The Ideal Blazer Rotation

by UDUB on Oct 15, 2009 12:47 PM PDT Comment 42 comments

I know this has been said before, but it's crucial when analyzing playing combinations not to think of the first and second teams as being distinct squads. The truly good teams, historically, have tended to utilize 8 or 9 man rotations that mix and match players and almost never have more than 3 bench players on the floor at once. So rather than thinking of squads, it's better to think of guiding principles, and rotate in players accordingly. Here are the guiding principles I would start with.

1) Either B.Roy or Miller should be on the court at all times. You need to have someone on the floor at all times who can generate his own shot by penetrating and getting to the foul line if necessary. That's how you prevent runs and keep everything under control. Roy and Miller are the only two blazers with this ability (though Bayless has shown flashes). I think both Roy and Miller should start because they are clearly the best at their positions, but I would stagger their rotations so that one of them is always out there. If they both get in foul trouble, I would seriously consider putting Bayless in instead of Blake.

2) Either Aldridge or Oden should always be on the court. If possible, you always want to have a big on the floor who can score inside and who demands the defense's full attention. Neither Przybilla nor Outlaw fit this description. Like Roy and Miller, I think Oden and Aldridge should both be starting, but again, whenever possible I would stagger their rest so that you never have Przybilla at the 5 and Outlaw at the 4 simultaneously.

3) Batum's minutes should be staggered to coincide, whenever possible, with the minutes of the biggest 2/3 scoring threat on the other team. At this point, Batum is a MUCH better defender than any other wing on the team (not just Martel and Outlaw, but Rudy and Roy as well). Since teams generally start their best wing scorers, Batum should probably start.

So with those principles in mind, here's how I would rotate in the players in a typical game. I would start with the RAMBO lineup: Roy, Aldridge, Miller, Batum, Oden. At the beginning of the game, I would focus on using Miller to get touches for Aldridge and Oden.

The first subs I would put in would be Przybilla (for Oden) and Blake (for Miller). This is essentially last year's starting lineup. During this point in the game, I would have Roy be the focal point of the offense.

When the other team rests its best wing scorer, I would sub out Batum and put in Martel or Outlaw or Rudy (depending on matchups). If Rudy, I would move Roy to the 3. When it's time for Roy to rest, I would bring Miller back in and also bring in Rudy (if he's not in the game already). When it's time for Aldridge to rest, I'd bring back in Oden and sub Outlaw for Pryzbilla. By the end of the half, I would be back to the RAMBO lineup, the exception being if Martel, Outlaw, or Rudy are hot from outside. In that situation I would leave the hot hand in the game and keep Batum on the bench.

So here's how that would work in a hypothetical first half:

Starters: Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldrige, Oden

7:40 (1st qtr): Pryzbilla replaces Oden (now Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Przybilla).

8:50 (1st qtr): Blake replaces Miller (now Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Przybilla).

9:45 (1st qtr): Webster replaces Batum (now Blake, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Przybilla)

2:55 (2nd qtr): Miller in for Blake, Fernandez in for Roy (now Miller, Fernandez, Webster, Aldridge, Przybilla)

4:30 (2nd qtr): Outlaw replaces Aldridge, Oden replaces Pryzbilla (now Miller, Fernandez, Webster, Outlaw, Oden)

8:05 (2nd qtr): Roy replaces Webster (now Miller, Fernandez, Roy, Outlaw, Oden)

9:25 (2nd qtr): Aldridge replaces Outlaw. Batum replaces Fernandez (now Miller, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, Oden).

For those last two substitutions, if Webster, Rudy, or Outlaw are hot, you leave the hot hand in and keep Batum on the bench.

You'd obviously play things slightly differently in the second half, likely making the substitutions earlier and getting the starters back in sooner in the 4th. If you play the whole game with this kind of rotation pattern the minutes look more or less like this:

Miller: 30-35; Roy: 30-35, Batum: 20-30, Aldridge: 33-38, Oden: 25-30, Blake: 12-17, Fernandez: 15-25, Webster: 15-25, Outlaw: 10-20.

Thoughts?

18 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

100% in favor!!

One thing I noticed last night is the Webster is clearly not the defender Batum is. Miller is a C+/B- defensively, but is versatile. Batum could have helped on Nash/Barbosa last night where Martell failed.

It is abundantly clear that the team needs a creator on the court at all times, since the offense bogs down when both are on the bench.

Start: Miller/Roy/Batum/Aldridge/Oden

by Rip City Reign on Oct 15, 2009 12:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Batum should start for his defensive capabilities. If we check the opponent’s best scorer early that player may end up with less touches and less shots allowing the Blazers to get the lead. Coming from behind always takes more energy and because we have depth we should seek the advantage early and wear the opponent down.

by KA-Oregon on Oct 15, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree more

To the OP:

Do you coach a team IRL?

by lurtsman on Oct 17, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

fire nate !

your hired

by riccc_l on Oct 15, 2009 1:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I put this in another thread

but here you go, we are pretty close on what we want to see, although I think Rudy is an offense creator as well as Miller and Roy, (or at least he could be).

Start the game with
Miller
Roy
Batum
Lma
Oden

6 mins in or so bring in Blake and Web, sit miller and Batum. Line up on the court, Blake, Roy, Web, LMA, Oden
9 mins in bring in Rudy and Joel or Outlaw, sit Roy and Oden. Line up on the court, Blake, Rudy, Web, LMA, Joel.

Second qtr starts
Miller and Outlaw or Joel in for Blake and LMA. Start qtr with Miller, Rudy, Web, Outlaw, and Joel.
4 mins in bring Roy back in for Web. Line up on the floor is Miller, Rudy, Roy, Outlaw and Joel.
6 mins in bring Oden and LMA back in for Outlaw and Joel. Line up on the floor is Miller, Rudy, Roy, LMA, and Oden.
8 mins in bring Blake back in for Miller. Line up on the floor is Blake, Rudy, Roy, LMA, and Oden.
10 mins in bring Batum back in for Rudy. Finish half with Blake, Roy, Batum, Lma, and Oden.

With a rotation like this the Blazers can keep a pick and role player on the court all the time, (miller, roy, or rudy) and get a good run for most of your guys. In this rotation just like anyone with this years Blazer team, for me that would be Outlaw or Joel, and I picked Outlaw to get the fewest minutes.

This rotation would pencil out to the following minutes for each player give or take a few minutes.
Miller 28 Blake 20
Roy 34 Rudy 26
Batum 16 Web 20
LMA 36 Outlaw 12
Oden 30 Joel 18

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Oct 15, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I Agree Wholeheartedly...

… and rec’d accordingly.

Seeing (hearing) the second unit struggle so thoroughly last night led me to believe what you do about Aldridge/Oden and Roy/Miller. And the touch of having last year’s starters in for a stretch is a great move, though I’d go with them a bit longer than you have here. Good stuff.

by TheStones on Oct 15, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Looks solid

I like your basic principles.

A few very, very, minor quibbles/questions:

Outlaw is playing 10 minutes a game in that set-up, which seems a little low, even though I’m not crazy about Outlaw. I think Outlaw deserves to play as many or more minutes than Webster, though that’s based on not really having a good feel for either player this year.

I wonder if Miller will have enough time to get warm playing 8 minutes in the first quarter.

Blake’s stint may be difficult. Comes in for a little over five minutes with the quarter breaking up the five minutes. Given that there are often time-outs and a lot of FTs shot at the end of quarters, that might be pretty hurky jerky. Again, Minor quibbles.

by PoliSam on Oct 15, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

BE has been very focussed on the 2 distinct teams, which isn’t how it works. Your plan is very close to what I would do. I would probably give Martell more of Nic’s minutes.

It was mentioned above that Rudy is another offensive creator. I don’t feel like I’ve ever seen that. He has show to be a good 3pt shooter, and he is good at working with a point guard, but he doesn’t seem capable of creating something by himself.

Still on the Rex bandwagon.

by dan_the_man on Oct 15, 2009 1:41 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

agree with your first point

I would also give Martel, or probably someone else (Blake, Fernandez, Outlaw) more of Nic’s minutes. Fernandez could take most of Nic’s minutes because it seems like Nate will play him more than last year. However, I think Blake’s minutes with Roy need to be maximized. Blake should probably get 17-20 instead of 12-17 and Miller should probably get about 28-30.

by MisterOden on Oct 16, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

anyone have nate's email?

Seriously, slap this in his hands and let’s here his defense

by Ditez on Oct 15, 2009 1:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I like it.

Roy, Aldridge, Miller, Batum and Oden will gel sufficiently on defense to become championship quality.

Pryzzy will be the third big; always with LMA? Maybe we’ll get like Orlando and go with Greg and 4 wings sometimes.

Martell and Rudy get major minutes in back up roles (with lots of touches.)

Just remove any mention of Travis, and I’m all in with this post.

I’m afraid that Steve is down to mop up duty and I can see JB moving past him by season’s end. Sniff.

LMA, Greg, Nic, Brandon and Dre at 30+ minutes each. Joel, Martell and Rudy at 25 each too.

Get’er done Nate.

Bedge or go home.

by Ojala John on Oct 15, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ok

you had me until the, “jb moving past him by season’s end”.

Can we just all understand that Bayless is not going to play again this year? He will get less mins than last year, and we can take that to the bank. With Miller and Blake the Blazers have 2 real consistant NBA players, Nate can bank on what they will give him night in and night out. Bayless just isn’t there yet, and who knows if he ever will.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Oct 15, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bayless

I agree for the most part, with two exceptions. One, obviously there could be injuries. Two, I think Bayless might be preferable to Blake in situations where neither Roy nor Miller are on the court (say they both get in some foul trouble). In that situation, you need someone in there who can drive to the bucket and get free throws. Neither Blake nor Rudy are good at that and Bayless is. It’s the one thing he is really pretty good at. When you have no one on the floor with that ability, you can get in trouble. It’s hard to stop a run by the other team.

by UDUB on Oct 15, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that would eat Rudy's minutes, not Blake's

If we “need” a dribble penetrator on the court in the unlikely event that both Miller and Roy get in foul trouble at the same time, or the more likely event that one of them is injured, Bayless should come in as a SG, and keep Blake as PG. That way Bay can drive to the basket, but we don’t have to have him turning it over, and Blake can shoot threes as well as Rudy and is a way better PG than Rudy, so the balance is once again struck in the back court. Bayless and Blake are also both better defenders than Rudy. In general Rudy is the most talented of the three, but if we are trying to balance the talents on the floor, Bayless has a shot at playing some SG, and having it work better than him as PG. But I would only do that if Blake and Rudy can’t get anything going. They did alright together in the win against Boston but JB did play some SG in that game too.

by wingzeta on Oct 16, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're underestimating...

the number of Blazer blowouts, during which it makes perfect sense to play Bayless.

by Visionary2 on Oct 15, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok maybe

I should have said, he will not play any meaningful minutes this year.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Oct 16, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, we can't agree

Can we just all understand that Bayless is not going to play again this year?

I realize that the dominant thinking around here is that Bayless sits till his fanny bleeds. I don’t think that is in the team’s best interest. Here are my reasons:

1) PG is the one position on the team that does not have a long term starter. The cheapest way to fill this long range need is to develop from within. Bayless arguably has the potential. Trading for a young starting quality PG is likely to be extremely expensive.

2) Blake will be a free agent next summer. We have three choices: A) resign him next summer and use a roster spot and precious salary cap dollars to do so; B) let him walk; or C) trade him before the deadline. From an asset management perspective, I think the best scenario is to trade him before the deadline. Obviously the team can only afford to do that if Miller is fitting in well as the starter and Bayless is showing that he can be trusted with the back-up minutes. If we don’t play Bayless at all, we will not no whether or not we can trade Blake, and we will not know if we need to resign him next summer. Ideally, Blake and Trout and their desirable expiring contracts could be combined with our cap room to land a high quality back-up 4-5.

3) I agree with those who think Blake is a lousy fit next to Webster and Rudy in the second unit. Bayless could share playmaking duties with Rudy and defend the point. Bayless ability to penetrate matches well with Webster and Rudy’s ability to spread the floor.

4) Blake struggles as a defender against quick PGs. Many of the young PGs who are filling the back-up positions around the league, are exactly the kind of guys who cause problems for Blake. Right now, Bayless isn’t necessarily a better overall defender than Blake, but he does have more lateral quickness and does get more on-ball pressure. With regular minutes, I think he will be better than Blake fairly soon.

This isn’t a slam dunk by any means. I know that there are legitimate questions about Bayless’ ability to handle the point. The bottom line, is that the team is going to be faced with some big decisions at the PG position, and if we don’t play Bayless, KP may not have enough information to make the best decision.

by upper left corner on Oct 16, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Though it sucks for Blake, it’s probably better for the long term success of the team to try to get Bayless some non-insignificant minutes on a regular basis. I suspect that either Blake or Bayless is going to have to be traded before the end of the season. Either way, we need to get them both some playing time to show the market what they can do. If we’re keeping Bayless, he needs some minutes to learn how do what we’ll need him to do. If we’re trading him, we need to showcase him in order to get anything for him. Blake is much more of known commodity. Therefore, Bayless needs some of Blake’s minutes.

The other option, of course, is to ship Bayless to the D-league for a while and get him some real serious playing time to try to hone his skills in real game situations. He’d hate it, of course, but it would be hugely helpful to him.

by UDUB on Oct 16, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hrm...

I just don’t see what you are seeing in Jaybay ULC.

1.) Bayless has shown no PG abilities since he has come into the NBA. His strengths are getting to the rim and drawing fouls, and um…um…well that is about it right now.

2) Blake is loved by nate, kp and the team and he is still in his prime, I don’t see the Blazers letting him go next summer. He will be resigned on a simlarly cheap contract to what he has now and be the back up guard. Why is it that we as fans see a guy like blake as a weakness? He is a perfect back up pg, tough as nails, he can run an offense, and is a great 3 point shooter. Why would the team give that up just to play Bayless who hasn’t shown any of those abilities?

3) Bayless has yet to show he can be a playmaker, he can get to the rim, but he has yet learned how to see the floor while driving. He doesn’t pass once he starts to drive, and when he tries it is forced and doesn’t end well. I would much rather depend on Rudy to be a playmaker off the bench at this point than Bayless, at least he has proven he can pass and see the court well.

4)Blake struggles on defense against quick pgs, but so does Bayless. He commits so many needless fouls out above the 3 point line it drives me crazy. He has the tools, but he has not shown the ability to apply them and become a good defender. At this point in their careers Blake is the better defender.

The whole point is, Blake is a known NBA commodity while Bayless is just potential, and potential doesn’t win in the NBA, it loses. I’ll take the vet in his prime over the young baller who hasn’t figured it out yet everytime.

Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by usmcr3049 on Oct 16, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But something still has to be done with Bayless

I’m with you for the most part. If Blake is okay with being a back up and the Blazers don’t mind paying him a salary he’s willing to live with, I’m all for keeping him. I like Blake. But if we’re keeping Blake, then we probably need to trade Bayless. And in order to get any trade value, we need to get him some real playing time.

The answer to this connundrum may be to ship Bayless to the D-league and let him work on his game. That will let other teams see what he can do. Then maybe we can package Bayless with Outlaw or Webster in some sort of mid-year trade.

by UDUB on Oct 16, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why in such a hurry to trade Bayless?

We need a long-term starter at PG. If you keep Blake as a long-term back-up, you block Bayless’ developmental path. In two years, Blake will be a 32 year-old backup who struggles on defense and can only contribute by shooting 3s. In two years, Bayless may be coming into his own as a scorer and perhaps even as a distributor.

by upper left corner on Oct 16, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I am looking longer term.....

If you are talking about overall play, at this moment, Blake is a pretty easy call, for the reasons you stated.

However, I see PG defense as a glaring weakness on this team. Neither Miller or Blake are going to get better. Bayless has real potential. He has a combination of speed, strength, agility, and aggression that could make him an excellent PG defender. He needs work on technique and on defensive recognition, but those should come pretty quickly with a little experience.

You say that Bayless has “shown no PG abilities.” He lead the team with 7 assists last night. Obviously, one game doesn’t mean much, but the oft repeated statement of the Bayless detractors, “he will never be a PG,” seems extremely premature given his physical abilities, intelligence, and work ethic. I agree that he is not yet a consistently effective playmaker, but I don’t think he needs to be Steve Nash to play next to Rudy and Roy.

I confess I am not a big fan of Blake’s game. I respect that he has made the most of his limited physical abilities and appreciate how important his 3pt shooting was to the teams success last year. However, his defense is highly problematic in my estimation, and when his shot isn’t falling, he doesn’t contribute much on the offensive end. He is a steady low-risk, low-reward passer, but he rarely penetrates and even more rarely gets to the line. I think in today’s NBA, with the revised hand-check rules, an ability to penetrate is crucial in a PG.

If KP was sold on Blake as a long term back-up, then why did he keep Bayless? Bayless will need to be a back-up for a season or two if he is going to have any real chance to realize his potential. I don’t think keeping Blake and Bayless is sustainable. If you dump Bayless, then who is your long term answer at PG? Trading for a quality, young starter is likely to be extremely expensive.

by upper left corner on Oct 16, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i posted mine about an hour ago in front page thread:

rotation brainstorming by half:

1) First 6 minutes: Miller, Roy, Batum, LMA, Oden
2) Next 4 minutes: Blake, Roy, Batum, LMA, Przy (last year’s starters)
3) Next 4 minutes: Blake, Rudy, Webster, LMA, Przy
4) Next 4 minutes: Miller, Rudy, Webster, Outlaw, Oden
5) Next 2 minutes: Miller, Roy, Webster, Outlaw Oden
6) Final 4 minutes: Miller, Roy, Rudy, LMA, Oden

1) you work on establishing LMA and Oden through 2 man games with Roy/LMA and Miller/Oden.
2) Allow Roy and LMA to do their thing with Blake to space the court and Przy to set picks
3) Bench players with LMA for stability, using Rudy to initiate offense
4) Miller/Oden time, with Rudy and Martel as 3 point outlets and Outlaw for transition and isolation plays
5) Continue Miller/Oden time, with Roy back in the game to warmup and isolation
6) Roy isolation time and/or 2 man games with Mller/Oden and Roy/LMA. Rudy for clutch shooting

Minutes breakdown:
Miller 32, Blake 16
Roy 32, Rudy 24
Batum 20, Webster 20
LMA 36, Outlaw 12
Oden 32, Joel 16

Obviously fouls, matchups and injuries will dictate some game to game changes, and this is all approximate – we know Roy and Outlaw will likely get more minutes than listed here, but the idea is to put in a basic framework that could work. Keeping Oden and Miller together as much as possible for obvious reasons, and they both sub out early to allow Roy and Aldridge that 2nd half of the 1st and 3rd quarters to run in their "comfort zone" from last year.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 2:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t like Blake/Rudy as a guard combo. See my post below. No penetration from the guard, no post up from the guards. Maybe Rudy can develop into a penetration threat, but he’s not yet. Or at least not a traditional one.

by Blaz06Draft on Oct 15, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also don't like Blake and Rudy on the floor at the same time.

But worse than that is Miller closing out the game with Roy. I think that when the offense is going to revolve around Roy you need another guard in there that can shoot.

I'm calling for 57 wins this season.

by 123_G.O._RipCity on Oct 18, 2009 3:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/10/15/1086785/tune-to-95-5-now

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Oct 15, 2009 2:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Different Rationale, Same Outcome

I like your rotation.

I break our team down into bigs (C & PF) and guards (SG, & PG), and figure you fit the SF in according to the situation.

For bigs, I look for 4 things: post up ability (pu), rebounding®, jump shooting (js), and post defense (d). Here’s how I rate the strengths of our bigs:

Oden: pu, r, d
Przy: r, d
Aldridge: pu, js
Outlaw: js

The rules that make sense to me are:

Always have a pu on the floor
Always have a r on the floor

This means always Oden or Aldridge for pu, and always Oden or Przy for r. This means that the C/PF combos that work are:

Oden/Aldridge (the starters)
Oden/Outlaw
Przy/Aldridge

This means no Pryz/Outlaw (no pu), and no Aldridge/Outlaw (no r).

For guards, I look for four things: penetration (pe), post up (pu), 3 point shooting (3p), and perimeter defense (d). Here’s how I rate the strengths of our wings:

Miller: pe, pu
Blake: 3p
Roy: pe, pu, 3p
Rudy: 3p

The rules that make sense to me are:

Always have a pe on the floor
Always have a 3p on the floor
Always have a pu on the floor

This means always Miller or Roy for pe, and always Miller or Roy for pu. This means that the PG/SG combos that work are :

Miller/Roy
Miller/Rudy
Blake/Roy

This means no Blake/Rudy: no pe or pu.

In assembling the bigs and guards together, one other rule might apply:

Always Roy or Aldridge on the floor

Applying this, you end up with the following eight combos:

Oden/Aldridge/Miller/Roy
- Bigs: 2 pu, 1r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 2 pe, 2 pu, 1 3p, 0d
Oden/Aldridge/Miller/Rudy
- Bigs: 2 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1d
- Guards: 1 pe, 1 pu, 1 3p, 0d
Oden/Aldridge/Blake/Roy
- Bigs: 2 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 1 pe, 1 pu, 2 3p, 0 d
Przy/Aldridge/Miller/Roy
- Bigs: 1 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 2 pe, 2pu, 1 3s, 0 d
Przy/Aldridge/Miller/Rudy
- Bigs: 1 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 1 pe, 1 pu, 1 3s, 0 d
Przy/Aldridge/Blake/Roy
- Bigs: 1 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 1 pe, 1 pu, 2 3s, 0 d
Oden/Outlaw/Miller/Roy
- Bigs: 1 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 2 pe, 2 pu, 1 3s, 0 d
Oden/Outlaw/Blake/Roy
- Bigs: 1 pu, 1 r, 1 js, 1 d
- Guards: 1 pe, 1 pu, 2 3s, 0 d

I haven’t thought thru sequencing the substitutions during the game.

by Blaz06Draft on Oct 15, 2009 2:30 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Well done.

I agree with virtually all of these. Well done. I would add that Bayless is definitely a “pe” and therefore can be used in small doses when that is lacking.

by UDUB on Oct 15, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No "d" from guards

Yeah, I’d agree on Bayless. He might as he develops give us a guard with “d” as a strength.

I was focusing on the main rotation players. I couldn’t come up with any great logic reagrding SF, so dropped it out of the analysis, which already was pretty complex.

by Blaz06Draft on Oct 15, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would also add...

I know people don’t like to hear the word potential because we are all realists here. But Bayless has the l potential to be a good shooter (just needs playing time to develop confidence), a decent post up threat (he is very big for a point guard and someone mentioned he was already working on some moves) and a very good defender (Bayless is agile and strong; two very good defensive charactistics.) Now if he could put all of this together, you have one hell of a guard.

by Sabasdaman on Oct 17, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

this is a very sensible approach and one thing it does is reiterate our logjam at the 3

just look at batum/rudy/martell/outlaw’s minutes. you have outlaw subbing for aldridge mostly and still there are not many minutes to be had. This is why one (or two) of them need to go. All of them will be stifled by such limited playing time. I’d trade Webster first, then consider Outlaw, and would probably not consider Batum/Rudy at all.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, please stop using the following: "Book it.", "FTW", "Epic" & "Fail".

...no seriously--stop.

by nima on Oct 15, 2009 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One adjustment

Batum 20-30? Definitely 16-24.

In a game without a big star 16, in a game against D-wade or the like 24.

You're saying that they look like they're giving it their all. And you know why they look that way? Because they're bad, and it literally takes them the maximum physical effort to accomplish basic baseball tasks like throwing the ball from short to first. When David Eckstein throws the ball to first base, he has to wind up like a shot-putter, spin around forty-three times, and launch it at an angle 89 degrees from the horizontal. Afterwards, he undergoes an IV drip for a fortnight and he's so out of breath that he requires several months of acupuncture to regain the power of speech. For this we laud him. -Junior of Deadspin on 'scrappy' players

by TheOdenator on Oct 15, 2009 2:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

rec for you. yes. loves it. -but fernandez needs more

Fernandez is at 15-25. We CAN’T have rudy at 15. He needs at least 20 avg per game. Nice Job. Love it. I get excited to start thinking about this real world rotation & lineup…since we have not seen a real FULL game rotation yet. We got closer wtih the PHX game.

We all know what K*be did in Colorado to that girl. Dear Lord, please let whatever team that plays the LA Clankers beat them to oblivion. Amen.

by Pritchslap on Oct 15, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

great post and comments

rec

"never in my life have i been hit like that" - DJ victim

by chikndnnr on Oct 16, 2009 6:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Where is the 3-point shooting in RAMBO?

Without Blake on the floor, there’s less of a 3-point threat in that lineup. The middle is going to be CLOGGED.

Either Blake or Martell can provide that ‘hang out in the corner’ threat. I favor Miller over Blake at the point, so that means Martell over Batum.

by Dobbler on Oct 16, 2009 10:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know

First, Roy is decent 3 point shooter. And in terms of “hang out in the corner” threes, Batum isn’t bad himself. He shot over 37% last year as a 19 year old. He’ll only get better. I also think Aldridge is close to being able to extend his range to the 3-point line. My bet is he’d shoot over 30% now if he took them. Even Miller made a three last night.

I think that’s more than enough to keep the defense honest.

Also, while Martell was a decent three point shooter a few years ago, he’s clearly rusty now. And his 3-point percentage, even when healthy, isn’t any higher than Batum’s.

by UDUB on Oct 16, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It was puzzling how many people seemed to be thinking of 2 separate units

You are absolutely right UDUB. It’s a rotation, not 2 distinct units. For instance, last season, Nate almost never had both Roy and Aldridge out of the game at the same time. This why the point that having Miller and Oden as non-starters in order strengthen the 2nd unit is a weak argument…there really is no such thing as a second unit…just bench players rotating in to play with starters.

by JasonT on Oct 16, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Nice post. I hope this is what ends up happening.

You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.

by austinpwnz on Oct 17, 2009 12:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Switch Batum and Rudy's minutes and I'm all in.

Nice post.

....formerly GonzoFan. Now, this has been a message from "The People's Alliance to Continue to Encourage Greg Oden on his Path to Dominance"

by bforsythe on Oct 17, 2009 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One of the most logical things I've read in a while.

I don’t know that I agree with when you are substituting the players in and out but I agree 100% with the ideas about Roy/Miller, Batum/scorers, and Aldridge/Oden.

I think more important than who starts is that this philosophy be exercised. That said Oden deserves to be starting, he needs the experience of going up against starting centers and the respect of other players around the league. If Oden stays healthy he will be contending for an Allstar spot this year, thats the kind of player that needs to have his name anounced at the beginning of games.

Good post

I'm calling for 57 wins this season.

by 123_G.O._RipCity on Oct 18, 2009 3:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wholeheartedly agree

I’ve said something similar before, and it should be an iron clad rule: at least two of Oden, LMA, Miller, and Roy need to be on the court at all times.

This is especially important in the backcourt – either Roy or Miller MUST be on the court at all times.

Blake and Rudy are a terrible pairing in the backcourt because they duplicate each other’s primary skill (spot up shooting). This is one of the most significant issues facing the Blazers this year because, conventional wisdom aside, it’s a virtual lock that they will see major minutes together in the backcourt. They will both struggle when playing together, trying to do too much off the dribble and not getting enough open looks, and I’m just hoping Nate realizes why.

Q: Is Greg favoring his knee?
Frye: He favors dunking on your head, that's what he favors.

by KP Corleone on Oct 19, 2009 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

rotation

Other things being equal, the best five players at their positions should start, so I think Oden, Roy, Webster, Miller and LA should be the starters. Rotation considerations should be secondary, not primary. Whatever the combination of players on the floor, you can always run plays designed for their strengths, and defenses that cover their weaknesses. It could be argued that Pryz is better than Oden at the moment, but that’s an ‘other things being equal’ thing: Oden needs to start and we need to see what he can become.

diffident

by diffident on Oct 19, 2009 2:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs