Charting Our Growth: Blazer Stat Trends This Season
Since Dave has posted his stat differentials from last year to this year, I figured it was a good time to post the charts of how our team has changed its stat sheet over the course of the year. Whereas Dave's charts show the differences from last year's final tally to this year's, these charts start out with the individual totals from each game through the year, and then refine this by looking at the differentials and averages to find trends and improvement during the course of this last season. Also, something I want you to keep in mind when you look at these charts: Remember other than a brief stint in game 1, Greg missed the first 7 games, as well as games 53 through 67. So let's jump straight into it.
Points.
via i44.tinypic.com
via i44.tinypic.com
As Dave pointed out, point differential is probably the best single measure of a team's overall health. Leading the league in this category with a +5.35 is a very healthy sign (that's the blue line in the second chart). In fact, we scored a grand total of 8153 points over the course of the year, while our opponents only managed to rack up 7714. Looking at the first 2 charts, we see that thanks to our atrocious schedule, we got off to something of a slow start, but our guys battled through it and came out the better for it. Once we were over the initial hard stretch and got some creampuff teams, we started blowing them out. At game 16, our point differential average for the first 5 games was 18.4, which is slightly amazing seeing as how it took until game 8 for us to get a positive point differential average over the last 5 games. We never matched this figure again until the very end of the season when we were playing really well.
Regarding blowouts, you'll notice we had quite a few wins with a very large point differential. An amazing 13 of our wins (a hair shy of 1/4 of our total of 43) were by 20 points or more. Perhaps it's time we nicknamed the garden to The Woodshed, because our guys are consistently handing out beatings there. At the same time, we only suffered 2 losses of 20 points or more, and we only lost 11 games by double digits. In addition, other than the blowouts in games 12 through 17 pulling our overall point differential up for awhile, you'll notice our point differential average for the season grows steadily over the course of the year. The line for the last 5 games reflects this quite well. Since I'm already filling up a lot of space I'll leave the rest of the analysis to you fine folks and move on.
Rebounds
via i43.tinypic.com
via i39.tinypic.com
Our bread and butter, and boy is it delicious. Once again, other than the swell in games 12-30, there is a trend of continuous improvement over the season. The dip when Greg was out late in the season can also be easily seen. The only times we averaged in the negative over a 5 game stretch was at the very start of the season (hard sched, no Greg) and at games 31 and 37, both of which averaged a less than 2 ppg difference. You'll see the differential chart for boards was still very up and down over the course of the year. Thankfully there were many more ups than down. We got outrebounded by double digits only 5 times, however we outrebounded the bad guys by double figures a whopping 23 times. Also notice that even at our almost slowest pace in the league, there were no fewer than 10 games where we pulled down over 50 (!!!) boards. Our performance this year on the glass can only be described as dominant, and as Greg improves we will only become more and more scary. This year we pulled down 3419 rebounds whil only giving up 2967. The share of these that were offensive boards is 1059 for us as opposed to 787 for the bad guys. I fully expect us to outrebound our opponent in every single game next year barring injury to a center. I could talk forever about rebounds, but it's time to move on.
Points in the Paint.
via i41.tinypic.com
via i40.tinypic.com
This category is very interesting. As Dave pointed out in the main page, we've grown a lot from lasst year, however we still have quite a ways to go. Look at the game totals chart and draw a line across it at 40. If the blue line gets above it, we probably lost, and it's that simple. The scary thing is, the bad guys averaged 38.43 in this category. We only averaged a hair better, at 38.66 a game. In fact we tallied up 3170 points in the paint over the course of the season, while our opponents got 3151. That's very, very close and has all kinds of implications, although its encouraging that we're still to the positive even though being labeled a jump shooting team.
The first time I looked at this I went "man, we suck. With Greg, Joel, and LMA, shouldn't we be doing better?" Then I looked at the differential chart again, and you know what? You can see EXACTLY when Greg didn't play. In our opening stretch, playing teams with good centers and us with no Greg, we got hammered pretty good in the paint. When Greg returned, our total inside scoring immediatly started going up and the other teams' started going down, and this trend continued. There were still times we got hammered pretty good when Greg didn't play much with fould trouble, and there's quite a bit of inconsistency (as you would expect from young teams), but there's no denying theres an upward trend there. Our season average steadily increases right up until Greg got injured and went out for a stretch starting at game 53. The trend didn't immediately start decreasing thanks to our whooping of the clippers on game 55 with a 56 points in the paint showing. For the duration of the time Greg sat out we didn't perform well in the paint, and we finally started playing well again a few games after Greg came back, once he managed to work back into shape a little bit. After this we reasserted ourselves for the remainder of the season and played quite well except for the loss in Houston.
I fully expect us to show a large improvement in this category next year, and when we do other teams will be shaking in their shoes.
Fast Break Points
via i39.tinypic.com
This chart is so ugly I'm not even going to try to get anything out of it, other than to note the obvious: that we're wildly inconsistent and that twice we've held an opponent to zero running points in a game.
In Conclusion.
via i39.tinypic.com
via i40.tinypic.com
Here I've given the lines from the 5 game averages and the season averages to date their own chart so you can see the trends in play without the clutter from individual games. Remember that the red and greenish lines, at the end of the year, are first in the league. You can clearly see the tough start we got off to, as well as the effect of a few bloouts around the 15 game mark. You can see the dip in points in the paint after Greg went out late in the season as well as our great play during the last 10 games or so. Undoubtably you've also seen that there's a lot of inconsistency, stats fluctuating wildly from one game to the next. That's something we can probably chalk up to youth and not being able to impose our will on every team every night. There are also several other factors that might play a hand in events and I'm sure you can find and point those out in the comments.
I was going to include similar charts for shooting statistics, but this going to be ridiculously long already so that'll have to be its own post later. I have some work to do but I'll be back in a couple hours to answer your questions. If you want to see some other stats ask and I'll see what I can do.
So what do you think? Do the numbers match up with what your eyes told you over the course of the year? What's your interpretation of the numbers? What improvement do you expect to see next year and how much?
15 recs |
39 comments
Comments
PS. click the charts for a larger image.
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 4, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This has been promoted to the main page.
The first such post of this off-season.
Thanks for the work!
—Dave
by Dave on May 4, 2009 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Awesome
Thanks dave.
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 4, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blast.
I noticed 3 typos i missed after proofreading this twice.
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 4, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're still listed as the author, can you edit the post?
by Timmay! on May 4, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nope. it no longer shows up as a fanpost under my fanposts' page.
Oh well i’ll just have to go on looking like an idiot by saying we only had 43 wins when it should say 54 :P
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 4, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we know what you meant
"So, then, I was like, it'd be really dirty if I put up 42. So I did!" -Brandon Roy, post-game comments after game 2 of the first round of the 2009 NBA Playoffs
by 5212872 on May 5, 2009 5:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
This is awesome. It’s neat to see the point chart. Some of the ups are WAY up.
My favorite teams are the Blazers and any team that is playing the Lakers.
by OCBlazerFan1 on May 4, 2009 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
awesome
Oden...Aldridge...Roy.....THE REAL BIG THREE
by CroRupt on May 4, 2009 3:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Answers to your questions.
1) Yes.
2) You pretty much answered this one already. Don’t know that I can improve on it.
3) My expectation is that Portland is once again a top 4 team in the West and the team no one looks forward to playing. I expect to see continued improvement i nearly all of these categories.
In otherwords, you’ve just managed to prove, particularly for all the stat heads, that the team we watched this year was pretty amazing and that maybe Nate McMillan does know how to coach.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on May 4, 2009 3:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ah
The numbers do prove that this team was very good. These numbers do not prove anything about Nate’s coaching though. One thing that has puzzled me is that there are many BEdgers who seem to believe that Kevin Pritchard deserved Executive of the Year and Nate McMillan deserved Coach of the Year. This makes no sense to me. If Nate was such a great coach, then maybe KP didn’t assemble an amazingly talented group. Likewise, if KP was the top executive, maybe its to be expected that this team did well.
I don’t disagree with what you wrote timg— I think Nate McMillan can coach pretty well— but the numbers don’t tell us anything about who deserves credit for Portland’s strong season… just that there’s some a decent amount of credit to be doled out.
by jksnake99 on May 4, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so how do we judge Nate's coaching by numbers?
somehow there’s got to be a way to analyze at least part of it. I think at least a small piece of the numbers can be attributed to Nate, but how to prove it isn’t something i’ve figured out how to do.
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 4, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
great question
I don’t know the answer to that one.
Subjectively, my take is that KP is in the top 5 GMs and Nate is somewhere around the 8th or 9th best coach in the league… but how to show this with numbers?
by jksnake99 on May 4, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Numbers schmumbers. Hire a PR firm.
It would help if the team refrains from sending any more threatening emails to other teams.
by MiledAnimal on May 4, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the PR firm would be able to come up with some numbers. Guaranteed
any good liar has numbers on their side.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on May 4, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Nate was such a great coach, then maybe KP didn’t assemble an amazingly talented group. Likewise, if KP was the top executive, maybe its to be expected that this team did well.
Thank you. I strongly agree, and I’ve been frustrated that this is a lost concept right now.
Postup, I’m not sure there’s any way to use numbers to assign credit to different sources in an org (ie. players, coaches, management). I’d love to find a way… but basketball is too fluid, with too many regular changes, to attribute specific numbers to different causes. All IMO of course. I’d love to see theories, but I haven’t yet found a good one.
by Timmay! on May 4, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree
at first i was thinking at maybe taking a look at stats with a psychological component, like bouncing back (e.g. point diff.) after a loss, or quantity/quality of late game comebacks, but the problem is those have as much to do with a team’s psychology as any motivation from a coach.
Maybe when we’ve got a few playoff series under our belts to analyze we can look at adjustments from one game to the next at countering an opponents success in the previous game.
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 4, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
let me throw this out there and see what you guys think
what if we looked at something like how star players play relative to their averages against certain teams. I think this might be able to in part show how good a coach is as great players are rarely shut down by individual defense, but instead are shut down by a coordinated team defense. Since the coach would be considered the coordinator then this might be a good metric to show a coaches effectiveness.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on May 4, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
You are on a good track but this is too early to measure this young team
Any team needs time to jell and especially one loaded with rookies. The improvement will hopefully be more measurable next year and especially in two years in my expectation.
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
by lee3022 on May 5, 2009 12:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would disagree
that Nate and KP should not be able to be considered to be simultaneously at the tops of their fields. I would agree there is some coupling between their jobs that can blur each others contributions, but that does not mean that their are not enough differences that you cannot tease out their individual contributions. I think a cooking analogy would work best here; you can have the best ingredients in the world, but if they are combined poorly then they can make a terrible tasting dish. In my mind KP gets great ingredients, players, and Nate cooks them up and the combination is awesome. That result is not necessarily guaranteed by only having great ingredients or a great chef.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on May 4, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Note that I did make use of the qualifier "maybe" ...
… as an acknowledgement that the numbers by themselves are not a direct correlation to Nate’s coaching ability. They are a sign that the team has improved, which is an indirect indication, in that while the improvement could be the result of the players getting better with experience, plus the addition of the 4 rookies, there is also the possibility of it being due to the coaching staff guiding and aiding the players improvement.
As to your second point, Exec and Coach of the Year are not mutually exclusive. For example KP could have been honored for collecting so much young talent through the draft. However the fact that the team is so young and inexperienced yet performed not only as well as they did, but well ahead of the curve most people expected of them speaks to an excellent job of coaching. Man for man you can have the best troops in the world, but an idiot general can still lose you the battle.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on May 4, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that exec of the year and coach of the year are not mutually exclusive...
… but for a team to have both, I think they ought to have won the title in rather dominant fashion.
by jksnake99 on May 4, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Won't argue with that.
Personally, while I think KP is one of the best GM’s in the business, I wouldn’t have voted for him as Exec of the year. Mainly because his job has been more of a progression, putting the team together over a 3 year period.
But then I guess how you vote depends on your perspective. I’m sort of viewing the award as the Exec who made the best decisions during the past summer and this season, rather than as a cumulative award. But I can see going that way as well.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on May 4, 2009 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
KP could end up being the best exec in the league…yet not make a huge splash from one year to another to earn him exec of the year.
I got 6 years of playoff blue balls going on, and I'm ready to release. GO BLAZERS. ~Mortimer
by Philthyanimal on May 4, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Colangelo can get it for just getting Toronto back to the playoffs Nate is more deserving imo
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
by lee3022 on May 5, 2009 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coaching can be judged by these numbers
In the trends all improving over the season. The marks of a good coaching staff are effort in games, improvement in most areas including wins, and cohesive team camaraderie. This group accomplished all of these and most of these numbers reflect these.
Without effort we don’t win the rebounding differential. Without effort we don’t improve in opponent points.
The charts clearly show the improvements. I don’t recall a single team in NBA history that has had such singular improvement each year over a 4 year period. So even historically the improvement is impressive.
The team camaraderie is harder to see in these charts but more readily seen in the assists by the B-Roy and LMA and the continuing top-to-bottom deflection of personal achievement to the team.
Another point for Nate that needs to be seen is the noticeable defensive improvement by each of the team members of the USA gold medalists. Defense was Nate and Coach Boeheim. Certainly no team of my memory coached by Coach K or Coach D"Antoni has been noted for defense. Yet Carmello and Wade and LeBron all came back with new defensive intensity carrying their teams to the top of the NBA. K*by has played defense before but not in recent years until this year. Dwight was good before and better now. We just saw what Battier did to us and to LA tonight. Nate was given credit by several of these players for their improvement.
Very nice work Postup!
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
by lee3022 on May 5, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post....very intriguing.
The one factor to me that indicates Nate did a very good job of coaching is this. While I agree that KP has assembled a very talented roster……the youth of that roster places all that talent in the area of “potential performance”. In my opinion (and yes that’s all it is, because you are correct in that there just don’t seem to be good, hard numbers that yet prove this), moving that performance from potential to reality is where we see the effect of coaching.
by antediluvian on May 5, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wait wait wait
You forgot to carry the 1, you have to do all those graphs over again….
I have my P.h.D in unreliable hyperbole.
by Eat Politicians on May 4, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So true
They are not opponents, they are the Enemy! So true indeed…..
by DB Cooper00 on May 4, 2009 3:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is it just me
or do some of the graphs look oddly like a seismograph?
The i43 graph I think demonstrates really how important rebounding is.
+1
by Larry The Croc on May 4, 2009 4:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Er, great work, I guess
But when my interest in basketball leads me to want to read intricate graphs and study statistics (which I avoided like the plague in school), please shoot me.
"We don't back down to nobody." --Joel Przybilla
by hurryup09 on May 4, 2009 7:34 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The graphs relieve the need to parse the numbers
But the need to gain perspectives from all available resources provides a broader understanding and appreciation for our team and the game. Of course that is just me…..
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
by lee3022 on May 5, 2009 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3 comments and question
1. I love that you called them “enemy” – not “opponent”. Awesome. Like a hotdog.
2. My eyes told me that we were better the more minutes Greg logged in a game, but he had a lot of paltry-looking boxscores. This post has really helped to validate what my eyes were telling me (but the boxscores weren’t) about our team with Greg in the game.
3. It’s funny to see how strongly rebounding correlated to winning this past season. There were times when I thought Dave sounded like a broken record in his game previews. Turns out the man was right…
Q: Rebounding had a strong correlation to winning. What would be another stat that had a similar correlation? Points in the paint? And if so, what avenues might we develop next year to strengthen this aspect of the game?
by Montavilla Steve on May 4, 2009 10:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Better team defense should lead to a lower opponent FG% which provides more opportunities to rebound.
"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard
by lee3022 on May 5, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
about your Q on points in the paint
right now they’re more of a correlation to losing when the opponent gets over 40. With all of our shooters we can rain buckets down from outside when we don’t get much inside scoring. In fact several times this season, especially when gregs been in foul trouble, we’ve been behind by up to 10 points in the paint and still pulled out a win with our good outside shooting.
like lee said, in upcoming years the opponent FG% will be a good indicator. Our offensive is coming along nicely, it’s time for the defense to grow, and I think our series against houston is just what our guys needed to encourage them to play better D.
"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.
by postup on May 5, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Take Away: Oden has a HUGE Impact on Our Team Success
Oden is already near dominance in one area: rebounding. His offensive boards per minute is already top ten in the league.
He is effecting points in the paint with his scoring and his defense.
Folks may look at Oden and only see the fouls, the travelling, and the turnovers, but the big man is having a big impact on our team. If you visualize his game once he figures out the the fouls, the traveling, and the TOs, he is going to have a huge impact. His game doesn’t have to be pretty, and he doesn’t have to average 20 and 10 to be changing the game, although I think it is quite possible that he will do both within the next three years.
What makes Portland a very good team is Roy and rebounding. What keeps us from being an elite team largely takes place on the defensive end. No one will be more critical to our improvement on that end next year than the big man. The Blazers biggest weakness is perimeter defense and mismatches caused by our problems dealing with picks. Oden is going to play a major role in our efforts to deal with these weaknesses.
by upper left corner on May 5, 2009 8:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




























