in Portland.
Therefore, I really think these guys do not have conflicting futures. Travis is unlikely to be our long-term starter. Martell is unlikely to be our long-term backup. If they both succeed, we will have legitimate starter-quality players two deep at SF. It is not clear to me that either, ultimately, will succeed, but neither is it so obvious to me (as it is to some others) that either of them will fail.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 11:15 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks for a thoughtful reply
I agree with almost every thing you said as I outlined in a very lengthy comment, titled “A Different Approach to the Question,” further down thread.
I was not trying to cause trouble. I was just trying to encourage Moldorf to take a softer tone with those of us who have a different perspective. I consistently enjoy your posts as I have been lurking for over a year now.
by upper left corner on
Sep 8, 2008 11:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Most efficient players
The most efficient players last year (based on TS%) were Jones, Przybilla, Jack, and Webster. Roy, Frye, Aldridge, and Blake had average efficiency. Outlay and Sergio were the least efficient players who got regular playing time.
by trk on
Sep 8, 2008 5:28 PM PDT
up
0 recs
what?
Not Travis or Martell should be assists machines. Maybe the conversation should be about point guards if we want assists machines. And by the way if we want TO and Webster to do everything maybe we should make them our super stars and trade Roy and Oden to fill role positions.
by RipCity on
Sep 8, 2008 6:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Isn't saying that Outlaw was raw coming into the league
and Webster was more NBA ready a very subjective opinion? What is this evaluation based on? Do you have access to Blazer scouting reports on both players?
Both players came into the league straight out of high school. How was one more “NBA ready” than the other?
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on
Sep 8, 2008 12:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'm sorry
but that simply makes no sense. LeBron came directly out of high school as well. I’d say he was more NBA-ready then either Martell or Travis, and while technically, that’s a subjective opinion, practically it isn’t.
I say travis was ‘more raw’ because he simply was. He couldn’t do jack as a rookie. Travis played a grand total of 19 minutes his rookie season.
19
He only played in 793 minutes his 2nd season.
Meanwhile, Martell played in 1064 minutes as a rookie. 1064 vs 19. That certainly seems to be a reflection of something other then subjective opinion.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 2:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
One major flaw in that assesment
Trout came in as a rookie to a team that was 50-32 the year before he got here, the Blazers were a playoff team and couldn’t give big minutes to a rookie coming out of high school.
On the other hand, Marty came into the league on a team that was 27-55 the year before and in complete rebuilding mode. This makes it quite a bit easier for a raw rookie to get his minutes
by SalemORguy on
Sep 8, 2008 2:34 PM PDT
up
0 recs
However
I saw outlaw play a few minutes as a rookie, and many as a 2nd year player. He was raw and that’s a fact.
Anybody who thinks outlaw and webster were approximately equal in their development as rookies is simply wrong. They weren’t close.
This is simply a ridiculous point to debate. There is no way, subjectively or objectively, to say the 2 players were equal in their development, especially considering that the 2 of them played approximately the same amount of time on the same team when Martell was a rookie.
by moldorf on
Sep 8, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That was exactly my point
in my OP, thanks for backing me on this stuff.
You do not become a top 10 pick unless you can be thought of as a player who can come in and contribute right away. Why take a player that you will have to groom for a few years, unless he has so much potential you cannot turn it down. Everything I have heard about us drafting Webster is that he killed his workout with PA in attendance and he fell in love with him and that is one of the main reasons why he was selected, that PA and the scouting rew thought that he was so good as the time that he warrented that high of a pick, NOT that he had a load of potential and was not ready at the time. Even when the seeason came around we gave ample playing time to him and he did little to nothing.
With Travis, he was a 23rd pick, where players generally fall into a few catergories:
1. Talented players with questionable attitudes
2. Young players that have potential but will take a few years to achieve that potential, which Travis was.
If a player has a good attitude and the talent to play right away, why would they last until the 23rd pick? They would not.
Good to see someone gets what I am talking about.
The season cannot get here soon enough.
by SpyderRyder on
Sep 8, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
But I think it is the wrong point
It really doesn’t matter who was more “NBA-ready” 3 years ago. What matters is if a very young player has reached his ceiling, or is continuing to improve. And, if he is continuing to improve, how high is his ceiling?
I think you would be very hard pressed to make the case that either player has reached his ceiling. And the question of how high their respective ceilings are is a very subjective one, because it is a mixture of skills, athleticism, desire, intelligence, focus, etc.
We all have different views on those things.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 11:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I think you reasoning with regard to why teams pick
players where in the draft is faulty. Teams select a player for various reasons. There is no unwritten rule that if you have a late round pick you draft a with talent but a questionable attitude or a young guy with potential. The only tenet one can likely make about the draft is that teams try to pick a guy who they think will be best for them.
By your reasoning, guys like Taysaun Prince, Tony Parker, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobilli, Josh Howard, etc, lack either a good attitude or talent. to start.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on
Sep 9, 2008 7:25 AM PDT
up
0 recs
ok
so why didnt outlaw get the minutes when Miles was done, but gave to Martell?
by RipCity on
Sep 8, 2008 7:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Right (answering SpyderRyder)
Like I said, his defense needs to improve. He needs to be committed to good defense.
All your point #3 says is that he hasn’t been as committed to good D as he should have been.
I agree that consistency in his 3 point shot would be helpful, but I don’t actually agree that we need it. Not on this team.
We have so many weapons, that it doesn’t matter if some of them aren’t consistent. All you need is the threat that they are going to destroy you. A streak shooter that can go off for 20+ in a quarter, or go 6-6 on 3 pointers for the night, is a great weapon. If you have a guy who can totally change a game, the other team has to fear that weapon.
If Martell never becomes consistent, but he can become that game changer once a week instead of once a season, I’ll take that. In other words, to use your numbers, if he goes 8-10, 1-4, and 2-6 in consecutive games, but he gives us that 8-10 once every three games, we’ve got a winner. We have lots of other guys who can take up the offensive slack when he’s not on.
What I don’t want to see is 8-10 and then 2-12. You want a guy who knows when he’s hot and turns it on, and knows when it isn’t going and doesn’t try to force it. Your main guy has to keep shooting. Your role players should only be gunning it up when it’s going in.
But we do want him consistently contributing on the defensive end. And consistency on offense is good, too — just not a necessity, for Martell’s role.
The most amazing thing about my amazing ego is I have amazingly little about which to be egotistical.
by jscot on
Sep 8, 2008 6:01 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I really agree with your original point
If Martell develops into a Shane Battier/Bruce Bowenesque defender, great, but that shouldn’t be a requirement. He needs to take it up a couple notches on that end and certainly be in the top 10 defensive SFs in the league, so if he ends up as a slightly worse Josh Howard, defensively, along with getting up into that 41-42% 3 point %, he’d be in some pretty rarefied company, especially considering his attempts are pretty spread out across the arc, compared to most low volume 3 point shooters who tend to only shoot the closer corner 3 (see TO and Bruce Bowen).
Given how shooters tend to develop over their careers, it’s easy to overlook that Martell is already in some pretty rare company as a shooter. Only 11 guys in the history of the league have shot over 38% from 3 on over 200 attempts before their 22nd birthday, and all but Q-Rich are considered to be either elite shooters or scorers in the league (maybe not J.R. Smith, but I’m convinced he’s one of the most underrated scorers in the league).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/tiny.cgi?id=514Wi
Plus, some guys like Gibson and Barbosa had the advantage of constantly getting wide open shots due to playing with the best playmakers in the league. I’m not saying Webster doesn’t need to improve, but considering how we’ve all harped on his confidence issues, these things get overlooked.
You and Dave are right about him drifting in and out of games when he’s not involved in the offense, which is easily the most frustrating part of his game, but with any kind of luck, he’ll grow out of it this year and earn a new deal, although I have a gut feeling that if he has the kind of year I’m hoping for, any cap space of ours will get eaten up by a Childress-esque Martell situation.
by Royster on
Sep 8, 2008 8:29 AM PDT
up
0 recs
But at the same time,
if we have cap space and assets to trade, why should we not go for one of those super roleplayers? True Martell is younger but if we can somehow land Prince or Battier, they would be able to last us 4-5 years and by that time Batum should be acclimated to the NBA and ready to take over as our D stopper at the SF position, much like Rodney Stuckey is becoming on Det.
Stuckey has come on so now there has been talk of moving Billups and his larger contract. Financially that is the way to go and we can keep our youth as well.
I do think Batum may be the answer we need, however it will be in about 3-4 years from now. If we can get another player to fill in during that time when Batum is ready to come in, we can get rid of an older player such as Battier or Prince to make way for Batum.
The season cannot get here soon enough.
by SpyderRyder on
Sep 8, 2008 3:45 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Defense doesn't seem to be Batum's specialty so far
A few scouting blogs see him more in the mold of a Rudy Gay (best case on DraftExpress, NBADraft.net, …). But we will see how he develops in the next three years or so and what the Blazers plan to do with him.
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
Sep 8, 2008 4:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well he is not going to get any PT
based on his O skill. Even during the summer league I did see his activity and hustle on the D end.
I doubt that he will be able to translate into a Gay type player as there is not enough shots to go around on this team. D’ing will be the best way for him to start earning PT, added to the fact that as of now, neither TO or Webster have shown enough D for them to be in the long term plans. With this 1st unit, we do not need an offensize threat with the big 3 entrenched and if we do need more firepower, we can bring in Bayless.
It will be easier for Batum to morph into a Prince type player as he does have good athleticism, great length and great BBIQ which will allow him to be a dominant D’er if he works on it and with Nate at the helm, he will either be working on it a lot or he will be shipped out for someone who will.
The season cannot get here soon enough.
by SpyderRyder on
Sep 8, 2008 6:27 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I'd love Prince, and Battier is one of the most underrated players
so I’d consider either of those guys, definitely, but Martell alone wouldn’t be enough right now to get them, so it would depend on what the deal would look like as a whole.
I’m a little leery of assuming that Batum will definitely be ready in 4-5 years to be that main stopper, just because he hasn’t really seemed supermotivated or into games (looks like he showed the same Webster drifting in and out of games in France last year). Realistically, our team isn’t going to compete for a title this year, so I have no real problem starting off with Webster, and if he’s not making the leap and we can snag one of those guys, I’m all for it.
by Royster on
Sep 8, 2008 4:43 PM PDT
up
0 recs


