Offense for Defense line-ups

by TPfor3 on Nov 17, 2009 10:50 AM PST

I've noticed an interesting trend in the last few games that I find curious. In fact I can't find any valid reason for why it is happening. I'm hoping one of you can shed some light on this issue. Nate has begun making defensive substitutions late in games (or rather I think that's what he is doing). The most obvious ones have been removing Rudy Fernandez from the game (and generally putting Andre Miller back in). This has left us with a lineup of Andre, Roy, Blake, Aldridge, Oden. I think my first question is simply: how can the three guard line-up with Blake, Miller, Roy possible be our best defensive line-up? Regardless of whether you remove Fernandez, the "starting" line-up just can't be the best defensive lineup, can it? Is there some statistical proof or otherwise that this is the case?

My other big question is: why is Rudy considered such a defensive liability? Sure he plays defense "differently" than other players, but he also gets his hands on looseballs, does a reasonable job staying in front of his man and is probably the best weakside rebounder of all our guards. In fact- I've seen a number of posts saying the Atlanta game was Rudy's first "good" game, and I think there is a serious misunderstanding of the intangibles that he brings to the game that no other player on this team does. The things that aren't captured by shooting percentage.

An arguement for another time, perhaps. Please, help me out here. Why is this defensive substitution occuring?

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

START RUDY

The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.

by faith on Nov 17, 2009 12:45 PM PST reply actions

Blake, Miller, and Roy have a defensive synergy

that I haven’t seen on the Blazers in a long time. Those guys seem to really have great communication, and they are working together, helping out, in a flow.

Since they became the starters, our team defense has been very, very good.

They give up a lot in height, but they make up a lot of that by being in the right position, anticipating, etc. Neither Miller nor Blake have exceptional lateral quickness, but they have enough quickness to handle most 2 guards. And quickness and being in the right position is more important on the perimeter than height.

It would be a problem if a team were to post up Miller or Blake with a SG that is 6’7" or something. But most of the time, there is either Greg or LMA to help with that.

So that’s why it’s happening. It’s not the individual skill of the defenders, it is simply that they are working really well together on defense.

I am hoping to see Rudy and Martell get plugged into that as well, because they both have the tools to be much better individual defenders than either Blake or Miller.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 17, 2009 2:12 PM PST reply actions

That's an admirable job of interpreting Nate's thought process, which is opaque to me

and I agree that Miller/Blake have the better awareness. Rudy may be close though.

However, I still think/hope that the 3 guard set is temporary. It looked to me like we zoned up down the stretch because of mismatches at the wing. Nate made a point of lamenting our lack of rebounding down the stretch, but its way tougher to defensive rebound out of a zone, not to mention with 3 guards in the game.

Perhaps fatigue cost us some of those boards, but if we consistently zone AND play 3 guards, this may not be the only time we get out rebounded. When all is said and done, you have to give up something to get something, when you are using a gimmick (maybe a strong word) to cover up a deficiency.

by JMoon on Nov 17, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions

rebounding is a huge problem

But how do you solve it? With Outlaw and Batum out, the only player with prototypical “3” size is Martell. And the way he’s been pressing, you almost have to do what it takes to minimize his minutes.

Rudy is not enough bigger than Andre or Steve to solve those defensive matchup problems caused by larger wings.

BUT even if the team isn’t quite as strong on the boards, I think we’ll be OK going forward. Most teams don’t have the size and athleticism on the wings that the Hawks do with Joe Johnson and Marvin Williams. Basically, we are usually going to be able to man up. Second, our great ace in the hole when it comes to rebounding out of a zone is Greg’s ability to get out of area boards. Greg was obviously tired last night. Part of this is on Nate for not giving him a break at all down the stretch, and part of it is the athleticism and determination of Horford and Smith. If Greg looks anything like the Greg we’ve seen for long stretches this season, our team rebounding will be OK.

by atomiccafe on Nov 17, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions

It looked to me like we zoned up down the stretch because of mismatches at the wing

I think Ben made the observation in his game recap that the zone defense was deployed when Rudy was in the game. I don’t think we’ve seen as much zone from the starting lineup, at the beginning of each half. The Hawks are a pretty “long” team, so that may have been another reason why Nate went with more “zone” down the stretch…but I think the strategy backfired, because (like you said) Portland couldn’t secure any key defensive rebounds and gave up their lead due to 2nd chance points. ATL just wanted the game, more, and they literally “took” it.

I don’t think the Blazers match up well against L*A or Denver, right now—it’s not just the lack of Batum, either. Portland simply needs more toughness from the forward position

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 17, 2009 6:41 PM PST up reply actions

When the starters are in

the zone is used as an occasional change of pace, and not even for an entire possession sometimes, just enough to disrupt the offense a little bit.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 18, 2009 1:53 AM PST up reply actions

I hope it is temporary, too

Well, that’s not right. It is effective enough that I think it should remain part of our arsenal.

But it should be used in the situations where it will be most effective, rather than all the time.

"Woulda, Coulda, Mighta and Shoulda – the Four Horsemen of the Procrastocalypse" - Red-5

by jscot on Nov 18, 2009 1:51 AM PST up reply actions

Nate likes physical defense

We can only guess, but I think Nate likes players who play tough physical defense and body-up on their man. We’ve heard him say many times that he wants his defense to make contact with their men. He doesn’t like the no-contact finesse , gamble-for-a-steal kind of defense that Rudy (and especially Sergio) tend to play.

by jayfisher on Nov 18, 2009 6:16 AM PST up reply actions

+1

Blake is smart, committed to defense, and has enough humility to recognize Miller’s knowledge and leadership on the defensive end. Thus, we begin to play like a team on the defensive end.

Seems like every comment I make on here includes the “whole is greater than the sum of the parts” adage. Why is that so hard to get?

"The only 'Advanced Metric' that matters is what you see with your eyes." -Timbo, Nov., 2009.

by Blazin' on Nov 17, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions

Because the old math and new math both deny.,..

that 1+2 can sometimes equal 4…

by Visionary2 on Nov 17, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions

fewest mistakes

Blake-Miller-Roy have the most experience, communicate the best as a unit and will (generally) make the fewest mistakes on defensive rotations/assignments

That’s why they’re starting, and that’s why the Blazer’s defense has improved since the 2-3 start. Nate trusts (each of) them more than Rudy or Martell, on the defensive end

When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Nov 17, 2009 2:19 PM PST reply actions