Spot minutes: Pros and Cons + Poll

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 3:04 PM PST Comment 22 comments

While a lot of us criticise many of Nate's decisions, we have to remind ourselves that he has an incredibly tough job. Dealing with all the adversity that he has had over the years, this year is incredibly tough. KP has Pritchslapped his way into building a team with too much depth. I'm sure that's a problem that Nate is willing to work with however. Nate is faced with a lot of conflicting challenges: making the playoffs, winning now, building for the future, and being as fair as possible to foster good competition in practice.

With all of these conflicts however, is it a good idea to give out spot minutes to players (especially shooters/finesse players not necessarily bangers/hustle guys)? We all saw Sergio pressing a lot last year and now we are seeing Bayless presing as well. Frye is having a hard time finding a shooting rhythm when he plays spot minutes as well. I'm wondering if you all feel its beneficial to give spot minutes to a player or not? On one hand our inexperienced guys need a shot, so that we can evaluate them and for them to improve. On the other hand giving spot minutes can cause them to press, make mistakes they otherwise wouldn't have, lose self-confidence, and make it tough for them to get in a rhythm.

Poll

Should we give players Spot minutes (8 or less)?

Yes, they need all the experience they can get on a team with this much depth

43 votes

No, it could cost us wins and negatively effect their growth

23 votes

66 votes | Poll has closed

1 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting question

I think it is easier to give vets spot minutes than guys like bayless and sergio. I think they are trying to prove themselves each time they play instead of just playing their game. It’s easier for an established player who understands their role as a veteran back up to pull this off. I think overall it negatively impacts play at times but it also gives the young bucks a chance to get time and experience. Overall it’s probably a non-factor if it does not lead to loses.

by The Natural ala Mode on Jan 1, 2009 3:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

it may be a non factor to the team, but...

it still could be a factor to the player. last year sergio wasn’t going to be given any minutes or put into any situations that would have allowed him to win or lose us a game. so basically his minutes were kind of meaningless as far as the teams outcome was concerned. however it was a clear blow to his confidence. as far as channing goes, i think that ike taking over the backup pf spot has less to do with ike outplaying channing, but channings slump and lack of confidence (which may or may not be attributed to playing spot minutes). he has been passing on shots that he should be taking lately (and would have taken in the past).

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 3:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think spot minutes are fine

Be faithful in the small things and move up to bigger things.

"Another spam message pops up. It gets trapped. Nowhere to go. To the recycle bin. RIP CITY BABY." --Ben describing Schonz checking his email.

by prezofdeath on Jan 1, 2009 3:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Quote from WWs article on Frye

“Frye says he hasn’t been able to find a rhythm in limited time but that he can produce when given minutes. There is evidence to back that up. When an injury knocked veteran center Joel Przybilla out for the final five games last season, Frye took over as a starter and averaged an impressive 16 points and 10 rebounds.”

It’s hard to argue against that.

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 4:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

true, but...

it’s a vicious cycle I think. Frye comes in knowing he/s only got a few minutes. so what does he do? Jack up a 20 footer every time he touches the ball, regardless of the situation. The result of this could be he ends up getting himself pulled even sooner and eventually replaced by Diogu in the rotation.

Frye is clearly trying to hard ot impress in his limited time. He needs to relax and play within the flow of the offense a lot more.

Oh, and defensively he has been absolutely terrible. His only defensive move down low is to purposely foul anyone who comes withing 10 feet of the basket.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 1, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

agreed about his defense

but at the same time we expect bad defense from him like we do trout. i think the argument in your first paragraph reiterates the reason i started this post.

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

But it’s on Channing to make the most of the minutes he has, and try to earn more. jacking up a shot every time he touches the ball is not the way to earn more time. He needs to recognize that it’s not about how many shots he hits in 8 minutes, it’s about how he plays defense, rebounds, and plays withing the offense.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 1, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

at least to me

i don’t think he’s doing anything differently on offense he hasn’t done before. i think he does play within the offense…his shot just isnt falling. he has always been a defensive liability and i think he will probably always. his shots are always the long range 2s off of pick and pops with sergio generally. they are high risk low reward shots, but they are well within his range. my question is tho…should we just take channings minutes and distribute them to other rotation players…or should we continue to give him his spot minutes where it is difficult for him to succeed?

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

sorta agree, sorta don't

I agree his 20 footers on pick and pops are generally his shots. however, to me, it seems that he now ALWAYS takes them when he gets the ball, instead of taking it or not depending ongame and shot clock situation. Not saying that it’s necessarilary a bad shot in general, but on a key possession when we really need a bucket and he takes that shot off the first pass with 19 seconds on teh shot clock – I just don’t think that’s smart play.

To your question, it seems we kind of have. now Ike is getting them instead of Frye, and I guess it’s worth giving him a handful of games to see if he can provide something Channing isn’t. When Martel ever gets back in game shape I suspect those minutes will be going to TO and neither Ike nor Frye will be the 10th man.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 1, 2009 8:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If anything I think Fryelock has been passing up shots he would normally make because he doesn’t have confidence in his game right now.

by pklym on Jan 1, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

not exactly

Ike has just TAKEN Fryes minutes because he won the spot. To me I think that bangers are less effected by spot minutes than shooters are. I was asking…should we just tighten the rotation down and give Frye’s minutes to someone currently in the rotation so that they could build better consistency? Ben gives a good point in that those that would benefit the most in the rotation with more minutes have been hitting the wall as of late and can’t handle the extra minutes.

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 2, 2009 10:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't buy that

KP said himself that you heavily discount games at the end of the season. We were out of the playoff hunt and so were some of the teams we were playing. Guys that don’t normally get minutes are going to get them and some will look really good in the process.

Also, defense should be the same whether you play 1 minute or 41 minutes. You get your butt down, put your hands up, talk to your teammates, and stop the other guys from scoring as best as you know how.

Channing’s best (defensively) just strikes me that as one of a bench player. His offense is that of a bench player. Ramon Sessions of the Bucks got 22 assists in one game last year and everyone heralded him as the next breakout pg. He’s currently getting 9 minutes a game this year.

One good game as a starter doesn’t make a player. It’s consistency in whatever you do, whether it’s 8 minutes or 38 minutes. You Joel Przybilla 8 minutes a game and he’s going to bring the same stuff every time—tough defense, blocks, rebounds, and a few easy buckets.

You play Joel 35 minutes a game and he’s going to bring the same stuff every time—tough defense, blocks, rebounds, and a few easy buckets.

This league is all about consistency. That’s what separates the good from the not so good.

And you don’t have to consistently score 25 points a game to be a good player. You have to know your role and be consistent in it. Joel is not a highly-sought after 15 million dollar player. He’s a guy who knows his role and is consistent in it. You can say the same for Steve Blake. Blake was BEHIND JARRETT JACK at the PG position for crying out loud!

And he worked his way back into the lineup. Because he was consistent in the minutes he was given. Blake didn’t come out raining 3s out of the tap and smoking defenders with killer crossovers. He just kicked back and played his role. Didn’t turn the ball over. Made smart plays.

That’s what you’re looking for in a player. No matter how many minutes he plays.

"Another spam message pops up. It gets trapped. Nowhere to go. To the recycle bin. RIP CITY BABY." --Ben describing Schonz checking his email.

by prezofdeath on Jan 1, 2009 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

your right about defense and consistency

I think that the short stints only shooters primarily. good defense is good defense and it shouldn’t really matter if you are cold off the bench or not. i would think that shooting would be a little more difficult if you’ve been sitting on the bench for a good 40 minutes and are expected to nail a shot. kinda like you don’t expect a kicker to just kick a fg without warming up on the sidelines prior to the actual kick.

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

don’t get seduced by those numbers. meaningless games.

frye is a defensive liability and limited offensively. he’s behind a star at his position. he should be happy for any minutes he can get. frye isn’t and shouldn’t be a priority for nate. whether channing is confident or not is not likely to impact this team long term, especially when martell returns. frye’s current role is likely very close to his longterm role here in portland. if he is to develop to his full potential he will need to go somewhere else.

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Jan 1, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

yeh good point there Ben

the one role channing does have is to space the floor. Martell will come back, bumping outlaw to the 4. Bam. Now we don’t need a floor spacer as badly.

Channing is a cool cat, but he’s just not as gifted as necessary to be a consistent player.

"Another spam message pops up. It gets trapped. Nowhere to go. To the recycle bin. RIP CITY BABY." --Ben describing Schonz checking his email.

by prezofdeath on Jan 1, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

my POV

is that if frye is going to get spot minutes…i’d rather not give him any minutes at all. if he is just going to be a jump shooter, it’s going to be hard to get a rhythm for him since he’s going to get spot minutes. it’d probably be better for nate to give the minutes to someone who has a larger role than frye that could benefit from it. Nic is in the 15-18 min range and could possibly use those minutes, or even Rudy.

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

bottom line is nate needs a 4 on the floor when aldridge is on the bench. that’s channing if he earns it. it’s ike if channing doesn’t earn it. it will almost certainly be exclusively travis once martell is back.

you need a four or at the very least a combo 3/4 to fill the minutes when aldridge is out. nic and/or rudy will become obvious mismatches against quality teams if we go that small.

nic is playing more minutes than he can handle right now. one could argue rudy is as well. rookie wall is on the horizon — nate’s handling of their minutes has been solid.

if the choice is keeping the miles off the two rookies and limiting mismatches versus spot playing frye in less-than-ideal situations and dealing with whatever fallout comes from playing him at the 4, that’s a pretty easy decision. spot play frye — better for the now, better for the future.

the best argument for increasing channing’s minutes is resting aldridge more to save him for the playoffs. but aldridge has risen to the challenge and handled the matchups and minutes well so i don’t see a need to change.

it’s a tough situation for channing to be in. when you’re in a position like him you don’t have the luxury of getting a lot of shots to find your rhythm. those are the breaks. but if he does come out hot, there are a lot of situations in which nate would stick with him to rest aldridge and he could possibly see 12 or even 15 minutes. it’s not like there is a ceiling at 8 minutes even if he’s playing well. but if channing is throwing up bricks and not boxing out or stopping anyone, it’s 8 minutes if he’s lucky or it’s ike’s turn if he’s not.

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Jan 1, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

15=16

emphasizes the contributions made outside of the game. When players arent getting minutes, there is still plenty for them to do to help the team win. That may be bitter medicine for our players at times, and we can expect that everybody will go through phases of being able to handle it gracefully and not. Spot minutes seem like they are mostly intended for morale.

Spot minutes keep the players motivated, involved, contributing. I’m not sure if this is accurate, perhaps I am seeing it too much from the player’s angle, not enough from management’s perspective. Maybe evaluation of players, or attempting different combos are more of a factor than I am aware. What are your takes on this?

Also, +1, great behind the scenes kind of a question. I’ve come to appreciate your attention to the nuances of the team and game.

by lookup on Jan 1, 2009 6:59 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

interesting POV

I think thats a good angle…it may have less to do with in game performance but may be a reward for good work in practice.

Honor Terry Porter

by Philthyanimal on Jan 1, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It partly depends on the player

Some guys are able to do well in spot minutes, some aren’t.

If you can't convince them, confuse them -- Harry Truman, U.S. President

by jscot on Jan 1, 2009 10:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Nate approaches rotation the right way

He tried Diogu vs Boston because he saw the opportunity to win the game with our size. That was a brilliant insight from Nate that may be appreciated around here, but you couldn’t tell that from the comments. While Diogu was only okay, the insight was sound and we won the game down low — and with the under-appreciated Steve Blake’s scoring and distributing.

I think Nate should use the players as he sees fit. He says he starts Oden because he is the future. That is important enough to do in what I hope is a playoff year but what must be considered a developmental year. Rudy gets some minutes extra for that reason, also, but to a lesser degree. With our talent pool, we will ask for contributions off the bench to fill gaps in PT and bring new abilities onto the court to create new looks. If the bench talent can’t contribute in that way, eventually they will move on. I really like Channing and want him to be a Blazer, but he might be right in stating that a long term future here is very unlikely.

by LaoTzu on Jan 1, 2009 11:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs