Rethinking the Point, Part 1: Bayless through the lens of "confirmation bias."
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 9:18 AM PDT
Email
PrintIn the three years I have been hanging around BE, no subject has stirred more controversy than the PG position. "PG Wars" have flared frequently and ferociously. Every single PG on the roster has been the subject of controversy. Each has had his supporters, each has had his detractors.
I have been no stranger to these debates. More than anything else on this site, I have probably become known as a tireless, and frequently tiring to those who disagree with me, advocate for the potential of Jerryd Bayless. I post opinions about many other players and many other topics, but I always seem to return to Bayless. The truth is, I can't help it. My fellow fans here at BE, and the local media provoke me on a regular basis.
Bayless' Repetitive Critics and My Repetitive Responses
I read and hear the same criticisms over and over: "he isn't a PG;" "he just puts his head down and drives to the basket;" "he can't shoot;" "he is an out of control TO machine;" etc., etc. I respond to each of these statements by pointing out the stats that strongly suggest that while these statements may have been true when Bayless first arrived, they are a less and less accurate description of his play. You know the drill: I point out his improved AST%, his decreased TO%, his best on the team improvement in his PER. I point out that he shot 38% from 3 after the All-Star break and that he had a better TS% than Miller, or than Roy had in his second year. Yada, yada, yada.
What I have noticed over time, is that my arguments seem to bounce off those who disagree with me. It simply doesn't matter how much he has improved, it doesn't matter what the stats say, it doesn't matter how favorably he compares to other young PGs. Most fans have simply made up their minds and don't want to be confused by arguments or facts that don't fit with their opinions. After thinking about it for some time, I think what we have going on here is a case of confirmation bias. What is confirmation bias? Here, in part, is what Wikipedia has to say:
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
In other words, once people form strong opinions about a subject, in this case a basketball player, they tend to only take in information that confirms their existing opinion. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or to have studied sociology (like I did) to see how this would effect basketball fans in terms of their ability to evaluate young players. If a young guy comes in and struggles, fans tend to develop a negative first impression that is very hard to shake. If the player shows improvement, fans will tend to ignore the improved play and remember only those plays where the player repeated their earlier mistakes.
Of course, confirmation bias cuts both ways. I may be the one blinded by my early optimism about Bayless. Perhaps I only notice the good plays and conveniently forget the ugly turnovers. It is partly because of my fear of my own bias that I started turning to the stats to try to "check" my own perceptions. The more I looked at the stats, the more I compared Bayless to other young PGs, the more I became convinced that his potential was real.
Seeing What We Want to See
In the case of Bayless, we seem to have a classic case of attitude polarization. We have all watched the same games and read the same reports, but we have come to very different conclusions. Those, like me, who are optimistic about Bayless look at his excellent athleticism, exceptional work ethic, and outstanding ability to get to the line (6.7 times per 36) and we hope he will improve as a defender, shooter, and decision maker. Those who are pessimists focus on his weaknesses and tend to underestimate the value of the things he does well and tend to minimize the fact that he has come so far in such a short period.
I think the perceptions of the local media guys is particularly interesting. The newspaper guys: Quick, Smith, and Eggers all seem to see some potential. The radio and broadcast guys have been highly critical of Bayless from early on. Jaynes and Vance have been unrelentingly negative. To me, this is a case of "old school guys" who do not like new style PGs. Both Jaynes and Vance cut their teeth in the days of classic "pass first" PGs. The recent rule changes eliminating hand checking above the foul line have changed the game. It has put a premium on PGs who can penetrate. Few can penetrate better than Bayless. Mike Barrett became a close personal friends with Steve Blake and his family. Blake's sister is a producer at 95.5. I think all of these factors have tended to create a bit of negative group think at 95.5 regarding Bayless.
Of course, it doesn't really matter what the fans think, it probably doesn't even matter what the local media guys think. There are only three opinions that really matter: Nate, Rich, and PA. My guess is that Bayless' fate as a Blazer will likely be determined in the next 30 days.
If he gets the chance to stay, I fully expect him to continue marching along the development path he was on last year. Imagine, if you will, a Jerryd Bayless who picks up where he left off in the Phoenix series: shooting 40% from 3 pt range; posting a AST% of 28%, a TO% under 10, an AST/TO of 3:1. Imagine him being able to spread the floor for Roy in the way that Blake did, while at the same time being a constant threat to take it to the rim and a powerful one man break in the open floor. He doesn't need to be Steve Nash as a distributor, he just needs to be Steve Blake +; a guy who rings up 5-6 assists per 36 while sharing distribution responsibilities with one of the best playmaking SGs in the league. Stop thinking about PG as a position, and start thinking about it as a set of functions that can be divided up among the perimeter players in any way that works.
Part 2 of my little PG series will be a discussion of how I visualize these functions being divided up between our perimeter players, assuming that we stick to the current roster minus Rudy.
742 comments
|
34 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good post
I too think attitudes about Bayless have solidified too quickly.
I think there are those among us who feel the he jury is still out.
I think you are right about the media AND the reasons for the biases.
Barrett’s Blake connection was SOOOOO obvious when Blake was here AND after Blake left…for about the first 10 games after Blake left “now if BLAKE were here, HE would have….blah blah blah”…. in the most glowing possible way. Didn’t mind this as much as the almost total under enthusiastic reporting/regard of/for what others were doing. OTHER POINT GUARDS.
but we have come to very different conclusions.
Now SOME of us, and I am pretty sure I am not the only one here…have seen what Bayless has done and see where he can improve.
Probably BECAUSE of what I saw in regard to Blake; I’ve become kind of suspicious of the news media output when it comes to point guards on this team ….and NOT JUST BAYLESS!!!!!!
So I just go by what I see. I hope to see more of what Bayless can do. He has improved. I’ve seen that. I also see that he has a ways to go.
I do wonder about his arm length tho. It seems like Bayless’s arms are on the short side for a basketball player. Are there any stats out there that show if a point guard with certain wing spans can learn to do very very well? I am being sincere here.
Great post.
I am probably one of the ones that overvalues Bayless though so that is why I like it so much. I just don’t ge tthese people that want to trade for Devin Harris when I think Bayless will be just as good if not better in a few years. When you look at his improvement since he came out of school, his work ethic, his college shooting percentage, and the fact that he changed his release when he came into the league I don’t think it is unreasonable to think he can hit 35% from downtown for his career. Yeah he is not a pass first PG but with Roy handling the ball so much I don’t know that we need to constantly have a pass first PG in the game. To me Bayless is a good piece for the future… that said if a good deal comes along and the other team asks for Bayless, you still pull the trigger.
also
you have to consider his work ethic. That to me is a big factor in determining future success and improvement.
Sorry for replying to myself
Commitment matters with professional athletes
I think attitudes towards Bayless’ name tatoo across his shoulders are another interesting example of confirmation bias. Those who dislike Bayless took it as proof that he was a selfish egotist. Those who likes him and heard the story took it as evidence of his remarkable commitment to the game.
I think his close friendship with Kaleb Canales is another indication of just how committed he is to excellence. Some guys burn to get paid, or to be famous, or to win. Bayless seems to burn to be the best. In my experience guys like that are rare, and guys like that who are willing to work that hard are even rarer.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
The tattoo is pretty lame...
although I think he wishes it wasn’t there himself. I also don’t really like how he postures and showboats but I guess you got to take the bad with the good. Hopefully he becomes more humble with time.
A little maturity will likely knock off some of the sharp edges
If you read his blog, you get the impression that he is a pretty solid kid from a very solid family. I believe both of his parents were High School guidance counselors. He seems to have pretty good values.
I agree about the tatoo not being a great choice. I’m probably too old to like “body ink.” OTOH, if you think about it as an expression of commitment to the game and willingness to endure pain in the pursuit of excellence it is less lame than if you think of it as a self centered ego trip.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Those who likes him and heard the story took it as evidence of his remarkable commitment to the game.
I like him and haven’t heard the story…what’s the story?
Stealth > Wealth
Bayless has his name tattooed across the back of his shoulders like a jersey
He said he did it between HS and UA to remind himself of his commitment to the game. A lot of folks were offended and thought it was an act of self glorification. I think he regrets it now.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Grr, it sticks in my craw when people say he's an egoist because of that
It was his way of saying that the jersey never comes off – he’s constantly in the game, so to speak. It’s not the same thing as having “Chosen One” across your back.
Though I agree with you that he probably regrets it now; he wrote in blog recently that he doesn’t want to be seen as “just” an athlete, but other things as well. I doubt he had the tattoo in mind when he wrote that, but he definitely has thought about how people perceive him. I just can’t see, from reading his blog, how he could be as egotistical as some people claim he is.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
The tattoo never bothered me
it could mean so many different, personal things. Totally arbitrary for someone to assign a “egotistical” meaning, with really no clue.
"You be realistic," Oden said. "I’m going to stay happy. All right?"
certainly better than "Chosen 1"
although not as cool as “Chosen 2”
tattoos are not for other people
if they are done properly, they are for the tattooed. With a nod to societal norms, people often get tattooed where it can be covered so that crotchety old people won’t bug them. It’s self expression, but it’s also expression for the self.
Of course, Tattoos themselves are a microcosm of the confirmation bias problem. My law school class is made up of highly talented, highly educated, motivated and successful people, and we are inked up like you wouldn’t believe.
When we have a pool party or go down to the river, you can see even huge body pieces that remain tastefully hidden when in business casual (mostly).
Of course the baby boomers and their parents have by-and-large yet to shift their mental stereotype. The facts have changed, tattoos are barely even rebellious any more, yet the older generation maintains their position.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
Yeah, piercings are becoming the same way
But don’t you dare wear anything other one earring in each ear (for women) or nothing at all (for men) if you go to a job interview/professional job.
I don’t have tats or piercings myself, but I agree that older people make a bigger deal out of this than it really is, especially in cases where it is tastefully hidden, like Bayless and Dre’s tattoos.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Cuz the older generation knows...
when your skin loses its battle with gravity…tats aint gonna look so cool…
Nothing looks cool at that point.
If you’re hung up on the ink on your wrinkly skin as an oldster, there are larger problems that should be considered.
Stealth > Wealth
Strong post
As a late baby boomer, I appreciate your perspective.
I remain pretty ambivalent about “ink.” Growing up tats were primarily a class issue. Middle and professional class people simply did not get tattoos. Those who broke the norm paid a price. Many who got tattoos as a form of youthful rebellion or self expression came to regret them.
Things seem to have changed, to an extent, in certain parts of the country. I’m glad that there is greater tolerance. I appreciate the beauty and creativity of many of the quality tattoos I have seen.
OTOH, I have strongly discouraged my kids from getting large tattoos because I still think there is still a high probability for regret. What seems all important at 20, is often trite at 35, and ridiculous at 50. I know that many have come to see tats as a series of chapters about what is important in their lives at different stages, and while I can get behind it conceptually, I wouldn’t do it personally.
Do you think there is equal acceptance for both men and women? Do you think Portland is more tolerant than other parts of the country? Do you worry about regret? If you don’t mind my asking what law school are you attending?
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 5:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Great topic!!!
Things seem to have changed, to an extent, in certain parts of the country.
More than that, things have changed around the world. Here’s a link from the Guardian; it’s a fantastic article with some enlightening facts surrounding the art and it’s future.
As far as your concern about regret, that is far and away the most common issue folks take with tattoos. Myself, I have 5 pieces and different ones will fall in and out of favor, but every one of them has about a year of thought behind it. I recommend this for anybody considering a tattoo.
The images I’ve chosen are very personal and carefully considered. For all of them, there has been a lot of communication between myself and the artist. In my opinion, every tattoo should be a collaboration. You may have an idea of what you want, but they know how that will translate to skin. For the most part, if you select a good artist, you can trust their judgment.
If your worry is about being embarrassed as an old timer, as I mentioned above, that is indicative of greater issues. I’m sure my ink will be washed out and faded, maybe even unrecognizable, but it will remind me of my youth and the person I was when I made that choice. My tattoos are like marks on my personal time line. I can look at the Aries symbol on my back and remember the 21 year old, who thought astrology was the answer to the mysteries of personal identity; I can look at the wings on my ankles and remember my obsession with the Iliad and the Odyssey; I can look at my most recent piece, a page from the Little Prince, and fiddle with the scar from the resulting infection, bringing to mind the weekend spent back home on antibiotics.
The concerns that should be at the forefront of the tattoo discussion are poor choice/thoughtless images, and risk of infection. To avoid the first, simply think about it for awhile, never get a tattoo when you’re drunk, and communicate with the artist. To avoid the second, only go to widely renowned studios, even if your friend is apprenticing and giving them away for free. The great artists have a waiting list that stretches 11-12 months, which in itself might allay the first concern.
In Portland, these are my picks for the best studios…
Oddball
Tigerlilly (4620 NE Sandy)
Atlas
Stealth > Wealth
I'm not in Portland, I'm in Texas
However, my generation is equally accepting of men and women getting ink.
Regret can be an issue with anything. However, I’ve been planning mine for years, so I know what I want. Several of my classmates have put that kind of thought into it as well. Not being impulsive about it helps reduce the regret-ability factor.
I’m a 3L at St. Mary’s School of Law. I decided to go there because it’s a writer’s school in an NBA town. Also, love me some mexican food,
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
The older generation
has no need to search for an identity and have never been tempted to define it in public with man made quirks that didn’t happen when they were born or in their maturing years. Tattoos are simply a gimmick for those that think they need them. In the, sometimes longer than expected maturing process, tattoos will often assume a role….. However, if you want to tell a story, you should write a book…
It’s the people who tag “conformation bias” to everyone in society that are the stereotypers. What you folks expect is for the older generation to move over to the side of the road and get out of your way. It’s you that have lost your values and are so willing to discard the very things that provided you the platform to “advance” and expel your “new way” of thinking
As a member of the older generation, each year I am getting more used to pulling over to the side of the road. Keeping pace with the younger generation is not a viable expectation. I will pull over and let you by, but if it’s all the same to you, I prefer to keep my motor running.
Confirmation bias???= lawyers…boy, we sure could run with that…and a lot further than tattoos….. and much more meaningful as to pertaining to the outcome of common decency in the so-called world of justice…..and I’m not talking about the pool parties and social standing that link you people together.
The problem with you people is you expect the older generation to compromise all their values, while you compromise nothing. You will simply squeeze out the older generation because you have the power to do so. I get it….it’s a young person’s world…I was young once, but now I am older and wiser.
[Good defense "releases" your offense]
I didn't "lose" a damn thing sir
I rejected those values fully and consciously because those values aren’t, and no generations values will ever be, a perfect model for the next generation.
So the older generation can keep it’s racism, bigotry, subjugation of women, warmongering, neglect of the poor, and theocratic ideals and my generation will strive to do better in those areas. Thanks for what ya’ll improved, we’ve got it from here.
Tattoos are a “gimmick” to you. That’s nice. Fortunately your subjective opinion has no bearing on reality or the rest of us. Tattoos aren’t gimmicks to the rest of us, though to many of my generation, religion is. I’m sure you can see how even if a person thinks something is a “gimmick” for the sake of polite company, they should probably keep their mouth shut because there is likely something of theirs that other people would gladly deride as well.
You try and run with that confirmation bias and lawyers thing and I will punch holes into it until it looks like a colander. I have worked with and struggled along side lawyers and law students for several years now, and I can tell you that they are a diverse and dynamic set of individuals from different age groups, backgrounds, and ethnicities. Other than the occupational label, there isn’t a good way to stereotype these people, many of which work tirelessly in pro bono capacities to help their fellow man.
A good exercise in the unexpected, I am the son of a preacher, both my grandfathers and several of my uncles are preachers, I have a minor in Theology and attended a private Christian university. I am an atheist. Even though I am an atheist, I volunteer along side a nun, for several hours a week even during law school. I spend my time helping others the best I can because while I don’t believe in her faith, she is very effective and helps a lot of people. I even help write speeches because of my years and years of exposure to theology I’ve got a fairly encyclopedic knowledge of a faith I do not espouse.
The reason I say that is to illustrate that people are complicated, don’t judge the motivations of people you by and large know nothing about, and just because you are older, doesn’t make your sensibilities any more applicable to another generation. Having authority ideally comes from having truth, not from having age.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
by HurraKane212 on Aug 10, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I am a member of what most commentors here would call the
“older generation” and I don’t have tattoos but I recced your above comment and rebuttal to WyEast. I wish I could rec it several more times, BUT, HurraKane, don’t paint all of us oldsters with the same brush! :-)
#52
Of course
the same nuance I wish applied to my generation is always offered to others. The broadest stroke, painting the problems of a generation, is just to illustrate the toxicity of an overly nostalgic viewpoint. Look, if you weren’t a straight middle-class white male, the 50’s kinda sucked.
People act like that’s a simpler time to go back to when in actuality it had a ton of problems.
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” the author of Ecclesiastes wrote. An astute observation if you ask me. We will always have problems, as we solve present ones, we will create future ones. There will always be an impending crisis, there will always be something going wrong, and this too, shall pass.
However, there is a generational conflict, the likes of which we have never seen, on the horizon. We’ve never had such a large number of older people and they are staying in power longer than any generation ever has because of medical and scientific breakthroughs. The “values gap” between those in power and the constituency may end up being a chasm before the pendulum swings back towards the younger generation. When the pendulum does swing, America is going to get a lot more liberal in certain areas (gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, regulations on corporations, etc) very quickly. Well, quickly for a democracy anyways..
It’s like there will be an “age bubble” and a correction after, at least that’s how I see it.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
by HurraKane212 on Aug 10, 2010 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Again I agree but hopefully there will always be
a younger generation anxious and impatient to get on with things. I just hope we humans don’t destroy ourselves before the dust settles. These are scary times in so many ways. Abby Hoffman said he watched TV 4 hours a day in order to recognize the enemy. I don’t watch TV but I do force myself to listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, et al a few hours a week. When I listen to them I fear the future and the mindset they’re instilling in the herd. It’s amazing to me that a few whacko’s have come to have so much political sway in the US. Anyway, hurry up!!!!!!!!!
#52
soon
that castle of ignorance will collapse under it’s own weight. However, there will always be idiots, xenophobes, and bigots.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
by HurraKane212 on Aug 10, 2010 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
come on
It’s not about generation gaps at all….It’s about stereotyping and choosing a side…and by this I could mean far left and right and probably be pretty close…
we had plenty of liberals in my days and as I matured from quite liberal into a better state of conscienceless, I realized that genuine solutions to most issues are found in the middle. Any other solutions that end up out on the far left or right pushes people further apart and leaves no room for compromise. We see this cycle every time we change political parties in the White house and legislative branches of government. Even in a so-called free society, everything is controlled by power and money. In America that comes from two widely differed political parties…The arm of balance (?) served on Americans in a never ending cycle.
It is this very conversation that exemplifies the attitudes that prevail in each passing year and then tries to lump them into a generation bias…..the bias is man made and lacks the compassion needed for resolve. You simply can’t discard a generation and start from scratch and expect the entrenchment and history to disappear with a new world order.
I can only speak for myself, but when you come back with a rebuttal that is full of stereotypic tags on the older generation, that don’t belong to me….(Because I know I’m not any of this and have never lived life as such…sure I have regrets and would choose to do a lot of things differently if given a new option. This is called living life and learning from your mistakes..take the time to possibly compromise some of your values and give each person the chance to practice life to it’s fullist )
So the older generation can keep it’s racism, bigotry, subjugation of women, warmongering, neglect of the poor, and theocratic ideals and my generation will strive to do better in those areas. Thanks for what ya’ll improved, we’ve got it from here.
Now if you can reach into the process of this conversation and care to eliminate the bigotry or xenophobe tags, you will see a smaller less pronounced (off the soapbox) views on tattoos. Yup I have an opinion on tattoos and because of that, you charge me with being a bigot.???? You were the one that boasted about your particular angle on life and wanted to use something as mundane as tattoos to enforce your expert opinions on why the older generation owes you so much.
Fixing the world is far more complicated than that…you won’t be able to do it by discarding the past..it’s the past that helps you understand and (hopefully) learn from….. and each generation will have the opportunity to make things better…I can say that my generation has made things better… I can also say that there is plenty of room for improvement and that new avenues need to be taken.
So far, the two generations behind me have left plenty to be desired and because of the influence of money, power, and greed, will have little opportunity to do the right thing….it just gets more and more complicated to achieve the compassion and humble attitudes necessary to give people the groundwork for obtaining the right values to coexist together….life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are spelled out in so many words, but achieving this as an individual comes in many forms and often never happens for some. A nice concept….but boasting about fixing it is what politicians do…and thus never has opportunity to play itself out in more meaningful directions….
I would trust that assigning significance to tattoos would not be at the top of your list, when you go about your way of fixing the world.
I have repeatedly told my children that I always believed my generation was spoiled. This thought was due to the fact that we were a generation that was born into a period of economic bliss. We had the best opportunity to succeed in life because all we needed to do was follow up on the American dream by seizing the opportunity and resigning ourselves to education and hard work. Many of us did just that….but many didn’t and chose an easier or alternate route that didn’t contain the (up front) blood, sweat and tears. This might include your bigots, racists, as you describe, but mostly it’s just about the laziness of both talk and walk….. Something your generation is profoundly good at…..So get off your high horse and self righteous delivery and offer up some real solutions (other than tattoos) for inspiration on making the world a better place.
PS .I also recognize this as a diversion to politics in a basketball forum. I apologize for that… I simply had trouble with accepting someones point of view on tattoos and then assuming that the older generation identifies them differently based on his own perspective…I could only view this as a method or avenue to formally bash and blame the prior generations for lacking any good concepts about life and using (of all things, opinions about tattoos) as a springboard for his platform. Sorry to create offense, but I felt the need to represent my generation as an individual with an opinion and nothing more. Again I apologize for the mudslinging, but this stuff frequently happens when you get into political debates.
My opinions about tattoos come from first hand information based on several friends and family members who have commented to me about why they got them and what they meant to them. Most got them when they were still working out their path in life and still exploring their own identity. They were also influenced by their piers and generation trends. (we all go through that) After maturity began to develop their identity, they found they no longer insisted that they were really necessary nor had any real influence on getting themselves inspired or expressed in life. The word “gimmick” and “searching for an identity” came from their own thoughts, not mine.
The small hidden ones are of no issue to them at this point in life..so not so regrettable and quite harmless….the more elaborate and highly visible ones are quite regrettable, however…So there you go, not so subjective unless you care to categorize friends and family as bias and subjective…which I guess you could, but never-the-less still not an off the wall statement.
[Good defense "releases" your offense]
Jerry Rice - 49ers
He went at it. Hall Of Fame. Any niner fans?
by heyheymymy on Aug 5, 2010 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
C'mon, are you for real?
With one year at Arizona as the primary scorer and 2 years in Portland getting less than 19 minutes a game ( while the spaniards were always preferred) he should already be flawless as a staring PG. He can’t pass as good as CP3 or shoot as good as Nash… He’s terrible. Attacking the rim and earning trips to the charity stripe are unimportant in playoff basketball. He’s too old to improve and because of the system we run we NEED a PG who can create for everyone with the ball in his hand the majority of the time.
TRANSLATION: I still feel Bayless is the perfect compliment to roy. Like Fisher is the perfect compliment to Kobe. Harper/Paxon to Jordan.
If Bayless was on a bad team and got lots of time without a leash he would be considered a near all-star player. BE PATIENT PORTLAND
Attacking the rim and earning trips to the charity stripe are unimportant in playoff basketball
Terry Porter would disagree with you. Free throws are the meat and potatoes of playoff basketball. The L*kers don’t win game 7 last June without ’em
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Somebody's sarcasm meter is broken...
It might be mine, but I don’t quite think so. :-)
by ictoagsn on Aug 5, 2010 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention he spelled it out in the 'translation' area.
Comprehension fail…
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
These old guys really shouldn't be on the computer so late at night
It’s bad for their reading comprehension. ;-)
The older generation is really crazy, then!
Just kidding. I have some pretty good friends among the older generation that I look up to and respect a lot. I’m glad there’s some of you posting here. Even if age has hindered your recognition of sarcasm…
Ooh. He got you.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Hey ULC
When are you gonna do the other 11 parts of this series?? ;)
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
lol
Very funny. I just have to laugh at my own obsession. What else can I do?
On a serious note, I do think this discussion of “confirmation bias” applies to all young players. We all need to try to be careful not to leap to conclusions too quickly.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Agreed...and I like your post too
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
obtw....over in the junk drawer we like to call these ossified opinions...
..Bedge Facts!
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions
attitude polarization
bad on BE worse in politics..
I always get frustrated when both parties come away from a debate and quickly say that everything went exactly how they wanted it to and that they clearly got the upper hand over their opponent…
I have to agree with you about Bayless. I tend to lean towards the side of the argument that can be backed up with stats (in this case that Bayless is quite good already and is improving). It seems that many want to through lots of unsupportable “evidence” (like he isn’t a PG) and think that if they can pile it on over and over again then it gains validity…
anyway good post. rec
by vullkem116 on Aug 5, 2010 10:04 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
This actually works
that if they can pile it on over and over again then it gains validity
sad, huh?
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Animal farm reference
Quack quack quack quack
"CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN." CONAN
by SELFDESTRUCTABLE on Aug 5, 2010 1:26 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
sad but very true
as frustrating as debates on BEdge can be, it doesn’t even sniff the political climate in this country.
fearless controlled aggression
by sammymohawk on Aug 5, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed about politics
Libs watch MSNBC. Conservatives watch FOX. Both sides hear what they want to hear.
That is not to say that I think both sides are equally correct. An interesting study was done a couple of years back where they asked respondents where they got their news and then tested them on their knowledge of actual current events.
Those who listened to PBS were the best informed. Those who listened to FOX were the least well informed of all. Conservatives have done an amazing job of creating an information cocoon around their own world view, “facts be damned.”
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
The decay of the Republican party has been a sad thing to watch.
I think there’s still hope, but not as long as they allow FOX to define them.
Stealth > Wealth
From a pragmatic viewpoint, I honestly think the Republican Party should shift itself toward the ...
center-right of the political spectrum. Hel, with Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty headlining the 2012 national ticket and Ind. Gov. Mitch Daniels as his running mate, the Republican Party could widen its appeal by connecting with self-identified independent voters. Unfortunately, though, they don’t poll well with the base, for Mitt Romney of all people still pulls good numbers with conservatives up in moderate places like New Hampshire.
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/07/tim_pawlenty_ag.php
Oh, and in the interest of open honesty here, let me be clear that I’m a libertarian minarchist who’d like to see former Minn. Gov. Jesse Ventura make a run for the White House in 2012 — regardless of whether it’s with the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, or whatever — therefore, my advice to the Republican Party is that of an unbiased observer. So, as a said unbiased observer, I’d suggest that the manner for them to gain mainstream public appeal is by focusing on a fiscally prudent economic platform, as well as flat-out ditching the close-minded “Religious Right” and ignoring the reactionary Tea Party loons.
That, of course, is why I strongly believe that the Republican Party’s best chance at unseating U.S. President Barack Obama in a national election is by going with center-right politicians like Pawlenty and Daniels, who’d be the first moderate Republican-based administation since the days of Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller.
Yet, if it were all up to me, I’d rather see a Republican Party national ticket in 2012 of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) and former Congressman Barry Goldwater, Jr. of Arizona; yet, the the likelihood of that happening is next to nil. My biggest fear, however, is if somehow that far-right, ultraconservative wingnut Sarah Palin got the Republican Party presidential nominee, while bringing on a slimy, yet still shrewd politician like Miss. Gov. Haley Barbour as her running mate. If that happened, I’d then be deathly afraid for America’s future. Over Palin, I’d even rather have that moldy, moth-eaten neocon Newt Gingrich or that sanctimonious blowhard Mike Huckabee; they’re all nutjobs in their own right, though.
Oh, and apropos of my own political platform, it’s a pretty simple one based on fiscal conservatism, social progressivism, and non-interventionism regarding foreign policy. I, however, do have a slight populist streak on one monetary issue, since I’m an economic protectionist who’s against free trade and would place quotas and tariffs on imported goods. Yeah, I’m an anti-globaliaztion advocate who believes that the American economy is drastically lacking in self-sufficiency and long-term solvency.
I respectfully disagree with you about who the Republicans need to run
Republican running candidates of the so-called “center-right” flavor are the reason that we’re in this mess, from Bush on forward. McCain is exactly the kind of candidate you’re talking about, and look what running him got us (the country). I honestly don’t think that the positioning of the candidate in 2012 matters at this point. Polls show Obama losing to “Fill in the Blank” by double digits, much like many of his progressive counterparts in Congress this November. I think Americans are ready for fresh blood in DC regardless of political affiliation. I’d be all for a 3rd party, if one actually had a chance to win.
That being said, I agree with several of your positions. Fiscal responsibility and a more focus on the good ol’ U.S. of A. would do us some good and begin the healing process. If that means a little less aid, trade and war around the globe, I’m ok with that. However, you confused me a bit when you first gave nods to Ron Paul and fiscal conservatism, and then followed up with one for social progressivism. As the saying goes, “ne’er shall those twain meet”. You have a better chance at mixing oil and water. “Socially progressive” ideas are what created this whole mess. The expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act in the early ‘90s to enable the dream that “everyone should own a home” CREATED subprime loans (aka – the loans to people who couldn’t repay them) and fueled the market for mortgage-backed securities and subsequent hedging (or shorting) against unavoidable losses. We need people to be socially responsible, not socially progressive.[/rant] Sigh. Ok, I feel better now. :-)
Yes, the CRA started . . .
the ridiculous principle of " “everyone should own a home”, but
the subprime/NINJA and other risky loans were advanced by some
greedy bankers and mortgage brokers. The idiotic/risky home loan
feeding frenzy came on the heels of lowered credit standards for CC’s
and the high debt load taken on by the entitlement generation who
lacked fiscal responsibility and budgeting. Very sad !
Of course Fannie & Freddie and their cogressional allies are at the
heart of the housing/ financial disaster !
COINCAST SUCKS !!!
It's GO time !
From top to bottom, everyone is to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis.
by AK1984 on Aug 6, 2010 4:14 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's the first thing you've said about politic that made any sense
And I mean that in a good way!
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Nice generalization, but many did not . . .
go out and refinance into a risky adjustable mortgage
just because the housing values were skyrocketing. Housing
values began to skyrocket when the government got involved
in artificially boosting the new home market by forcing financial
institutions to lower credit standards, quit red-lining and allowing
alimony, welfare and gov’t assistance as income. Then some of the
greedy, corrupt and criminal elements jumped in to make coin.
Some of us were taught budgeting and common sense. For instance,
“Never sign any documents unless you have fully read and understood
said legal instrument” & “Adjustable rate loans may be great when the
papers are signed, but they do rise in a bad economy”.
It's GO time !
Fixed rate mortgages were, are, and always will be the prudent option. I pity ...
absolutely nobody who foolishly signed a 30-year adjustable rate mortgage and, in turn, ultimately lost their home due to monthly interest rate increases that they couldn’t afford.
Actually, adjustable rate mortgages don't rise in a down economy
They fall, because the indices that they’re tied to are also lower in a slow market. Do a quick search on the history of the 6-month LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate), the index that most of the subprime ARMs are based on, and you’ll see what I mean. However, you’re dead-on with government involvement having been a large part of the problem. One of the big problems was short term ARMs with interest-only payments. These were typically only fixed for the first two or three years, but had steep (5-6% of the outstanding balance) prepayment penalties for the first three to five years (which loan officers were heavily incentivized to sell). At the end of the fixed period, the loans not only adjusted upward (sometimes 3-4% over the ‘start rate’) but the monthly payments also changed to full principle and interest. The resulting payment was often double or even triple the initial payment (which was, coincidentally, what the underwriters had used to qualify the borrowers for the loan to begin with). Having put little or no money down, falling property values quickly left people upside down in their homes. Even those with a little equity found that their prepayment penalties precluded them from being able to sell, so they began to walk away from their homes. This flood of homes, combined with ever-tightening lending guidelines began to drag down the rest of the real estate market and voila! Here we are.
Admittedly, it's my mother who's a loan officer at a bank -- as well as ...
worked in real estate with my grandfather during the 1980s — and most of what I know here is general knowledge with no depth to it. Clearly, though, people at both the top and bottom should’ve had more foresight and done their damnedest to avoid such unstable fluctuation in the housing market.
It made sense on the individual level, though
It’s kind of like the paradox of thrift: while saving lots of money is good for individuals, it’s not so good for an entire economy if everyone is saving and not spending. In the same token, it made sense to buy a house on a seemingly “cheap” loan, since, despite mortgage payments generally being more expensive to rent, it’s cheaper in the long run to own your own home. Now, there were a large number of people who took out second and third mortgages and took out home equity loans credit lines who should have known better than to take a stupid risk like that, but even those “made sense” on an individual level.
Part of the reason that so many people were willing to this, and the reason banks were able to offer such low interest rates not only on subprime loans, but on traditional fixed rate loans as well, has to do with the global savings and capital glut. Economists are starting to agree that the rapid development of the developing world and capital accumulation by countries like China fueled the speculative boom in real estate, as countries that experienced rapid growth invested in stable investments, like U.S. T bills, rather than their own instable markets, like they did before the Asian and Latin American banking crises of the 90’s and early 2000’s.
A flood of cash from around the world made it cheap and easy to borrow money, something the government cannot, as much as we like to think it can, influence readily (they can influence short term interest rates and the amount of money out there quite easily though). People naturally, and rationally, buy something when its price is low for fear that they will have to pay more later. It made sense on the individual level, even though on the macro-scale, many more forecasters, and simply individuals with half- a licks worth of economic knowledge, should have been able to figure out the consequences.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
That's an excellent point.
And very well stated.
Pertaining to social issues, Ron Paul is a paleolibertarian who champions the States' ...
rights mantra to deflect his more antiquated cultural beliefs. Thus, he’s not someone I’d vote for in a general election — unless there were no third party candidates with whom I shared a similar mindset — yet, I find him to be one of few tolerable members of the Repbulican Party, as well as voted for him in the 2008 Washington State Republican presidential primary.
That aside, though, let me categorically inform you about how there are some revolutionary minds who fit the mold of a fiscal conservative and social progressivist, with Jesse Ventura being a prime example. Also, with regards to my voting record in national elections, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Michael Badnarik is the one whose platform most closely mirrored my core political values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik#Issue_positions
Heck, the last time I even felt good about voting for someone was all the way back in 2006. That year, I gladly cast my vote as a Washingtonian in the U.S. Senate race for Libertarian Party candidate Bruce Guthrie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1s2m9aq98o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHPJmjEXbC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7nV4BHtglI
After once again watching those media savvy campaign ads by Guthrie back in 2006, it’s a shame to know that the average American is still a naive, ignorant “party puppet.” Oh well, it is what it is and, unfortunately for the floundering United States, that’s unlikely to change.
Oh, and by social progessivism, I’m not at all referring to domestic fiscal matters — such as poor lending practices, excessive unemployment benefits, the insolvency of Social Security, et cetera — but rather cultural issues. As it is, I’m a ardent pro-choice advocate, support the right to die movement regarding physician assisted suicide, and fervently stand behind the separation of church and state via the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In my opinion
our political system would be much better off if both the GOP and the Democratic party were abolished, and our representatives were allowed to vote based on their beliefs, morals or just their opinions, rather than for their party because of the pressure put on by the leadership.
The best recent example I can think of is during the health care debate, when Sestak folded under pressure from the Democratic party, and voted for the bill, eventhough his beliefs told him to vote against it. That type of politics is what is ruining our country.
For me, it comes down to a simple question when I choose my vote, I vote for the person who will stick to their beliefs, (and ofcourse tell me what those are) even when their party wants them to abandon them. Basically strong willed, people who most likely have never been in the game before, which means any elected offical that has been in for more than 2 terms will never get my vote.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
Dear USMCR . . .
1. Thank you for your service, Semper Fi !
2. That would be great, but we both know it won’t happen
in our lifetime. Unfortunately, we have a current administration
who is Anti-business, pro-union and in favor of BIG government;
which all come with a price. High Debt, then higher taxes, less
freedom and eventually a totalitarian regime. Some of it began
under the previous regime, but the number of unvetted “CZAR’s”
who are administratively / beauracratically changing the rules is
unprecedented. Having studied History/Political Science/Economics
all of my life, I can warn you that very serious trouble is coming.
Be Prepared !!!
GO BLAZERS !!!
It's GO time !
growth of government was just enormous under george w bush
in actual physical size, and also in spending. anyone who tries to suggest obama is worse than the previous president in terms of fiscal responsibility has been smoking way too much of the wacky weed., and is obviously as partisan as can be! especially if you factor out census related numbers.
fighting 2 wars with special appropriations instead of using the budget process, dramatically expanding medicare’s pharmaceutical benefits while refusing to pay for the benefit, growing the heck out of government by creating a homeland security department that miraculously didn’t include the fbi or cia, all the while installing huge tax cuts while chanting “its your money” . doing this under the auspices of democracy and freedom made it even worse!
being a moderate republican but staunch fiscal conservative most of my life, was astounded by how everyone just fell in line behind this. remember, this occurred while gop also controlled congress. there was no worry about big government then as it encroached evermore into the lives of its citizenry. there was no worry about debt as so much of it was hidden, because of the spending outside of the budget process. the explosion in veteran’s spending that we are soon to see, hasn’t been anticipated either.
as someone who personally benefited enormously from the bush tax cuts, its still easy for me to say that it was the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.
do not even get me started on the bush and obama bailouts of the financial sector. capitalism has morphed into something something that protects the financial system and its biggest players at all costs,often against the nation’s citizenry.
gawd, defending someone that i don’t even like is tiring!! but obama and bush are apples in the same bushel basket, as are the republican and democrat members of congress.
real liberalism and conservatism have both died in washington dc. what we have left is scary indeed!
you are right about Bush (closet economic socialist)
but walkoff isn’t also wrong about Obama – the Democrat stereotype of favoring big government isn’t refuted by a Republican who also favored big government….
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
I was about to say something similar
but you said it much more elegantly than I would have. Kudos!
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
completely agree
my point is that many of the same folks who saw bush as the second coming of reagan, are lambasting obama for the same things bush did. editorial page of wall street journal (aka rupert’s journal) illustrates that.
to me there is more than a touch of hypocrisy!
what is interesting is that same republicans who approved bush’s methodology in lockstep are suddenly saying, “trust us” and we will be fiscally responsible this time. lots of folks conveniently don’t remembe that gop controlled congress the first 6 years of the bush presidency.
had really hoped that some sort of third party might emerge from all of the above, with at least a vein of libertarian ideals. alas, not to be
People criticize Bush because of what he SHOULD have done as a seemingly conservative Republican.
However, Obama is drawing criticism because he was not only a very vocal critic of Bush, but much of his campaign was built on a comparison/contrast between him and Bush and how much different that he promised things would be. Instead, he has either extended or expanded every Bush administration policy that he once denounced. This has drawn the ire from the right, the left and even more so, the independents.
I can tick off 50 areas where Obama has changed policies from Bush
What are you talking about?
Obama said:
-he would bring Iraq to a responsible close and he is trying to do that.
-he would step up the under-resourced effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afganistan and he has done that.
He has totally changed domestic spending priorities, changed philosophy when it comes to regulation, changed environmental policy, tax policy etc.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions
you know
I am in total agreement with you on Bayless but I’m starting to see why some people react so much to your posts. You aren’t responding very well to others valid criticism. I’m sure that you can find 50 area’s where Obama has changed from Bush, but can you find any where he has continued what Bush was doing? A tenant of good conversation is to build from commonality. (finding the things that you agree on and building from those to area’s where you differ.
I realise that this is often ignored here and elsewhere but for example. This is how you could have responded with out sounding like a jerk above:
-I do see some areas where Obama mirrors Bush (you can find much cominallity in all modern presidents) like _ and ________
but I don’t agree that they are the same because of
Obama said:
-he would bring Iraq to a responsible close and he is trying to do that.
-he would step up the under-resourced effort against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afganistan and he has done that.
He has totally changed domestic spending priorities, changed philosophy when it comes to regulation, changed environmental policy, tax policy etc.
I hope you don’t mind the lecture but politics can get heated fast and the subtle ways that we phrase things can help us all keep open minds and not just dig in on these issues.
maybe I’m way off base and if so I’m sorry
Let's review what was said
While I appreciate your effort to provide constructive criticism of my conversational skills. I am a little confused about your take in this particular situation.
The original commenter said,
Instead, he has either extended or expanded every Bush administration policy that he once denounced.
This is the part of the comment that really caught my eye, particularly the use of the term “every”. I truly did not understand what the commenter meant by this statement.
IMO, there has been some continuity in security policy and foreign policy, as there is with every administration, but for the most part Obama has charted a very different course. I attempted to articulate my disagreement and tried to ask the commenter to explain what they meant.
In reading back over my comment I can see that my question “what are you talking about?”, probably comes across more as snark than as the actual question I intended.
As with many others here I am frequently trying to multi-task between work and BE. Too often, I get to typing fast and am not sufficiently careful about how I am phrasing something.
I genuinely appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to clarify my intent. I worked in the Oregon Legislature for many sessions and politics is something I remain very passionate about, even more passionate than PGs ;-)
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I suppose I shouldn't use absolutes...
such as when I said “every” Bush policy. I should have said “almost every”, such as extending or expanding:
-Warrant-less wire-tapping (and expanding it into email)
-Offshore drilling
-Guantanamo
-Patriot Act
-Faith-Based Initiatives
-Transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights & holding them indefinitely
-Unlimited Executive Power
-Out-of-Control Spending
-Increasing Taxes on the Middle Class
-Cronyism
-Corruption
-Lack of Transparency
-Allowing Lobbyists in Washington
-Breaking Campaign Promises
I could go on… and on… and on. But you get the picture. I suppose when I was confronted with the vast list of issues that Obama spoke out against Bush on, but chose to “extend or expand” since taking office, I suppose I just got lazy and said “every” policy. My apologies to all. No, really.
Fact check
I don’t have much time so I can’t go through your entire list, but lets take a look at a couple of “whoppers”:
1) The stimulus package included about $250 billion in tax cuts and tax credits. According to the CBO and the IRS, taxes were reduced for 95% of all tax payers. It was one of the largest middle class tax cuts in history.
2) One of the first measures passed by Obama and the Dems was a lobbying reform act that was considered the biggest ethics and lobbying change since Watergate.
Much of your list is too vague to even be discussed. Others are security issues where conservatives would have howled if Obama had made more changes like they did when he tried to close Guantanamo (although he has reduced the number of folks held by over 50%).
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions
It seems clear to me why you didn't even attempt to address 'most' of my points
They are far from vague. I’ll first respond to your two counterpoints:
1. The tax ‘credits’ were accessible to most taxpayers… if they chose to spend money on going green (such as weather-proofing their home, changing to mercury-filled fluorescent light bulbs, etc.) or traded in their clunker. However, I’m not sure how they figured that 95% of Americans received tax cuts when approx. 20% of them are out of work. That there’s guv’ment math!
2. The lobbying reform act is another example of “listen to what we say, but don’t watch what we do”. There are more lobbyists in and around the White House than ever – and that’s saying something. Do you not see the hypocrisy in the fact that they immediately followed their “landmark lobbying reform” by engaging in numerous closed-door, non-CSPAN-televised negotiations about the healthcare legislation with healthcare provider groups, insurance and drug companies and unions? Let’s see, what is the term for groups of outside people and companies who petition politicians to address their interests when writing legislation? Oh, that’s right… LOBBYISTS!
Finally, I said nothing about whether Republicans would have objected or not. Obama obviously has no qualms about advancing his agenda regardless of support by the opposing party or the American people. My point was that Obama specifically and repetitively criticized Bush for many policies and behaviors that he either continued or expanded after promising not to. And that point stands.
There is no talking to either side
The politicians have us divided about equally, sometimes more on one side than the other, and that is intentional, too. The false rhetoric they purview excludes the majority of us from debate on what is really going on. Diversion of resources to special interest groups, whether corporate, religious or based on race or class.
The reason I vote democrat is not that I agree with their policies or ideas. I vote democrat because the republican party ultimately benefits far fewer people. Further, since ignoring the poor is not tenable, and gross spending on the ever-present threat of war is a Republican plank, the Republicans are doomed to spend more than the Democrats, thus increasing the national debt.
Sadly, QED.
And, if we don’t change or unsustainable extraction and social disruption, perhaps even RIP.
In KP I trusted!
by LaoTzu on Aug 14, 2010 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, you are right on many points . . .
Bush & congress increased the budget – I claimed as much.
" " & congress facilitated wars – check
" " & " " put into place the prescription drug benefit – check
In 2006, Congress was taken over by the Democrats -
Capitalism has been hijacked by government/financial corruptocrats
and insane bailouts. I’m completely against bailouts, even for “too
BIG to fail”. Let them go bankrupt and the Free Market will replace them with leaner, more efficient performers.
The BO administation has doubled down on spending and entitlements all in favor of growing government. Explain how in the
takeover of GM, the actual bondholders got next to nothing while the
unions were given a majority of shares. In addition, why would the
government mandate that many auto dealerships would be shut down, when the car maker does not own the individual dealerships ?
Not all socialism starts and finishes with a revolution, sometimes it’s
just creeps along !
It's GO time !
To me Bush was not any better than Obama
But Obama has been worse than Bush in my view, because of his ideas about,
-foreign policy
-immigration
-energy
-taxes
-division of powers within the government
-federal budget
Those 6 items are where Obama really fails, (Bush wasn’t so hot either) I can’t agree or even comprehend his choices for these policies, not even on one of them.
But the President is just the top guy, the congressmen and women are just as much to blame, both dems and repubs, which is why I am saying that until we get rid of the two party system, our government will continue to fail us, and eventually this country will collapse like every other great superpower in history. Only a true democratic republic can survive the test of time, and the United States is no longer a democratic republic.
We are a country ruled by the super rich, (I have still not seen a politician that wasn’t rich win a race above the state level) who are influced by the even richer cooperations and political action committees. Money has so much power in DC, that even the Supreme Court has become influenced by it, (which was the purpse of the lifetime appointment, to prevent it) their decisions about campaign finance are just wrong, how you spend your money should not be protected by free speech, because money corrupts, and because of it our political system has become corrupted to the point that you can buy tax breaks for your company, or a bailout if you really screw things up. Caps on contributions, from personal, PAC’s and from coorperations would go a long way toward cleaning that up, but the high court struck down the attempts to do that.
All any American that wants to see change can do, is vote for people they believe will not be influced by money, their party, political games, or the media, but will be influenced by the people they represent and their personal beliefs and values, and that is it. We can also vote out any and all politicians who have served for too long, Senator’s and Congressmen and women who have “served” for too long lose sight of what they are there to do, and instead become invested in “keeping their job” and will start to do just about anything to keep it. If someone knows they are there for a set amout of time, they will work harder during that time to accomplish what they set out to do, and they won’t need to do any favors to keep their seat.
I could go on and on I guess but I should get back to work. Besides, talking about it frustrates me to no end, as the fix that is needed is either “unconstitutional”, (thanks again Supreme Court) or will take so long that my kids will have to finish the fight that I had to start.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
Good points . . .
but I think the thing that most Americans miss is the
growth in the beauracracy. Unelected gov’t employees
making policy decisions at the EPA, Pentagon, State Department, BLM, FTC,etc, etc. Since BO has put into place
so many unvetted “CZAR’s” and signed so many administrative orders, we have lost our ability thru Congress
to control them. Even if we don’t like the two party system (I’m
with you to some degree) or our Congressional representatives, we can’t do anything about unelected judges
or the beauracracy.
As a lifelong Republican, I was very diappointed in GWB
(Spending, Immigration, Drug entitlement, TARP & bailouts,
etc, etc.) and have not contributed a dime for many years.
I know Libertarian is in vogue, but I am a Conservative. I
believe in the history, excellence and honor of this great
country and believe our founders (I’m related to the Adams)
had the right idea of a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
I am catagorically against entitlements, BIG Government,
EnviroMentalism, Illegal Invasion & Amnesty and a Excessively Litigious Society. God Bless America !!
It's GO time !
Wish you clarified...
How Bush was better on
-foreign policy
-immigration
-energy
-taxes
-division of powers within the government
-federal budget
-Obama has started no wars of choice. I just wonder how you count that against him – unless war is good?
-Immigration is a wash
-Energy hasn’t changed much.
-Taxes: I got a tax cut and the rich may lose theirs. In a world run by the ‘super-rich’ I’ll take it.
-Division of powers hasn’t changed any more than it did under GW.
-Budget: the President HAD to do something. Were all his choices perfect? No, but I rest easier knowing McCain/Palin isn’t running the show.
Unfortunately, a Dem is in the Whitehouse so deficits once again matter.
Oh, and apropos of my own political platform, it’s a pretty simple one based on fiscal conservatism, social progressivism, and non-interventionism regarding foreign policy. I, however, do have a slight populist streak on one monetary issue, since I’m an economic protectionist who’s against free trade and would place quotas and tariffs on imported goods. Yeah, I’m an anti-globaliaztion advocate who believes that the American economy is drastically lacking in self-sufficiency and long-term solvency.
Your politics are very close to mine. I think the next steps are to make lobbying illegal, take corporations out of elections, use the antitrust laws to bring the global corporations to their knees, and to make local family farming a reality.
We bailed all of them out and they owe us. – Elgin
GOP in HD
I like it!
Let’s get you on the 2012 ticket. You can represent the BlazersEdge Party!
I would love it
too bad it can’t happen since the only way to “take corporations out of elections” is to take their money out, and that was tried and failed, when the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. I would say what i’m feeling right now, but then I would just have to delete my own comment. :)
However I am also very much in favor of recinding “free trade” agreements, (they cost American’s jobs, so how was that free again?) Tariffs and quotas on imports, Love it! Stay out of the world politics? Love it!
I do have one question for both you and AK about your stance here, AK said,
“Oh, and apropos of my own political platform, it’s a pretty simple one based on fiscal conservatism, social progressivism, and non-interventionism regarding foreign policy.”The part I don’t understand is how you can be for fiscal conservatism, and yet for social progressivism at the same time. According to wikipedia, social progressivism as it pertains to the Amercian political system is defind as,
Social progressives in the United States are associated with the left wing of the Democratic Party. The Congressional Progressive Caucus in the United States House of Representatives works together to advance liberal issues and positions. The group advocates “universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare,” fair trade agreements, living wage laws, right of workers to organize, abolition of significant portions of the USA PATRIOT Act, legalization of same-sex marriage, campaign finance reform laws, a complete pullout from the war in Iraq, a crackdown on corporate welfare and influence, an increase in income tax rates on the wealthy, tax cuts for the poor, and an increase in welfare spending by the federal government. Fringe segments of the movement remain opposed to faith-based initiatives and the war in Afghanistan but are not endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
If that is truely what you believe, then how can you also be committed to fiscal conservatism, as this type of social progressivism will obviously lead to a much bigger governmental foot print, higher taxes over all, and more entitlment programs and bloat the federal budget.
I agree with some aspects of the social progressive movement, such as same sex marriage, but that seems to be a small part of what they want to accomplish. So I was just wanted to here if what you are both wanting is this type of social progressivism or something else.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
Correct me if I am wrong, but most people who identify as they did,
Would keep a low financial footprint in government and would allow something like abortion or homosexuality. In terms of social programs, I have a feeling that they would drop welfare and increase programs for minors, who do not have authority to make their own decisions.
Wikipedia as a defining source?
Wikipedia also defines progressives as anyone who would change their cultural mores and practices due to a greater understanding of the world through science.
I know lots of people who follow the definition who thinks that left wing dems. are the bane of America.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Not only would I abolish welfare, but I'd also decrease programs for minors -- as ...
well as cutback the spending on education, albeit not completely rid of it — amongst other things.
Which is why I asked the question
Wiki is helpful to a point, but I’m wanting to know the truth about their thoughts so I asked. :)
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
By social progressivism, I'm referring speciically toward cultural issues and not at ...
all toward fiscal matters. I’ve already stated that clearly, too, although some people aren’t grasping that. I assume this has got to do with my view of the term “social progressivism” being different than its actual definition, so I’ll drop the phrase and fault mainly myself for this misunderstanding.
If anything, I’m a civil libertarian. Indeed, I’m a fiscally conservative civil libertarian who’s an isolationist regarding foreign policy. Ugh, I hope that clears up any confusion.
It does for me.
I think we agree pretty well on the basic’s actually as I would also be in favor of getting rid of almost all welfare programs, and reducing spending on education, (through money at it doesn’t work, as the last few decades have clearly taught us).
Thanks for responding.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
i heard a similar story
where PBS viewers were the worst informed.
by peregrinebrm on Aug 5, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Probably heard it on Fox :)
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
Give me a break
Anyone who actually watched the “News Hour” or who listened to the BBC, or NPR would realize how ridiculous that claim is.
PBS is far less slanted than any of the commercial networks. Almost every story includes interviews with both libs and conservatives. I would be happy to test my knowledge of world events and current affairs with anybody who listens to FOX. I would be happy to place a sizable wager on the outcome. I like easy money.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Beware of confirmation bias, ulc
As someone who studied the social sciences, I am sure you are aware of the multitude of problems that are involved in trying to measure something as a vague as how well informed a segment of the population is. There are a lot of confounding variables involved there, and questions you need to ask about both studies before you make hasty wagers, for instance:
Are there differences in the age groups and employment status of those who watch PBA as opposed to a network like FOX or MSNBC? Do the major networks appeal to people who have less time to inform themselves of the news, and if so, how does time spent watching the news skew results? Is there a difference in the education level of those who watch a major network as opposed to PBS/NPR, etc (educated people tend to be better informed; if they prefer one network over another, that might skew results in favor of the network that appeals to the educated)?
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
by HailOden! on Aug 5, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm sure that you are right about demographic bias......
……..I am equally sure that PBS, NPR, and BBC are objectively better at informing people about what is going on in the world and giving varied viewpoints than Beck, Hannity and Fox. It isn’t even close. I would really be willing to make a wager on this point.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I will take your wager.
Wait, just kidding. Seriously, I challenge anyone to watch the Newshour and then tell me there’s any equally intelligent show on any cable news network or major broadcast network. It’s not even close.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
Intelligence does not mean it's not biased
NPR is extremely biased, it’s just more educated. Personally, I’ll agree that it is better news, but it is not more objective just because both liberals and conservatives are featured (FOX has done this as well, but there is no question as to where their biases are, because they tell you up front).
And comparing NPR’s news to Hannity and Beck is boloney. Those guys are part of FOX’s editorial and commentary programming, not news. That’s not to say that FOX’s news programming is unbiased, but it’s a lot closer to NPR, in terms of objectivity, than it is to Beck and Hannity.
And I don’t buy that NPR is better at informing people without better proof than that it seems more intelligent (which I will concede that it is). I think the people who watch PBS and listen to NPR would be just as well informed without those sources, and that people who watch FOX and MSNBC would be no better informed it all they had was NPR. But I have no empirical evidence to prove it, so what good is it?
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Do you mean PBS? I wasn't talking about NPR.
But your comments may still apply.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
Well, I meant both
ulc mentioned NPR, so I kinda lumped the two together and mentioned NPR more, but my argument is the same. Sorry for the confusion :/
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
People that watch PBS or CNN, or listen to NPR and think they therefore understand conservative philosophy,
or the best conservative arguments on political issues, are simply reinforcing their own anti-conservative biases. When you can argue both liberal and conservative points of view with the best facts available for both sides (which are not available on PBS, CNN, or NPR), and understand the deeply held philosophical convictions of both liberals and conservatives, only then is one truly educated on world events and political issues. When a person understands Scalia’s arguments as well as they understand Ginsburg’s arguments, and has studied and really understands the roots and principles underlying their political philosophies – that person is informed. That ends my first and last political comment on BE.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 5, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
You sound like a political science major :)
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
sorta interesting for me to read this
i was a lifelong moderate republican, with a huge personal fiscal conservative bias until the election of george w bush and a gop congress in 2000. the shenanigans of that administration and a congress of the same party literally shoved me into indpendent status.
that group was literally worse than the democrats, and spent like drunken indians while paying for nothing, and loudly proclaiming, “its your money”. who else could try to fight 2 wars off the budgetary process, rapidly expand medicare costs, dramatically grow the scope of government, AND do tax cuts all the while forming in the words of the illiustrious karl rove~~a majority for the forseeable future.
my point is that those who claimed the conservative mantle in 2000 were anything but conservatives. still, those who had such strong philosophical argument on what conservatism is and why its important to adhere to conservative principle just let it all slide. folks like george will or bill kristol and the entire gang at the wall street journal.
this ain’t no political blog site, and i apologize for this one. but man, it really got pent up inside. face it, 24/7 media has destroyed what was left of the philosophic argument for liberalism or conservatism in the eyes of the masses. how anyone can watch fox news or msnbc without a hefty drink eludes me.
by utahcoyote on Aug 5, 2010 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You don't need to drink to watch.
It’s so dang funny sober.
by heyheymymy on Aug 5, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
A liberal arts education is a good thing
I studied Political philosophy and own a set of the Great Books of the Western World and have been trying to chew through then for the past twenty years. I certainly agree that no one is going to understand the roots of modern conservative and progressive thinking by watching any news show, on any channel.
Confirmation bias is a huge problem in politics. I struggle against it personally by trying to expose myself to opposing points of view. I try to listen to Fox for a few minutes every night and force myself to listen to conservative talk radio for at least a couple of hours every week. I also spend time on conservative web sites. I always end up feeling like I have entered a house of mirrors where up is down and down is up.
It astonishes me when I read surveys that indicate that nearly 40% of the Republican party thinks Obama may be the “anti-Christ”, that a majority thinks he is a socialist and that he is intentionally harming the country. To me, this is simply crazy talk and tends to confirm my perception that much of the conservative base has lost touch with objective reality.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, I tried listening to the Progressive . . .
radio the last time I was in Portland. No logic whatsoever.
1. BO can’t be the Anti Christ. Even a educated atheist can see
the Bible calls him the “King of Syria”.
2. He is a Socialist/Marxist.
a. He has clearly stated in his autobiography “Dreams from my father”.
b. I would state numerous reasons and facts, but this is a Blazer blog.
c. Your political “Opinion” is duly noted.
Thanks for sharing !!
COINCAST SUCKS !!!!
It's GO time !
I'm not a Barack Obama fan, but politically speaking he's just a run-of-the-mill ...
center-left liberal. Oh, and apropos of Congress, the only democratic socialist is U.S. Sen Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who I appreciate for his candor despite having dissimilar political views from mine.
He's anything but center-left by American standards
that’s why you are starting to see a reaction towards spending even from liberals. He’s pretty far left, at least to the point of being moderately socialist. He’s no Leninist-Marxist, but his personal views on international relations definitely fall into the Marxist category (I just don’t think he’s a full-blown Marxist in terms of domestic economic policy), though the administration surprisingly still blends realist and neoclassical liberal schools of thought.
The reason people are reluctant to admit BO is a socialist is because of the negative connotations. If this were Europe, the party advocating the economic and social welfare policies he has would almost certainly be identified as such, as socialism has typically been seen in a much more positive light.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
It's not the "negative connotations" here, but rather a matter of how the ...
redistribution of wealth in the United States is nowhere near that of more pure democratic socialist nations (e.g., Denmark, Norway, Sweden, et al.). To me, Barack Obama’s time in the White House thus far isn’t much different than the New Democrat era of Bill Clinton — even if they’ve got a clear dislike for each other personally — so yeah, I consider him to be a center-left neoliberal on the political spectrum.
Bill Clinton's administration was one of the most fiscally conservative
administrations we have seen in generations. Obama’s presidency so far has been far more liberal than Clinton’s. Now, part of that is due to the crises they were dealing with. Obama came in during a major financial crisis, and is trying to spend his way out of it. Bill Clinton may have done the same thing in the same circumstances, but nothing he actually did compares to what Obama has done, and is continuing to work on.
Clinton was more aggressive in dealing with things like gun crime (through the Brady gun control act, rather than spending on law enforcement), which was a bigger issue at the time. He did propose some redistributionist policies early in his administration, such as Hillary Care and Goals 2000 (which would have expanded the role of public schools in everyday life), but nothing as expansive as what BO has accomplished. Also, Clinton did an admirable job of reforming the welfare system to reduce its size and to encourage those on the dole to get back into the workforce. That huge accomplishment put him far to the right of Obama.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Do you not understand the basic tenants of macro-economic theory?
In the middle of a catastrophic recession that was rapidly heading towards a general depression, it is essential for the government to step in and provide demand in order to “prime the pump” This is basic Macro-Economic Theory. In fact, most credible economists believe that the stimulus package should have been even larger to provide enough stimulus to get us out of the recession.
Have you not noticed that the entire progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been repeatedly pissed at Obama? Obama has pursued a very pragmatic, mildly left of center agenda.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 8:30 AM PDT up reply actions
That's not a basic tenet of macro-economic theory
That’s a basic tenet of Keynesian economics, which is anything but universally accepted. Don’t try and cram the whole science under the umbrella of an outdated theory, even if it has made a resurgence in the past 2-3 years. And, to be really honest, I find your tone very demeaning and offensive. Suggesting I don’t understand basic economics because I note that Obama’s spending trend falls into the more liberal camp is not only ridiculous, but rude. If you think that is a basic or fundamental tenet of all economic theories, then you don’t understand enough about the current state of economic thinking to be talking so emphatically.
Neoclassical economists and monetarists have repeatedly taken the opposite view. There are very respectable economists who note the dangers of excessive government spending in a crisis, especially the crowding out effect on private investment and moral hazard of reliance on the government for new “investment.” This, in fact, is acknowledged by many Keynesians, but the difference is that they think the dangers are overstated. There is a school of economists who think that the bailouts should have been bigger, but there are other respectable economists who think that we should have dealt with the short run consequences of allowing big banks, AIG, and the auto industry to fail, and allowed for a stronger post-crisis recovery.
I don’t think I’m off base simply because the progressive Democrats have been upset with him. First of all, opinion polls show that he rates strongest among the most liberal portion of the party, though I have noticed some radicals who thought he would be more aggressively liberal. However, that is NOTHING compared to the backlash of independent moderates who thought he would be a bipartisan president, only to watch unilateral party rule by Obama’s brand of progressives. Obama’s biggest loss of support has been from among the slightly left of center folks you say he falls in line with, not the more convicted doctrinaire’s.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
by HailOden! on Aug 7, 2010 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Look,
Sorry, if I bruised your feelers. No disrespect intended. You obviously know your theory.
“Aggregate demand” is a basic tenant of Macro-Economic theory. Regardless of whether you are talking about Keynes, or Friedman, or any one else.
While there are some hard-core monetarists who question the need for fiscal stimulus in the middle of large recession, even monetarists like Greenspan who can hardly be called a “liberal” acknowledge the need for fiscal stimulus.
Blaming Obama for the fiscal stew created by the Bush tax cuts, the two wars inherited from Bush, and the nearly catastrophic recession is politically expedient but intellectually indefensible, IMO.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions
And I can agree with you on most of that
I do believe that Greenspan’s abandonment of his past attitudes on dealing with financial crises had more to do with self-preservation after the Fed got blamed for letting the recent crisis happen. If he really does espouse huge bailouts, then he has taken up a liberal cause, while wearing a conservative badge.
And I never blamed Obama for the the morass that resulted from 20 years of bad regulation and bad investments from foreign countries. My point was that his method of dealing with it is liberal, and is far more liberal than anything the Clinton administration did, and that his policies, taken as whole and including economic recovery efforts as well as health care and student loan consolidation, cannot accurately be labeled “moderately left of center.”
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
by HailOden! on Aug 7, 2010 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
impressive level of economics knowledge!
from others, not just HailOden! – but HO, you’re nailing it here, good job. I’m impressed that our BE posters have some econ knowledge.
by peregrinebrm on Aug 7, 2010 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I pretty much find the tenor of 90% of all these political posts offensive
I wonder if the posters can even hear how they come off?
In KP I trusted!
Maybe it's 'cause I'm fairly thick-skinned ...
and tolerant of others with opposing political viewpoints, but nothing has even come close to remotely offending me so far on here.
I still disagree with your basic underlying argument.
I think Obama’s policies and politics are very similar to Clinton’s. The two men are in extremely different circumstances, both politically and economically, which magnifies the very small difference in underlying philosophy.
BC, tried and failed to pass universal health care legislation. The Dems did manage, by a single vote, to pass a substantial tax increase on the wealthy which did a lot to bring the Reagan/Bush deficits back under control as the economy expanded in the 90s.
The Republicans, who are extremely effective in political opposition because they are a much narrower coalition and have much better party discipline than the democrats, organized an effective backlash in the 1994 election. From their on out, BC and the Republicans were forced to deal with each other. Very little substantive legislation got passed for the remainder of Clinton’s term. One of the few exception was the Pay/Go compromise that helped keep spending under control.
BC had the good fortune to govern during a time of great economic growth. Government revenue increased as the economy grew and we grew our way out of the deficit.
Obama came in with a larger political majority, but also inherited a complete mess in the form of two wars and the worst economic crisis in 80 years. Obam’s spending is not a matter of political philosophy, it is a matter of economic necessity. He has pushed Pay/Go, as did BC. He has pushed allowing Bush’s tax cuts to expire for those in the top 5% which is the equivalent of the Clinton tax increase. He has proposed a domestic spending freeze. Overall, his efforts to impose fiscal sanity have been very similar to BC. It is just that the circumstances are very different.
The other thing that is very different is the demography facing each President. BC served just as the boomers were entering their peak earning years which helped increase revenue. Obama has the misfortune of being President as the boomers are starting to retire and the long-standing fiscal problems with Medicare and Social Security are about to come due.
It is in the political self-interest of the Republican Party to claim that Obama is some sort of extremist, but the reality is that Obama has pursued an almost identical set of economic policies as BC.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 6:32 AM PDT up reply actions
To say that it is to the advantage of the opposing party to point out the negative aspects of the incumbent(s) prior to an election is an exercize in the obvious, no?
Obama’s spending is not a matter of political philosophy, it is a matter of economic necessity.
To echo HailOden’s earlier reply, that is a question of economic theory, and one that many feel has been dis-proven in the past. I am aligned with the idea that people spend money better than the government. The now $800B+ stimulus package was sold to us as “necessary to keep unemployment under 8%”. A simple man might look at the current numbers, which some experts estimate to be as high as 18-20% (as those who have given up looking for work, or whose benefits have expired aren’t included in the ‘official’ figure) and say EPIC FAIL. Unfortunately, many economists also agree that it did little to curb job losses, but it may now actually cause unemployment numbers to remain high much longer than if the economy had been allowed to right itself through natural processes. Spin it how you like, but spending your way out of a recession is a FAR LEFT POLICY. Perhaps your view is based on your perspective, though. If you are pretty far left yourself, then from your vantage point Obama may appear to be toward the center. Whereas, I think to the bulk of Americans, from the perspective of center-left, dead center, center-right or even far right, he is viewed in varying degrees of being far left (up to, and including, being the Anti-Christ or the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler).
Lastly, neither the current administration or Congress has practiced ‘Pay As You Go’. Oh, they throw out the phrase because it sounds good, but you don’t quadruple the national deficit in less than a year by ‘paying as you go’. That’s like a person saying that they’re only going to spend what they can afford, and then maxing out all their credit cards in the first month.
Turn off Fox and Limbaugh
Had governments here and in Europe not provided fiscal stimulus, it is likely that we would have fallen into a general word-wide recession that would have likely lasted for a decade. The economy was in total free-fall when Bush left.
I realize that it is convenient for conservatives to beat Obama over the head with the 8% figure which was mentioned in his first month in office before the extent of the collapse became evident, but that doesn’t mean it is sound economic theory.
Herbert Hoover tried the approach you are suggesting. It didn’t work well in the Great Depression and it wouldn’t have worked any better last year. There has been a general consensus among economist about the need for both fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus to help restore growth during severe recessions. Even Republicans like Bernanke and Green span agree with the general theory.
To be fair, there is disagreement about how much stimulus and about when to take our foot off the economic gas pedal. Europe is now starting to take their foot off the gas pedal and cutting public sector spending. There is a lot of disagreement about whether they are tightening down too quickly which might send the world economy back into recession.
What is politically expedient is not necessarily good policy. The Repubs have done everything they can to thwart Obama’s efforts to pass a meaningful jobs bill that would help get people back to work and then they stand back and say “see unemployment is too high.”
It is an ugly and cynical approach, which demonstrates just how callous the Repubs are to the plight of average working families. They block extending unemployment which cost $30 billion, but back extending tax cuts to the richest 2% that will cost $300 billion.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Turn off Fox and Limbaugh
For the record, I don’t watch Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. I get my news and commentary from a wide variety of sources. I think for myself and happen to have the intelligence to form my own opinion. Just because it differs from yours doesn’t give you license to accuse me of being a mindless sheep. I’ve enjoyed the good, hearty political debate we’ve had going here. Let’s keep the conversation focused on policies and ideals, and stay away from personal attacks.
They block extending unemployment…, but back extending tax cuts…
That’s because one creates jobs and the other doesn’t. People don’t want another handout, they want a job!
Not the one you seem to think
That’s because one creates jobs and the other doesn’t.
Almost all economist agree that Unemployment Insurance does a much better job of stimulating the economy than do tax cuts to the wealthy. The person receiving the UI check immediately spends it to feed his or her family and pay their bills. The wealthy person usually saves a large portion of any marginal income that comes their way. This is particularly true in a recession when people are reluctant to make investments.
Over 70% of all spending in the economy comes from consumers. We need to get money in the hands of average people to stimulate aggregate demand as demand increases business will hire more workers.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Indeed, he was.
Bush was anything but a fiscal conservative.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
He certainly wasn't.
But you’re giving credit to Clinton that is rightfully due to Congress, who actually has much more control and influence over spending than the President. Same goes for our current Congress – which is escaping the lion’s share of the blame. They certainly deserve it, since many of them actually pre-date the Clinton administration (meaning they’ve been there the entire time that ALL of this crap was slowly building up)!
by dbomb on Aug 9, 2010 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rewriting history
Clinton and the Dems raised tax rates on the top bracket in 1993 without a single Republican vote. Gore cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. More than anything this tax increase after the excessive tax cuts of the Reagan years helped to bring the budget into balance over the course of the 90s.
Of course, Shrub was then appointed Pres by the Supremes and immediately set about giving more tax cuts heavily weighted to the wealthy.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Glad you made your political leanings clear
I think your last paragraph left little to interpretation.
BTW those tax cuts “heavily weighted to the wealthy” have been absolutely key to my having grown my business during the down economy, even though I am certainly not wealthy. When those tax cuts expire and the President dips more into my wallet it will make it more difficult to keep my employees, much less expand.
I’ve created 5 new jobs and have two active subcontractors working for me in the last 18 months. If I continue to grow, I eventually plan on making good money. And then that’s when you want to come after me and take my (hard earned) money in the form of taxes and redistribute it to those “less fortunate” (read: less likely to be in the office working at 6:30 PM like I am now and more likely to be at home drinking a beer and watching TV).
Tell me: what’s so wrong about tax cuts for productive, hard working business owners?
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
I think your reply highlights the difference in thinking between liberals and conservatives
when it comes to taxing the wealthy and businesses. For some reason, probably because their leadership (who just happen to BE the top 5% that they so frequently villianize) paints this picture, liberals envision those with disposable income as fat, white people sitting around their mansions with bags of gold coins surrounding them. The truth is that income is either spent, circulating it back through the economy, or most of the time, invested. This is where the capital comes from that allows new businesses to start or existing, successful ones to grow and expand. This is where JOBS come from. I was interested to hear recently that Congress is trying to figure out how to increase small business lending. They’ll no doubt pass another 2,000-page bill at midnight on the Sunday of a three-day weekend that will provide $100B of “budget-neutral” “stimulus” to the same group of irresponsible banks that they bailed out, only to have SB lending continue to retreat over the next year.
Ok, that admittedly dissolved into a rant. But you get the picture. Increase taxes for small business owners and you lose jobs. Increase taxes on those “fat-cat corporations” and they pass it along through higher prices for their goods and services, making it, effectively, a tax increase on the poor. Let me put it this way: Say milk or gas goes up by $1.00 a gallon… Who do you think feels it more – the family that makes $250K/year or the one who makes $50/year? Exactly.
Hauser's Law
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law
Discuss.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Higher taxes don't necessarily reduce growth
This is a conservative myth.
Just take a look at the boom of the 90s after BC and the Dems raised the top marginal rate.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
higher taxes are one of the reasons I'm looking at shutting down the family bisness that I inherited from my dad so I can go back to school.
Maybe you can tell me how those taxes aren’t hurting me?
The difference between a top rate of 33 and 36 is very limited
You aren’t paying taxes unless you are turning a profit. If you shut down a business, you will be making no profit at all.
For most of the last twenty years I have owned between 2-5 houses and paid property taxes that have averaged about $15000-20000 per year. I don’t like paying them, but I also don’t really mind. The money goes for schools, cops and streets.
Taxes are the price of civilization. Income taxes are based on your ability to pay. To me, that seems like the fairest system. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have nice lives can afford to pay a little more than the hourly wage guys that work for me.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's an interesting one...
A few years back, I heard Jesse Ventura on the radio… Might have been on Jim Rome. He was stating an idea of how to “fix” the federal tax issue. His thought on it was a federal sales tax instead of an income tax. On EVERY purchase. lol Homes, cars, medicine, whatever. My first thought was that this is ludicrous. Then he started explaining his point… If a person makes a million dollars a year, but wants to live like a pauper, why should they pay high taxes? They aren’t really taking much (if anything) from the system. On the flip side, if they want to spend their money and live a life of luxury, they likely will do so at almost any cost. Many of the wealthy try and find every loophole possible to avoid paying income tax, all while spending freely. These people are the ones that should be paying higher taxes.
He also talked a bit about the possibility of it eventually creating a bit more fiscal responsibility to the masses. So many of us push the limits of what we can afford. Perhaps paying taxes on those purchases will make us re-evaluate some of them.
I’m still not convinced that would work, but it’s a very interesting “think outside the box” theory.
by Rodney Gustafson on Aug 11, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Necessity requires working folk to spend more of their incomes than the wealthy
What you are proposing is “regressive taxation,” meaning that poor people would pay a larger percetage of their incomes in taxes than the wealthy who are able to save at a higher rate. That kind of system makes the distribution of wealth even more skewed than it already is under a free market.
I believe in markets, they are the most efficient form of distributing goods and services, but they tend to concentrate a lot of income and even more wealth among a very small percentage of the population.
I have no problem with people being wealthy, but I think taxes should be based on ability to pay, and I think some redistribution of the fruits of the societies labors should be redistributed to create economic opportunity for a greater share of the population and to provide services for those who are not able to care for themselves.
by upper left corner on Aug 11, 2010 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
think of the black market that would create
and the GIANT agency needed to enforce it.
And besides, poor people use too much of their money on sustenance for that to work. Flat taxes favor people who don’t need to spend all of their money to survive.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
by HurraKane212 on Aug 11, 2010 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
first off I wasn't talking about an income tax.
that isn’t the only tax we pay. You might remember the tax that was just passed ion Oregon against “the greedy big corporations” (paraphrase from the add campaign paid for by the teachers union). Yeah that is the one that hit my BIG (one employee) corporation (note that this was against all corporations regardless of size. most of witch are actually very small) This was a flat tax at the bottom with a tax on GROSS at the top. For anyone that has ever owned a business it is obvious how terrible an idea that is. (ULC, I’m sure that even with an income like real estate where expenses are relatively small compared to other business (In mine expenses usually vastly out way profit) you can see how ridiculous it is to tax on gross)
to be honest the economy and building collapse (which is much worse here in Central Oregon than in the valley) is the main reason that things are so tough, the tax hike is just the straw that could break the camels back.
Also to the points being made on the fact that a sales tax hurts the poor. It is true that it isn’t perfect but I think everyone should take a good look at the idea. I would propose that the tax be incorporated into the price of goods (like it is in gas) because I hate paying $1.05 for the item that says $.99 on it
I also think that both of the posts above are being unrealistic in their characterization of “rich people”. The rich people I know either invest their money (where it would be taxed) or spend it on luxuries (where it would also be taxed) I don’t know any rich folk who bury their paychecks behind their house (where it would not be taxed). I also think that the sales tax should double on Luxury items. Again that way you are penalizing people for what they choose to spend money on rather than for making it. Maybe cut the tax on food items from grocery stores to effectively give tax breaks to the poor (though most of them are on gov assistance so that might not be a good idea). Experiment with the idea. I think that you could build in some protections for the poor wile penalizing those who lived high on the hog.
One of the great things that a sales tax would do is take the black market out of play (don’t know what above poster was talking about most states already operate this way so It wouldn’t be a big change.) by taxing those who currently are falling through the net (under the table jobs and income. much of which goes to illegal aliens. note I’m not making blind judgments here. I work in construction and see LOTS of this going on).
Anyway I don’t pretend that I have it all figure out. I used to be very against sales tax because I grew up here in Oregon and hated paying it when I was out of state but I’ve since changed my mind when I’ve seen how it could work better. Note most believe it would also be a more stable tax base than the current income/property tax and many school activists ( who I normally don’t agree with) favor it.
let's say
the flat tax rate was 25%, I’ve often seen a number between 20-30% thrown out by flax tax advocates.
Well, if I’m buying a $2,000 plasma TV, that’s a $500 tax to make it $2,500. In order to save $500, I might be more willing to buy it “under the table” and the business would have an incentive to sell it that way if they can cover their tracks.
I mean, I really like the idea of penalizing consumption and rewarding production, but having studied taxation in Political Science during my undergrad and studying the tax code itself in law school, I learned a lot about the philosophy behind taxes and I actually kind of like the progressive tax bracket system. I’d even be in favor of more tax brackets beyond 1 million a year.
Anyhow, our system of “a nibble here, a nibble there” is actually kind of elegant, it the way that a box of legos spilled down a stairway can be elegant.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
by HurraKane212 on Aug 11, 2010 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions
That was good timing
and nothing else. In fact, I believe the tech boom would have been even greater had the top marginal rate been reduced.
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
Would you challenge any of the statements of fact in my comment?
This isn’t a statement of opinion, it is a statement of facts and a retelling of what actually happened during the Clinton years.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
And yet your tone was quite clear
that you feel the tax cuts “heavily weighted toward the wealthy” are a bad thing. I was taking exception to that, not the “statement of facts” (although the whole Supreme Court thing is a statement of opinion — I won’t get into that though).
Those tax cuts have helped me immensely (and created real, honest to goodness productive jobs, not these state/federal jobs that leach the economy). If you want to repeal them, I oppose that. Why on earth would anyone want to do that to my small business? I don’t get your politics ULC.
In fact, I recently had a discussion with one of my bigger clients who told me if this health care bill goes through he will scale back his business, lay off everyone he has to, and stay under the threshold. He told me “Why work harder for less money?” I agree with him. We (as business owners) are in business to make money, not to provide health care for people. If people are productive I’m happy to provide them with a wage that allows them to buy health care. But don’t force it on me.
And I just don’t understand why the answer to every deficit question is “raise taxes.” Why not “cut spending” and, yes, cut spending everywhere. We’re taxed enough. Even the wealthy are taxed enough.
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
by jamon51 on Aug 12, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those are good points, even though I still view Barack Obama as ...
a center-left politician — which’d definitely place him to the left of Bill Clinton, who’s administration was built on third way centrism in many ways — and reserve the term socialist for people who fully fit the bill.
What, in all of Obama's voting record, associations, writings or policies
indicates that he is anything but FAR left?
As far as Socialist politicians go… Socialism is defined as the practice of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor via government through taxation and social/entitlement programs. MANY in Congress (in both parties), while they may shun the TITLE of Socialist, certainly engage in the practice of Socialism from a governmental standpoint.
Ultimately, I think the issue here is mainly about semantics. I define the ...
term “socialism” less loosely than you and a few others — which is fine, since this is more of a political science debate than anything else — and, hell, that’s no big deal. Shoot, policy debate is more important than pointless semantics.
NO, No, no......
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. With the exception of propping up the domestic auto industry in order to save millions of manufacturing jobs and the communities they support, Obama has done nothing that could even be vaguely construed as “Socialist.”
Progressive taxation, or basing taxes on an ability to pay, is not socialism. The top rate under Obama is lower than it was after Reagan’s tax cuts in the 1980s. Was Reagan a “socialist?”
Government regulation of the financial markets in order to reduce market instability is not socialism. Government regulation to protect consumers from predatory lending and gouging by banks is not socialism. Government intervention to expand access to private health insurance that provides access to a privately owned health care system is not socialism.
In fact, Obama is very much of a University of Chicago, free-market based guy. He believes in using markets to try to achieve socially desired outcomes, like reductions in pollution.
Have you noticed that the entire left wing of the Democratic party, which is itself not very left at all, is furious with Obama on isue after issue? Obama has been very centrist, which has angered his own political base. He is about as left of center as Bill Clinton, which is to say not very left at all.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:29 AM PDT up reply actions
this
expand access to private health insurance that provides access to a privately owned health care system
or how about rephrase it.
Forcing me to buy health insurance
Look,
It would have been far preferable in my view and far more effective at controlling costs to have a single payer system like Canada, were the providers are private but the insurance is public, but the right wing opposed that.
It would have been preferable to have a universal private health insurance system were employers provide coverage and pay taxes to provide for those who are underemployed like Germany, but the right wing opposed that.
The right wing opposed any public option at all. So what we are left with is a system where there is an individual mandate with public subsidies to help those who can’t afford the premiums. It is less than perfect, but it was what we were able to pass. After 60 years of trying and failing to pass any kind of universal program, at least it is something.
The USA spends 16% of our GDP on health care, more than any country in the world, but we have over 50 million uninsured and another 30 million under-insured. We have worse outcomes than most other developed countries. We have shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality, higher rates of preventable chronic diseases. Contrary to what Fox news tells you, our health care system sucks for tens and tens of millions of working and middle class people.
We are the only developed country in the world with out some kind of universal care. Do you think this is a desirable situation?
Not only is it inhumane, it is economic suicide. One of the primary reasons that American companies are struggling to remain competitive is because health care costs more here than anywhere else in the world.
I am a small business owner who has struggling to provide coverage to my employees. Because of cost shifting and medical inflation, it has become virtually impossible. Because of the recession, I even had to drop coverage for my wife and I. We are one accident or one illness away from bankruptcy. Do you think this is a good system?
Seriously, something had to be done. FDR is revered for Social Security which reduced poverty among the elderly by two thirds. LBJ is revered for Medicare which provided health care for the elderly and the disabled. Eventually, Obama will be revered for moving us close to universal coverage. The Republican Party opposed each of these landmark pieces of legislation and that goes a long way towards explaining why I oppose the Republican Party.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
I am also a small business owner who can't afford health care.
I am someone who stands to gain a lot from this package.
My wife is Canadian so I definitely hear a LOT about the benefits that universal health care could have.
That being said this is what I don’t like with the Idea:
I don’t like being forced to have something – even if that something helps me.
I don’t like that I will suddenly have access to health care that I couldn’t have before because someone else is paying for part of my premium. I wouldn’t feel bad if they did it because they want to – but when I know that they were forced to…. no thanks
Many simple ways to bring down the cost of health care are being ignored. This falls on both parties..
And the Biggest reason for me….. I run my home with a very simple philosophy when it comes to money… If I can’t afford it I don’t buy it.
I am against ANY program no matter how beneficial that we can not afford. And before you start with how much money we will save… That don’t work with me at the car dealership or the furniture store… I don’t save money by spending money…
oh and by the way I don’t watch Fox or any other news network… Don’t have a TV that’s hooked to anything but my VCR and my Wii.
by vullkem116 on Aug 7, 2010 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
The Libertarian impulse is deep in the American psyche
I don’t like being forced to have something – even if that something helps me.
I understand that many people feel that way, but when they actually get the benefits of any type of social insurance, they usually change their minds:
Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance are the three big social insurance programs in this country, and there is overwhelming political support for all three. Would you like to see these programs abolished? They have done a great deal to reduce human suffering in our country.
The Health Insurance program is essentially a new form of social insurance. It is structured slightly differently than the three I mentioned above, but the outcome is likely to be the same. Once people receive the benefit, they will wonder how we ever lived without it. Companies large and small will get more equitable rates. Individuals healthy or sick will be able to get coverage. The #1 cause of personal bankruptcy will be greatly reduced. Health outcomes will improve.
We are already paying more than enough for universal coverage.
We are simply paying in the wrong way to the wrong people. The USA spends more on health care than any country on the planet. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care. Canada spends11%, most of Europe is between 8% and 12%.
We spend more and get less, why? Because our “system” is wildly inefficient. On average 70% of every premium dollar goes to pay for actual medical services, the rest pays for marketting, profits and administrative expenses of the private insurance companies. Meanwhile, the administrative cost of Medicare is 4%. This is why the private insurance companies fought a public option tooth and nail. The advocates of free enterprise and free markets knew they could not compete.
The current system is broken and something had to be done. I don’t think we got anywhere near the best or most efficient system, but after 60 years of failure it is a great accomplishment to get something.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions
our system is broken for sure I'm not arguing that it is not.
I am not fundamentally opposed to universal health care.
while I don’t like to be forced into it, I can see some of the benefits.And like I stated above I personally would beifit greatly from it.
My problem with it is the entitlement philosophy behind it. The thought that Everyone deserves this… I don’t get it. I get that everyone deserves SS and that it is insolvent. I get that everyone deserves to own their own home and that because of that the mortgage crisis is dragging this country down and killing my families business (residential building contractors).
sure I want health care. who doesn’t? I just don’t see how we make it work without massive tax hikes. And I don’t like that.
I take care of my body and have been lucky. I haven’t been to a hospital for over 20 years. I hate that people smoke, let themselves get fat etc. I hate that I will be paying their premiums under this plan ( I understand that some of that cost is already falling on us with the uninsured)
I also hate that this new plan caters to the drug makers and doctors. GET BUSINESS OUT OF POLITICS!
in summery I agree that the system is broken. I don’t see this as the thing to fix it and I don’t see a good fix coming until our political process is fixed (IE killing the lobbying and Pork, jail time for corrupt politicians etc) One of the things I was most excited about when Obama was elected was his promise to kill the earmarks…. big disappointed so far..
Universal participation is essential to keeping rates down.
Try thinking about car insurance:
You are not allowed to drive without car insurance, why? Because it puts everybody else in society at risk. If liability insurance was optional, a lot fewer people would have it and the cost of uninsured motorist coverage would go through the roof. You need to spread the risk over the greatest number in order to control costs. You don’t like the premiums, but you understand and accept the logic. It is exactly the same with insurance.
Our country is founded on the principle of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Sometimes there is tension between the three. In this case we are asking you to give a little on “liberty” in order to ensure “life.” Health care is not a discretionary expenditure, it is essential.
The knee jerk reaction against entitlements has been fostered by conservatives for a long, long time. You are entitled to free speech, you are entitled to public education, you are entitled to SS, why shouldn’t you be entitled to a service as essential as health care?
Regarding the cost, the point I was making above is that we are already paying more than enough we simple need to reallocate those expenditures. We need to give folks access to preventative care. We need to give people access to care in appropriate settings rather than in emergency rooms. We need to squeeze administrative expenses, marketing expenses, and profits from the insurance business. If we do these things we will have most of the money to pay for the additional coverage without significant tax increases.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
Driving is not a RIGHT, it's a priviledge.
Therefore, the universal insurance mandate is on living.
It's GO time !
Furthermore..
The insurance that is mandatory if you choose to drive is LIABILITY. You’re insuring the poor sucker you might hit, not yourself! You can still legally drive a car without any coverage for yourself or your car.
Therefore, one CAN NOT COMPARE mandatory health insurance (which covers YOU) to mandatory liability auto insurance!
still not buying it
You are entitled to free speech, you are entitled to public education, you are entitled to SS, why shouldn’t you be entitled to a service as essential as health care?
Free speech is a right. SS and Public education is not. SS is going under and I wish public education would too (I do think that it is good that everyone has access to education, I just hate what the Unions are doing to the system right now).
Funny how I’ve gotten by my whole life without something “as essential” as health insurance. Most of the world doesn’t have it. Just because it is something that would be nice to have doesn’t make it a right.
By your logic I should also have my water and power paid for by the government. After all they are much more essential than health insurance.
I know that my viewpoint is a bit different than many but it comes from spending time in countries much worse off than our own.
I lived in Haiti right out of HS teaching English. I’ve traveled through most of Mexico, and Europe(lived in London for a while), I’ve spent significant time in southern Africa (my parents live there) These experiences lead me to think of things like heath care and SS and such as luxuries and nothing more. It also leads me to appreciate the thing that America does better than anyone else. Opportunity. I for one would rather not become the next Europe.
Universal participation is essential to keeping rates down.
understood. as I said before I personally find is hard on my conscience to support something that is for MY benefit knowing that I am forcing someone else to subsidize my bill.
There is one reason I don’t have health insurance and that is I can’t afford it. There is one reason Oregon doesn’t have coverage for all of us, they can’t afford it. There is one reason that the Feds will give us all health insurance, they can print money.
I'd argue public education is a necessary ...
evil up to a certain age — such as 16 — but the post-secondary education system needs to be restructured completely.
Logic is a great thing !
I agree with your points, especially after
spending time in the education system.
I agree that education is for public good,
even though I’m a lifelong bachelor. The system has been corrupted by the POWERFUL unions and the politicians bought with campaign cash. As a property
owner, my taxes continue to rise every year
regardless of the performance of public
schools. I believe the system needs to be
scrapped and vouchers is a good way to allow parents to make their own choices
in educating their children. Accreditation
and testing could be set and this would
force gov’t schools to improve and lean
up.
It's GO time !
We are entitled to universal education
so that we can participate in democracy. Not as a God given right.
It’s too bad we don’t get taught what we need to know, though.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
exactly
it is an entitlement (not always a bad thing) not a right
Invest in a HSA . . .
premiums are much less expensive and your business
can bank $ 3,000.00 per year per person towards any
type of major problem. One of the best plans for major medical.
It's GO time !
Interesting to note:
Democrats have broadly opposed this. Including one Barack Obama, who voted against it while a Senator. Why? Simple. It empowers the individual, not the government or the unions (is there even a difference anymore?).
False
Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.
That’s actually more Marxist. Socialism does in fact take the form described by dbomb, and that has in fact been the predominant form of it in non-Communist regimes.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
You are completely wrong
Wikipedia:
Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.123
In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers to directly produce use-values (instead of exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.4
I think you are confusing “progressive taxation”, redistribution of wealth, and Western European social welfare states with Socialism. Socialism has a very specific economic definition.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
without putting a dog in the fight - Wikipedia isn't a rebuttal to anything
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 7, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yep.
There’s no agreed upon definition for socialism, so the best way is to use examples. For instance, the Scandinavian countries are pretty universally recognized as democratically socialist. But the governments do not own the means of production (they do own large shares of a few key industries, but with our current ownership of parts of the auto and banking industries, we’re in a similar boat, but to a lesser degree), they use taxes to redistribute wealth.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Yes, and they have higher standards of living, longer lifespans.....
……universal health care, excellent access to higher ed, incredible parental leave, and six weeks of paid vacation for everyone…..
Sounds absolutely horrible doesn’t it……..
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Nope, sounds wonderful
But most Americans don’t like the “socialist” label, because many (not all or even most, I would venture, but many) would rather have those things because they’ve earned them, not because everyone’s entitled to receive them from the government. It’s just a symptom of whatever is left of American Exceptionalism.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
anyone know a good travel agent?
If so, put ULC in touch.
by peregrinebrm on Aug 7, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions
If you disagree, try responding with something other than snark.
Snark isn’t persuasive when it comes to PGs, and it is even less so when it comes to things that matter, like people’s lives.
Every single thing I mentioned above is true. The Scandinavian countries in particular do exceed the USA in every single category mentioned. Rather than dismissing the facts with a few keystrokes, how about engaging in a substantive discussion? Or how about rethinking some of your assumptions?
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions
No matter our disagreement about Jerryd ...
Bayless, I’ve got your back here. In the United States of America, there’s more than enough room for folks of differing political philosophies to live amongst one another in peace.
In this country, questioning the effectiveness of federal, state, and/or municipal governments doesn’t make someone — no matter where they land on the political spectrum — anti-American, unpatriotic, disloyal, or any other equally partisan pejoratives.
In fact, I’d argue that many folks who are naively content and don’t question the people in power — regardless of whether there’s a D or R next to their name — are likely to be sheep.
As a civil libertarian, I’m a strong proponent of upholding freedom of speech and expression for all people. Whether someone is right, wrong, or just sharing an opinion, they’ve got the right to say it; likewise, others have the right to respond through open discourse.
The United States, however, can't function quite as...
efficiently as countries such as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Those three nations are all monetarily solvent, thinly populated countries. It doesn’t hurt that they’ve got relatively homogeneous societies, either, because all of the wonder that America’s melting pot brings it culturally is dismayingly offset by the in-house political discord.
Then again, I love this country’s diversity and am always a strong believer in the individual and not coforming to some standard norm bullcrap. That notwithstanding, though, I’d be interested to see how things would work if, oh, America was regionalized into several different sovereignties — with the U.S. becoming similar to the E.U. — but that’s an impractical, unrealistic pipe dream.
Unfortunately, though, the United States is so damn big that it’s eventually destined to fail, while there isn’t much we the people can do to stop this inevitable train wreck.
Heck, America is like the New York Knicks of the world.
you just made the anti-Federalist argument
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 8, 2010 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, Jeffersonian democracy > federalism.
by AK1984 on Aug 8, 2010 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sign me up too.
Though I hate Rand.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Uh, I'm not an Ayn Rand guy or adhere ...
to objectivism. If anything, my economics are like that of the Austrian School, politically I’m a minarchist, and philosophically I espouse existential nihilism.
On a side note, I denounced Rand in a post of mine here last year.
“Yeah, I’m of my own philosophy.
You and I certainly aren’t on the same page, however, although that’s fine by me.
Y’know, it’s our differences that make each of us unique individuals and whatnot."
[I was responding to Sophia.]
“Apropos of Ayn Rand, though, we probably dislike her for very, very different reasons. While I enjoy Rand’s individualistic bent on life, atheist leanings, and disdain toward altruism (i.e., the unselfish concern for others), her writings were much too simplistic and she tended to attract followers who were mindless fools.
Of course, I can’t exactly blame Rand for having fans who are crazy imbeciles; still, her philosophy hasn’t held up to the test of time. That’s unfortunate, too, since she had some incredible ideas by which to construct her beliefs, so here’s to hoping that someone can take from those and create a more refined philosophical outlook on life."
http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/6/5/899731/6-5-09-junk-drawer-congressman-of#16601551
Sorry, not pointed at you.
It was just an aside addressed to the room. Many Libs regard her as a thought leader, while I see her as someone who wasn’t gifted but was willing to at least put her ideas on the table. Sort of like that kid who wrote that book, “Eregon”.
I simply wanted to distance myself from her because of that perceived connection.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I'd be interested to see what would happen if the US didn't continue to restrict immigration as we have since around 1900.
At least in my amateur historian opinion, mass immigration has been a huge boon to America.
Anyway, I would second that America’s size means it can’t be governed like the Nordic countries. However, there are also some economies of scale that can be useful – since the country acts as a whole rather than as a set of equal, often disagreeing allies.
There’s plenty of inefficiencies that can be corrected without vast political reorganization, however. Like how in economic crises, state spending becomes contractionary, and undoes much of the benefit of national-level stimulus packages.
(I’m more into economics than politics, I just wanted to make the point about immigration.)
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Indeed, immigration has a positive economic ...
effect in many regards. It’s unchecked free trade, multinational corporations outsourcing jobs, and whatnot that’ve damaged the American economy domestically and squeezed the middle class.
As it is, I’m pro-amnesty and would give working visas to productive individuals who immigrate to America from elsewhere.
Work Visas are not the same thing as amnesty
And we issue work visas now, and have for a long time. The problem comes when they expire – you’re supposed to apply for an extension or leave the country. If you don’t, you’ve broken the law that you agreed to when you applied for the visa to begin with. Why should we offer that person the same reward as the another person who followed the rules and did it the correct way? Citizenship in the greatest nation in the world has great value and should be both coveted and earned. If it is simply handed out to those that sought to steal it, what value does it hold?
How is unchecked free trade a problem?
Unless you’re lamenting the decline of US manufacturing and industrial base, which is largely its own fault…
I’ll admit again I’m very biased towards the economist’s view here: free trade allows countries to focus on their comparative advantages and makes the world economy as a whole more efficient. Specialization.
In fact, I hardly see how the shift to service and information jobs hurts the middle class…also how it would benefit America’s economy if every company that sold in America had to produce its goods at much higher prices.
Competition fuels innovation, and is good for the consumer. Free trade promotes competition. I’m curious why you think free trade and outsourcing are bad things.
Totally agree on letting productive people into America. Why not, honestly?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Again, the discussion has never been about whether to let productive people into the country. Who has argued against that?
We’ve always done that. Could we do a better job of it? Absolutely.
In fact, the federal government has screwed things up so badly for long, tens of millions of productive, non-productive, even criminal people have entered the country without permission and without accountability. When people break the law, and those who are supposed to uphold it do nothing, they only perpetuate the lawlessness. This continues to compound until it gets to the point we’re at now, which I feel is the breaking point – the point at which states have begun to take matters into their own hands in order to protect their people and economy.
You are welcome in my home, but you first need to knock on my door and ask permission to come it. If you choose not to, you have trespassed. If I come home and find you in my home uninvited, it doesn’t matter if you’re productive, unproductive, black, white, purple, if you’re a nice guy or even if you have kids; there’s going to be trouble. Why is that concept so hard for people to grasp?
Oh, absolutely.
I wasn’t saying illegal immigration – I’d rather have a much larger quantity of legal immigration. You know, so they don’t have huge problems functioning in society, paying taxes, getting benefits, etc…
I wasn’t saying anything about amnesty either. Just saying that I think the immigration quotas are counterproductive.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
For a nation to be self-sufficient and have ...
long-term solvency, it badly needs domestic manufacturing of goods to be a staple of its economy; otherwise, huge trade deficits are the result.
There are economic protectionists from both sides — such as leftist, ultraliberal folks like Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on the left, as well as arch-conservative Pat Buchanan on the right — and I approve of that populist stance.
Ross Perot is another person on the right ...
who also knew free trade and globalization was a negative. Thus, I promote economic protectionism as a way to once again make America self-sufficient, monetarily solvent, and hopefully not about to collapse under its own gargantuan weight.
Self-sufficiency is kind of absurd in the modern world economy.
Specialization is basically the bedrock of modern society, and I fail to see how the downsides of protectionism outweigh the benefits.
I don’t want to get into a political debate though. Thanks for your forthright (as always) opinion.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I'll concede that anti-globalization isn't ...
the most pragmatic stance, but I believe in it philosophically and think that it could work in theory if wholesale changes are made by us.
Again, though, the chance of that happening is next to nil, so you’re correct to question the practicality of it.
Unfortunately, all that Ross accomplished
was splitting the conservative vote, allowing Bill Clinton to win the election – twice. Look at the tallies. If Perot hadn’t run, those votes would have gone to Pappy Bush and Dole, resulting in an unbroken succession of Republicans in the White House dating all the way back to our last uber-liberal/progressive president – Jimmy Carter. The question is, are Republicans gearing up for another run like that after we get through Jimmy Jr.?
George H. W. Bush was just an abysmal ...
U.S. President — as he wasted money hand over fist by running up the national debt like Ronald Reagan before him, got inovlved in a imbecilic interventionist police action with Desert Storm, et cetera — thus, I’m glad that he lost to Bill Clinton.
There are darn fine reasons for why hoards of people mobilized behind Perot and, even though it was an indirect effect, pushed the elder Bush out of the White House.
We actually do.
We have a maximum limit as to how many people are allowed to immigrate to the US annually. It just happens that the bulk of the influx comes from our Southern border, as does the majority of of those who seek to except themselves from the legal norm and enter the country illegally.
It was joke!
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I know...
I was less replying to vullkem and more using his comment as a springboard for the point I wanted to make.
yeah It was a joke.
my wife immigrated legally from Canada. She becomes eligible for citizenship this year.
I have worked with (never hired) many Mexicans who are here illegally. For the most part they have been great people but this CRAP that goes on politically is hurting both them and us.
Immigration services has taken note.
Please prepare you wife for deportation.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
and incredible amounts of taxation and economic stagnation.
doesn’t that sound wonderful?
I think I would rephrase that.....
Wikipedia isn’t the definitive answer to everything, but it is a very good source of general information. It has become far more reliable than it was in the early days. //the concept of collective intelligence is tremendously intriguing, IMO.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
no disagreement there
In my graduate work, I would often start at Wikipedia for the general concept (particularly one I knew nothing about) and to check perception, then work backwards to the peer-reviewed literature.
Citing Wiki would get a grad student censured (slight exaggeration) – but the moderators do help clean it up.
The hive mind has its uses.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 8, 2010 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Wiki's sources are often my sources.
Those lists at the bottom of the page? Gold mines.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
it's the references that make an argument
the reason that professors frown on Wiki is that it is someone else’s interpretation of the references – rather than the student’s. Ultimately, the quality of the references have to verified and the information therein fully analyzed.
Wiki itself must always be remembered as someone’s opinion – and that someone could be anyone.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
way off here
Obama definitely is much more left-of-center than Bill, and could learn from Bill’s (philosophical anyway) respect of the Chicago Boys.
Obama has stood up to extremists in some cases, but mostly they are furious just because his pre-election statements were in line with their extremism and he now, saddled with responsibility, appears to be changing course.
by peregrinebrm on Aug 7, 2010 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Obama taught Con Law at University of Chicago for over a decade
He is personal friends with many of the “Chicago Boys.” One of his chief econ advisors is Adam Goolsbee who was on faculty at U of C.
Obama is very much a believer in using market forces. He does believe there is aneed for smart regulation, but he is not someone who wants to undermine capitalism.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions
That may be the word on the street, but there is no record or personal account of Obama having taught Con Law anywhere, nonetheless UC.
Regardless, I would say he’s more of a believer in ‘using government to force market moves’, via intervention and regulation. Which is fine, as some believe that’s the best way to do things and you may, too. But it’s NOT capitalism. Capitalism is when consumers control the markets by voting with their dollars who wins or loses. You can’t bailout banks, buy up automakers or require consumers to purchase a product or service and then claim to be pro-capitalist. It just don’t jive.
In all fairness, there are several brands of capitalism. Oh, ...
and on top of that, pure anarcho-capitalism hasn’t been put into practice by any American politican. Even a laissez-faire form of captialism hasn’t really been utilized in America since the days of yore, as Alexander Hamilton put a squash to that with central banking.
You have really swallowed the entire right-wing, nut-job conspiracy theory
Denying that Obama was a lecturer in Con Law at U of C for over a decade?
I have read several accounts of his students talking about what a great teacher he was. Michelle worked at Uof C as well. Next, you are going to deny that he lives in Hyde Park, next to the campus.
Are you a birther too?
Arguing objective facts doesn’t help your credibility.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
The lack of clarity about Obama's past is a direct product of
A complete lack of transparency
Marley Tate has been thrown out of every courtroom she has entered
Judges appointed by Bush have issued rulings that make it clear she has presented absolutely no credible evidence to back-up any of her claims. She was even threatened with lousing her legal licence for wasting the court’s time.
There is more known about Obama’s past than almost any other President in memory. His two books are largely autobiographical and are available to be fact checked. I follow this all very closely, and I am not aware that any significant discrepancy have been found. I’m sure that the same folks who brought us Ken Starr have been looking and would have shouted from the mountain top if they had found anything.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 7:11 AM PDT up reply actions
Your claim: "There is more known about Obama’s past than almost any other President in memory."
Your source: “His two… autobiographical… books”
Consider me speechless.
Ok, my little speechless moment has ended. ;-)
Exactly HOW are Obama’s books supposed to be ‘fact-checked’? His first executive order was to have all school records, writings, passport info and legal records SEALED. And he has spent millions to keep them sealed. I don’t understand why people don’t think that’s more than a little strange. To most people, the only reason his past is in question is because he created the question by sealing up his past. Do I presume to know what he’s hiding? No. Does the fact that he’s willing to spend so much time and resources keeping his past hidden make me a little suspicious? Naturally.
There’s an easy solution, though. He could unseal his records. Then, assuming there’s nothing there, most people go about their merry way and the so-called ‘birthers’ are left with egg on their face.
by dbomb on Aug 13, 2010 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Have you actually read "Dreams from My Father?"
It is an amazing read. I read it in the fall of 2006. I became an early supporter of Obama before he even declared his intention to run, based primarily on that book. I think it is one of the most interesting and insightful books about race and identity that I have ever read.
There is absolutely nothing in that book that would indicate that he is a socialist. Some conservative may have taken some phrase out of context and twisted it for their own political purposes, but believe me there is absolutely nothing in the book that says anything of the sort.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I think I got pretty enlightened just now reading this back and forth that happened
so for that, I thank you guys for sharing your opinions.
I should research…
Blazers basketball? Just basketball you say? More like a way of life
The Bible calls him the King of Syria?
If this is a joke, you got me. If you’re serious, where does it say that?
And for the record, while I am not an Obama supporter, I don’t think he’s the Anti-Christ.
Sorry, should be "the Assyrian" or "King of the North" . . .
Isaiah 10:20 -27 – v.24 “. . . be not afraid of the Assyrian: . . .”
Isaiah 30:18-33 – v.31 “. . . For through the voice of the Lord shall the
Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.”
Isaiah 31: 8 , Micah 3:3-15 – v .5 & 6 "the Assyrian "
“King of the North” – Daniel 11:35 to 12:13 – The "last " Syrian King is
the “King of the North” and is to come from the Syrian (Seleucid dynasty)
division of the four post-Alexander Grecian kingdoms. After Alex died
his four primary generals split the empire into Eygpt, Greece/Macedonia,
Asia Minor (Turkey) and Syria (eastern portion -Syria,Iraq & Iran etc.).
Daniel 8:9-25 -Out of the Four Horns of the He-Goat (Symbol of greek empire -aigos=goat) come the “little horn, which waxed exceeding
great” . . . ) conquering the other three kingdoms of the old Grecian
empire and then the full ten nations of the old Roman empire.
He isn’t the Anti-Christ and I’m not a supporter either. I just disagree
with his beliefs, policies and fellow progressives.
It's GO time !
Context
Isaiah 10:20-27 is talking about a remnant of Israel returning. All of verse 24, “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, O my people that dwellest in Zion, be not afraid of the Assyrian: he shall smite thee with a rod, and shall lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt.” I don’t think Obama really supports Israel, but he isn’t going to war against them now, and I don’t think he’s going to. It’s really hard for me to see this passage applying to him. It’s the same thing in the other passages in Isaiah that you referenced. Most of them are referring to the remnant of Israel returning to their land, and it talks about the king of Assyria fighting against them “with a rod”. That’s physical violence. As I said, Obama doesn’t seem to really be a supporter of Israel, but I think he’s smart enough to realize that it would destroy him politically to actually go to war against Israel.
In Daniel 11:35-12:13, most Christians actually do understand this to be talking about Anti-Christ. I don’t think it applies to Obama either. If you read 11:36: “And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.” I think it’s pretty clear that Obama is not a Christian, and may privately consider himself to be more important than God (I don’t know on that, but it is certainly possible), he definitely is not doing this publicly. Daniel 8, again, is actually talking about the Anti-Christ.
Prophecy can be hard to understand, and I haven’t had the time to really look closely at any of these. However, I think you’ll have a hard time building a compelling case that these are referring to Obama.
And finally, I’m curious. You say up above that you’re an athiest, and yet you are saying that these prophecies made over 2000 years ago are accurately describing current events. For the reasons I’ve explained, I think you are wrong on both counts, but how do you reconcile those two viewpoints?
I'm not an atheist . . .
I said " Even an educated atheist can see the Bible calls
him the King of Syria (the Assyrian or King of the North) . . . "
If you read my comments, I was refuting the possibility
of BO being the Anti-Christ. My interest in History goes far beyond
my degree, to lifelong study and being raised in a devout Christian home, prophecy has always been of interest. The childhood interest in American History was replaced by a deep study of European and Ancient civilization, especially Ancient Near East through Roman Empire. I suppose some of this was to learn about the Gentile equivilents to Biblical history and how prophecy of the rise of World Empires jives. That said, I agree and previously stated the BO can’t be the AC. My response to your comment was to give specific scriptures that show that the AC comes from the old Grecian province of “Syria” (Which would include modern day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, parts of Turkey, etc.) Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel have a lot of prophetical passages, but Isaiah 10:20-34 specifically deals with the rise of the future “Assyrian” Anti-Christ. People have been looking for a World figure to stamp with the AC mantra for quite some time(Ghengis Khan, Nero, Hitler, Stalin, etc, etc), but it is clear if Biblical prophecy is utilized that he does not come from America. In the Bible, America is not one of the 10 Nations that comprised the Old Roman Empire, that the AC will conquer and use to oppress Isreal.
Once again, my original comments were in response to ULC’s
claims of BO not being a socialist, etc. I disagree with everything
about his beliefs, both social, political and economic policy, but don’t think he is the Anti-Christ !!!
On a kinder note –
GO BLAZERS !!!
It's GO time !
Ah, sorry
I misread your comment. Looks like I actually read it wrong twice… It reads as though you were calling Obama the king of Assyria, which is why I was so confused. But even then, I still disagree with you. :-)
I would read Isaiah 10 as referring to a literal king of Assyria. Verse 5 calls him “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.” Verses 11-13, “Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols? Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man.” This sounds to me like it is talking about the king of Assyria who conquered the northern kingdom. God used him to punish Israel (v. 5), but then fulfilled His promise to Abraham by destroying those who fought against Israel. The Assyrian empire fell shortly afterwards.
I can fully agree with your last comment. :-) I wonder what Obama thinks of Bayless?
I actually like Rachel Maddow
I wouldn’t use her as my main source of news, but I think she provides a pretty fresh look events for some one who is working at a corporate owned media outlet.
I could do without Oberman.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow, ironic...
I wasn’t sure where to put this comment but people need to review their posts in this section and compare it with the gray box that defines confirmation bias. One feature that you didn’t stress is how people won’t readily admit to the bias. That’s the reason that you put together a nicely laid out argument; to begin the process for those who will open their minds to the possibility. Not everyone will try to see it, but a few will. Thanks everyone for confirming that confirmation bias exists in politics.
IMO, it is preferable to take in information from multiple sources while being aware of confirmation bias.....
…..than to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Just because someone like Maddow is more straight about their bias doesn’t make them wrong. Just as it doesn’t make someone like Glen Beck right.
How open a news source is about their bias is one question. How accurate there information is and how insightful their analysis is is an entirely separate question.
As consumers of information I think our best strategy is to try to gather information from as many sources as possible and to be as aware of the bias of each source as possible. Over time we will be able to gauge the usefulness of each source.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Regarding actual democratic socialism, I wonder how the direction of the United ...
States of America would’ve been altered had Eugene V. Debs been president rather than Woodrow Wilson and/or Norman Thomas — who my 96-year-old paternal grandmother (she’s still alive and well, too) voted for in the 1936, which was her first ever presidential election — had been president rather than Franklin D. Roosevelt. If so, the United States may’ve more closely resembled some of those Scandinavian countries these days — for better or worse — even though I doubt America could’ve withstood the colossal financial burden of funding democratic socialism in such a large, populous country.
http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/7/21/957125/junk-drawer-gate-july-22#18506956
If I had a time machine and went back to 1912, I’d’ve probably voted for the “Bull Moose” himself, Theodore Roosevelt, who ran for president under the Progressive Party platform. Let’s just say I’m not a fan of Wilson, who was all about big gov’t with things like the drug war (i.e., Harrison Narcotics Tax Act), unnecessary interventionism (i.e., World War I), and globalization (i.e., League of Nations); he was also a bigoted racist, too.
In 1936, I’d’ve likely voted for Alf Landon — who was a centrist in that era, even though he had some progressive leanings by supporting the abovementioned “Bull Moose” in 1912 — yet, that’d’ve put me strongly in the minority, for people were loving them some F.D.R. back then. In that year’s primary, though, I’d’ve supported the anti-imperialist/isolationist candidate William Borah — who was even more progressive, as well as had the support of liberal Republican Robert M. La Follette, Sr. — in lieu of Landon.
I don't think Eugene Debs ever really had a shot at becoming president though.
Gotta agree that Teddy was far superior to Wilson though. Woodrow Wilson was actually kind of a megalomaniac, with grandiose ideas about changing the world and becoming powerful through use of speech and rhetoric…Not to mention he screwed up WW1 and Versailles and the League of Nations pretty abominably.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Not sure what you're referring to.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
This part:
Woodrow Wilson was actually kind of a megalomaniac, with grandiose ideas about changing the world and becoming powerful through use of speech and rhetoric
Come on, Barack Obama is no Woodrow Wilson. If Wilson was somehow ...
alive right now, he’d be lambasted by the left and the right; it’d be a bloodbath.
Not only was Wilson a radical moonbat both economically and with regards to foreign policy, but he also held hidebound cultural and social beliefs.
Wait, was this statement an argument FOR or AGAINST the comparison?
Not only was Wilson a radical moonbat both economically and with regards to foreign policy, but he also held hidebound cultural and social beliefs.
My main point was that Woodrow Wilson wouldn't succeed as a ...
Democrat in modern-day politics due to his overt racism and illiberal standing on most social issues — with women’s suffrage being an exception — although a lot has shifted politically since the 1910s. Yet, up until recently, Robert Byrd managed to survive all those years in the U.S. Senate despite his bigoted past, although he did so due in part to reforming his once prejudiced views regarding race and being from a backwoods state like West Virginia that kept foolishly electing him.
Robert Byrd is helping pay for my college education!
He was quite the fossil though.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Yeah, he's also a major reason why pork barrel spending ...
and earmarks spun so out of control in Congress. So yeah, I can’t say I’m too sad to see the last Dixiecrat having left D.C.
It’s the end of an era, which is a good thing in this case.
Back to pork barrel spending, however, for it’s still a problem, even with old-timers on both the left and the right — such as Harry S. Truman/Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert H. Humphrey esque paleoliberal John Murtha, left-wing standard-bearer Ted Kennedy, and ultraconservative diehard Ted Stevens — out of Congress and/or dead. Yet, there are still a few of them left in the House and Senate, with reactionary swindlers U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) and Congressman Bill Young (R-FL) — as well as U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) and Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) pulling such thievery on the left — being prime examples.
Let me note that this comment was posted before I ...
read the breaking news about Ted Stevens being involved in a plane crash, which is eerie. On that note, however, the reports are presently vague about his condition and even whereabouts, so let me say that it’d be an astounding set of cricumstances if he does survive a second plane crash in his life.
I only mentioned it because I'm amused at getting a scholarship from someone who I disagree with and really dislike so totally.
You didn’t have to convince me.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Wilson was waaaaaay crazier than Obama.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Even in areas beyond the South, many Democrats of that era ...
were racist such as Woodrow Wilson or religiously intolerant such as William Jennings Bryan. That’s why I it’s aggravating that they’ve got liberal labels like progressive (i.e., Wilson) and populist (i.e., Jennings Bryan) put on them, for their radical policies economically (e.g., Federal Reserve Act) were offset by retrogressive measures on many cultural issues (e.g., prohibition, Scopes Trial, et al.) except for women’s suffrage. I, by the way, included the Scopes Trail — even though it occurred after the Wilson administration — due to William Jennings Bryan’s involvement with it.
Let me add how it's mind-boggling the last Democrat who ...
was a true champion of classical liberalism had to have been Grover Cleveland.
In fact, the closest guy to Grover Celveland in this era ...
was seemingly Mike Gravel during his failed Democratic presidential campagin in 2008.
All right, I should stop responding to myself.
Yeah, Eugene V. Debs never did have a realistic shot at becoming the U.S. ...
President; however, it’d’ve been interesting to see what would’ve happened if a socialist was in office during the formitive years of the industrial revolution. My guess is that the nation might’ve become a very, very far-left nation — such as a guild socalism/anarcho-syndicalism state — which’d’ve been an interesting set of circumstances.
Now, if Norman Thomas had become U.S. President in lieu of F.D.R., my guess is that America would’ve become a democratic socialist nation instead — since Debs was to the left of Thomas — and the more interesting thing would’ve been to see how WWII played out for Europe. My guess is that everything may’ve gone differently, with the huge power struggle ultimately being between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia — while the U.S. watched from the sidelines with no horse in the race, as Japan was free to ravage China — in the end.
Certainly would have been interesting, had the US stayed out of WW2, but likely a worse result.
Japan and Germany likely would have survived long-term, regardless of the results of their wars in China and Russia. Britain probably would have become something of a Nazi satellite state.
Have you ever read any Harry Turtledove alternate histories?
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
They're quite interesting.
There’s one that is vaguely similar to the one you mentioned…basically aliens invade during WW2. It’s ridiculous of course, but it’s interesting in that it preserves the US, Nazi Germany, and the USSR as the major powers, with Britain and Japan a step below.
For a more realistic possibility, he did a huge series based on Lee’s famous Special Order 191, which fell into the Union’s hands and led to McClellan actually fighting Lee to a drawish at Antietam (sorry for the vagueness, I’m not currently up on my Civil War history). He takes it all the way to the 1940s from there, drawing a lot of parallels to European history 1860-1940. Sometimes it’s a bit blunt and obvious though.
Finally some of his stand-alones are what I find best, such as In the Presence of Mine Enemies and Ruled Brittanica, as well as many of his short stories (which include sci-fi as well).
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I was never a Bayless hater, but he did seem pretty one-dimensional to me.
Your eloquent arguments, and Jerryd’s slow but steady improvement each season, have convinced me that the Blazers should give him every opportunity to succeed in Portland. I’ve always felt that was their plan anyway. They gave Travis Outlaw and Martell Webster several years, so I’m sure they’ll do the same for Jerryd.
He was definitely one-dimensional in year 1
And worse, he took the game completely away from Roy.
ULC’s point of view is valid — that you can see signs of progress in the stats, even though you don’t necessarily see “star point guard” when he’s on the floor. The real question is: Has this period been a transitional year between one-dimensional Bayless and the future-genius Bayless who is about to emerge? ULC wants to believe that’s true. I think it’s a totally open question, and we’ll only know with clarity when we look back a couple of years from now.
tend to agree
the big culprit, at least in my eyes, is that so many players come into the nba without good basic basketball skills. 4 years of college basketball was a farm system for the nba. that said, athletes learned how to play basketbal and learned real skills. they learned defenses, and basic offensive skills like screen setting and pick/roll.
They gave Travis Outlaw and Martell Webster several years, so I’m sure they’ll do the same for Jerryd.
Remember though, Travis and Martell were rookies back when the team was the dregs; they were teenagers and the Blazers could afford to be patient with their development. Bayless has had to earn every minute he’s been on the floor (even though he was a lottery choice) and his mistakes are more magnified because the W-L expectations are much higher than in 2004-5
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Maybe so, but the Blazers traded Jarrett Jack when they were still the dregs.
It’s hard to believe they would have traded Jack if they had thought he had more upside, yet kept Bayless, Outlaw, and Martell thinking those guys had hit their ceiling.
Jack thought he was a PG
and the Blazer coaching staff thought he was a combo
when his 3-year rookie contract expired, Jarrett was used as a trade asset. Nate preferred Blake at PG and Roy was entrenched at SG. JJ would’ve been unhappy playing short minutes, especially considering Rudy was due to join the roster the next fall
It worked out well for both sides. JJ has played more/better for Indy/Toronto, and Bayless has been able to play those short minutes and complain less
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
good post
I’m firmly in your camp already, so maybe this is just confirmation bias on my part, but I think you make a compelling case.
www.ripcitydispatch.com
Love it...great post ULC
I’m a fan of your work. Also, who else has that kind of FIRE, intensity, and passion? He brings the tangibles AND the intangibles!
fearless controlled aggression
Jerryd Bayless is a keeper
Regardless of what posters are saying, the only way they move him is in a trade for a championship piece. And I don’t mean as a throw-in.
Unless Cho pulls that trigger, Bayless will get his run with this team. His improvement at the point has amazed me. But the work he puts in is obvious.
If he can alter his game, expanding his vision on the drive where he commonly draws three defenders, and become a more efficient passer in the open court, he could become one of the more potent threats off the dribble in this league.
His ceiling is way above Blake and his timing, if accelerated, fits our window. I am glad he has a PG like Miller to learn the passing game from.
In KP I trusted!
and how to roll both ankles
and still be able to play the next night
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
The next night??
I lost count how many times I’ve watched him roll an ankle so far I felt nauseous, and then limp into the huddle on a timeout. After the break, he comes jogging back onto the court and plays the rest of the game as if it never happened! As someone who has badly sprained his ankles MANY times, it’s nothing short of amazing.
Stretching a lot, previous strains, and perhaps genetics?
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Genetics?
Unless your last name is “Norris,” I don’t see how that can be a factor
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
fo' real?
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Seriously dude...
But maybe Miller’s tears can cure cancer? I mean, he’s never cried, but maybe…Then we would have an explanation for his ability to not get injured…
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
So "When Miller rolls his ankles,
YOU get injured."
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
returning the same game is relatively easy (if you're still in your 30s...)
but it’s the next night (after the swelling, etc) when it’s a real gut check
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
I beg to differ
It may be easiER the night of the injury compared to the next night, but it’s not by any means “relatively easy.” Serious sprained ankles are a bear. I rolled mine really bad (running, of all things) a few months ago. It’s no cake walk after it happens, since the swelling commences almost immediately.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
how many times do you see
pro athletes roll their ankle, retreat to the trainer, get retaped and finish up a game?
Quite a bit
If there’s no one to retape it and the player can’t “walk it off” and keep playing, then he’ll be out of the action. (The trick is not to sit for long and let it swell up) Obviously, there are grades of sprains and Miller never seems to suffer the serious kind that require long periods of recovery
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
No, I know all about that
I’m just saying, I’d be surprised if in 600+ games and countless practices, he hasn’t had one of those “oh my god, holy crap!” kind of sprains.
Yeah, you see a lot of guys go back out after rolling an ankle. But there are still the bad sprains where guys don’t come back. A little bit of a rolled ankle isn’t bad; I’m sure everyone has had at least a few of those at some point in their life and walked it off. But bad sprains are bad sprains.
There’s one instance I remember this season in particular, because I was so impressed, but I can’t remember for the life of me who we were playing, but it was home game. Miller was in the post on the defensive end going up for a rebound, landed on his foot sideways, and had the opposing PF (230-250 lbs, mind you) land, with all of his weight mostly on one foot, right on the upturned inside of Miller’s foot, pushing it under, kinda cockeyed, to about a 90 degree angle.
The replay was, frankly, gross. I’m about Miller’s size, and I know what my ankle would do if that much pressure were applied to it. It looked like there was no way he would be able to keep playing. But, sure enough, after sitting for a quarter, he came back in during the 4th quarter. There is no doubt that was one of those sprains you don’t just wrap up and walk off. The dude’s a beast.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
by HailOden! on Aug 6, 2010 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's hard not to think that some guys, like Miller,
are just more durable and resilient than average, while others, like Oden, are less so. Size and weight have to be considered, but it wouldn’t surprise me that some bodies tend to be fragile while other bodies can take a licking and keep on ticking.
Another factor might be how a player reacts to an injury-causing incident. I was never a great skier, but I was terrific at surviving spectacular, egg-beater wipeouts without injury. There are ways to react to a fall or an impact that dramatically lessen the odds of a major injury, such as going limp instead of tensing, rolling with instead of resisting your forward momentum, gathering yourself into a ball instead of flailing your arms and legs, taking the hit on a hip or buttock instead of on your back or knees, and so on.
For example, a common NBA injury is landing on another player’s foot. The injury becomes worse than it needs to be because the common reaction is to fight to regain your footing, but that’s not a fight you can win. A better reaction would be to let it go and take the fall. It wouldn’t surprise me that guys like Miller know that instinctively or have learned it somehow.
I know there is some knowledge in many sports about these things that could help athletes in all sports avoid injuries, but I’ve never heard of any NBA or pro club that teaches or trains their players about it.
There was a story when Benny the Jet Uriquidez
an early (1980s?) full contact karate fighter in the US went to China. He met this old kung fu master. The sparring match was The Jet attacking and ending up on his behind. Every time. When it concluded, the kung fu master told The Jet that he fell really well.
He wasn’t kidding. Falling right is a skill.
In KP I trusted!
I never understood that
Sprained ankles are a real pain the butt, and it’s rarely something you can just walk off unless you just tweaked it or twisted it slightly. Do these players just get cortisone shots? Or is just because they’re NBA players and don’t know what pain is….
Blazers basketball? Just basketball you say? More like a way of life
Those people who say he has improved AS A PG
…I just don’t see it. He’s certainly got some skills that you want in a PG: he’s got solid ballhandling skills, he can bring the ball up against moderate pressure. He can drive to the rim. But Pritchard’s assessment of him as “Jarrett Jack on steroids” is still sadly appropriate. Just like Jack, he remains very poor at seeing the floor and creating for teammates. He either moves the ball like he’s been told to, or he shoots/barrels to the hoop. He is very lacking in creativity.
Now, maybe I’m asking too much. I personally don’t see Tyreke Evans as a PG. And I was very skeptical of Westbrook (who seems definitely to have improved). But Bayless continues to seem to be the worst fit of players who get minutes, and I would not shed a single tear if he were moved, even just to free up minutes for other players.
I don't think the numbers agree with you
It’s difficult to measure “PG skills” quantitatively, but he has improved his AST% and TO% both from season to season, and over the course of last season. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and Bayless has improved in terms of PG-esque production, which is reason enough to give him enough time to show us either that he really is improving, or that he just got lucky on more possessions where he played PG this season.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
it can be both
Bayless can improve his passing stats, but still be subject to “tunnel vision” so to speak.
Can I get an Armon?
Yeah, but my thought was that improving statistically without
addressing court-vision and bbiq (whatever the hell those two terms actually mean) would essentially mean that you “just got lucky” that your teammates made shots on your flaming bag passes.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Given the pretty decent sample size and the trend of improvement over the season
I’d wager that it’s a statistically significant difference, and correlates to improvement that many people see (for all that’s worth). So it’s pretty unlikely that it was just luck.
I’m not saying anything about BBIQ, but in any case, Bayless is becoming more productive in the point guard role, doing what we consider to be point guard-y things.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I don't think that Jerryd Bayless has a low BBIQ -- since we're not talking about Travis ...
Outlaw, who fit that concept like a glove — yet, Bayless definitely has tunnel vision out on the court. Even in spite of that flaw, though, there’s surely a place for Bayless in the NBA, but it’s not as a starting point guard; rather, it’s as a backup combo guard who can provide a scoring punch off the bench like Louis Williams, who’s a good comparison for him.
Your article is pretty self-serving
“I present hard-nosed facts, people still disagree, therefore they are brainwashed by the Bayless-hating, Blake lovers in the media”.
The trouble is, a lot of your stats aren’t of much use. PER, for example. Good for Bayless for having a good PER. Better than a bad PER, you’d think. Except if he’s a self-serving stat-stuffer. If you move the ball, set picks, play great defense, and unite all your teammates because of your soul-stirring eloquence, it won’t register one iota in PER. If you’re Zach Randolph, on the other hand – STELLAR PER. I think the “eyeball test” is very important. Failing that, I’m prepared to concede that +/- over a large enough sample is also a great indicator of a player’s worth, because that at least has a chance of registering contributions that PER (and stats like it) cannot.
And let’s face it: Bayless has always trained like someone who intends to stuff stats. He doesn’t even like to play pickup games. He’d rather practice on his own with a trainer. Um, okay, that’s important too, I guess, but especially if you’re going to be a POINT GUARD, it’s important to play with other people.
by meru on Aug 5, 2010 10:48 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I am trying to find this "quote" in the original post
"I present hard-nosed facts, people still disagree, therefore they are brainwashed by the Bayless-hating, Blake lovers in the media".
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
You can't find it...
because it’s not there. Is a deliberate misquote grounds for flagging?
Stealth > Wealth
Then he probably shouldn't use quotation marks
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it's called sarcasm
…as in, it’s a mock quote taking the original writer’s comments and boiling them down to their essence, by dropping the scholarly pretense of the original comments. It’s also fairly accurate and funny. I mean seriously; the Blake-biased media holding back Jbay concept in the original post is off the charts. I laughed out loud.
by wingzeta on Aug 5, 2010 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm glad you joined the discussion.
I appreciate the fact that you are willing to express your opinion. It may surprise you that I actually agree with a couple of things you said:
1) Yeah, I agree that my post probably comes off as a bit self serving, my apologies. I did try to acknowledge that I may be subject to confirmation bias as much as those of you on the other side of the conversation. We are all subject to the same bias. That is precisely why I have spent so much time immersed in the stats to try to get to a more objective or reliable view of Bayless’ performance.
2) I agree with you that there is very legitimate room for debate on whether or not Bayless is going to develop into a starting quality PG. I have repeatedly said (going back to last summer) that I would put the odds at about 65%. That means that I acknowledge that there is at least a one-third chance that Bayless will plateau without having developed the court vision and decision making skills that would probably be necessary for him to be the long term answer at PG. I have consistently argued that Risk/Reward ratio was high enough that we should give Bayless at least until the trade deadline to show us what he can do. At the minimum, I think his trade value will increase. If the team hasn’t seen enough, they can pair him with Pryz or Miller and try to get a better solution.
I do disagree with some of your points:
3) If you are going to paraphrase me, particularly in the way you did with the loaded language you used, you should be straight about what you are doing.
4) Calling Bayless “a self-serving stat stuffer” is pretty much taken straight from Dwight Jaynes. The only problem is that Jaynes view is completely contradicted by everything we have heard from the coaching staff, who have universally praised Bayless “coachability” and willingness to listen. Bayless is very driven and very aggressive. I think it is easy to confuse “aggressiveness” with “selfishness.”
5) As to not “seeing” improvement. That is precisely the point. Confirmation bias means that we tend to remember the plays that confirm our preexisting biases. Bayless has increased his AST% by 50%. He has cut his TOs in half. He has improved his scoring efficiency dramatically. You can dismiss PER if you want. It is one of the best available stats for comparing the per minute production of players. Bayless also has decent TS numbers and decent WS/48 numbers. You can squint as much as you want to keep from “seeing” it, but the improvement is real and measurable.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
And even if you don't like PER (I don't either)...
You can see Bayless’ improvement in almost any metric, or in a number of individual factors, including AST%, TS%, TO%, which aren’t subjective at all.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
As to not "seeing" improvement. That is precisely the point
Another point that I’ve mentioned often is that it’ been difficult how to gauge how well Bayless will do as a “PG” alongside Roy when Nate has rarely played the two of them in the backcourt without another PG being on the floor at the same time. Jerryd played alongside Rudy quite a bit after Blake was traded, but not so much with Roy, unless it was part of a 3-guard lineup
I’m not sure how much that will change this year, with the speculation re: a Roy-Matthews-Batum big lineup, but it would be helpful to see something actually tried for an extended period of time before dismissing it as a failure, as Jaynes and Vance have done
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
So true
evidence here:
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR5.HTM
Here’s hoping we can have a regular 8 or 9 man rotation this year.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
He doesn’t even like to play pickup games.
Not what I heard. JB lives in Phoenix and hoops with former-UA players. He’s also spent some time learning the PG position from Billups during past offseasons
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
(Last screed)
The reason Bayless put up decent stats in the playoffs is because he was being used in his natural role as a SG. Roy was out, Rudy was god-awful, so Bayless got a green light. Here’s hoping we’re never in that situation again.
The reason Bayless put up decent stats in the playoffs is because he was being used in his natural role as a SG.
Yeah, an SG averaging 5 assists per 36, an AST% of 28, and with an AST/TO of 3:1. How many SGs put up those kinds of assist numbers in their second year? Very, very few.
He defended the point and he shared distribution responsibilities with Miller and then later Roy. That is how he should be used. I actually agree with you that he has not yet developed to the point where he can be the sole playmaker on the court for extended periods of time. The point is that he doesn’t need to be. He can be put on the floor with either Miller or with Roy and the offense will function effectively.
I think he will likely get to the point where he is the only or primary playmaker. He is only 21, and he is like a young QB trying to learn how to make the defensive reads in the NFL. This is particularly true given that he played out of position for his one year in college.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Bayless ruled against Steve Nash's matador defense, and the Suns couldn't put Grant Hill on him because Rex is too fast
So, yeah, he had a great series which the Blazers lost 2 to 4.
In KP I trusted!
You can't honestly be using a 6 game sample for the foundation of your argument
If you’re going to use statistics to back up an argument the first rule is that statistically insignificant sample sizes are generally untrsutworthy … you’ve got a faulty foundation that infects the rest of your assertions with probable errors.
A better test? How about the first two years in the NBA where his assist rate was a piddly 19-21% and he shot very poorly away from the immediate basket area.
You can't honestly be disregarding the improvement he's shown by just grouping all of his career stats together
that would paint a very inaccurate picture for many of the NBA’s improved players. Especially a guy who only played one year of college and entered the NBA at 19.
fearless controlled aggression
I am looking at trends.
Bayless’ improvement in the playoffs was only an extension and continuation of the improvement that we saw in the regular season. His stats were better across the board.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Intellectually dishonest to lump two years together with a "one and done" player
Give me a break. No GM on the planet would lump together the play of such a young and rapidly improving player.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
couldn't agree more
The six game sample size is the only real sample where he gets consistent minutes. The ability to get to the basket and create your own shot are especially invaluable on this team. Hey remember the sixth man Trout was for us? Bayless came in the league only a year older.
A body of work is a body of work
There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about looking at the whole of his production. The only thing that changed about year one to year two is that he started finishing at a slightly higher rate at the basket and went from god-awful to merely mediocre from the perimeter.
And his assist percentage adjusted for usage is still just around 20%.
Spare me you indignation.
Assist percentage adjusted for usage?
Spare me your invented stats. I’m not even sure what that’s a measure of…considering assist percentage is just that, a PERCENTAGE, increased usage means he improved with a higher usage rate.
A higher usage rate is inversely related to scoring efficiency and perhaps assist % as well (I have no idea on that) but I certainly don’t see a reason why using more possessions would cause a greater proportion of assists unless…perhaps…Bayless actually improved?
Also, considering the large across-the-board improvement from Bayless’ first season to his second, and add to that the general trend of young NBA players to improve, using his 1st year stats is just silly – not to mention that’s a smaller sample size than the second year. You can argue against using the playoffs, that’s fine, but using his first season is not indicative at all.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Invented stats?
No, there are just two ways of computing assist percentage, Basketball-reference has one formula that doesn’t account for usage rate, while Hollinger’s does. With Hollinger’s formula Bayless actually had a worse assist rate in year two than in year one, where basketball-reference.com shows he had a slight increase.
The more you know …
and efficiency aside
He’s still no closer to being a point guard.
Yeah, John Hollinger's assist ratio is a different metric from assist percentage ...
calculated at www.basketball-reference.com headed by Justin Kubatko. Regarding assist ratio, Jerryd Bayless went from 21.2 as a rookie down to 20.1 as a second year player.
Anyway, here’s how the two different metrics are cacluated.
1. Assist Ratio = (Assists x 100) / {Field-Goal Attempts + (Free-Throw Attempts x 0.44) + Assists + Turnovers}
2 Assist Percentage = (Assists X 100) / [{Minutes / (Team Minutes / 5) X Team Field Goals} – Field Goals]
So it's basically a difference between assists relative to a player's used possessions and a team's. Thanks for the clarification.
My apologies. I was a jerk in my ignorance.
Anyway, I still see it as a good thing that Bayless took over a greater quantity of the point guard role, while not really losing much quantity wise (thing usage versus scoring efficiency).
Also, according to 82games.com, Bayless played about about 60% of the time at SG this year, whereas he only played about 25% of the time at SG in 08-09. I’m fairly sure that affected his assist ratio too.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
My point is that looking at his whole body of work (career stats)
does not do a good job of showing progression. Aaron Brooks averaged almost 20 ppg last season but his career numbers show him at 13. There are a number of players who are better now than they were when they came into the league, and grouping all of their stats together would paint a poor impression of where they have progressed to as players. Trevor Ariza averages under 9 ppg for his career but was right at 15 last season…wouldn’t you consider him capable of scoring 15 per game because he did it for the most recent NBA season? Or would you say because of his “body of work” that no more than 9 ppg should be expected?
I agree that his playoff performance alone is a very small sample size…and even half of a season is a relatively small sample size. But to dismiss that he’s not a better player now than he was as a rookie seems silly.
It’s not a black and white issue…clearly the jury is still out on Bayless which is why we can have this debate, but if you are gonna look at the first two seasons of a player’s career and draw over-arching conclusions about what they will turn out to be then you are gonna be way way off for a lot of players. Danny Granger averaged about 10 ppg his first two seasons…in his last two he has averaged about 25 ppg. This will be his 6th season.
fearless controlled aggression
Completely valid point
and what’s been the main source of frustration for me every time this topic comes up; it inevitably turns to a debate about how any set of stats for him over an extended period of play is meaningless and why we need to pay attention to this 6 game/week/month long stretch because that’s the REAL Jerryd playing and not some other 6 game/week/month long stretch because he was hurt/sick/getting held back by Nate. If we’re going to talk about this statistically, ruling out every reasonably large sample before we start kind of nullifies the point.
Take the commonly cited post-all star break trend cited in the OP as evidence of his improved shooting. The number of 3 pters that’s based off of? 37. The guy clearly improved his shot this season after being horrendous last year, but all of a sudden 37 shots is evidence that the guy is going to become a sharpshooter?
Of course, even if we’re going to look at his improved shooting post-all star break as evidence of potential future Bayless statistical trends, we should look at the rest of his stats during that time period, too. He maintained a high TS% (58%, bolstered by the improved 3 pt shooting), but his A/TO ratio dropped to a pretty miserable 1.65 (below Sergio and Jamal Crawford last year, entering Jonny Flynn territory) and his FTA/36 dropped to a fairly pedestrian 5.0 (below Andre Miller at 5.6 and roughly the same as Rodney Stuckey although both of those were for the full season).
But do any of these “balanced, just looking at the stats and then forming my opinions” Bayless posts worry about these as possible trends? Not that I’ve seen. It always seems to be more looking through the stats and having the positive trends jump out and then pointing them out to the rest of BE.
That’s fine, it happens with every player (I know I was certainly seduced by Martell’s March/April shooting performance in 2008 and everyone seems to take it as given that Batum is going to have like a 70% TS% next year), but in the long run, looking at these isolated small sample sizes simply doesn’t tell us that much.
Of course, probably the only reason I’m point this out is that I’ve always hated Jerryd and it took me hours of cherry picking to find the only two negative stats to confirm my biases, so it’s a pointless argument anyways.
#52
For what it's worth, Royster, you seem to have the most well-balanced viewpoint ...
on this topic. Unlike some people who are either staunchly pro-Bayless or staunchly anti-Bayless, I readily admit I’m biased here — which is due to my utter disdain of his game from a stylistic perspective — and, in turn, tell people to absorb my comments with that subjectivity of mine in mind.
Balanced? LOL
That is like Fox News calling their propaganda “fair and balanced”.
Royster’s argument is primarily based on a strawman argument. He is accusing me of an argument that I never made. He is ignoring trends over two years.
I do appreciate the fact that you were honest about the fact that you are one of the most opinionated posters on this topic. Given that you have despised Bayless from Day1, you might want to examine your own confirmation bias.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ve always hated Jerryd
I would say Royster is staunchly anti-Bayless
fearless controlled aggression
hmmm
It may have been sarcastic in nature, but I think there’s probably some truth behind both statements…the Martell “flashes” comparison is apt, even though I don’t think he showed the strides Bayless appears to be making this early in his career. Also, much more of Bayless’ game involves him with the ball in his hands, which makes it a different situation than a wing like Martell (and IMO, that’s more of a reason to be encouraged about Bayless).
It starts with flashes…players give you a glimpse of what they are capable of. Oden, Bayless, Batum…the question is, do they continue to just show flashes (Martell) or do they turn those flashes into the norm (like Batum last year). Oden, if healthy, will be more than intermittent flashes at this point. And I have confidence that Bayless, with continued development to his NBA decision making, can eliminate a lot of the bonehead aspects of his game…which should leave us with a very solid player.
The ability to get to the hoop should not be under appreciated….neither should fire/intensity/passion. There are a lot of ifs with Bayless, but I think there are plenty of reasons to be cautiously optimistic that he can ascend all the way out of the sometimes good/sometimes bad stratosphere and become a consistently good and reliable player.
fearless controlled aggression
Wow
AK was right, that was pure sarcasm, I’m actually pretty shocked that paragraph to be taken seriously.
Since there seems to be some confusion, though, those stats (which took all of 5 minutes of looking at his BB-R 2009/2010 splits page to find, not hours) weren’t meant to be an argument, but just to show the weakness of the “38% on 3-pters since the AS break” argument. If I had posted “What’s wrong with Bayless’s FT shooting?” and mentioned that because he was only drawing 5 FTA/game since the all star break and 5.2 FTA/game in the playoffs we should be worried about his ability to get to the line, would I expect ULC to find this compelling enough to be concerned? Not at all, but that’s basically what the argument for his improved shooting was saying. It’s better than nothing, but just not much of an argument.
You’re right that it starts with flashes, but every player will catch lightning in a bottle. As I said, Martell showed flashes, and before that Sergio, Jack, Ime, Darius, Bassy, etc. all showed flashes. So, of course, did Roy, Nic, Oden, LA. It simply isn’t enough to argue either way very effectively in my eyes.
#52
I agree
Very sorry I missed the tone of your above post (thanks for trying to keep me in check AK)…only time will tell what Bayless will be as an NBA player so no sense beating a dead horse
Overall this debate has a little more edge to it than is probably warranted…I think those who like Bayless and find his passion endearing feel compelled to come to his defense. Whereas those who perceive him as arrogant and cringe when the ball is in his hands are also pretty set in their opinion. Even though he is a polarizing figure I think there is still a whole spectrum of people in between, and these arguments too often get boiled down to one side vs. another.
These Bayless discussions have included great statistical analyses and conversation, and I think that anyone who’s been paying attention knows about everything there is to know about both sides of the argument. This is really a debate where one side is presenting reasons to be encouraged about his future and the other is presenting reasons to be discouraged about his future. I think what’s frustrating (If I understand where ULC is coming from) is when people are not willing to take data into account that may not support their own opinion and are therefore not willing to change their opinion as new data comes to light over time (absolutely applicable to both sides, not just the detractors). It will be interesting to see if Bayless is capable of making another jump or at least maintain his improved level of play from last season and I can’t wait to find out.
I remain optimistic about Bayless…he has shown me the work ethic and passion (along with the necessary foundation of tools) that I think he can continue to grow and become a consistently good player. Plus he is our lottery pick from the Pac-10 and I want to see him succeed as a Blazer. But I would not go past optimism, because no one knows for sure.
I don’t know if he’ll ever start alongside Roy (and I’d be curious to know where the over/under on his chances would be set in the minds of BEdgers) but I’m comfortable saying that I think he’ll be a better NBA player than Jarrett Jack for whatever that’s worth. I think Bayless has more upside than Travis or Martell does and I think he’s earned the opportunity (with his play, passion, work ethic, and positive community image) to settle the debate and show us and the Blazers whether or not he can continue to grow.
fearless controlled aggression
Bravo!
This comment and your one down below aimed directly at me (entitled “Well”) are probably two of the most interesting responses I’ve read in my three years on this site.
On one hand, each contains some well thought out and well researched information that is worthy of extended discussion.
On the other, they both contain some of the most convoluted logic and projection I can imagine. You manage to criticize me for “cherry picking” Bayless’ playoff stats when the stats I cited were in response to the original comment by Meru, who was specifically talking about Bayless’ play in the playoffs.
Next, you accuse me of cherry picking his 3pt % after the All-Star break while then doing exactly the same thing and finding one or two isolated stats that showed lower production for the same time period.
When I responded to your snarky comment down below by using the entire season stats which are about 94% of his playoff assist rate (4.7/5.0) in an attempt to point out that his assist numbers don’t look like a SG, you simply ignored me.
Again, I think your posts contain some threads of valid criticism of my use stats and raise some legitimate concerns about Bayless’ performance. Having said that, I would ask you, to ask yourself, how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of a similar post? From where I’m sitting, this comes about as close to a personal attack as it can without being personal at all. It feels like you have gone out of your way to mis-characterize my arguments and then turned around and used the very same techniques. I do have to give you serious props for your last paragraph, at least you were willing to admit what you were up to.
The bottom line is that spotting trends is very tricky. Bayless clearly improved across the board from year one to year two. You are probably correct that I have perhaps overstated the significance of his play in the playoffs as a continuation of that trend. I have tended to list year one stats, then year two stats, and then playoff stats, as if each was an equally weighted data point. From a stats point of view, this is a no-no. Obviously, the six games of the playoffs are not as reliable as the year one and year two stats. I do think it makes sense from a common sense point of view in terms of trying to show the general trend of Bayless’ development.
Look, I like to think of myself as a generally honest and reasonably intelligent guy. I’m not interested in lying to myself or anybody else. If you have a problem with the way I am using stats, why don’t you just bring it up in a straight-forward way? I think you will find that if you raise reasonable objections, I will respond reasonably. I’m not a stats wiz, and I am certainly capable of making mistakes. Having said that, I don’t like being condescended to and I don’t like having my motives questioned.
Confirmation bias aside, there is lots of room for legitimate debate about Bayless. The guy is only 21, he is trying to learn a different position from the one he played in college, a position that is generally considered the most difficult on the floor. None of us know for sure where his game will ultimately end up. As the debate continues, let’s try to treat each other with a little respect.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I've directly responded to you before multiple times before about this
If you want to ignore every single interaction we’ve ever had on this site about Jerryd Bayless, then yes, I could see my comment being offensive, but as I’ve said multiple times in direct response to you about Jerryd, short stretches of play, a few games here or there has very little effect on my impressions of him, which FWIW, is fairly similar to PDXBuckeye’s take later in the thread.
But to be completely honest, I find it a little ridiculous that someone who in the OP basically accused everyone who disagrees with his argument to be biased and “not want to be confused by arguments or facts that don’t fit with their opinions”? If you’re going to lead off with basically saying that my argument is right and therefore if you disagree with it then you must not be arguing in good faith, then insisting on people respect opposing viewpoints is a little rich.
Like you said, there’s plenty of room for legitimate debate about Jerryd, which means that there’s no right answer here, as much as we may want one. My issue isn’t with what you think of Jerryd, it’s your characterization that not only is your view right, but your argument is so compelling that it’s impossible to disagree with. Then when I say that I understand your argument and don’t find it compelling because of the above-stated reasons, you attack me for being incivil. Since when does pointing out that I think an argument is flawed suddenly mean I’m accusing you of acting in bad faith?
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you truly believe each of your points, but I’d appreciate if while you admit there is room for debate about Bayless, you actually leave some room for disagreement without getting offended by it.
#52
by Royster on Aug 8, 2010 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I don't see him accusing everyone
But I have observed that it does tend to be a characteristic of those whom ULC has disagreed with on this. As somebody else said, ULC is consistently posting stats, and usually getting subjective “he’s not a point guard” responses. Not everyone has been that way, but it is what usually happens. That would frustrate just about anybody. It seems like a lot of people (and I’m not talking about you) just aren’t willing to listen.
I just don't see it
In response to this post, there are more recs than “Bayless is not a PG. I know what I see” responses. That just doesn’t fit the characterization that there is a large enough anti-Bayless group that they must be misled and can be convinced otherwise.
Witness this poll from We-B-Dunkin from less than a month ago, a whole 17% of 229 responders chose the “Bayless will never be a PG” choice. Maybe that seems like a lot, but when you consider that over a quarter of Americans still believe that Barack Obama was “definitely or probably not born in the United States”, you have to factor in that it’s impossible to convince 20% of the population of anything even remotely controversial.
I just don’t agree that confirmation bias is to blame, it’s simply a mature debate given the available data. Since the season ended there have been multiple fan posts (2 from ULC alone) about it, at least one or two mailbag questions from Dave, and countless comments about it as a side item to the CP3 debates? Has there been any new data to come out in this time? No, as ULC even says in the post, the back and forth is just endlessly repetitive with each side making more or less the same arguments, regardless of their validity.
Speaking for myself, there is literally no argument that anyone could make before November that would change my mind about Bayless. It’s not that there’s confirmation bias in there, to the best of my abilities to remain objective, but that I’ve looked at the relevant data and arguments and formed an opinion based on what’s available. Until we get some new datapoints, that’s not going to change, just like no one could convince me that Kobe is better than MJ or that Deron Williams is better than CP3. Unless something changes there (i.e. Kobe winning the next 4 titles, or CP3 suddenly falling off and Deron exploding for the next 3 years), those are fairly settled debates at this point.
Of course, this isn’t unique to Bayless, similar arguments occur about every player that get horribly played out in our offseason blues, but we don’t have to hear about pro or anti-Nic/Greg/Brandon confirmation biases. There’s nothing special bias-related about people’s beliefs about Jerryd, so why do we need to start trying to attribute opposing viewpoints to it in this debate but not any other?
#52
There has been better discussion in this post
But that 17% seem to be some of the more vocal anti-Bayless activists. It seems like every thread about Bayless, somebody pops up with a negative comment about him. Usually ULC responds with an extensive, stats-based argument to the contrary. You may argue that he’s using the stats wrongly, but usually people don’t give him the courtesy of responding with a substantive argument. Most of the time it’s dismissive posts like “Bayless is not a point guard. Fact.” I’ll give you credit that you’re willing to have a reasonable discussion, but most of what ULC is saying I consider to actually be a pretty fair characterization of the majority of people he tries to discuss this with.
It doesn’t sound to me like ULC is saying confirmation bias is to blame. Rather, he’s pointing out the confirmation bias to which everyone in this debate (himself included) is subject to. I don’t see any problem with that.
It's not an issue for you, but it is for many.
I think ULC was trying to address the radio-show-driven hordes who make one or two dismissive statements and don’t bring up any points. You haven’t done this; I don’t think ULC is accusing you of confirmation bias (just debating some other things).
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Well
How many SGs put up those kinds of assist numbers in their second years? Very, very few.
So few, in fact, that Bayless isn’t one of them. Unless 6 games all of a sudden means “his second year”. Of course, given the small sample size, a better question would be “how many SGs put up those kinds of assist numbers over a 6 game stretch in their second years?” and I’d guess the answer would be: quite a few, unless we want to start making strange requirements like that it has to be in the playoffs or something, which would be an odd requirement because we played the 8th worst defensive team in the league in the playoffs last year, so even picking 6 teams at random for our regular season sample would probably make for a harder task for a random SG to recreate those numbers than if they got to play the Suns 6 times in a row.
Just to back up that “quite a few” statement, the following guys that no one would confuse as anything but gunner PGs at best (well, maybe some) all had similar 6 game passing stretches in their second years, this would probably rise if you looked at their rookie game logs, too, but I’m lazy: Ray Allen, Brandon Roy, Gilbert Arenas, Monta Ellis, Paul Pierce, Randy Foye, Vince Carter, Allen Iverson, Jason Terry, Latrell Sprewell, etc., etc. (just quickly looked up guys I thought would qualify). Not that it’s not impressive, even against a putrid defensive team like the Suns, it’s just nowhere near the silver bullet stat that it’s being portrayed to be. I may be wrong, I don’t see too many of the “Yes, Jerryd is the PGotF”crowd simultaneously endorsing the idea that Brandon should be considered a PG.
Personally, though, I’m just tired of the argument. Neither side’s arguments are as compelling as they think they are, and I’m sick of being accused of having some sort of anti-Jerryd bias for thinking that. He’s certainly an NBA guard capable of playing PG to some degree so I don’t see the point in continually rebutting the few die hard reactionaries of the “Jerryd Bayless will never be an NBA PG!!” crowd, especially when it gets down to asserting effectively unfalsifiable things like “Jerryd made lots of shots with his toes on the line, so his 3 pt % should be way higher”.
#52
by Royster on Aug 5, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good grief, Royster.
Bayless’ numbers for the entire season were 4.7 assists per 36. His stats for the playoffs were 5.0 per 36. That is a slight improvement, but accusing me of cherry picking based on my honestly pointing out the stats for the playoffs, when the playoffs were the context of the conversation, is a pretty obvious overreaction.
I have more to say, but I am going to dinner with my grandson. I’ll try to get the rest off my chest later.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Good Post.
Rec for the confirmation bias discussion; I think it is more prevalent in Portland due to only having one team and the “us against the world” mentality of fans. We all want the team to win so badly we attach strong opinions on players, issues, and strategies and refuse to go back on them.
If Bayless didn’t give a rip I think he would be a completely different player. I really think that championship teams are built in the offseason by continued development of players and rosters, but mostly players. JB brings that fire that usually only comes from veterans desperate to win a championship. I just wish his drive would rub off on the rest of our players. Remember the year where everybody came in a couple of weeks early to training camp? You don’t hear about that anymore.
I imagine the players no longer come to training camp two weeks early
because now they’re a playoff team and have a lot more NBA experience, not a ragtag collection of rooks with tons to learn.
I have a problem with statements like, “I just wish his drive would rub off on the rest of our players.” When I watch the games, I see every player in a Blazer uniform doing his best to help the team win games. I can’t think of even one Blazer since the Jail Blazer days who I thought was slacking.
Deer in the headlights sometimes, sure.
Confused about what to do on a play sometimes, sure.
Lacks the drive to win? Never seen it.
Before I criticize a pro athlete on BE or elsewhere, I ask myself first whether I would say it to the player if he were sitting in front of me.
I understand you may have taken that as slightly offhanded
but our lack of off-season improvement was clear at the start of last season, and this was evidenced by the conditioning and development of the roster. Roy said it himself, he didn’t touch a basketball all off-season in 2009. I have a feeling that his biking and swimming regimen played a contributing factor to his eventual hamstring injury; you have to replicate the pressure and stress on your body in order to not succumb to injuries during the regular season. Now, I’m not blasting our team for being lazy, but its a level of desire that motivates individuals to continue to improve. Bayless clearly has it, and you see it in his dedication to the court. In time, I think the rest of the guys will eventually want it so bad that they’ll constantly be working on areas to improve as well, and when you see evidence of it you’ll know that the Blazer’s championship window that is always mentioned is open. You ask if I would say that to a player, you bet I would.
It is a fine line between being ready to play at the start of the season and being burnt out by the allstar break
All these guys have shown in the past they were will to work in the offseason ….they are now just questioning the effectiveness of it…drive and desire don’t have a lot to do with it
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
you sound like you have inside info...
or are you just making up what you think the players would say?
What part hasn't been reported in the papers??
or the web sites?? I am just paying attention
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
Pure speculation. I can play, too:
- Maybe LaMarcus wants to make sure he’s not injured at the start of the season.
- Maybe he’s made other commitments that he does not want to blow-off.
- Maybe he wants to spend time with his family.
- Maybe he’s decided to spend more time in the weight room or working on his post moves and rebounding so folks will stop saying he’s soft and lacks drive.
My feelings on Bayless go something like this:
he has an NBA body, an NBA skillset, and an NBA mindset in spades
if he is able to continue developing his NBA range, NBA decision making, and NBA feel for the game, then there is no reason he can’t be a viable starting option for the Blazers alongside Roy in a year or two.
He has given me no indications that he will cease in his progression and I am comforted by his work ethic and passion
fearless controlled aggression
by sammymohawk on Aug 5, 2010 11:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
He needs to play.
We drafted a 19 year old whose 1 year of college ball was spent primarily as a go-to scorer given injuries – not as a PG. The Blazers, though, needed a PG, so the training began. He needed to rework his shot, and he was a far cry from being an NBA ready PG. But, he had intelligence, ambition, talent, and a work ethic. In his first year he played little as the time behind Blake was shared with Sergio, and then, in the second year, the Blazers picked up an iron man PG in Miller, but kept Blake until the trade for Camby – moving Bayless back to the 3rd PG position, or, at best, sharing a few minutes with Blake. However, in general, for a lottery pick we’ve seen a lot of hard work and precious little complaining – even though most of the rest in his class have seen a lot more time on the floor than he has.
He’s had to learn, and all the while contend with two other point guards each having more experience, and in general, more initial skills. When Blake was finally traded, however, it seemed to finally be a signal that Mac was comfortable with Miller in the starting role, and with Bayless backing him up. So, in his third year, he may finally be given enough time for supporters and detractors to actually evaluate his progress.
As far as trading him – I don’t see it due to the fact that I don’t see the Blazers doing anything else on the trade front other than Fernandez, and pairing Fernandez and Bayless doesn’t get you very far. The team is clearly set, and Bayless isn’t someone you trade merely to tinker a little – given he’s the only other PG you have other than a rookie, and Mac’s not going to put that rookie in the second team slot – regardless of summer camp. That’s just not Mac.
So, barring a blockbuster trade, Bayless will be here this year, and will finally get some consistent minutes.
Then, we’ll see.
by Eben Calder on Aug 5, 2010 11:39 AM PDT reply actions 9 recs
+92
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Very strong post
I really appreciate hearing your take, as I think you have consistently make sense in your posts over my entire tenure here at BE. Of course the fact that I agree with you means I think you are brilliant ;-)
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions
For the millionth time, Jerryd Bayless playing the 2 guard at Arizona had nothing at all to do with injuries.
Kevin O’Neill started NIc Wise at point guard, went with Bayless at the 2, and forced Jawann McClellan and Chase Budinger to slide up out of position at the 3 and 4, respectively, while Jordan Hill manned the pivot.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/stats?teamId=12&year=2008
Why, y’all may now wonder, did Bayless honestly play the 2 at Arizona?
Well, let’s just say that O’Neill — who’s a smart, hard-working coach with a tough-as-nails style in the mold of a Jeff Van Gundy — saw through the Lute Olson recruited Bayless and determined he couldn’t handle the point guard duties. I can’t blame O’Neill for that move, either.
So, even though guys like the undersized Wise and his backup Daniel Dillon weren’t as talented at being a baller like Bayless, they had the court vision and deferential attitude needed to handle floor general duties.
Oh, and for whatever it’s worth, I acknowledge that both O’Neill and Bayless exited Arizona with bitter tastes in their mouths. I side with O’Neill, though, as well as hope that Bayless someday plays for a coach like Van Gundy, who’d break him. Heck, that pairing would make the Nate v. Rudy war look like child’s play.
I agree, it didn't have to do with injuries at all.
I have lived and died a Wildcats fan for 20+ years, and I didn’t miss a game that season when JB played. You can’t discount the fact that Lute is pretty adept and spotting and recruiting good PG’s or just guards. (I don’t think I have to include names here) O’Neill didn’t see through Lute Olsen’s anything. Were you not going to start Bayless that year, how about Nic Wise? Who on that team would have been better than JB at playing the 2? What about Wise, what other position could you even play him at (5’9" maybe)? I’m speculating obviously, but JB didn’t intend on being a one and done player at AZ, and he is intelligent enough to know that he had to be a 1 in the NBA- Lute was committed to helping him sharpen those skills.
Long story short, Lute’s medical/personal issues cause an implosion in the “plan” JB gets the exact opposite out of what his college experience was suppose to be. O’Neill and JB obviously aren’t on the same page or even book for that matter, and Bayless Goes into the lottery.
Merry Christmas, Bayless is now finishing the rest of his what should have been college experience.
Oh, and btw, he was the farthest thing in the world from a cancer on that team. Which I think speaks volumes about his maturity and aptitude. I’m not certain of many highly touted 18yr olds (that could have gone almost anywhere) that would have handled what he got put into with the same level of integrity.
I almost (not really) wish he would get traded somewhere where he could get some of the experience and opportunity that his peers have received the last 2 yrs. Ok, I really want him to stay here in Portland, but for the luv people, he’s 21, be somewhat patient…
If Jerryd Bayless was fully capable of playing point guard as an 18-year-old freshman -- which ...
wasn’t the case — then Kevin O’Neill most likely would’ve gone with a starting lineup of Jordan Hill at the 5, Jamelle Horne and Bret Brielmaier sharing time at the 4, Chase Budinger at the 3, Jawann McClellan at the 2, and Bayless at the 1.
Yet, unlike a career amateur basketball coach in Lute Olson, O’Neill — who possesses both head and assistant coaching experience in the NBA — saw Bayless as a 2. Personally, I’d take O’Neill’s opinion over Olson’s here.
AK, inflammatory rhetoric and remarkable intransigence are not going to win this argument
We have now had two completely unrelated UA season ticket holders, who watched every game that year, categorically refute your “theories” about Bayless and O’Neil. These folks were far closer to the situation and in much better position to evaluate what was going on.
At what point are you going to stop repeating and embellishing the same nonsense? Stubbornly sticking to your argument in the face of better informed observers doesn’t do your credibility and favors. It is either time for you to stop, or time for you to explain how it is that you know so much more when you were sitting 1,500 miles away in Seattle.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Look, at least I didn't spread the outright lie about injuries being the reason why Jerryd ...
Bayless started at the 2. Anyhow, I’ve explained in detail to everyone — including you — why I take Kevin O’Neill’s side regarding the turmoil between him and Jerryd Bayless. So, with that said, if you or anyone else choose to side with Bayless, then that’s your right. I, however, also have the right to my stance. It’s a matter of perspective, y’know.
Above all else, I mainly want this whole injury fallacy that was spread like a disease to die a much-needed death. From there, the debate can be had as to who’s at fault between O’Neill and Bayless for their fallout. In all objectivity, however, both parties burden their share of the blame, while it was also just a matter of circumstances.
Stylistically, coaches like O’Neill — or Jeff Van Gundy and other hard-nosed leaders — won’t be fond of a gunner such as Bayless. Lute Olson, on the other hand, was a long-time college coach, whose tenure at Arizona was heavily based on recruiting high-scoring combo guards with a me-first mentality — which included Khalid Reeves, Damon Stoudamire, Mike Bibby, Jason Terry, Gilbert Arenas, and Salim Stoudamire — thus, O’Neill and Bayless ufortunately got stuck in a mismatch due to an unforseseen ordeal surrounding Olson’s personal life.
But yeah, I feel I take a relatively even-tempered, well-thought-out approach when discussing a topic here that I admittedly concede I’m biased toward — which is more than can be said for some people (cough) — yet, the only thing that truly stuck in my craw was the bullslinging about that injury rubbish. Bayless played the 2 at Arizona ‘cause of O’Neill viewing him as a 2, pure and simple. If you contend O’Neill was misguided for not playing Bayless at the point, then fine; that’s your prerogative. I think O’Neill was right on the money, though.
Beyond that, there’s a ton of room for us all sharing different viewpoints — none of which are 100% right or wrong — about Bayless from a statistical standpoint, a stylistic standpoint, and even a personality standpoint. The first topic is a debate where analytical evidence is needed to solidify one’s position — although arguments can be formed about the merit of assist ratio versus assist percentage, which is one example — the second topic is more of a subjective discussion about how each of us individually thinks the game of basketball should be played from a team-oriented perspective, and the final topic is pretty much conjecture from all sides.
I made a mistake, and I owned up to it. You might try doing the same.
I repeated information I had read elsewhere. There was no intention to deceive anyone. It doesn’t matter whether Bayless was moved to SG because of injury or whatever. What matters is that Lute Olsen, legendary coach of a place that was commonly known as “PG University” chose to recruit Bayless as a PG and planned to use him at that position.
I believe you and I were both wrong. I thought the change came about because of injury. You repeatedly claimed that Bayless was moved because he couldn’t play the point. Neither was true. There was a coaching change, and because of the personnel available i.e. Wise as a PG, and Bayless able to play the 2, O’Neil chose to go the way he did.
Again, we have have now had two long time UA season ticket holders who have completely contradicted your central argument which is that Bayless couldn’t play the point and that Bayless was responsible for conflict with O’Neil. Your last comment is long on words, but it never addresses my central question: what makes you think you understand what happened from Seattle, when two people who were much closer to the situation completely disagree with you?
I was wrong about a meaningless detail of the story, and I quit repeating it as soon as it was refuted by an independent source. What matters is whether or not Bayless can play the position. What matters is if he was responsible for “chemistry problems” on the UA team. I think my error had far less substantive impact than the misinformation you continue to repeat.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Kevin O'Neill moved Jerryd Bayless to the 2 because he didn't think that the kid ...
could adequately run the point. Now, if Lute Olson didn’t have his off-court issues and coached Bayless, then Bayless would’ve likely played the 1. Of course, O’Neill and Olson have different philosophies regarding basketball — which is similar to you and I, and hat’s not going to change, either. Heck, I’m steadfast in my stance that Bayless’ NBA future is as a backup combo guard and you’re just as obstinate in your opinion — which I feel is off base, as that’s my right — that Bayless can be an effective 1.
Oh, and apropos of available personnel, why didn’t O’Neill go with a lineup of Jordan Hill, Jamelle Horne, Chase Budinger, Jawann McClellan, and Bayless? It had nothing to do with personnel, but rather O’Neill’s coaching decision that Bayless wouldn’t be an effective 1 in his system.
Also, MadN — who’s the other Arizona fan you’re referencing here — had this to say about O’Neill:
“What coach O’Neil (sic) attempted to do is run Pat Riley’s New York Knick offense, circa 1993, with a roster set up to run Mike D’Antonis Suns’ offense from the 7 seconds or less era. It simply did not work. Because O’Neil (sic) and Bayless are both hot-heads their lack of communication and the rift that formed between the two was inevitable. Jerryd wanted freedom, that is why he chose the UofA and Lute Olson. What he got instead was an ankle bracelet.” (MadN)
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/5/17/1475412/bayless-what-we-know-and-what-we#37794732
Ergo, O’Neill didn’t play Bayless at the point due to some balderdash about “available personnel” — which is the phrase you used in that above comment — but rather due to stylistic differences. I, as I readily admit in an honest and frank manner, stylistically view the game of basketball similarly to coaches such as O’Neill and Jeff Van Gundy, who’d clash with someone of Bayless’ ilk.
Oh, and on a final note, I haven’t lied once regarding this topic. You lied repeatedly — even after I kept pointing out your error with facts and sources, with an example here @ http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/5/8/869091/the-season-in-review-jerryd-bayless#15453090 — however, you wouldn’t stop spouting that disinformation for the longest time around here. So yeah, ULC, therein lies — with an emphasis on “lies” — the difference between you and I.
Actually, I’ve got one more thing to say here. Kevin O’Neill’s surname is spelled with two l’s in it.
by AK1984 on Aug 8, 2010 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
haha, you know what AK,
You could most certainly be 100% correct in your assumptions of Bayless being just a back up combo. I’ll give you that much. I will however contend that your lacking 1st hand knowledge of JB’s “hot-headed” attitude is a bit off kilter. (In my amateur opinion)
PS. ( I would have to contend your starting lineup including Jawaan Mc, as most UA peeps know he was very highly touted out of HS, but he had pretty bad injuries in prior years that definitely limited his usage in 07’. Also, Nic Wis is quite talented, but can only play one position.)
Now, lets say by chance you are 100% correct in the attitude department as well. I know firsthand that when I was 18, I was an absolute mental fireball. I can also tell you that the next few years of college and being on my own provided me some experience that allowed me to cool off, per say…
On a side note, after O’Neill was let go from the UA, I remember an exit interview where he was asked about the team and what not.
I can’t quote him, but I remember quite vividly that he noted JB’s killer instinct, work ethic and raw ability being the best he’s ever been around on any level. That seems to be quite a statement coming from someone who he supposedly butted heads with…
All that aside, I haven’t read EVERY single post you’ve made, but you do come across as being kinda negative and stubborn. (which you are completely entitled to btw). I only point that out because you (like me) might be surprised by how wrong the smartest humans are sometimes.
I’m really trying hard not to have my words taken out of context, so accusations are the exact opposite of what I’m trying to get across.
I will tell you that sometimes people tend to dislike others that they are most like… Whether it be parents, siblings, peers, athletes…….. I’m as guilty of it as the next guy sometimes. I just have to step back and be objective as possible sometimes.
Seriously, just food for thought.
Regards,
KREV
UA fan MadN was the one who used the term "hot-heads" to describe ...
both Kevin O’Neill and Jerryd Bayless; though, it’s fair to say that I consider both of them bullheaded in their own right.
And yeah, I’m sure O’Neill and Bayless don’t completely loathe each other; however, it’s clear that they had a tenuous relationship. That’s life, though.
He also went on to say that Bayless was a great talent....
…….and to disagree with most of your theories about what happened when Lute stepped down.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
True, MadN said he was a Jerryd Bayless fan.
Regarding the rocky transition from Lute Olson to Kevin O’Neill, he blamed then Arizona athletic director Jim Livengood for the discord.
MadN, however, agreed with my theory about why O’Neill and Bayless didn’t get along with each other, with that being stylistic fit.
In fact, let me once again quote MadN.
“He [Kevin O’Neill] did not choose to be the head coach, he did not pick any of his assistants and he did not recruit a single player on that roster. He had been back with the program for a grand total of 3 weeks before he was asked to take over as interim hc. What he inherited was a team full of players who were recruited to run, recruited to play coach Olson’s style of basketball. He then took it upon himself to install a walk-it-up to a 1/2 court-set isolation offense which was painfully hard to watch.”
http://www.blazersedge.com/2010/5/17/1475412/bayless-what-we-know-and-what-we#37794732
O’Neill played Bayless at the 2 — even though he had the “personnel available” to have gone with Jay-Bay at the 1 in a lineup with Jordan Hill at the 5, Jamelle Horne at the 4 , Chase Budinger at the 3, and Jawann McClellan at the 2 — due to stylistic fit. Heck, if Olson hadn’t had his off-court issues — which are documented in much detail here: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/sports/articles/2008/10/23/20081023spt-olsontimeline.html — my guess is that Nic Wise would’ve once again just been a lowly backup off the bench like he was as a freshman and, as a result, Bayless would’ve most likely gotten his wish to run amok at the 1 as an AND1 type streetballer.
O’Neill, however, was a stylistically different type of coach than Olson, as he was more hard-nosed and preferred to have floor generals at the 1 instead of me-first gunners — for Olson loved himself chuckers such as Khalid Reeves, Damon Stoudamire, Mike Bibby, Jason Terry, Gilbert Arenas, Jason Gardner, and Salim Stoudamire — therefore, Bayless got shifted to the 2.
At Arizona, Bayless played the 2 not ‘cause of your prior disinformation about an injury — or some hogwash about the “personnel available” to O’Neill — rather, he played the 2 due to O’Neill’s coaching style.
Believe it or not, ULC, there are some folks who don’t view Bayless as a satisfactory option at the 1 — with O’Neill being the clearest example — and you’ve got to concede that. Heck, I acknowledge that you’ve got strong convictions about Bayless being an adequate 1 — even though I disagree that from a stylistic perspective — but at least I’m open and honest enough to admit that different people have the right to different mindsets regarding the vast multitude of stylistic approaches there are to game of basketball.
For example, I think that Don Nelson — who’s one guy Bayless would probably love to play for right now — is a hack and I dislike his sloppy brand of up-tempo, run-and-gun basketball. Yet, no matter my disdain, I fully recognize that he’s got every right to coach that style of basketball if a franchise employs him to do it.
the idea that Bayless did not play PG under O'Neill is incorrect
in fact, the available press coverage and analysis is pretty much universal in indicating that Bayless played evenly with the ball and off the ball.
His PG skills as a freshman weren’t perfect – especially considering he had always been a scoring guard – and his game translated more to an efficient Monta Ellis that a Chauncy Billups (I stole that) as a freshman.
Regardless, his ability to guard point guards, bring the ball up in the half court, score or pass (yes he does) in transition, and score off the dribble or off the ball make him a nearly-perfect complement to Roy. I’d much rather have a guy that can play his game next to Roy than one who’s game suffers if Roy plays his game.
When Roy is playing the point in the half court sets, Jerryd by definition will be the off-guard – and his opportunities more limited. Otherwise, you most definitely want a guy running the point who is a legitimate threat to score. You also want him to be able to run the pick/roll or find a cutter or open 3-point shooter, but Jerryd actually can do these things. He’s just better at scoring.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 8, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
When Jerryd Bayless was at Arizona, Nic Wise and Daniel Dillion played ...
most all of the available minutes at point guard. While Bayless definitely had the ball in his hands a lot of the time when on the court, he wasn’t the primary distributor; thus, he wasn’t techincally a 1 except for rare spot minutes.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/teams/stats?teamId=12&year=2008
Confirmation Bias
My only dispute is how you often quote his stats during the Suns series as an example for his improvement. I think the small sample size combined with weak defense make using these stats a little questionable.
But overall, a very well written post. I agree with your basic premise that people make up their minds first and look for “proof” later.
I am looking for trends
Sometimes looking for trends means accepting the risk of small sample size. In addition, I wouldn’t be comfortable with the playoff stats if they were not a continuation of the improvement trend we saw over the entire season.
Not sure what you mean about weak defense. I have gone back and watched the playoffs three times. Bayless was clearly the Blazers second best defender on Nash (after Nic got hurt) and our best against Dragic. By game four, Nate was hustling Bayless back in to defend Nash after Nash had burned Martell repeatedly. Both Nash and Dragic were below their season averages in scoring, assists, and above in TOs.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I meant he was playing against a weak defense
As in, it’s not hard to get to the rim against Nash.
by zbrum on Aug 5, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair point.
The think I thought was most impressive is that he seems to be playing under better control. Fewer bad decisions. Fewer rushed jumpers early in the clock. Better team defensive awareness.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
another overlooked factor
Bayless was playing his first meaningful playoff minutes in his hometown (PHX) where a lot of young players would try to hard to impress their family and friends. Jerryd not only didn’t shrink under the pressure, he flourished in it. I prefer this kind of mental toughness and focus in a player to Sergio and Rudy’s whining about PT and disappearing act in big games
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
Very good point
Those six games may be a small sample size, but they are a very important sample. On the other end of the stick, its the same reason we are most likely having so much trouble with the rudy trade.
Portland could coast along with their superior talent and stay right with us. Now that Portland woke up, the hammer cometh down.
Bayless > Daffy Duck after 3 cans of rockstar
by Batumshakalaka on Aug 8, 2010 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
if it is too small of sample to make any judgments on bayless
why is it okay to use those same 6 games to justify getting rid of rudy
Michael Jordan is the Nicolas Batum of America
marty>babbitt
by thomasikehara on Aug 5, 2010 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Rudy had the entire season to prove himself statistically
and he didn’t. In addition, he also gripped to the media, a lot, and allegedly to his teammates. That’s not cool.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I think they're both valid samples since they both continued trends seen in the regular season.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Bayless >>> Rudy
after the trading deadline
When reached 40 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
It is too small of a sample size to make any decisions on
If we are getting rid of Rudy because of the playoffs that is a big mistake.
I cannot shake that image of Rudy passing-up open shot after open shot.
He did it so consistently until game 6 that I had a hard time thinking it was more than a lack of confidence: he was sulking and trying to make a point.
it's called making up your mind and moving on.
Bayless is who Bayless is – it’s a character issue. People who have seen enough don’t really want to see spreadsheets showing changes in obscure statistical categories.
If someone knocks a particular skill-set of Bayless’s, such as his shooting, then those stats are instructive. If someone thinks he is a selfish, non-point-guard, then that person really isn’t interested in your statistical powerpoint presentation, much less your patronizing explanations for their lack of interest.
What do you feel in patronizing about this post?
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
confirmation bias in a nutshell ^
If someone thinks he is a selfish, non-point-guard, then that person really isn’t interested in your statistical powerpoint presentation,
Even if that powerpoint refutation refutes that assertion directly (not saying it does)?
When it comes to understanding statistics and the scientific method, our schools have failed to educate the public at large.
Your subjective view is completely un-disprovable because you set the standards for what a “selfish, non-point-guard” is. No true rational conversation can be had with a person who takes such a stance.
If you need me, I’ll be over here with the facts…
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
really?
I can’t wait to see your factual, stat-based definitions of selfish and unselfish. I’ll be over with the popcorn.
there isn't one
that’s why it’s called subjective. What kind of popcorn?
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
You could come up with a decent estimation
Based on usage and scoring efficiency, and maybe assist stats. Presumably someone who takes more shots than his teammates, who is less efficient than those teammates, is being selfish because it’s not the most efficient distribution of shots for the team as a whole. Obviously for it to be conscious it would have to be a fairly stark difference, but for the obvious examples I think stats could help point the way.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
"There are three types of lies...
Lies.
Damned Lies.
And statistics."
Without looking, who originally said that?
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Pretty sure it isn't.
Anyone else.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Why are you repeating yourself?
That same gentleman you have echoed specifically claimed not to have coined that quote.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Mr. Samuel Twain on the matter:
“I was deducing from the above that I have been slowing down steadily in these thirty-six years, but I perceive that my statistics have a defect: three thousand words in the spring of 1868 when I was working seven or eight or nine hours at a sitting has little or no advantage over the sitting of to-day, covering half the time and producing half the output. Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to [one of the correct answers] would often apply with justice and force:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” "
Courtesy of Project Gutenberg, a very awesome foundation doing its best to keep the classics of the world accessible to as many as possible.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
I looked it up but my confirmation bias still tells me that it
was Mark Twain who originated it. ;0
#52
Fair enough.
Most of Twain’s stuff is artfully borrowed or slightly rephrased.
Part of the result of that is that many sayings are mistakenly attributed to him though.
Anyway, for those who don’t want to look it up……..
Some sources say the genius with words Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli popularized it, and others say it comes from literary critic Charles Dilke.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
benjamin disraeli
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
by HurraKane212 on Aug 10, 2010 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
patronizing part of note:
“What I have noticed over time, is that my arguments seem to bounce off those who disagree with me. It simply doesn’t matter how much he has improved, it doesn’t matter what the stats say, it doesn’t matter how favorably he compares to other young PGs. Most fans have simply made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by arguments or facts that don’t fit with their opinions.”
So, I don’t agree with the poster because my little mind is confused by information and I hate that whole confusing thinking thing. And stuff.
Well....I don't find that particularly patronizing
because I feel he isn’t talking about people who actually discuss their positions with him…but rather a sub-set of folks who just brush off his arguments and continue on their merry way.
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he actually means "patronizing"
The passage he quotes from the original post does not “patronize” people who disagree with him, it generalizes them and belittles their ability to form an opinion, because it is not the one he has espoused. That passage creates a portrayal of folks who don’t believe in Jbay, as those who have buried their heads in the sand, and turned their brains off. At the end of the day, it’s the pot calling the kettle black, because there is no convincing argument either way with such a small sample size. Jbay hasn’t played that much in the NBA yet. You can argue if he were a starter, he would get his game together, and his stats would improve, but you could also argue that as a full-time starter other teams would start to seriously look at film of him, and he would lose his biggest advantage these last two years; surprise. He is a quick, spark off the bench, guy, mainly on the break. In the half court set he has no clear advantage in any category, and he has not shown the creativity to make it through a set defense the way Roy or Miller can, and so with time, defenders would take a lot of charges from him as they get to know his game, diminishing his trips to the line.
Armon Johnson showed a mature confidence running a team from day one in Summer League, and the ability to defend and get to the rim. If he could shoot, he would take Jbay’s job before Christmas. The stats don’t show what AJ did in SL, you had to see the games, and similarly the predictable increases in Jbay’s stats don’t change much of what can be seen while watching the games, or knowing which opponents those stats were racked up against (i.e. Suns weak defense).
In other words it is exactly that some of us have not turned our brains off, and simply taken a few stats at face value, that we are less enthusiastic about Jbay than his big fans are. When Jbay lit it up in Summer League his first year, I saw a gunner, who like many a gunner will tear up a SL defense and rack up points. I also know because I’m still using my brain, that that rarely translates to the NBA level, where defenders are bigger and quicker. On the other hand, AJ’s Summer League showed skills that can translate to the top level, because things like court vision, judgment, solid ball handling, lateral quickness, size and strength are qualities that are not dependent on the opponent, or the system being run. Derrick Rose came out at the same time and age as Jbay, and he showed all those things too, right from the start. There are reasons to doubt a guy can develop a new mentality when others who have it, have shown it from the start. Bayless will surely improve as a player this year, even though the stats may level off with a larger sample, but if he doesn’t improve in the right aspects of his game, he’s not the guy many of us fans are looking for. A guy, who can get this team to reach it’s potential.
by wingzeta on Aug 6, 2010 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You hit the nail on the head about Armon Johnson.
Johnson, who’s the second-coming of Antonio Daniels circa his time with the Seattle SuperSonics, will make for a mighty fine backup point guard in the NBA. Oh, and unlike Jerryd Bayless, Johnson has the length and aggressiveness — but not overaggressiveness like the foul prone “Jay-Bay” — to play first-rate perimeter defense against 1s and 2s.
The problem with Johnson, though, is is the lack of range on his shot. Yet, Johnson has got time to work on that; plus, history shows us that players have an easier time improving shooting efficiency — especially on jumpers — than, oh, assist rate.
Like it!
Nicely said…I agree, especially about the whole ‘head in the sand’ tone the OP used. Bias is in full effect for everyone it seems!
Go Blazers!
Very well said
My biggest beef with ULC’s tone is that because some people (myself included) have decided to ditch the long expository, 5000 word essays to explain ourselves (again and again) we’ve taken to saying things like “… and he’s still not a point guard.” I used to go into great detail to explain why I felt this way, and ultimately it comes down to an eye test: Jerryd plays like a short ball-dominant 2 guard. He could shoot 40% from three, 50% from the field and he’d still be no closer to being able to run a team, and would still be no closer to making his teammates better … he might even be worthy of a prominent role for some team, but probably not for this team that is loaded with better talent than him, that all need more touches than Jerryd is likely to give them.
Your observations on Johnson are also pretty good too, he may never be a great NBA point guard and might not even stick, but using the eye test he strikes me as a guy who could be an NBA point guard, because he does three things when he’s handling the ball: 1) he dribbles with his head up, 2) he drives looking to pass, and 3) he’s got an even keeled feel to his game … ultimately, it’s that last piece that may mean the most for determining whether a player is a point guard or not.
Guys who play as revved up as Jerryd and with that much intensity usually don’t play a real cerebral game, which is almost always a prerequisite for running a team. Point guards have the responsibility of getting all of their teammates touches, building a rhythm, knowing who the hot hand is and also knowing when to get their own offense, and that takes a different approach than lowering your head like a 6’3" Corey Maggette clone.
As I’ve said before, I don’t hate Jerryd and if he’s your fifteen minute a night energizer scorer off the bench (ala Vinnie Johnson) there’s a lot to like, but guys who look for their own shot as much as he does, almost never lead a team … at least not for a team that plans on contending for a championship.
Paraphrased
upper left corner: “Some people have made up their minds and won’t listen to further arguments.”
peregrinebrm: “I’ve made up my mind and won’t listen to further arguments.”
I see no disagreement here.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
by pualo on Aug 5, 2010 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
exactly
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
it's about *CHARACTER*
If someone thinks that Bayless is a self-centered, egotistical pri*k who will always put himself first and not the team first – and that a team won’t win with such a point guard – they’re simply not interested in seeing AST %’s and graphs and comparison charts.
To spell it out simply: if you present a bunch of obscure statistics to someone holding the above opinion, you simply are not addressing their concerns and beliefs. Your argument is, at that point, irrelevant and you should not be surprised that such people don’t give a rat’s a$$ about how Bayless’s PER compares to Andre Miller’s in 4th quarters against Western Conference teams, or whatever.
If at this point you still don’t get what I mean, then it’s gotta be because you’re close-minded and easily confused.
I don't think your post was very clear on that, and it sounds like you confused several people
It sounded more like you were frustrated and making an intentional, and perhaps partially justified, ad hom attack on ulc’s post. That doesn’t make anyone closed-minded or easily confused, it just means that several of us didn’t get your intended meaning. And before you say that you thought your posts were crystal clear, please keep in mind that there are several people who did not get what you meant initially.
If the issue is that Bayless is selfish, egotistical, and doesn’t give a crap about team, then, well, all I can say is that you probably shouldn’t read or comment on posts that obviously are intended to support him, because you have no basis for your opinion unless you actually know him personally. I don’t mean that to be rude or alienating, but it’s just not something anyone can debate. What we can debate, as others have pointed out, is whether his PG production has improved statistically.
Until Bayless starts complaining directly to the media about how he wants to either start over Brandon freaking Roy, or else be traded to a contender where he can start, and refuse to play to his ability until he gets what he wants, or until he gets arrested for something, or until one of the coaches publicly says he’s not coachable, lazy, and volatile, it’s not really fair to evaluate a player based on his character.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
no, my point was that people who are unpersuaded....
….by pro-Bayless arguments that are centered on statistical analysis are not necessarily close-minded, confused, refusing to consider arguments, etc.
I am not trying to be the spokesman for the anti-Bayless bad character camp. But I am saying that people in this camp shouldn’t be smeared just because, for example, they didn’t change their minds about Bayless’s character when Bayless started making 3’s in the playoffs.
Remember, I responded to the post. The post gave the above reasons for why people might not fully engage pro-Bayless statistical arguments. I disagree with that characterization, and said so. I feel that this was perfectly consistent with the discussion and appropriate for this blog and topic.
No, I think I get what you're saying
What I’m saying is that those people who are opposed to Bayless because of his character have no grounds on which to construct an argument unless they know something about his character that the rest of us don’t. Barring some personal knowledge of the inborn darkness of Jerryd Bayless’ soul, yes, they are closed-minded.
I see your point, that irrational (my word) people who want to judge Bayless on his character don’t appreciate stats. Someone who says they are unconvinced by statistical arguments for Bayless’ worth to the team can’t simply say “It’s a character issue,” when they don’t know the kid. That’s blatantly unfair and unproductive. Although ulc has admitted that his characterization came across as patronizing, when you boil it down and rephrase it more objectively, it is a pretty accurate characterization of those who don’t like statistical arguments.
So, saying that:
If at this point you still don’t get what I mean, then it’s gotta be because you’re close-minded and easily confused.
is a little unfair, since it really came across that you just wanted people to accept the fact that some people don’t like Jerryd Bayless, and they should be beyond reproach, because they don’t accept statistics. Now that you have explained that it is not simply making up one’s mind based upon nothing, but rather, a quality which they know nothing about, you’ve basically confirmed ulc’s characterization.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
the grey box part.....
is a paraphrase of how the original post describes those who aren’t persuaded by the stats.
So, I was facetiously turning the same language around and using it on those who might not agree with me. As a sort of joke. if you read up a few, you’ll see it. You’re right – if I just broke that language out on my own, it wouldn’t be fair.
by peregrinebrm on Aug 7, 2010 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Why do you think he is being self-centered and egotistical?
I’m wondering what you’re seeing that I’m not.
I get what you mean.
But the number of people questioning Bayless’s character is very, very low. Fifty times more people are questioning him for different reasons.
Disclaimer: everything I know about basketball I learned on Blazersedge.
If you have followed ULC's many lengthy fanposts and the responses he has received to them,
it actually hard to argue with the part of the post you are taking issue with. Yes, you are correct in stating that the way he phrased it is patronizing. However, his statement is also true. ULC takes a lot of time and effort to back up his claims with stats. His posts are well thought out, very insightful and worthy of an honest discussion of Bayless’ contributions to the Blazers. What he often gets for his trouble is a lot of, “Bayless is not a PG” posts that make no effort to discredit the argument he has just made and instead rely solely on a spiffy catch phrase to refute his claims. Based on what I’ve seen, he’s earned the right to make a statement like he did in this post.
Keep up the good work, ULC. I was the biggest Bayless hater ever his rookie year. I would have traded him for a free Chalupa were I the Blazers’ GM. I was sooooo very wrong. The kid has worked hard, transformed his game and become a vital part of this team. I’ll be heartbroken if he is traded this summer because the Blazers need him. He’s not a natural PG, but he is working very hard at it and making progress. The kid’s a winner who has earned my respect the same way Andre did – he gets it done on the court and doesn’t falter under pressure.
by Sean M on Aug 5, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks a lot.
I agree with the critics that my comment probably came off as a bit more patronizing than intended.
My frustration is with the sweeping assertion without any facts to back it up. I really appreciate you noticing.
There is certainly plenty of room for legitimate disagreement about Bayless’ future development. I don’t mind those who have a different opinion. I do mind folks who refuse to engage ar make statements that are obviously dated or factually challenged.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
ULC....
You made a well-constructed, long post on something you feel strongly about. I am the one who pointed out the patronizing part. To me, that is all part of the game and part of the fun. I’m not trying to discredit your entire post based on that. FYI.
Amazing.
With out trying to make this personal, I can’t resist pointing out that the entire defensive tone of your post seems to be a confirmation of the very type of attitude I was discussing. Irony much?
I’m sorry if it came across as patronizing. I did try to acknowledge that both sides are subject to same bias and explain that that is the reason I have gone to stats to try to see if my own thinking is backed up by the facts.
Where do you get off making such sweeping statements about a young players “character”? Have you read his blog which shows him to be a pretty thoughtful guy, who is capable of a rather unusual level of self-reflection for a young man? His parents are both HS counselors, he seems to be a reasonably bright guy from a very strong, stable background. I think the very fact that you have drawn those conclusions based on little if any substantive information is again confirmation of the type of problem I am trying to warn all of us against.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Nobody can question his work ethic or his intelligence
But all of that still doesn’t add up to him possessing the instincts to run a team
It's not patronizing.
Refusing to acknowledge a fact is intellectually dishonest. One can be critical of the way a statistic is compiled or question its importance. One can contend that other factors are at play, such as arguing that Bayless’ effectiveness in the playoffs was the result of Nash’ defense. But stating an opinion without supporting premises and ignoring opposing facts and arguments in any rebuttal is weak sauce. It’s lazy and it defeats the purpose of a debate.
Keep your expectations low and you won't be disappointed.
by Benjamanic on Aug 5, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
another Bayless supporter here
I get so tired of the uniformed, super bias radio announcers who assume that Bayless will be traded because he is “not a point guard” and yet rave about players like Westbrook. I have no doubt that Bayless would be considered Westbrook’s equal (better on offense, not as good on defense) if he had had the same opportunities his first two years in the league.
Bayless is the same age as the rookies we drafted this year. A little patience is in order considering his potential, work ethic, improvement, etc. I have little doubt that the Blazers’ coaches and front office know this and will not be moving Bayless for anything less than a long term, all-star level starter. Personally, I see Bayless much like many of you see Batum. He only needs and maturity to develop into a quality starter on a championship contender.
Bayless certainly showed up in the playoffs this year,
and I think Bayless is probably a better prospect than most of the PGOTFs that most Blazer fans throw out there (disregarding ungettable stars). I also believe that sticking with Bayless for at least another year or two is probably the best idea. However, there can be some arguments made against Bayless.
One argument against him is his on the court attitude. While I don’t necessarily like it, I do like his energy and determination when he plays, and I think most people can look past the “showboating” attitude.
A second argument can be made that he isn’t quite there defensively. He obviously has the desire and tenacity to defend well, but most people will bring up that he fouled too much. Jerryd’s fouls/48’ were 5.6 good for the 33 most fouls/48’. This is probably something that Jerryd can learn to reduce as most young players do, so it really shouldn’t be something to worry about.
And a third argument can be made in regards to his passing. While many just say Jerryd is not a PG and leave it at that, one can actually find articles on the internet (I made a cursory look for one, but didn’t find the one I will specifically referrence here) which suggest that Jerryd’s assists should actually be rated worse than other players assists. The idea is that not all assists are equal. Typically, an article that follows this line of thinking will demonstrate that an assist to a person close to the basket increases the chane of scoring by quite a bit while an assist on a long two or three point shot doesn’t increase the chance of scoring that type of shot as much as the close shot. Anyway, the idea is to figure out who does the best job at maximizing the chance of scoring with his assists. With this in mind, Jerryd usually fares worse than his actually assist numbers would lead one to believe. There is probably some validity to this idea, though it might be difficult to quantify as an assist is still a made basket whether the person was 20’ out or 5’ out from the basket. My point is that someone could take this route to demonstrate that Bayless needs to work on feeding big guys or passing to cutters.
Anyway, I hope I wasn’t confusing, but the idea is that there are arguments that can be made against Bayless. As I said, though, I personally believe Bayless does have some very impressive potential, is a decent NBA player right now (including some way above average skills like driving the lane and getting to the line), is extremeley athletic, and with his work ethic, he should be a very good NBA player in a few years.
Is there a stat somewhere that denotes the percentage of assists created by a player (per number of offensive plays) or something ?
It seems to me that would answer the question of whether Rex is getting his assists the right way (or whether it matters).
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes AST%
Percentage of baskets by the team that the player assisted on while on the floor.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I wasn't sure
cause I know there is a stat that tallies how many of your made baskets were assisted (also in percentage form..I think) …so I didn’t want to confuse the two. Anyway…since there is the stat described…is it also trending upward??
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
It is interesting
Hollinger uses a different formula than does BB Reference. Hollinger basically penalizes scoring PG by including their own field goals in making his calculation. I think BB Ref.com has a better formula.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes.
Bayless played a lot of minutes for Rudy and Roy which clearly reduced his AST %.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Any way to estimate the effect that would have on his rates?
Allow us to compare him to other combo-guards who saw more time at the point.
we can use the stats here:
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR5.HTM
to separate his assist numbers by PG and SG (ignore the SF numbers, not sure what that is)
Basically the relevant stats are:
13% of PG minutes, 7.2 assists/48
18% of SG minutes, 5.8 assists/48
His overall assists/48 was 6.27. If we assume that assists/48 are proportional to assist% (which was 24.9 in 09-10)…
7.2/6.27 = 1.15 = x/24.9 where x is his PG assist rate….
x = 28.635%
Which is only 2% lower than Andre Miller’s, for comparison.
…Obviously this comes with the huge caveat of how accurate 82games’ position breakdown is, but looking at the 5-man units above, if Blake or Miller is in then Bayless is the SG, and otherwise he’s counted as the PG, so that seems okay.
Also there is the issue of whether assists/48 ~ asst%, but when comparing among the same team, I’d say it’s roughly equal.
So thanks Sir.Ludo for sending me down this train of thought – very interesting (and encouraging) result!
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
hoopdata.com shows where players' assists go
As in, it categorizes the assists as at rim, <10 feet, 10-15 feet, 16-23 feet, or 3pt.
Comparing Bayless to Andre Miller, Bayless does get fewer ‘at rim’ assists and more 16-23 feet assists. I think this makes sense, considering Miller is a lobmaster whereas Bayless does more of a drive-and-kick kind of game. Anyway, Miller clearly has an advantage here, but then again Bayless is a bit more efficient of a scorer…it’s hard to call.
http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Jerryd+Bayless
http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Andre+Miller
(the numbers are per-40 minutes)
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
You've brought attention to one of the biggest flaws in Jerryd Bayless as a distributor, for his only ...
real facilitating skill is as a dribble-drive kickout artist. To me, that’s not conducive of being a true floor general; rather, it indicates Bayless is wired to be me-first gunner when initiating the half-court offense instead of someone with keen court vision looking to make a sharp entery pass.
Heck, for an ultra-efficient interior scorer like Greg Oden, he shouldn’t play with a ball hog like Bayless, who puts his head down, recklessly drives to the rack, and sporadically flings dangerous passes out to perimeter guys on bailout shots. Oden, on the other hand, needs someone like Andre Miller — or Kirk Hinrich, but I digress — who’ll feed him inside when he’s posting up on the low block, run the pick-and-roll with him, and move well off the ball to get a pass from the big man when cutting to the basket on a give-and-go play. Believe it or not, folks, Oden is a solid distributor on the give-and-go with Andre Miller.
Oden's passing has been very good to see, for sure. I am looking forward to seeing more of it.
Clearly, the likelihood of Bayless turning out as an Andre Miller-type floor general is low; I don’t think anyone’s debating that. But he has a lot of room to grow, especially considering his age, and if he becomes a decent defender and strong 3point threat, then I think serviceable passing skills may be enough for him to play next to Brandon Roy.
It would be a lot different if we didn’t have Roy, and that need for a true floor general could be more or less pressing, depending on how Roy and Oden work together. It seemed like adjustments to incorporate Oden more on offense were beginning to be forced right before his injury; I hope the coaching staff is preparing for those right now.
Long story short, I just want to see them play more.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Greg Oden needs Rudy Fernandez
Who played the post & repost entry passes perfectly with him.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The only people who need Rudy Fernandez are the Bulls.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 6, 2010 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Oden/Fernandez
Formed our best scoring option for the first part of the year in a “sight test.” Whenever they isolated those two on the right side you knew something good was going to happen.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
fortunately we have even better options than Miller to run plays with Oden
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
This is a key point by Austin and AK
Stats can say a lot of things, and these stats say that Bayless is more of an individual player, less of a team leader. It’s why Bayless thinks if he’d had a chance he would have lit it up like Derrick Rose or Tyreke Evans, and that’s kind of true-ish. But I would take the team leader, especially on a multitalented team, over the ball-dominator.
Is this something that will change, or is it who Bayless is? I do think he’s a very talented 1-on-5 type of player, which is not my favorite kind.
ugg..
so so many times I see bayless drive to the hoop and draw multiple defenders then he forces up a shot or throws a wild pass back up top.
I would love to see him get the little lob over the top for LMA, ODEN, Camby to throw down.
I guess I just am a sucker for guys that take it to the hoop over settling for jump shots though because I love the guy.
I think (without any stats to back it up) that decision making is the one thing that young players improve most upon
especially young points. I kept think if Rex ever gets circuits up and running on when to drive…when to kick…and when to lob….he will be fantastic for us. I think he is getting there….but still has a ways to go
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 6, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
absolutly.
I’m a big bayless fan (always love players that take it to the hoop rather than shoot jumpers). I was just agreeing with the post above that he needs to improve when he is going to the hoop. If/when he can do that he will be next to impossible to defend.
If he could just continue to be Bayless
but work a little bit of Roy and Miller into his game, he’d be absolutely incredible.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Is that before of after....
kicking it to Martel, Rudy, or take you lame bench player and they either refuse to shoot or throw up a brick.
How much of a point guard’s success if somebody else making a shot?
Without an advanced system like Synergy, it's hard to tell.
Bayless’ 5-man unit numbers are here:
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR5.HTM
It would be interesting to see the stats for Bayless-Fernandez-Webster alone, and then all other lineups where Bayless played point. I find it amusing (in the realm of small sample size) that the two most efficient Bayless-led lineups both had Batum in them.
So we can tell that a lot of lineups with Bayless as PG shot badly – worse than he did. Miller’s lineups shot better (http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR4.HTM) but he also played with the starters more. So it’s pretty hard to say whether it was the play of Bayless or of his benchmates.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Very interesting discussion
After the Blake trade, Barrett, and to a lesser extent Rice, constantly expressed concern about the second unit and indirectly laid “the blame” at Bayless’ feet .
I went in and looked at Martell and Rudy’s shooting numbers after the All-Star break. Together they shot less than 35% after the trade. That is a pretty crappy percentage which certainly didn’t help the +/- numbers for the second unit. It is also worth noting that the difference in the interior defense between Camby and Howard was enormous, which also hurt the second units +/-.
It does seem worth asking why Rudy and Martell shot so poorly? Was Bayless getting them the ball in the wrong places? Was he making poor passes that left the guys out of position to shoot? What I noticed and others have confirmed statistically is that Bayless did most of his playmaking through drive and kick or pick and pop plays. In both cases, you are getting guys open shots but they are highly weighted towards long jumpers. Hypothetically, the team should score a fair number of 3s when Bayless is in because he is good at collapsing the defense.
I’m curious to hear your thoughts about how the second unit performed. It seemed to me that Barrett emphasized the “struggles” far more than was actually justified and to the extent that there were some problems, he laid those problems more on Bayless than was justified.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I haven't followed Barrett's blog much except when there's a specific topic I'm interested in, so I can't say.
Looking at hoopdata.com, Jerryd’s assists in general are weighted towards outside shots (long 2s and 3s) much more than Miller, for example. But I think it’s a chicken-or-the-egg question, combined with a small sample size.
Clearly Bayless doesn’t get as many easy baskets for others as Miller does. But we already knew that. We also know that Bayless scores more efficiently for himself, duh. So I think it’s a question of, will Bayless makes his strengths so strong, or mitigate his weaknesses enough, that that it becomes good for the team?
I think it’s already becoming fairly good for the team, but as with everything, I think all we have are positive indicators – enough reason to give Bayless an open-minded opportunity this coming year. If he plays a full year of 15+ mpg at point guard, especially with, say, Camby and Matthews instead of Howard and bad Rudy (as opposed to good rookie year Rudy), then we can make a fair judgment.
I know everyone felt that Rudy was passing up and missing shots he was capable of making, and we mostly felt that when Martell wasn’t starting he shot poorly (starting/bench splits back this up). So I’d lean towards it was at least partially their fault – there are a lot of bad teams in this league but on most of them you don’t see rotation-level role players’ shooting drop off a cliff.
So I think the majority of it wasn’t Bayless’ fault, but he likely had some effect, and we’ll have to wait and see how drastic that is in the coming season. That’s the result of my thinking ‘out loud’.
PS regarding the 2nd unit I was looking a lot at the eFG% numbers – I wish 82games showed the eFG of the player in question in that lineup along with the unit’s eFG.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
You might be on to something here.
Rudy and Martell’s shooting numbers tumbled after Blake was traded. Certainly not all of that can be laid at Jerryd’s feet, but there is more to making a pass than simply throwing it in a shooter’s general vicinity; if a shooter has to lean way out of position to corral a ball, that slows their ability to get a shot off and takes them out of a natural shooting rhythm.
There aren’t any stats I could point to, but last year I remember trying to focus on the quality of Jerryd’s passes over the course of a handful of games and I remember thinking they were frequently off target and didn’t necessarily get to players in their comfort zone.
Never been a Bayless fan but I gotta admit..
you at least made me rethink. Props.
"I have contract with Portland.... I have contract with Portland... I have contract with Portland." - Rudy Fernandez
I think it is tough to compare his rookie stats
He was almost strictly playing garbage time, with and against scrubs.
I don’t care what stat’s you throw at me, the guy is a bad shooter. He benefits from teams leaving him wide open and helping on our better shooters. He atleast has pretty good shot selection when it comes to shooting from the outside. However most NBA starting caliber players can hit open shots at a higher clip than he has been doing.
The thing that gets me too is he was a better shooter in college, I think we tweaked his shot to speed it up and in the process took some of his confidence in his shot with him. I do think though, with his work ethic and the amount of shots he will get there.
All I know is that his "cringe percentage" (my own stat) went down on that shot as the year progressed (Trout's never did)
So that is another stat in Rex’s favor
Phil Mickelson: "A Great shot is when you pull it off.....a smart shot is when you don't have the guts to try it"’
by 92wastheyear on Aug 5, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I would only cringe at Jerryd's flop attempts
He’s got some time to put in on that.
Stealth > Wealth
His pick and roll defense sometimes makes me cringe.
He’s young. He’ll improve on that side of the ball with experience.
Yes and No
Yes, Bayless has a relatively poor overall FG%. However, he has a relatively high TS%.
Why the difference?
Because Bayless gets to the line an incredible number of times and shoots very well when he gets there. His overall efficiency is much better than it appears if you are just looking at his FG%.
The no part, is that Bayless is really coming on as a 3 pt shooter. He made 38% after the All-Star break and 40% during the playoffs. He shot 40% from 3 in college, so it was mostly a matter of time for him to get used to his retooled shot mechanics. His 2 pt % is hurt by two factors. 1) he got his shot blocked at a pretty high rate going to the rim. A lot of times he took a lot of contact but didn’t get the whistle. As he gets more established in the league, he is likely to get even more whistles. The second think that hurt his FG% was his propensity to take shots with his toes on the 3 pt line. He made plenty of those but they don’t get reflected as 3s, he also missed plenty which brought down his 2 pt %. As he gets more experienced I think he will get better at getting his toes behind the line.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Bayless' ability to get to the line is overrated
When drawing free throws is your best skill as a player, you are heavily reliant upon the defenses you are playing and the way the refs are calling the game. Rex isn’t all that great at taking what the D gives him. He tends to just barrel down the lane and hope for the defenders/refs to bail him out. It results in a lot of free throws, but it also results in forced shot attempts, open teammates that dont receive the ball, and offensive fouls/turnovers. There is a reason he has a poor overall fg%, he doesnt have a reliable jump shot and he couples that with poor shot selection for the most part. Free throws are his saving grace, stat-wise. Without that one skill, he would look pretty mediocre.
Where's Rudolfo?
I think his ability to get to the line is overrated when he plays the 2
He gets his shot off so much easier against PGs
Stats back this up
He shot better and drew more FTs while playing at PG. In fact, he was better at just about everything at the PG position.
http://www.82games.com/0910/09POR5.HTM#bypos
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Well, I don't think most people's disbelief lies in the area of Bayless getting stats (especially scoring-related) for himself
But in the area of whether he’ll be able to make his teammates better and get easy baskets for them. Combined with the fact that whoever guarded him when he was at SG was likely bigger and stronger, instead of smaller and weaker at PG, and it doesn’t seem a convincing argument in my mind. It just shows he’s more physically suited to be guarded by PGs.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
.....and much better at guarding other PGs
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Top ten among all second year guards in the last twenty years. How is that "overrated"?
Saying that I “overrate” his ability to get to the line is a little hard for me to understand. This is an objective stat. He is among the best of the last two decades. As I have pointed out repeatedly, there are only 9 second year guards in the last two decades who exceeded 6.0 FTA per 36. The list includes: Wade, Kobe, V Carter, Iverson, R Pack and Bayless.
You are right that he does get a relatively high % blocked because he is seeking contact on his way to the rim. If he gets the call he gets the free throw. If he doesn’t get the call which happened frequently, he is likely to get stuffed. What matters is his overall efficiency and his TS% seems like the best way to measure that: .534 isn’t great, but it is above average for all guards and well above average for young guards. As I have pointed out, it is better than Miller’s career average or his season total from last year, and it is better than Roy put up in his second year.
I think it is reasonable to assume that Bayless will get more efficient as he gets more experience. His decision making is likely to improve. He is likely to get better treatment from the refs as he gets more established in the league. He is likely to get better with his left hand which would help him a great deal. Finally, as his distance shooting improves his TS% will go up and it will be harder for defenders to back off expecting the drive.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 6:01 AM PDT up reply actions
You always go to TS% to defend Bayless' efficiency as a scorer
and I always point out that Rudy had a better TS% than Bayless this last season despite having a down year. Yet, I am willing to bet you have written Rudy off and are salivating at the thought of him being traded. Rudy put up the 16th best TS% for a rookie guard in NBA history(500 min played minimum). He joins a list that includes Reggie Miller, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan. Manipulating stats to prove a point is fun, but unfortunately not always accurate.
Rudy is still a prodigious talent
who isn’t happy on the team, pouts, whines and demanded a trade. Rudy wrote himself off the Blazers (helped along by absurd usage). McMillan deserves a lot of the blame for mishandling Rudy (starting Blake over Rudy in the three guard lineup was unconscionable), but Rudy didn’t handle it well – at all. He became part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Here is the difference, IMO, between Rudy and Bayless
Rudy is nearly maxed out in my opinion. He has physical limitations in terms of strength and athleticism that lead me to believe he is never going to be much more than a spot up shooter. He is very good at that role, but he can’t do much else. He has a mediocre, at best, handle. He has a limited ability to create his own shot. He is crafty about getting to the rim for lobs, but unable to get there off the dribble. He can only play one position. Most importantly, he is a defensive liability. Finally, he has demonstrated a psychological fragility that concerns me.
OTOH, Bayless has a ton of room for growth in my opinion. As his distance shooting improves, obviously his efficiency will too. In addition, as his distance shooting improves, it will be much more difficult for defenders to sag off him anticipating the drive. Bayless has a high probability of becoming a triple threat scorer: 1) able to score off the drive and get to the line; 2) able to create his own shot off the dribble; 3) able to hit the spot up jumper. I also believe that Bayless has the speed, strength, and tenacity to become a good defender. Psychologically, he seems totally relentless. A lot of guys would have allowed themselves to be buried in the circumstances that Bayless found himself in here in Portland on the bench behind more experienced players. Bayless has just kept on coming. I think that bodes well for the future.
In summary, Rudy is a highly skilled guy who has maxed out his physical abilities while Bayless is an athletic specimen who will increase his skill level because of his mad work ethic.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
If you want me to believe that Bayless has more room for growth than Rudy
I am going to need to see some sort of stat to back up your point.
by RudiFTW on Aug 6, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
there is no stat for that.
or to phrase it another way why don’t you give me a stat that shows that rudy has more room for growth than bayless.
Are you serious?
Lets try the following:
1) age: Rudy is four years older;
2) change in PER last years to this year: Bayless up over 5 points, Rudy down;
3) shooting stats: Bayless up in FG%, FT%, 3pt% by over 50 points;
4) AST %: Bayless up from 18.2 to 22.3; Rudy 12.7 to 13.5
5) TO%: Bayless down from 19 to 13; Rudy 11.0 to 13.4
Need I go on? Bayless improved by leaps and bounds while Rudy regressed. It is usually between the ages of 20-24 that pros really improve dramatically. Rudy is through that stage, Bayless still has three more years.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
not sure I follow the logic here?
He benefits from teams leaving him wide open and helping on our better shooters.
So if I get this right you are saying that the reason that he shot so GOOD was that he gets left open by the defense because he is such a BAD shooter????
Yeah, it's one thing to say that someone like Derek Fisher or Mo Williams aren't
as good as their percentages suggest, but if Bayless were a truly “bad” shooter, his percentages would look like Dre’s or Rondo’s.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Dang........
Why I gotta be a pessimist? I think I’m just being realistic. Has Bayless improved? Sure. He’s gone from piss poor to just slightly above poor. His Assist % has improved but it’s still not very good. His PER is still somewhere between Sergio and T.J. Ford, and below league average. I’m not interested in his TS% cuz it takes into account FT%. He’s a 40% shooter. Period. That’s not very good. Oh, and that’s a 40% with most of his shots occurring at the rim.
Also, speaking for myself, it’s easy for me to dismiss your stat based arguments because most of the stats you present are adjusted. I know the raw stats aren’t as popular as they once were but you shouldn’t have to adjust every single stat to make an argument for a players worth. If he were a better player he’d get more time. It’s that simple.
interesting
so you like the stats that back your assessment of J-Bay but don’t like the one’s that refute it. Hmmm..
Not quite
The only stat I said I didn’t like was the TS%. The reason being is because it includes FT%. It has nothing to do with being more/less persuasive to my argument. To be fair, most people only provide stats that support their own argument. For example, If I say Bayless can’t shoot then a Bayless enthusiast would probably throw his TS% back in my face because it looks better for their argument. Never mind that Bayless is a 40% shooter, so while the assertion that Bayless can’t shoot is a gross generalization it’s probably closer to truth than his TS% is. Maybe they’d point out his 38% from 3pt after the break. Only by my count he’s 13 for 37 which is only 35% ( I could be wrong I’ll recount when I get home) and 37 attempts in 2 months of games isn’t really enough to make a judgment call on a players ability to hit 3s
It’s not that I don’t like advanced stats. I just don’t think they should be used to beat someone over the head with in an argument.
Also, Bayless doesn’t need to be better than Miller to get more minutes. Showing that he’s better than Rudy would have gone a long way to getting more mins. and it shouldn’t have been too hard considering Rudy’s disposition with the team. I’ve been watching the NBA for a long time, and good players get mins. Believe me if he were half as good as some make him out to be then the coach would find a way to get him more than 17 min.
Pure FG% is misleading.
If you’re fouled often on your highest-percentage shots, you’ll shoot 30% on shots that you might have made at a 60% rate. If you make the free throws, you still help your team as if you’d shot a lot better than 30%.
Of course it doesn’t say anything about Bayless’ shooting form or jumpshot, but what it does say is that he’s a somewhat efficient scorer, regardless of his jumpshooting ability. It shows how he helps the team.
So it’s what you use TS% for, and I think ULC uses it fairly – as a measure of efficiency, not ability.
Incidentally, Bayless did get more minutes than Rudy in the playoffs. But the team wants him to be a point guard, rather than a shooting guard – and especially with Wes Matthews now, he has to take minutes from Miller to get any.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
That's inaccurate
A foul on a missed attempt does not count against the players FG%. It only registers as an attempt if the shot is made. Jerryd Bayless shot 40% cuz he missed 60% of his shots. There’s nothing misleading about that. I’m not a JB detractor, I just don’t think the so called “facts” that get used in a pro JB argument are as solid as some make them to be.
All the TS% shows is that JB is a decent FT shooter and that’s all it shows. .83% FT + .41% FG + .31% 3pt = approx. .52 TS%
i think you also have to have a high foul shot rate to bring your TS% up...it's weighted
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 5, 2010 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
here's the formula
TS%: True Shooting Percentage – what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 5, 2010 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah
I wasn’t sure what the exact formula was. I just know that if you take the average of FG% FT% and 3pt% then you’d get real close to a players TS%.
I do know that a missed shot on a foul doesn’t hurt the FG%. This was based on the assertion that JB cant shoot. I don’t think his TS% proves that he can.
the reason people use TS%
is that they are showing that even though he may be A POOR SHOOTER he still scores efficiently. Not sure why you think that isn’t worth much. In other words someone could shoot a much higher fg% and still only be on J-Bays level efficiency wise.
Another thing that I would add (and for the record I don’t think this makes JB look any better) His shooting percentage goes way down with the amount of shots that he gets blocked.
so his shooting may be quite a bit better than you are giving him credit for but his decision making is still poor enough that he gets lots of shots blocked.
It's mostly designed to reward those who draw a lot of foul shots or who score effectively from 3pt land
since ft’s don’t count toward FG% and 2pt FG’s count the same as 3pt FG’s – without the correction for higher value shot.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 6, 2010 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions
You just proved my point
You said yourself that Bayless is a poor shooter which is all I was arguing in the first place before this got turned into a TS% debate. Again, If I say Bayless can’t shoot then his TS% doesn’t disprove my claim. it’s not that I don’t like the TS% stat, all stats can be useful. I just don’t think it’s overwhelming evidence in making a case for Bayless as a good shooter.
yeah, Bayless’s solid if not great TS% is an indication of his scoring efficiency, not his shooting prowess. You are 100% right about that.
TS% is still a better indicator of offensive effectiveness
than FG%….
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Not really though
Unless Bayless is gonna convert 20 FTs per game. Most of the game isn’t played at the charity stripe. So, what happens when Bayless isn’t shooting FTs? He’s goes back to be a 40% shooter from the field and a 30% shooter from behind the line. Big difference between being effective and efficient. Daniel Gibson has an extremely high TS%, but I wouldn’t call him a good scorer.
you are giving a circular argument.
you can make a case for bayless not being a good shooter. you don’t have a case for him not being a good scorer.
not how it works
it’s effectively a measurement that is normalized across all games played. You can play “whatiff” games all long – but if you pick the guy with a higher TS%, you will win games over the guy with the higher FG% but lower TS%.
With regards to Gibson – anyone that shoots 47% from 3pt land should be launching bombs on a very frequent basis. You want guys like him shooting. Of course, you want him to be able to do other things too…..like average more than one assist a game (which he barely does)….However, Gibson is a good scorer – just not that good otherwise (and atrocious at the line for a guard)…
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Bayless gets to the line far more frequently than most guards
Which means that FTs play a much larger role in determining his overall efficiency.
King Mar, I am not understanding why you are having a hard time accepting that TS% is a much better measure of overall scoring efficiency than eFG% or especially straight FG%. This is basic arithmatic.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Look
I’m not arguing whether TS% is better than FG%. I’m arguing whether it’s possible to have a higher TS% than another player without necessarily being a more efficient scorer.
What I can’t understand is how you can take a stat and act like it’s flawless. As if there’s no way it can be inaccurate. Rule number one in statistics is control the variables, for if left unchecked they’ll threaten the accuracy of the stat in question. One huge variable that’s left unaccounted for in Jerryd’s stats is the rate at which he gets to the line. By simply putting his head down and looking for contact he gets to the line at a high rate. it helps boost his TS%. Look at his assist% as evidence. Actually, just look at the rate at which he gets to the line and compare it to the best in the league as evidence. On 20 attempts per 36 min. Kobe gets to the line 6.9 times. He’s got a usage rate over 30% On 20.5 attempts per 36 Melo gets to the line just over 8 times. His usage is well over 30. JB OTOH manages to get to the line 6.7 times on 13 attempts and with a usage rate in the mid twenties. I’m sorry, but when I see a stat like JB’s that deviates that far from the norm, I don’t know about you, but I question it. Is he really that good at getting to the line, or is there something else going on that’s causing him to draw so many fouls? Like, oh I don’t know, the fact that he’s putting his head down and looking for contact.
You don’t find it weird that JB’s TS% is so much higher than his real FG%. He’s a 40% shooter from the field and a 30% shooter from behind the line, yet his TS% is in the mid 50s. Hmmmm. Look at Melo, Bryant, Roy, Andre Miller, on average their FG% is about 8pts lower that their TS%. I would consider those guys to be good scorers. Jerryd Bayless TS% is 14pts higher than his FG% Roughly 75% higher than the difference you typically see between FG% and TS% in a good scorer. Clearly the rate at which he gets to the line is affecting his TS%.
Is it possible that JB is just really that good at getting to line, and deserves the TS% he’s earned? Yeah. I guess it’s possible, but I doubt it. So, while TS% is useful, it hardly paints the whole picture. It certainly doesn’t prove that he’s a more efficient scorer than Andre or Brandon was in his second year. All it proves is that in a controlled environment JB can be efficient. The controlled environment being 17 min a game where he’s looking to put his head down and get to the line. Yeah, he’s real efficient at that. You can get away with that for 17 min a game. However, if given 36 min per game you gotta think that he’d be asked to do more than that. He can’t jump into a guys chest for 36 min and hope to get calls all day. Question is can he still maintain that type of efficiency if he’s playing an increased role.
To look at it another way. Andre Miller has a TS% of 53% while playing the game at a professional level. Jerryd Bayless has a TS% of 54% while playing a dumb down, and simplified version of the game that’s tailor made for him to be successful. So, who’s really more efficient.
It's not possible
I’m arguing whether it’s possible to have a higher TS% than another player without necessarily being a more efficient scorer.
Is it possible that JB is just really that good at getting to line, and deserves the TS% he’s earned? Yeah. I guess it’s possible, but I doubt it.
Bayless’ ability to get to the line is a prodigious skill – Just like Gibson’s 3pt%.
If you want to discount the validity of the metric – you have a lot of work to do to prove the entire APBRmetric community wrong.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 8, 2010 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions
for the 100th time
It’s not about what stat is better or valid. My problem with the stat is unique to Jerryd Bayless. The uncontrolled variable is unique to Jerryd Bayless, and not so much the stat itself as I doubt whoever came up TS% ever consider Jerryd’s absurd abuse of the charity stripe. There’s nothing wrong with TS% as an effective measure of efficiency. The problem is not every single NBA player is a picture perfect example of what the stat is supposed to reflect.
To call JB’s ability to get to the line prodigious is laughable. Any yahoo with a basketball and a mind to can barrel down the lane and hope to get to the line. He’s out of control. That’s why he’s only 41% from the field even though most his shots come at the rim. That’s why it’s important to look at real FG% in addition to just TS%.
Consider this. What would happen if Jerryd played on a different team? A team that wasn’t trying to compete and he had more rope to develop. Where he didn’t have to worry about getting benched after every missed jump shot. Would he still attack the rim with reckless abandonment, or would he opt for a few more jumpers? If he doesn’t attack the rim at the same rate and uses his new rope to shoot jumpers then what happens to his TS%? Unlike JB’s jumpshot, his TS% would drop.
Like i’ve maintained all along. To argue that JB is good scorer just based solely on his TS% is inaccurate as his TS% is more of a product of the way Nate McMillan uses him than anything else. The only way to see it differently is if you completely turn a blind eye to his poor FG%, his poor Asst%, and the unbelievably high rate at which he gets to the line. Emphasis on “unbelievable”.
If you want to talk about pure shooting efficiency ...
rather than scoring efficiency, then use eFG%. As it is, Jerryd Bayless’ eFG% last season was a measly 44.4%. In fact, that’s a terrible eFG%.
TS% effectively measures scoring efficiency and eFG% ...
effectively measures shooting prowess, while FG% is an anitquated stat.
can't believe you are throwing him under the buss for getting to the line.
drawing fouls has just as much NBA value as making shots or getting rebounds.
There are valid reasons to doubt JB. His drawing of fouls and overall ability to score is not one of them.
Not throwing him under the bus
Just pointing out that there’s a big difference between being good at getting to the line and simply putting your head down and barreling into people in the hopes of getting to the line
Very subjective characterization
If Bayless was as out of control as your characterization suggests, he wouldn’t be getting whistles.
His AST% has increased significantly, this suggests that he is getting better at keeping his head up and finding teammates.
IMO, you are way too dismissive of the skill and athleticism Bayless exhibits on the drive. If it was a simple matter of “putting your head down and barreling into people in the hopes of getting to the line,” wouldn’t other players be able to do it? Bayless is in the top 9 among all second year guards in the last two decades along with Kobe, Wade, Iverson etc. Do all of those guys just put their heads down? Your reasoning is circular and misguided, IMO.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions
IMO you are way to focused on the stats that support your claim
Yes, his ast% has improved. It’d be hard not improve upon what it was last year. Even though it has improved it’s still god awful.
How do I know he’s out of control? Because he shoots 41% despite a large portion of his shots being at point blank range. You say you like looking at trends look at some of the other PG in the league that are accused of being poor shooters. Rondo poor shooter but has a 50% FG. Miller considered a poor shooter and his FG% is down this year but traditionally maintains a decent FG%. Tony Parker, not a great shooter but shoots 50% because these guys are able to finish at rim. They use there athleticism, dexterity, creativity, or whatever the case may be to finish at the rim. Jerryd is throwing up junk and hoping it sticks or hoping he gets to the line.
As far as not being able to get whistles. That seems naive to me. He’s still gonna get whistles, after all he is getting fouled, but you can bet he doesn’t get as much as he probably should. You even said so yourself that he doesn’t always get the call, and it’s probably because the ref isn’t willing to bail him out with a whistle every trip up the floor. I’m sure they’d like to go home at some point.
Wouldn’t other players be able to do it too? No. Most teams have better options than a player who’s sole contribution to the team is at the FT line. If not for the injuries JB more than likely wouldn’t have seen much time at all. As it turns out they really needed him this past year. However the only way to use him efficiently without costing the team wins is in a controlled situation where he can get to the line and take advantage of his ability to knock down FTs cuz his FG% is terrible.
Did Kobe, Wade, Iverson put their heads down too. No. They didn’t have to. Wade shoots 50%from the field and Kobe is in the high 40s they don’t have to put their heads down cuz they put the ball in basket without being solely dependent on the FT line to do so. Iverson’s a little different. He didn’t have a great FG% but it was better than Bayless. Plus, a lot of his shots came off the dribble and out of the paint and in the mid range. Where as Jbay gets most of his in the painted area, or at the line.
I swear there’s more confirmation bias in the pro Rex argument. You have to deal with preconceived opinions of Jerryd, and preconceived opinions of how useful a stat is.
I’m not even a JB detractor, nor am I ready to say he can’t be a starter on this team someday. To me the term PG doesn’t mean much these days. It’s just 1 of 5 positions being held on the floor. However, I’m not gonna sit here and act like Jerryd Bayless is a really efficient scorer when I just watched him throw up brick, after brick, after brick, and for the better part of the season too. At the rim, from mid range, from long range, it didn’t matter cuz it was brick, after brick, after brick.
as AK points out
you are confusing efficient scorer with efficient shooter. Bayless is a prodigious and efficient scorer because of his ability to get to the line – one of the most important NBA skills. There is no way to credibly denigrate this ability. Give the ball to Bayless and ask him to score – and good things happen.
Ask him to only shoot open J’s leads to a less attractive result.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 8, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
nah bro
look at it like this. If you absolutely need two pts. would you give the ball to Bayless? His TS% would suggest that it’s a good idea, but two years of watching JB play combined with common sense would suggest otherwise. You wouldn’t give the ball to JB over Andre Miller if you absolutely need two points, but the numbers say you would. In fact the numbers suggest that if both players were in their second year then you’d give the ball to Bayless over Roy. Again, this is where that whole common sense thing comes into play being that Roy was a freaking All Star in his second year.
If the team absolutely needed two points there’s much better options than Bayless. The only way Bayless gets the ball is if you can guarantee that he’d get to free throw line, where he’s most effective, but you can’t make that guarantee. Therefore even though the numbers suggest he’s a better scoring option the reality isn’t close to being true. It’s very important when looking at a statistic to remember that it’s nothing but a number. It’s not proof of anything but rather a probability of what could be.
AK is just confused on the point I’m trying to make. When I say Bayless shoots 40% from the field and 30% from 3pt, so how can he be a +50% TS. Im not making an argument for his shooting efficiency. It’s common knowledge to anybody who follows/watches/knows anything about basketball that most of the shots a player gets in a given game come from field of play, and not from the free throw line. So for Bayless to score at such a horrible % from both 2pt range and 3pt range, yet still have a scoring efficiency of almost 54% then something has to be causing this to occur. Enter the astronomical rate at which he gets to free throw line.
Now, like I’ve said before, if I’m wrong and Bayless is simply just that good at getting to the line ala MJ, Kobe, A.I. then he deserves the TS% that he’s got, but if he’s forcing the issue to get to the line just to maintain efficiency then he’s really not that good of a scoring option.
You can call him a prodigy of you want but that’s far more subjective than anything I’ve said thus far. If compared with who he ranks with at getting to line, would anybody in their right mind argue that he’s as good as those other players? Bayless is a good ball handler and a solid athlete, but he isn’t half the ball handler A.I. was and few were on Allen’s level in terms of ball quickness. That’s why he got to rim and finished while drawing the foul. Also, when A.I. saw an opening he took advantage and got to the rim before weakside help came. By the time it got there it was too late. Even though they fouled he was still able to finish. Jerryd Bayless drives to hole whether there’s an opening or not because pulling up for jumper would ultimately get him benched.
Nate McMillan did
“If you absolutely need two pts. would you give the ball to Bayless?” At the end of the NO game when Roy was out, he gave the ball to Bayless. Yes, Bayless missed the shot, but in that situation, McMillan considered him to be the best option.
Just another reason to fire him, I guess. ;-)
Let me try another way
Over the course of the game players score points in a variety of ways. In order to score points you have to shoot the ball (2pt, 3pt, FTs). If you wanted to what percentage of each shot they attempt gets converted into points then you come up with the formula for TS%. Because Jerryd Bayless struggles mightily in two thirds of the components that make up TS% (FG%/3pt%) it makes me wonder how he can still manage what appears to be such an efficient rate. Especially considering that the two thirds he struggles in are typically where most players do most of their scoring from.
In theory JB has a good TS%, but the majority of his nearly 54 TS% is really nothing more than his 83% from the line with some very crummy field goal percentages factored in since a large percent of his total attempts come from the FT line
no
In theory JB has a good TS%
That is no theory. That is fact.
what is theory is your idea that points at the line aren’t worth as much as points from the field.
Whatever dude
If I need two points I’ll continue giving the rock to a 2nd year B Roy and you keep giving the ball to a 2nd year B Rex and we’ll see who gets further.
be logical.
no one is saying that bayless is a better option than Roy. I’m not even saying that I think that Bayless should start. I’m merry exposing the falicy of your argument. You can be pissed at that and throw out stuff like this
Whatever dude
If I need two points I’ll continue giving the rock to a 2nd year B Roy and you keep giving the ball to a 2nd year B Rex and we’ll see who gets further.
or you can admit when you made a goof.
I have readily conceded when you have made good points but you get angry when I point out flaws in your logic. That doesn’t make for good conversation
You don't seem to grasp the difference...
between effective field-goal percentage (i.e., eFG%) and true shooting percentage (i.e., TS%). As it is, eFG% measures someone’s shooting efficiency; on the other hand, TS% measures someone’s scoring efficiency.
Bayless has a good TS%, but a poor eFG%.
Sorry bout the long posts but this is getting on my nerves
eFG% measures someone’s shooting efficiency; on the other hand, TS% measures someone’s scoring efficiency.
Bayless has a good TS%, but a poor eFG%.
You do understand that your statement completely contradicts itself, for in basketball the way you score is buy shot attempts. Thus it’s impossible to be a poor shooter from the field, but still be an efficeint scorer, unless of course you factor in Free throws. Enter, TS%. JB gets to the line so much that his FT attempts and percentages dominate his TS% stat. So when you see his TS% @ nearly 54% it reflects his ability at the FT line more than anything else. The problem with that is most of the game isn’t played at the line. It’s played from field. So, even though his TS% suggests he’s an efficient scorer, it’s not entirely accurate because once he steps away from the charity stripe his ability to score efficiently decreases drastically.
The purpose of TS% is to effectively gauge how well a player scores when ALL the facets of scoring are being considered. Is JB’s TS% really achieving it’s purpose when one area (freethrows) almost completely drowns out the rest of the components that the stat is comprised of. The answer is No. Think of it like this. In order to pass a class you have to take three tests. (FG scoring, 3pt scoring, FT scoring) Two of the test are hard (FG and 3pt scoring). You fail miserably at those two tests. However you do extremely well at the easier test (FT scoring). Should you still be allowed to receive a passing grade. IMO opinion, no, but that’s exactly what happened with JB. He somehow gets a passing grade. How’s it possible. A: he’s graded on a curve. Nah that’s not it. B: The test he did well on is carrying so much weight it brings up his score. Ding Ding Ding.
Answer this. Is JB’s TS% reflective of how efficiently he scores the ball away from the ft line. IMO the answer is no. Which is why if I say JB can’t shoot/JB can’t score to bring up his TS% as an argument against my claim is meaningless to me. It’s like saying, I’ve got a horrible driving record. I’ve got multiple accidents. I’ve got multiple multiple tickets, but don’t worry cuz I’m still considered a good driver.
A perfect example would be Cory Maggette. His FT attempt to FG attempt ratio is even more ridiculous than Jerryd Bayless. That’s why his TS% is off the chart. The difference between him and JB is I can still call Cory Maggette a good scorer because his FG% is also high. Which means that even if he doesn’t get the call he still scores the ball at an efficient rate. He’s a good scorer. JB isn’t. If you wanna make an argument for someone scoring efficiency you still need to look at more than just his TS%. The TS% doesn’t tell the whole story. His scoring prowess is more reflecitve of how he’s being used by Coach than his actual ability to score as of right now. Doesn’t mean he cant improve, but he ain’t there right now.
To be honest this whole argument is getting a little annoying. I’ve presented a ton of stuff to make my claim and the only thing people can do is take what I say out of context and make me out to be confused.
Just to make sure we’re all clear, you guys do understand what it means to be an efficient scorer right? That means that if you’re given the ball, I should feel real good about our chances of coming away with atleast two points. That’s what the TS% is attempting to reflect. Can anybody really say that about JB the way his TS% suggests that you can? Only if those two points are coming from the FT line. As I’ve said several times. Not everyone in the league is a good example of what the TS% stat is supposed to represent. To use it in a pro JB argument is worthless to me.
TS% is an extremely good tool to use if you wanna compare Kobe to T Mac and determine who was a more efficient scorer in their prime. It’s not a good tool to use when evaluating a second year guard who spends a majority of his 17 minutes putting his head down and looking for contact.
uhh yeah you are still confused.
don’t know how to help you understand TS%…
there is a reason that NO ONE (even Bayless haters) is agreeing with you on this…. basic misunderstanding of the stat.
I don't think that I am
The problem is you guys have the numbers, you have the tools but you have know idea how the tools work or how to apply them. Or you know how they work and you’re completely misusing them. A TS% means nothing on its own in the case of a player like JB.
if I go 1 for 3 from the field and 4 for 4 from the line. Then by definition I’m an efficient scorer. My TS% would be 60% I’m more efficient than B Roy, more efficient than than Miller, more efficient than Bayless etc. But, who gives a flying eff about that. That doesn’t mean anything. Certainly doesn’t make me a good option, so why even bring it up.
It actually does make you a good option
If you give the ball to someone with a TS% of 60% but only shoots 45% from the field they are more likely to score points if you give them the ball than someone with a 55TS% who shoots 50% from the field.
TS% simply adjusts for all the ways in which you can score. Two points from the line is scored the same as two points from the field.
I don’t get your argument at all.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
I would like to second this. This is exactly what TS% shows.
It’s a measure of how many points, on average, a player will get on a given shot attempt, for whatever their average shot attempts are.
Now, for any given possession, you have to factor in usage as well. Since usage is somewhat inverse to ‘good shot selection’ (a gross oversimplification, I know), a high usage means someone who gets their TS% based on taking lots of shots, a playmaker (like Roy) rather than someone who picks their spots efficiently (like Batum).
Bayless actually has a very high usage rate. Meaning he is fairly efficient even though he takes a high volume of shots rather than picking his spots.
So yeah, he’d actually be a pretty good choice for an end-of-game shot, especially if you only need one point.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Seriously
It’s really hard to trust a lot of the formulated stat for a player with limited minutes and playing a limited role. There isn’t enough data. If one category is heavily weighted it becomes extremely easy to inflate/deflate the stat you’re trying to project.
The funny thing about all this is that you’re swearing by these numbers that JB is an efficient scorer, yet when I asked if you’d feel comfortable with the ball in JB’s hands and down by one, you’re answer was of course not. Be logical. hahahahaha
Shoot, King Mar, I'm probably the most ...
anti-Bayless guy on here — as well as agree that he’s stylistically a poor fit with Brandon Roy for some reasons you’ve mentioned in this subthread — however, TS% is the most effective way to calculate scoring efficiency.
Again, I’ll simplify it.
TS% = scoring efficiency.
eFG% = shooting efficiency.
That’s all there is to this topic.
With that said, though, I’m more concerned with eFG% and 3PT% in lieu of TS% when looking for a long-term option at the 1 next to Roy.
For example, here’s Bayless versus Darren Collison using stats from last season.
Floor Spreading Ability (3PT%):
Collison 40% > Bayless 31.5%.
Shooting Efficiency (eFG%):
Collison 50.6% > Bayless 44.4%.
Scoring Efficiency (TS%):
Collison 54.6% > Bayless 53.4%.
As you can see, the gap between Collison and Bayless was wider in shooting efficiency than scoring efficiency because of Jay-Bay’s prowess at drawing fouls — which is further evidence of him being a real gunner, albeit a proficient one — and, well, you can interpret that analysis however you want from there.
My last stand on this issue
Trust me. I know what the stat means. Basically says a player with a higher TS% can score more points on less shots.
I’m not saying that the actual FG% or the number of made shots is used in calculating TS%. I’m just attempting to show logically, with little success, how ridiculous it is that a player can be so inept in two of the three phases of scoring and still be produce a good scoring efficiency.
You have to be able to see that shot percentages, although not a part of the actual formula, are reflected in TS% since shooting is how you score points. Low shot percentage will result in a lower amount of points and a lower TS%. Higher shot percentages will result in more points and a higher TS%. Jerryd Bayless has low shot percentages and a decent TS%. It makes no sense.
If the only way to score was on two pointers from the field then FG% and TS% would be one and the same. That’s why I’m having a hard time believing that Bayless can have such low shooting percentages and still produce a relatively decent level of scoring efficiency as FG% is nothing more than a basic way to see a players scoring efficiency from the field. Player A gets to 20pts. on 20 attempts or 10/20. Player B gets to 20 pts on 30 attemps. 10/30. Player A is more efficient. I’ll admit that I’m probably doing a bad job conveying my point, but I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand. Low percentages are supposed to result in low scoring efficiency. Unless of course you’re Jerry’d Bayless
Also consider this. The number of FTs attempted is multiplied by .44 to account for the number of calls that end with shot and the foul. Can you tell me what percentage of JBs foul attempts came after converting the shot. I gonna take a shot in the dark and say it’s below 56%. That’s a lot of points he’s getting credit for scoring from the FT line but they aren’t being represented with a shot attempt. Getting points without even registering an attempt? Doesn’t get much more efficient than that.
To clairify one side note, I haven't used ...
FG% once in this discussion; rather, I use eFG% (i.e., effective field-goal percentage) when discussing shooting efficiency. That way, I can account for three-pointers being weighted accordingly.
From there, it’s simply a matter of whether someone prefers shooting efficiency (i.e., eFG%) or scoring efficiency (i.e., TS%).
For most positions, I’d easily pick TS% — which is always the case for post players, as well as usually the case for wings — yet, I’d take a closer look at 3PT% and eFG% when analyzing the production of a guy at the 1.
To me, a floor spreading off guard with a shiny eFG% is more useful than a dribble-drive combo guard with a bloated TS% next to Brandon Roy. Back in the day, though, I felt the opposite when Ray Allen was with the Sonics. I, of course, liked the pairing of Allen and Antonio Daniels, who was a master of drawing fouls, scoring efficiently, and posting a high TS%.
Unlike Jerryd Bayless, though, Daniels was also a methodical floor general, possessed keen court vision, and posted a tremendous assist-to-turnover ratio.
to be fair
I never said you mentioned FG%. I was talking about FG% and the ability to shoot, and you were saying that i’m confused. Well, I’m not confused. I know the difference, and I’m not saying TS% isn’t a good way to measure scoring efficiency in most cases. However, JB’s TS% is inaccurate. I watched him throw up garbage all season long. Plus he’s got poor shooting percentages from the field and the 3pt line. There’s no way he can be as efficient as his TS% suggests.
A lot of his points are coming from the free throw line, yet over half of his shot attempts at the free line aren’t being accounted for in his TS%. Since TS% is scoring per shot and a lot of his attempts aren’t being registered JB’s TS% looks much higher than it really is. His TS% is inaccurate.
I think you, blacknoise, ulc, and vulkeem, all owe me an apology.
LMAO
Good luck with that. Oh, and good luck with your interpretation of stats. Its been entertaining.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
So
Do you think that a lot of JBs free throws come after converting the field goal. Just answer that one question for me.
The .44 in the TS% formula is because...
88% of free throws come as 2 shots or 1 and 1, and 12% are and-1s. I think that’s a reasonable number regarding Bayless’s FT distribution. It’s the NBA average, too.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
No
I’m done trying to explain the TS% does represent scoring efficiency accurately. You won’t be convinced but perhaps you should consider the fact that NO ONE agrees with your interpretation of TS%.
Just a thought.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
wow.
ummm. yeah I was agreeing with you. surprised?
as others have said, it's not just the average of the other percentages
It’s the closest thing to a simple points-per-shot measure that we have.
Long story short: if someone has a lot of 3/8 FG, 8/10 FT games – that’s good for the team. It shows up as a bad FG% and a good FT%. TS% helps show this.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I never said it was just an average of the percentages
what i said is by averaging the percentages you can approximate the TS%, and it’s true since essentially the TS% is just a percentage of ALL made and missed shots. (3pt, FT, FG). Hence the term TRUE shot percentage. By taking the average of all three you’d get a shorthanded, and rough estimate of TS%. My way is obviously flawed cuz there are cases, for example, where maybe GO throws up a full court prayer at the buzzer. I’m sure the TS% has a way of accounting for stuff like that.
In any case having a good TS% and being a good shooter can be two completely different things.
Yeah, they absolutely are different things.
But TS% is still uber useful, in my opinion.
Statistics are indicative of on-court production, not skill-set. It’s an important distinction.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
but plays that end in fouls are not considered shots, right?
so I am not sure it matters.
JBay is shooting 40% on plays where he is not fouled that is what FG% tells us.
Roy, for example, cannot not score 27 points on 9 of 11 (with only about 1 or 2 three pointers in the mix) shooting as we have seen him do.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
I will agree with you on this
If he were a better player he’d get more time. It’s that simple.
If he was better than Miller he would get more time. He is NOT better than miller.
It would be nice if he was as good or better than Miller WHEN...
Miller is no longer as good as Miller.
the writing is on the wall
he was better than Miller in the playoffs.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 6, 2010 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Correction
He was better than Miller, following game 1, when they put a bigger Grant Hill on Miller. Miller won game 1. Hill was their best defender, who would have been on BRoy if BRoy was healthy. Bayless played against Nash, a notoriously bad defender, on an overall weak defensive team. If Roy was healthy, Hill would have been on him, where he has little to no size advantage, Nash would have been on Miller, and Bayless would have been on the bench, and we would have won more games.
Correction
Miller was pulled in the 4th quarter of playoff games in favor of Bayless. Miller doesn’t get a free pass because of the choice of defender. Bayless played better – had better stats for the entire series – and was the PG of choice in crunch time – for a reason.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
It was matchups
Bayless couldn’t be guarded by Nash or by Hill. That made him the better choice if we needed alot of points. Unfortunately, we were behind alot. …
In KP I trusted!
don't think you are right here
I may be wrong but I think I remember that the suns tried to have nash guard Bayless and miller to start but after both of them torched them they decided they couldn’t do that. I seem to remember that nash guarded rudy quite a lot and I was so frustrated because he couldn’t take advantage of it. man if we would have had Roy it would have been a different series…..
again I’m just going off of memory so I may be way off
Nash was on Batum at least some as well
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Miller put us on his back and won game 1. After that, PHX centered on Miller. Teams don't center on Bayless yet for a reason.
Bayless has been effective off the bench and I like him for that, but he hasn’t been able to handle the few times where he’s been given a bigger role because it’s a lot easier to score when you’re not in the other team’s game plan. He went on that 2-3 game streak early in the season where he played really well and everybody on here was screaming for him to start like he was an all-star. After that streak though, the other teams actually knew he was on our team and were ready for his one dimensional style of attack and it showed. Bayless still has a lot of improvement to make before he can be anything like an Andre Miller in this league where you know the other team has prepared just for you. Bayless doesn’t have 1/4 of the moves Dre has to get the ball in the basket.
Miller is too old to make teams pay for scheming him
not quick enough to beat an aging SF who has lost more than half a step due to injury.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 8, 2010 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
You should probably tell all the teams that scheme against him that they are wasting their time then.
Teams scheme against the biggest threats so I wonder why they pick him? And if you’re talking about Grant Hill and the PHX series, it wasn’t just Hill they threw at him. Miller was the only player other than Aldridge that they double teamed, while Bayless was guarded by Nash much of the time, the worst defender on the court.
too bad Roy, Oden, Batum and Camby were all hobbled or seriously injured at the time
Anyway, Nash spent more time on Batum, at least as I recall…consider that Batum’s exit interview had some stuff about him working on a post game so they couldn’t hide somebody like Nash on him on the defensive end.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I have
Always appreciated your incitefull and well reasoned arguments. Your a model citizen of be. Thanks for adding to the community.
"CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN." CONAN
by SELFDESTRUCTABLE on Aug 5, 2010 1:11 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Confirmation and Statistics
I alluded in my earlier post to the fact that the moves the Blazers have made confirms the fact that the Blazers are comfortable with Bayless being the second team PG in the coming year. And, I might add, if you see progress, then in a couple of more years, replacing Miller. They had ample opportunity to pickup any number of serviceable
PG’s this summer, (Hinrich, Felton, Ridenour, etc) but instead, chose to pick up Matthews to play the 2/3 behind Batum and Roy. Further, given the payroll, it seems unlikely that barring a block-buster trade, that the Blazers are not in the market for anything other than a clearly superior PG, which is true of every NBA team.
As far as playing time, or statistics, by playing in his first year behind Blake/Sergio, and in his second behind Miller/Blake during an injury filled season does not – perforce, mean that if in some eyes he were better, he’d get more playing time. Because in point of fact, his playing time is related solely to either 1) being better than Miller, and there are only 8 or 9 of those in the NBA, or 2) the minutes left when Miller is taking a breather. This is the same thing that happens to an SG playing behind Roy, it doesn’t matter if you’re good, you have to be better, and with some players, that just isn’t going to happen – so you don’t get many minutes.
I imagine, further, that those that don’t like statistics need to keep in mind that the Blazers, from KP to Cho to the scouts – like them very much. Certainly, they watch the players – but in the end, they statisize everything these players do. They do not, as a result, make decisions based upon visuals – which is old school, but on statistics. It is, after all, the only way the rest of the brain trust can make decisions about players due to the fact that with the exception of the scout, they will not have the visuals to support a given argument – or at least, nothing approaching the scouts. So the scout statisizes the players and then the rest of the group evaluates those statistics in relationship to other players at that same position. Without them – teams would simply be lost, as only the scouts would be making decisions.
Now, granted, the statistical sampling for someone such as Bayless isn’t large, due to the fact that his playing time is and will always be subordinated to Miller. Which, by definition means, most of his time will be spent playing against another teams 2nd team. To critisize the statistics on that basis is circular and self-serving in the context that you can’t have the statistics against the first team if you don’t play against them – which you don’t if you’re playing behind Miller. Bayless’s dilemma, as well as supporters and detractors, is that he doesn’t get the quality minutes at this point against the first team, and has never gotten very many consistent minutes until that point this year when Blake was traded – even on the second team. He has been used in position, and out of position, so, as I indicated above, only now will any of us begin to get some consistency in his playing time to provide us with a more practical perspective.
What we do know is that right now, the Blazer brain trust thought that he was a better option than most of those other PG’s that moved around this summer, and that, in point of fact, is one form of endorsement.
by Eben Calder on Aug 5, 2010 1:28 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
That doesn't make any sense
It should read: He, meaning Bayless, could get more time by eating into Rudy’s minutes. Sorry
In general, I agree.
I would point out that a fairly high % of Bayless’ PT last year came against 1st team opponents because he logged a lot of minutes when Roy was hurt.
by upper left corner on Aug 5, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
as a caveat
we don’t know Cho’s take on Bayless yet.
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
@nathanbegley
I'm cool with Bayless
I don’t think we need an all-star pg to win a championship team, we need to stay healthy. That said I’m not averse to looking elsewhere for pg , so long as we don’t mortgage our future to pick up an undersized injury prone pg who wants out of N.O.
Great post!
I agree w/ you on most points.One difference I think we have is that i feel optimistic but open minded. I don’t know how jbay is going to work out, but I am hopeful. None of us can know until we see him in the role that he is projected for. Period! Another thing I disagree with is that Jaynes and Vance grew up around pass first point guards. If we think back our most valuable PGs were not pass first old school types. Porter’s game was very similar to what jbay may achieve. Damon was certainly not a pass first pg. Neither was Strickland, Pack, Johnny Davis, or Van Exel. Our only successful traditional pg was Twardzic, who played with a Point Center, and a whole team of pass and movement oriented players. Fat didn’t get so good until he left. He was always an offensive liability, just as most other Blazer pass oriented guards were. Greg Anthony was as close to a well rounded pg that we have had.
Blake was continuously derided because he couldn’t do the things that jbay can, and now people rag on jbay for not being Chris Paul.
Our society is so contentious and divided. At least we can talk about these things in a civil manner, but I do constantly wonder how people can have such strong opinions, stating them as facts, without having enough info to possibly be capable of knowing what they are talking about.
it's not bias if it's right
but the problem is that there is no consensus on how to define the parameters for a “right” answer. Using advanced metrics is hardly any solution – confirmation bias is equally in play (at least) for this subject – but this is a problem among lay persons primarily.
Teams have built systems to avoid this problem – it is the driving reason for quantitative approaches to player evaluation.
Regardless of predisposed perception – there should be no disagreement on what a player has done. Projecting player performance – on the other hand – can always be refuted using almost any type of argument, biased or otherwise. Forecasting performance is best done as a probability analysis (with trends) combined with assessment of physical tools. People would be well served to understand that even with the best analytical and scouting tools at our disposal, the result is still only a probability of success. There are no absolutes in predicting the future.
At a discussion level for projection, the discussion points usually focus on one possible outcome or another – rather than acknowledging that all projections are simply probabilities. Quantitatively, we can absolutely state that one probability is more likely than another – but we cannot absolutely guarantee any probability.
The only thing that we can say with absolute certainty with any player is whether their physical tools and available past performance indicate they are going to be bad, good or average.
Bayless does some things so exceptional that we can project his future performance as good. That point is inarguable. Neither is it debatable that there is a legitimate probability he won’t succeed above replacement level.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
I think 'replacement level' is generally taken as 'D-League or minimum contract vets' level. Since those are usually the available 'replacements'.
If by replacement level then you mean bench level, I agree.
There is one huge thing that projects Bayless to get considerably better: his age. The trend for improvement of players younger than 23 in the NBA is very, very strong – it’s more or less the default. It has to be assumed that Bayless will improve in general – historical evidence says so, by whatever measure you choose.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I'm not sure about it but I think that "replacement level doesn't mean D-league.
I believe it means what the average player for that position would be I.E. average starter or average bench… Not sure on that though… I do know that KP used that term some.. I’m sure someone here knows.
It's based off the baseball stat VORP
Which you can see here:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Value_over_replacement_player
The money quote is this:
A replacement player performs at “replacement level,” which is the level of performance an average team can expect when trying to replace a player at minimal cost, also known as “freely available talent.”
Like the kinds of players Golden State was pulling out of the D-League last year.
As used by Kevin Pelton of Basketball Prospectus, it’s about the same – look at the context of these quotes:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=replacement+level&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=basketballprospectus.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
ok
for some reason I thought that it wasn’t D-league players.. guess I was wrong
Here's what I saw out of Bayless in the Phoenix series;
When the rest of our marshmellow soft sillynannies were intimidated by Amary and Channing Frye and getting blown out by 20 points AT HOME, the only guy I saw that seemed to care was Bayless. He was getting nasty, mean, physical, driving to the rim, and trying harder on defense. That fire can’t be taught. He is a physical specimen that has shown he has the tools and the drive to be a good defender and a master at getting to the rim. He is only 21, is improving, and he’s ours. The only thing I want to see from Bayless is more playing time sharing the backcourt with Roy. I’m not worried about his shot. He knows he needs to improve it, and given his legendary gym work ethic you know he’s working on it.
Good post as always ULC. Obviously I share your sentiment towards him, and the negativity towards him from a lot of Blazer fans. I agree a lot of it came from the Blankey era. Seriously, I don’t know how many fans I talked to that I thought was gonna cry when he was traded. This town just worshiped him.
"What people need to know is that those pictures were taken a year and a half ago, and I've grown since then." - Greg Oden
Right. I agree. But if he has a future on this team he needs to be able to play with Roy.
"What people need to know is that those pictures were taken a year and a half ago, and I've grown since then." - Greg Oden
by dario argento on Aug 5, 2010 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Great post, ULC.
I think I have brought up confirmation bias in regards to Bayless before, and it’s gratifying to see a well-thought out and written post about it.
As obvious from my posts above in this thread, I am and have been a Bayless believer. I really enjoy diving into the statistics and their relevance, as well as the offensive roles of players around Roy. It’s interesting stuff.
I enjoy it when someone actually supports the counterargument; sadly it is seldom seen.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Thanks a lot.
You put up a lot of really strong posts through-out this thread. I really appreciate your efforts to back-up your arguments with thoughtfully used stats.
I gotta admit that sometimes the whole Bayless argument grows pretty tiresome. I tend to repeat a lot of the same stats over and over because people repeat the same misguided, factually-challenged statements over and over. It is really nice to feel like I am not alone in my quest to counter the widespread misinformation.
Unfortunately, Jaynes, Vance, and Barrett have a much bigger platform from which to continue to spread their opinions. Frequently, it feels like a very uphill battle.
Cho’s opinion is the one that counts. If Bayless gets traded and develops into the kind of player I think he will become over the next 3-4 years, I am going to be plenty bummed. Fortunately, I think he is a stat guy and will see the same kind of improvement we do.
Again, thanks for having my back and adding so much quality info to the discussion.
by upper left corner on Aug 6, 2010 6:27 AM PDT up reply actions
Hey, it's a lot of fun! You're very welcome.
It kind of gives me a thrill to reference hoopdata.com, basketball-reference.com and 82games.com all in a post or two.
I’m just looking forward to the season starting – I can’t wait to see the results we’re so hubristically promising.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I think this post should be on the main page
I would love to have Bayless starting instead of Andre Miller. I feel Bayless brings more energy, hustle, drive, and killer mentality to the game, not to mention defense. I really like his humble personality too. I have a feeling Andre Miller would rather flip off a fan than talk to him. Bayless doesn’t come across that way at all.
And you don’t ever have to worry about Bayless coming into camp out of shape.
If Luke Babbitt and Jerryd Bayless played a game of table tennis I'm not sure who would win but the ping pong ball would lose no matter what. - Ben 7/16/2010
Didn't we kill the Miller off the bench experiment last year.
Let JB earn the starting role this season by succeeding as a backup PG. Then if JB earns the spot you can easily move Miller as an expiring next offseason.
His strengths lend themselves well to a sparkplug role
which, of course, means you come off the bench…
Don’t worry, he’ll play plenty this year. Lots of time in the 4th quarter in blowouts..
He's polarizing... because so is his play.
Yes, confirmation bias is absolutely real. Humans like to be lazy where they can get away with it, and sticking to existing opinions is easy.
However, in Jerryd’s case, I believe one the main reasons for his the polarized fan base – is because his play itself was bi-polar.
In JB’s case, we each have a great deal of mental footage to prop up our perception bias.
We see the good Jerryd drive to the hole without fear, and get to the line, at least.
The people who see the bad Jerrdy see him miss the layup for the “and 1”.
The good JB steals the ball.
The bad JB turns it over.
We see the bad JB drive to the hole, head down, and get swatted easily
The good JB people see JB come back for more, and eventually get a call…
The good JB started to hit a stop and pop more outside shot last year.
The bad JB tosses up airballs from deep to cause 24 second violations.
The good JB has potential, and is a good fiery guy..
The bad JB takes himself out of games emotionally.
Hopefully, this year, the good JB will outnumber the bad JB sightings, then we’ll all be happy.
Conflictingly,
they do already
hence the basic absurdity of the anti-Bayless sentiment. Most of what people don’t like about Bayless is a legacy to his rookie year.
Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
by blacknoiseNW on Aug 6, 2010 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
I have to disagree
I’m someone who would trade Bayless, not because of his rookie year, where he barely played, but because with every thing I’ve seen from him, I don’t see a player that compliments the rest of the team. Someone mentioned Zach Randolph, as an example of a guy who could fill up a stat sheet, but didn’t make his team better. Jbay is no Zran, and is by all accounts a good kid, but if I’m building a team, I’m looking for a different kind of guy to play at point. Saying Jbay can be DRose if he just works hard, is like saying JR Smith can be Kobe if he just works hard, or that Outlaw can be Kevin Durant if he just works hard. There are a number of guys that have amazing physical tools, but the brains, mentality, cleverness, team awareness, killer instinct and will, are in a guy or they are not. Jbay has the will at least, but is missing some of the other qualities that could make him dynamic enough to be what I am looking for. You can’t just pick up an all-star PG with all those qualities you might say. Well, ok, if we are being realistic, then give me a PG who has high BBIQ, leadership, and gets a lot out of his teammates. Those are the exact things Jbay has never shown. That is why we part company, because the raw athleticism part only matters to me if the guy has the mental part. That is why I am more excited about Armon Johnson than Bayless, and I would feel better about a lot of back up PGs in the NBA replacing Jbay. Some of us are looking for something different with an eye to that “team thing”, and the guy’s best case scenario stats still don’t make up for what is missing, because scoring can be found elsewhere, and a lot of back up PGs are better passers and defenders than Jbay. Savy is savy. Savy?
by wingzeta on Aug 6, 2010 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Have some patience...
high BBIQ, leadership, and gets a lot out of his teammates
How many 22 year olds have those things? Particularly the last two. I find particularly relevant a bit from Timbo’s epic biography of Andre Miller last summer, wherein Andre talked about ‘learning’ the point guard position during his 4 years in college. Guess what age he was then? Yeah, about the same age Bayless is now. These are things that can be learned, and Bayless should be given a chance to learn them.
(Especially at backup point guard. He’s a fairly good back up PG already – and the potential reward if he develops into a starting PG is far greater than the reward from getting a slightly better backup and the cost of getting said backup.)
(The Hammer does look good, but he’ll need time as well.)
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I can respect this point of view.
Even though I like bayless and hope that we don’t trade him, i have some of the same concerns that you do about him. Right now I’m not sure that he will become the starting PG that some see him becoming. I do think that he is our best option for quick points off the bench. And to me that is very valuable.
I guess what I like most about your opinion is that you lay out some very real concerns without minimizing what Bayless does well. It seems that many of the people that do not like him point out the holes in his game (he definitely has some) without giving credence to the things he does well (again he definitely does some things very well)
Even though I disagree overall I will give you a rec for a good comment.
I am an anti JBay starting PG guy
I just think he is far better scorer. I would rather have a guy that we use in a way that plays to his strengths.
I tend to think we are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
JBay is a great 6th man type or he is pretty much a scorer…
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Lots and lots of subjective judgments in your post.....
There are a number of guys that have amazing physical tools, but the brains, mentality, cleverness, team awareness, killer instinct and will, are in a guy or they are not. Jbay has the will at least, but is missing some of the other qualities that could make him dynamic enough to be what I am looking for.
Just because a judgment is subjective, doesn’t make it wrong. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but personally, I am cautious about throwing around these kinds of words about someone I have not personally met. I think you can make some judgments based on a guy’s body language and by watching interviews with the player and their former teammates etc., but I really question how you have arrived at these conclusions about Bayless’ brains, character, will, etc.?
He is 21 years old. He is trying to learn to play the toughest position on the floor for a very demanding coach. Because of the weirdness of his one year experience at UA, he is like a guy who was a star QB in High School, who ended up being moved to tailback for one year of college and then tried to jump directly to the pros. Given these circumstances, it doesn’t seem a bit surprising that it has taken him a while to catch on. Decision making improves with experience. Bayless was an excellent student and gives every sign of being a pretty bright young man.
In summary, you seem incredibly quick to judge on very limited information. I would love to hear how you arrived at these conclusions.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Jerryd Bayless is not a ballhawk, for his STL% is putrid. That, of course, is mostly due to his relatively ...
small wingspan. Now, clogging the passing lanes and forcing turnovers isn’t the most important thing for a perimeter defender — since otherwise Rudy Fernandez would be a defensive stopper — though, it’s one of three areas of weakness for Bayless on that end of the court. For Bayless, his two other defensive flaws are his propensity to commit cheap fouls and, moreover, his inability to fight through screens adequately.
The Definition of a PG
One poster brought up “what he is looking for in a pg”, and Bayless doesn’t fit that perception. Fair enough. But – what he is looking for in a PG may well “not” be what the Blazer brass is looking for due to Roy. From the outset, they outlined “why” they drafted Bayless, and they never once talked about a classic pass first PG. It is and was pretty basic. They want someone first and formost to fit into “Roys” style of play. This meant 1) bring the ball up reliably; 2) pass to Roy to run a play or have the ability to also run a play; 3) Guard the opposing point, and 4) be an efficient scorer.
In sum, a combo guard that can make plays to play with an all-star combo guard who can make more plays. This debate as to Bayless actually needs to be taken up with the Blazers – not Bayless. In general, and in combination with Batum, the Blazers are looking more to a team that can run plays out of several positions, not a team in which plays are initiated by one player.
Granted, they picked up Miller, but Miller was an improvement over Blake and they then wrote a contract to enable them to continue to develop Bayless, with the hope that he’d continue to improve sufficiently over the two years of that contract to increasingly play with Roy once Miller begins to slow down. And it took Miller, as it did Blake before him. 1/2 or more of a season to learn to play with Roy – and for Roy to learn to play with Miller.
And, as of today, and other than the fact that if an elite PG at an affordable price actually came into the market, they seem to be fully on the track they outlined two years ago. Sergio and Blake are gone, the Blazers made no apparent effort to seriously pick up the Sessions, Feltons, Ridenour, Hinrich’s of the world who were available this summer, and Bayless is now the #2 guard. As far as Johnson – we can no more project a pick from his position based on summer league as giving us a future 1st team PG that is elite, than we can do the same with any other pick out of summer league. In that context, I have no hopes for Johnson other than to give the Blazers a needed 3rd PG that can fill in some injury minutes without hurting the team. He’ll need a lot of seasoning before Mac gives him much time. It’s the way Mac is.
by Eben Calder on Aug 6, 2010 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
I think this is a very accurate representation of the team's thinking. Rec for you sir.
All signs point (ha ha) to Bayless being given full backup PG minutes this coming year – which will hopefully allow for better evaluation.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
You are a mind reader
Much of your argument dovetails with the discussion I hoped to initiate in Part 2 of my Fanpost. I hope to have it up on Sunday morning, or Monday morning, at the latest. I hope you will check back in.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey, it's August. We hardly have anything better to do...
just witness the post count in this thread. Haha.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Apparently, somebody needs a nap.....
Dude, you are behaving badly.
You responded to my substantive comment below with snark. Here, you are responding with derision.
We don’t have to agree. We do need to treat each other with at least a modicum of respect.
My OP made the Rec list in less than an hour and has generated over 400 comments in less than 48 hrs. Given that that is more than the rest of the rec list combined, I think it is clear that there is some interest in the subject. If you don’t like the discussion, don’t participate.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 5:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't go so far as to use the "beating a dead horse" analogy, although I'll note you lack ...
versatility regarding the topics of your fan posts. As some forthright advice, I suggest you develop more breadth and some people here will no longer see you as one-dimensional.
LOL
Heck AK, I poked fun at myself in my OP. You are right of course. I do think you hang around enough to know that I post on a wide array of topics.
In part, the reason for my obsession is that I see Bayless as sort of a fulcrum on which the future development of the team rests. I have been and remain a believer in the overall level of talent on the roster. Keeping Bayless and giving him an opportunity to show that he can be a decent fit next to Roy means that we don’t have to make some huge trade and pay some huge price to solve the long range need at PG. I also prefer to spend my time on a subject where there isn’t a widely held consensus. Posting about how great Nic I think Nic is going to be is sort of pointless almost everyone agrees.
The players I was most critical of, Blake and Trout, are already gone. I have my issues with Nate, but I am in wait and see mode because it is clear that for the moment he isn’t going anywhere. I defended KP right till the end, but that ship has sailed.
Bayless is the topic of the moment. It may surprise you and everyone else to know that I have only written 24 Fanposts total, in 3 years.
You and RudiFTW will be happy to note that Part 2 does not focus on Bayless but looks at all three perimeter positions.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, we're both equally critical of Travis Outlaw -- although my disdain toward Nate ...
McMillan certainly exceeds yours and that of most anyone else — while I was ambivalent regarding Steve Blake.
Nicolas Batum is an interesting guy, though, and I’d be intrigued to see your assessment of him in the same detail as you’ve done with Jerryd Bayless.
At any rate, though, the only player who’s “a fulcrum on which the future development of the team rests” is none other than Greg Oden. In comparison, players like Bayless and even Batum — albeit to a lesser extent, for the Frenchman does have a ton of potentially untapped potential — aren’t franchise cornerstones.
Agreed. Ultimately, this team will go as far as Oden and Roy will take it.
I find it sort of humorous when fans talk about the need for a second star. We already have one, Oden. If he stays healthy, I think he is a lock to be an All-Star. Only nine second year centers have put up a PER above 20 in the last 40 years. Six of them are now in the HOF, all went on to be All-Stars.
He will need some time to learn how to get his fouls under control, but his dominance as a rebounder is already on full display and his impact as a defensive stopper and shot blocker is also evident. I don’t know how good he will become offensively, but I am pretty sure that the answer is good enough to require a lot of defensive attention, and that is what we need.
What I meant about Bayless being a fulcrum, wasn’t that he is a foundational piece who will make the difference between getting Cs or not getting Cs, what I meant is that how you view his potential makes a big difference in our roster building strategy going forward. If you are optimistic about his chances of growing into the starting role, then you don’t feel pressured to make a big trade now. If OTOH, you don’t see it as a real possibility, then it means we need to take some sort of action to fill the long range hole on the roster some time in the next year or two, at the latest.
I love Batum, although I think a lot of fans are premature in anointing him as the next Scottie Pippen. He has a long way to go to be Scottie, but then of course he is also only 21, and Scottie wasn’t SCOTTIE, at 21. Regardless of how far he ultimately develops, I have a lot of confidence that Batum is a very good fit next to Roy. We need an excellent defender, check. We need spacing, check. We need a highly efficient, low utilization scorer, check. We need somebody who can run the floor, check. We need somebody who can be a supplemental playmaker, the potential is there. Batum’s stats are almost too good to be true. Can he sustain that kind of efficiency for a full season, for a career? I’m not yet convinced, but I am optimistic.
I guess what it gets down to is that I am an optimist and a bit of a homer. I would love to see our largely home grown crew get a chance to see how far they can go. I hate the star system, and I hate the whole Miami super-star thing even more. I can’t think of a better antidote than seeing a small market team like the Blazers win a Championship primarily with its own drafted players.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
It sounds like you are a fan, sir
And I really don’t know whether it is for the best to allow fan bias to raise its head in this exclusive club.
In KP I trusted!
read the same reports, but we have come to very different conclusions.
I think the different conclusions do not come from ignoring stats, I tend to value stats, but in baylesses case I am just not happy with where he gets them from. It is basically redundant production to Roy. Here is what I mean:
Yes his AST% has improved, but he largely gets his assists throguh the drive and pitch, the same exact thing Roy does only Roy is much better at it in terms of generating assists.
Yes it is nice to have a guy that can get to the rack, but if we have a Roy in the starting lineup is their a premium for a PG that uses that ability to drive to get a huge majority of his assists from pitchouts also? I am not so sure on that front.
Miller drives well too, but far more of his assists come from setting up a perimeter pass, or dumping the ball down low or dropping a pass off while on the drive, he does not rely predominantly on the pitchout like a Bayless does.
It is not that I think Bayless is a bad player or that he can’t become an even better player, I am just not sure his skill set is complimentary of Roy’s enough to help us win a title from that Starting PG position.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
I agree
Yes his AST% has improved, but he largely gets his assists throguh the drive and pitch
I sort of made up a stat towards the end of last season to try and show how one dimensional Bayless’ distribution is, here is a part of the comment:
The best way I can put what I see into some sort of statistical analysis would be to analyze the types of assists Rex gets. I think we can all agree that his 5 assists per 36 minutes is nothing special, so why not see what type of assists he is getting. According to 82games.com, Bayless has 128 total assists, 101 of which came from somebody hitting a jumpshot or a 3 pointer. 27 came on close shots or dunks. 80% of his assists were to jump shooters, which likely comes from a drive and kick, or a swing pass. Obviously, the drive and kick is pretty simple point guardateering. Most players that can attack the basket have this in their toolbox. My argument here is that he produces a poor amount of easy buckets and has very little versatility to his passing game and ability to read a defense. Here is a list of other comparable players that you yourself have mentioned(plus others), and their percentage of assists that lead to jumpers.
Rose – 67%
Evans- 64%
Westbrook- 58%
Conley-51%
Stuckey-62%
Blake-61%
Miller-62%
Roy-69%
Rudy-55%
Bayless-80%
and for fun:
Rondo-53%
Billups-57%
Paul-63%
Nash-55%
Parker-65%
D Williams-51%
by RudiFTW on Aug 6, 2010 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
good stuff
There is nothing wrong with getting assists this way, it is just not the tool in the toolkit our starting lineup needs most to be championship caliber.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
This is exactly why Brandon Roy and Jerryd Bayless are a poor stylistic fit together, because they ...
don’t complement each other’s strengths and weaknesses.
He might have gotten more assists closer to the rim if Oden was still healthy.
In the second unit his options were Rudy, Howard, Cunningham, Webster, and sometimes LMA.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 6, 2010 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, Bayless didn't really have an inside offensive option when he played
as even the guys who played the post with him the most (Dante and Juwan) did a lot more popping and knocking down mid-range jumpers.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
exactly- who the hell could Bayless pass to?
Comparing Bayless to other young PGs is not really that fair. Westbrook and Rose had much better options and they got to play a ton more minutes.
How many times did Bayless have nobody to pass to because there was no ball movement, no inside scoring threat, or nobody that could make a jumper?
Please see my post entitled "Hypothetical question" right below
I’m curious to hear your take.
I remember your post well. I understand your argument, but I think you are simply taking Bayless’ oustanding ability to collapse the defense and turning it into a problem. In my view it is a strength rather than a problem.
Bayless needs to add additional playmaking skills to his repertoire, but his ability to get open jumpers for his teammates is a good thing. If he can start with that and with the pick and pop as a foundation, he can add additional skills like improving his post entry passes, improving his lob passes, and improving his ability to drop the ball off to the bigs off the dribble, etc.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
If I rewrite my stance in bold, will you reconsider?
by RudiFTW on Aug 8, 2010 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
A substantive response would have been appreciated
Let me try to summarize our interaction:
1) You wrote a piece that essentially argues that Bayless is a bad fit because of the type of assists he generates.
2) I posted a response suggesting that your detailed research points out the obvious: Bayless is very good at collapsing the defense because teams take his ability to get to the rim seriously. The moment Bayless starts his cross-over dribble teams are trying to stop him by bringing help. That creates open jumpers for Bayless’ teammates. You claim this is a bad thing. I claim it is a good thing, but that Bayless needs to learn to do more.
3) You respond with some combination of humor/snark.
I think my response to your original comment was substantive and calls your argument into question. Do you agree, disagree, have further insight?
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions
A lot of those guys are good at collapsing the defense with the drive, which is a great skill, certainly.
But why is it that so many players there who some might even find to be worse than Bayless can get the the ball to guys in scoring position inside.
RudiFTW: This is a good skill that is as common as dirt. How come Blake is better at getting the ball to guys who are inside in a position to score?
Personally I think it is all about being able to think while you drive. If you can blast past your first guy, yet remain in control and not over commit, then you have the ability to set guys up inside.
I see Bayless as an instinctive driver, not a cerebral one, and there you find the reason for his extreme athleticism & courage. But you also find his lack of good decision making once he commits.
(I wonder how Roy, Wade, and Lebron compare on this RudiFTW stat?)
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Let's take a closer look at some of your statements:
…. This is a good skill that is as common as dirt. How come who Blake is better at getting the ball to guys are inside in a position to score?
1) “common as dirt.” Bayless ability to get in the lane is far from common. He wasn’t a McD All-American for nothing. He wasn’t recruited by Lute Olson for nothing. He wasn’t projected as a top half-lottery selection for nothing. He didn’t average over 30 points in SL for nothing. Bayless’ ability to get by people is not common, it is exceptional. I don’t mind if you disagree about his ability to become a better distributor, that is an open question. But give the man his due. He is one of only 9 second year guards in the last two decades to average over 6.0 FTA/36. By definition that isn’t common.
2) “Blake is better….” I don’t think so. Blake very rarely penetrates at all. I certainly agree that Bayless needs to improve at dropping the ball to the bigs off the drive. It isn’t that he hasn’t shown an ability to do it, it is that he needs to do it more often. Bayless has made some great passes to the bigs, we just need to see more of them.
3) “being able to think while you drive.” I think it is primarily a matter of experience. The more he plays, the more the game will slow down. In addition, I think you need to look at who he has had to pass to. Juwan isn’t Greg. Bayless has had very little run with Greg and his soft hands. I hope we see more. I also think people need to keep in mind the TO situation. Bayless has been playing on a very short leash and doing everything he can to cut down his TOs. Doing that discourages him from making risky inside passes. If we want him to try those risky passes, we are going to have to be willing to live with a few TOs.
To me, your criticisms of Bayless come across as if you think Bayless is a finished product. The guy is 21, he has already improved a lot, and there is no rational reason to believe that he won’t continue to improve. He had little if any PG experience in college and has limited and inconsistent minutes at the point since he arrived. Why stick him in a box and label him for all time? Watch his game develop.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Point 1: Why on earth would you want to grab up assists on jumpers over assists on layups? The skill of driving and kicking is common in the NBA. The skill of getting guys layups is far more valuable and harder to do.
Point 2: From RudiFTW
Blake-61%
Bayless-80%
Therefore Blake is better at getting his assists away from the low % shots and toward high % shots.
Point 3: Sure, I can’t really criticize future Bayless though, can I? I’m sure he will improve in some ways that we don’t expect, and fail some others we may wish he would improve in. But I do agree that their is hope that Bayless can slow his game down in his mind. I don’t think he will ever be great at this because his contemporaries are significantly better. I do admit that Bayless is likely hurt by Nate in this category as the Blazers run their whole offense with the end goal of opening up jump shooters.
Inside passes with a low turnover rate is what I would absolutely require out of any 1 regardless of team fit, along with defense. But that is just my opinion.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
It would help if we had some way to see whether Bayless' jumper assists are higher percentage shots than, say, Blake's.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they were, but then again it might not be significant.
Anyway, I feel that if Bayless continues to improve his own scoring efficiency, it can make up for this deficiency. We already know that he’s more of a scorer on the scorer-playmaker continuum than most point guards; if his strengths help the team enough, it might be enough to overcome his weaknesses and provide a net benefit to the team.
We shall see.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Jumpers vs. layups: I think you are missing my point
I’m not arguing that open jumpers are better than open lay-ups, although open 3 pointers for guys who are good shooters can be an extremely efficient form of scoring. What I’m saying is that RudiFTW’s “insight” is pretty meaningless. Bayless is better than most PGs at the drive and kick, precisely because he is such a threat to score off the dribble that teams almost always bring help the minute he starts his cross-over. Being good at this does not make Bayless a bad fit. It simply means he needs to add additional weapons to his PG arsenal.
Keep in mind that Bayless is extremely young and very green as a PG. I would guess that in order to reduce his TOs and to simplify the decision making process, the coaching staff has probably instructed him to concentrate on trying to master some of the simpler passes before moving on to more difficult plays. Bayless gets most of his assists off the drive and kick, the pick and pop, or the pass to a shooter coming off a screen, all three types of plays result in jumpers. RudiFTW’s research only confirms the obvious.
This doesn’t make Bayless “bad.” It means he is limited. Over time, and I would expect them to start this season, the coaching staff is likely to try to expand his repertoire. If I were the coach, I would try to build off Bayless’ driving ability and improve his ability to finish by adding a floater to his game, working on his left hand, and work on him being able to drop the ball off to the bigs when defense help comes. This isn’t rocket science, skills are like building blocks: you start with a players strongest skill and then try to add new options off of that skill.
Regarding Blake, is Blake “better” at getting other types of assists, or is he “worse” at penetrating and collapsing the defense? I would guess that both are true.
I don’t think he will ever be great at this because his contemporaries are significantly better.
This is largely not true. Bayless’ AST% is within one percentage point of the following young, scoring PGs: Rose, Evans, G Hill, Brooks, and Flynn. His TO% is actually below the league average.
Finally, look at who Bayless has had to pass to on the inside most of the time he was on the floor for the first two months of the season he was paired with Pryz. For much of the latter half of the season he was playing with Juwan. Let’s see what he can do if he gets to spend more time on the floor with GO and Camby.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
I already mentioned most of these points in my post above.
I am very much getting the point. I think you are missing the point.
The point of AST% was not what we were talking about. We were talking about where those AST% came from. Even if the overall percentages were close to the same, an inside shot is a much better shot. They tend to vary less with the hot hand/random chance.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Miller, Roy, Nash, CP3 -- these are cerebral drivers
Rex is a short-armed thunder-lizard. A solitary hunter the Rex attempts to devour all comers by himself.
If Rex becomes a cerebral predator — wow!
In KP I trusted!
Hypothetical question: What qualities should a PG possess in order to compliment Roy?
1) ability to bring the ball up the court: Bayless check
2) ability to defend the opposing PG: Bayless developing
3) willingness to defer to Roy: Bayless check
4) ability to hit the spot up jumper when Roy drive’s and dishes: Bayless developing
5) ability to create one’s own shot late in the clock: Bayless developing
6) ability to create shots for others when Roy is off the ball: Bayless drive and kick, pick and pop, needs to improve on dropping off to bigs off the drive.
7) ability to make a basic post entry pass to the bigs: Bayless developing
8) ability to get into the open court when available and run a fast break or make the long pass to a teammate who beats their defender down the floor: Bayless excellent speed, outstanding on his own in the open court, developing the long pass and managing the fast break.
For those of you who think Bayless is a “poor stylistic fit” next to Roy, I just don’t see it. If you think my list is incomplete or that I have overstated Bayless abilities, I would like to hear your specific concerns.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Several people have explained in detail how Jerryd Bayless is a poor stylistic fit next to Brandon ...
Roy — with those reasons including his very high usage, listlessness off the ball on offense, inability to sufficiently spread the floor and force defenses to not sag off him, overaggressive man-to-man defense, and poor team defense — so there’s that. Bayless is a poor stylstic fit for Greg Oden, too, because his scorer’s mentality and dribble-drive game on offense isn’t needed when making a simple entry pass or running the pick-and-roll with an ultra-efficient low-post scorer is a more effective way to run an offense. Bayless, however, isn’t adept at either of those two things, as well as unlikely to chage his style of play — for history shows that’s a rare occurrence, as Chauncey Billups is a unique case — a full 180° to suit what Oden needs out of a teammate at the 1.
This is hardly a balanced or persuasive response to my question.
I’ve discussed the utilization issue with you elsewhere. I think your position is very extreme. Bayless is a reasonably efficient scorer. If you want his U rate down put him on the floor with more efficient scorers.
Bayless doesn’t stand in the corner, off the ball, because he is “listless.” He does it because that is Nate’s offense.
Bayless shot 38% from 3 after the break and 40% in the playoffs. Granted the sample size is pretty small, but if he can sustain that rate he is perfectly capable of spreading the floor.
Bayless is quite effective running the pick and pop with LMA. We have zero basis for saying he can’t run an effective P&R with Oden.
AK, I really appreciate your knowledge of the game, but I find our conversations frustrating. Your presentation is so one sided and so biased that it is hard to separate your valid points from your hyperbole. You state your opinions as though they are facts. I would find your arguments far more persuasive if you dialed it back a couple of notches. Try not to overstate your observations so aggressively and try to acknowledge my valid points. Again, I do acknowledge and appreciate your knowledge and intelligence and find that I learn a lot from your posts. :-)
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions
You find me to be one-sided, biased, and frustrating with my hyperbolic presentation, while ...
I find you to be one-sided, biased, and frustrating with your hyperbolic presentation; thus, we’re at an impasse on this topic. Some folks agree with me, while others agree with you; that’s fine, too. It’s not going to change, either, so we might as well grimace and bear it.
In any case, you both present ample evidence for your points, which I think means this is a completely different topic than the 'confirmation bias' basis of this post.
Anyway, it comes down to an issue of optimism regarding where Bayless will improve, and in what areas he can change (ex increasing efficiency at lower usage, better decision-making, etc). So there’s no real point in continued argument, gentlemen.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Ultimately, it boils down to a vehement difference in stylistic preference. ULC and I ...
prefer a different style of player at the 1. I prefer a low usage, defensive-minded off guard who can spread the floor and also defer to teammates, while ULC likes a ball dominant, dribble-drive guy combo guard can score efficiently in isolation and frequently draw fouls.
I disagree with your description.
You frequently label Bayless as a “dribble drive” guy. The very reason that I have optimism about him is that I believe there is an excellent chance that he is going to become what I like to call a “triple threat scorer,” who can score off the drive, hit the spot up jumper, and create his own shot off the dribble.
If I thought Bayless was never going to be anything more than a penetrator, I would probably share your assessment about his fit. Whomever plays next to Roy has to be able to spread the floor. You seem certain that Bayless can’t do that. I am very optimistic that he can. His 40% 3 pt in college bodes well as does the 38% after the All-Star break last season.
We also disagree about Bayless’ defense. You consistently dismiss him as short armed, overly aggressive, and lousy at fighting through screens. While I think all three criticisms have some validity, particularly in his rookie season. I believe all three are a bit overstated:
1) Bayless’ arms aren’t likely to grow, and certainly he is not going to become Rondo any time soon, but I think the “short arms” meme is overstated. Bayless has decent height, good strength, and excellent speed for a PG. Proportionally, his arms may not be as long as some other ecto-morphic players, his overall wingspan isn’t that bad. A 6’3" guy with average length arms likely has the same overall wingspan as 6’0" with above average length arms.
2) Bayless’ defensive style is based on putting more on the ball pressure on the opposing PG than most. I don’t see this as a bad thing, I see it as a good thing. More pressure makes it difficult for the opposing PG to initiate the offense and cuts down on passing angles. It often takes a little time off the clock early in a possession which leaves the offense with a little less time to operate. Obviously, this defensive style only works if you have enough lateral speed to stay in front of your guy and if you have good big men behind you. I think both apply in Bayless’ situation. He does need to cut down on reaching fouls and hand-check fouls above the line. His foul rate dropped as the season progressed.
3) Fighting through screens is a problem common to the entire Blazer team which leads me to believe that it is more of a schema and technique problem than a specific problem with Bayless. Bayless has strength and speed which should be the most important physical attributes for getting through screens.
Basically, you criticize Bayless for his previous play while I focus on the improvement I anticipate based on his physical abilities and work ethic.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Regarding wingspan, you're pretty much right about how Jerryd Bayless and ...
Darren Collison have roughly the same length arms despite the height difference. Collison, however, is immensely quicker laterally — which is more important than straight line speed — than Bayless, as is noted by his superior lane agility time of 10.45 seconds to 11.26 seconds.
Collison, moreover, has a higher STL% and is better at disrupting the passing lanes than Bayless — which is a major weakness of his — due to his quicker hands and superior defensive awareness. When it comes to playing controlled defense, Collison’s 1.6 fouls per 36 minutes is a much healthier number than Bayless’s 4.2 fouls per 36 minutes.
Pertaining to fighting through screens by going under them, that was a weakness for Bayless all the way back in college. Unlike with Nate McMillan’s SOS pressure defense — which relies more on switching — you can’t blame O’Neill’s traditional man-to-man defense for Bayless having that flaw; rather, it’s a matter of his body being so compact he’s easy to screen, as well as not laterally quick enough to get back on his man in a timely manner after fighting through by going under the pick.
The problem with Bayless is he is still too much a project
I wanna see Bayless model 2012. He solves these problems, he might be so powerful that he will be able to bring about the end of the world.
In KP I trusted!
Here is why I think there is a difference
1) I have stated many times that I think there is considerable question about Bayless as a distributor. I am not “absolute” about much of anything. Half a century of being alive has taught me that their are many shades of gray.
2) I frequently acknowledge when folks who have different points of view make strong points. I have done so several times in this thread.
3) I try to be careful to differentiate between what I believe to be facts, and what I know to be my own opinion.
4) I make an effort to be careful about the adjectives and labels I use. IMO, you seem overly fond of incendiary adjectives. Labeling Bayless’ style of play as “inherently me first” or “listless” are just two examples of what is seems to me to be a pattern of carelessly throwing around pejorative descriptions.
I’m sure this comment probably sounds like I am just trying to vent or to give you a hard time. Actually I am making a sincere effort to give you some specific feedback about your communication style. Obviously, what you choose do to with the advice is entirely up to you.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions
Surprising and a little disappointing
It shocks me how many times over the course of this discussion people have used the exact same stat to arrive at the opposite conclusion; confirmation bias indeed.
More to the point, has anybody with the exception of Kroes32 moved one iota off their position before reading this thread?
"I'm a buffet of goodness."
the stats do tell me he has improved
but my fundamental problem is not with his production it is with his fit with the team. Does he bring something we need in the starting lineup? Are his skills redeundant in our starting lineup? Even with improved stats he is largely redundant in terms of strengths in relation to our starting lineup?
I believe Bayless is a valuable asset to have coming off the bench, I just do not see him bringing the skills we need to the rodeo in terms of our starting lineup for a champioship ring
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
This is a very fair dissenting opinion.
I’d agree it’s my main concern regarding Bayless as well. It’s a bit of a basketball philosophy litmus test, I think – how much can players learn to fit, learn to play together, alter their roles? Given the clear supremacy of Roy and Oden on this team, I think Bayless knows he’s going to have to make some adjustments (3s and D being a focus, etc). In this case I rely on his extreme work ethic for my confidence.
But yeah, there’s no guarantee, and he’s not all the way there yet for sure.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
The problem defensively with Jerryd Bayless has nothing to do with work ethic, for it's clear ...
that he’s trying his hardest out there. If anything, Bayless is almost trying too hard — as noted by his high foul rate — however, such diligence won’t alter his inability to force turnovers in light of a small wingspan nor his inability to fight through screens or effectively guard bigger opponents on a switch.
So yeah, Bayless is a poor pick-and-roll defender no matter the scheme. In Nate McMillan’s asinine SOS pressure defense, Bayless isn’t somebody who’s capable of switching onto bigger opponents and containing them — even if he fronts the guy - which is why his team defense and defensive +/ numbers sucked last season. In a staunch man-to-man defense — which is what Kevin O’Neill ran at Arizona — Bayless blows at fighting through screens and staying on his man when a guy sets a hard pick on him. Heck, that weakness was even cited by DraftExpress in his scouting report and, more recently, was shown to be true when Channing Frye blasted Bayless on a pick — even though it was an illegal screen, but the refs understandably swallow their whistles during the postseason — during one of the games in the Phoenix v. Portland first-round playoff series.
I read your post above, but I don't really get your argument
Please see my Hypothetical Question comment above. I’m not sure I understand what skill set you think would compliment Roy?
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions
in order of priority offensively
1. Someone who can consistently get the ball in to the post with a pass that comes in at the right pace and height for the post player to quickly convert. Passes that are too low or too high or at the wrong pace are not particularly useful as they force the force the post player to “gather” giving time to the double team to collapse making it more difficult for them to either shoot or pass out. (see what repeatedly happened to Aldridge in the playoffs last season).
2. Some one that can hit a cutting wing player with a precision pass. Also be able to determine if that cutter does not have a clear enough path to the rim for a good shot so they can decide to make a different play without wasting a pass and putting a team mate in a difficult position.
3. Someone who can create their own shot. bayless does this well by attacking the rim.
4. Can deliver a good bounce pass to a player that can be caught and out up in rhythm.
Position of passing should be the premium on our PG with the assets we have on this roster. Again, the drive and pitch is not a bad quality to have, it just seems to be the dominant trait in Jerryd’s game and one that duplicates something already provided (better) by Roy on our starting roster.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Responses:
Thanks for a substantive response. I asked a question and you answered it. I wish some of our fellow fans were a little more inclined to respond with substance rather than snark.
1) This is primarily a matter of training and experience. There is no physical reason that Bayless can’t do this. In fact, because he has decent size for a PG, I would argue that he is probably better equipped to make entry passes than many of the 6’0" PGs that many are suggesting we acquire. In addition, I think as Bayless gets better at hitting his stop and pop jumper, it will help set up his drive and help make post entry passes easier as defenders will be less able to sag off of him.
2) Its hard to draw a clear line between what is court vision and what is a matter of experience. Lack of experience leads to hesitation and missed opportunities. Elsewhere in this thread, I compared Bayless to a guy who was a star QB in HS, and who then goes to college and gets moved to tailback. After a single season he tries to jump straight to the pros as a QB. It takes a while for the game to slow down. Bayless shows all the signs of a guy who alternates between thinking too much on some plays and then just reacts on instinct or frustration on others. How much he will improve and how quickly are impossible to answer. I see potential, while others see the current limitations. The kid is 21, and has logged relatively few minutes at the point, I think patience is in order. I would also point out that Bayless has been instructed to do everything he can to cut down his TOs. If you want him to make these type of passes, you are going to have to be willing to live with some TOs.
3. Bayless can also get his jumper in almost any situation. He needs to hit a higher % off the dribble, but his “stop and pop” was his bread and butter in college.
4. See 2 above.
Overall, I think your comment places more emphasis in the “traditional PG floor general” skills than is needed next to Roy. I place more emphasis on having a PG who looks to have the ability to be a triple threat scorer:
A) able to hit the spot up jumper to spread the floor for Roy;
B) able to collapse the defense and hit the spot up shooter. You and AK are arguing that this skill duplicates Roy and offers no additional benefit, I disagree. In my mind, the fact that we would have an offense with two combo-guard type players who can both drive and both shoot the jumper makes it extremely difficult for the opponent to double team either of them. The double has to come from the guy guarding Batum and that leaves him wide open for the spot up 3. If LMA could develop a corner 3, I think it would make them almost impossible to guard.
C) able to create his own shot late in the shot clock: If Roy has the ball and is trying to drive but gets cut off and has to kick the ball back outside, I want his backcourt mate to be able to take one or two bounces and be able to get off a jumper.
I certainly agree that Bayless needs to learn how to deliver effective entry passes to GO and LMA. That is essential. Basically, I would rather have two combo guard guys who can take turns initiating the offense and who can each generate 5-7 assists than have a traditional floor general who initiates every single play. I think it is tougher to defend two playmakers than one, and more difficult to double team either.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 8:41 AM PDT up reply actions
not a lot of time but a few quick comments on your comment
1, Te other guys people are talking about have this sort of thing in their arsenal already. Some of them have even been doing it for a decade or two. Bayless may become adequate, but it is not his strength, nor is it likely to be in our championship window.
2. I am all for patience if he possessed the skill but just needed to adjust to the speed and quicker hands of the NBA. Again, it would be better for him and us if we use in such a way as to take advantage of his skills rather than force him into a position.
3. we agree by and large here.
On your final comments, we KNOW that relying on the simple floor spreading PG to clear space for Roy wins a ton of regular season games but creates massive problems for us in the playoffs where teams make better adjustments over a series, we saw it in the Houston series. That is not enough, we become to predictable, close out Roy’s passing lanes and we are toast.
On the Batum corner 3 or the LMA 3. Every team needs to have that in their arsenal, but relying on it overly much is fools gold. It just takes an off shooting night and you are toast. Having just watched the replay of the Buckeyes v Florida title game on Comcast SN this week reminded me of that fact, the Buckeyes hit about 35 percentage points below their 3 point average that game, hence the loss despite a stellar performance by Oden on the interior.
On point C, across the board the Blazers were much worse shooting in the last 4 seconds of the clock. ALL OF THEM. The FBP is not really something that should be encouraged in Roy’s game, AT ALL. I charted this a few times, Blake, Rudy, Batum, Aldridge, Webster, Outlaw all of our outside shooters percentages were down significantly in that situation. It is not good offense to get the ball with 3 or 4 seconds on the clock as a bail out, it just is not.
It is not a matter of the PG on this time initiating every single play, it is a matter that they provide an additional dimension to our attack. Bayless might develop those skills, but he has not shown them yet and hoping he gets there is not reassuring when all of the other pieces are basically in place for the next 5 seasons…
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
by PDXBuckeye on Aug 8, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting exchange
I don’t necessarily agree with all your points, but these are smart, reasonable comments.
I have two general reactions:
1) I think I am more willing to be patient. I don’t expect the team to win this year (although I do expect them to advance). It is possible, but an awful lot of things would have to go right for it to actually happen. I compare the cost of giving Bayless another year to the cost of trying to acquire a PG who can do all the things you are talking about, and I am inclined to try to avoid the big trade. I think I appreciate Miller more than most, so I am not eager to see him go. I also value Pryz, both for his own sake and as insurance for Oden and Camby.
I am extremely reluctant to see Bayless go, because although I have doubts about him as a starting PG, I feel very strongly that he is going to be a big time scorer in the right situation. I think his trade value is going to continue to climb, and I am loathe to sell rapidly appreciating assets (I’ve been renovating houses for resale for the last twenty years).
2) You seem to have a very precise vision of the skill set you envision working well next to Roy. Which brings us to the obvious question: how about a list of guys you think would be a good fit?
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions
I like Miller a lot as well
and I am fine with him starting. We have him for up to two seasons and I am not in a hurry to replace him. Reallistically most players that fit the bill are too costly in terms of trade, but the type of thing I would do is look at a guy like Collison from NO to come in and backup Miller. Give him time to learn the system and the team before he takes over full time.
"Oh Yeah!" ~ Kool Aid Man
Man, Darren Collison was the one player I really had hoped would fall to the ...
Portland Trail Blazers in the 2009 NBA Draft. From being a proficient distributor who can spread the floor on offense to being able to guard speedy 1s, Collison’s skill set fits exactly what’s needed alongside Brandon Roy in the backcourt.
I like Collison as well
I still wonder if KP would have nabbed him if he had fallen one more place.
However, I am not as convinced as many that he will ultimately prove to be a better player than Bayless. I worry about his size and his 160# frame. I would also point out to you and AK, Collison was a four year college guy so it isn’t surprising that he started out ahead of Bayless as a distributor. He also has a much higher TO rate that would probably not endear him to Nate.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
This is how I feel as well.
The marginal benefit (aka benefit minus cost) of giving Bayless another year to prove himself is greater than that of trading for a replacement…mainly due to the cost of the trade. He’s pretty certainly adequate to play 15 mpg behind Miller and even if we did have Darren Collison, the difference between those two for this year isn’t worth what it would cost to make a trade.
One year, Jerryd.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
What bugs me about Bayless
Is that I keep hearing about him being such a hard worker and yet, I see no improvement. I can’t imagine spending my whole off season working my butt off to be mediocre.
by tominhawaii on Aug 6, 2010 6:04 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
tom...
you give JB a few more seasons at the 1, and i promise you – we’ll be talking about how he’s on the road to being the next Stephen Curry.
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
Thats the spirit, Tom.
You managed to illustrate my argument in less than forty words. Brevity is the soul of wit.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not changin.
Until Jerryd Bayless can consistently make a pass to a teammate in a scoring position— without looking like he’s passing a kidney stone— I will stay on my side of the fence.
Great scorer. Too dependent on contact on the drive, aggravating and aggressive defender, has heart in spades… but I can’t imagine a good team getting better with him starting at the point.
...
The Jerryd Bayless/ Starting 1 train left the station a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago. Management knows this, the Coaching Staff knows this – i guess it’s just you people with a lack of “conformation bias” that don’t know this.
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
I'm back for seconds
Of all the people who should read this post and actually think about its content, I think you are probably at the top of the list. Not that I’m holding my breath.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks!
Although I grow rather weary of your nonstop pro Bayless rants – i wouldn’t want you to pass out.
People such as yourself get so wrapped up in bench players that you tend to start taking your focus off of what’s really important. And that is what it’s going to take for the Franchise to be a championship contender.
I love Jerryd Bayless for some things (namely his heart, hustle, & attitude). But more importantly (and more relevant to the entire ‘championship contender’ thing) I feel that he has a rather low ceiling @ the 1. A position that Blazer management has been looking for a long-term upgrade OUTSIDE the current roster during the entire off-season. If you hold no value to that — then i don’t know what else to say.
I don’t copy/paste statistical analysis for individual players on this blog. I leave that to others such as yourself that are more than willing (and seem to gain some enjoyment out of it in doing so). But that is not to say that i don’t appreciate it or that i do not factor them into my overall assessment. Which I do.
yada, yada, yada… :D
Treat people well because Karma can hit you at any second.
I appreciate the civil response to the double helping of snark I served up.
Some of our previous exchanges left me feeling more than a little irritated. It would be nice if we could disagree amiably. Sorry for the snark. Time for me to get off this board and go enjoy the sun!
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I've stayed away from this...
I’m the biggest B-Rex fan (notice my avatar; it’s not a T-Rex because I have kids), but I am convinced that there are better “fits” to play next to Roy. Now management needs to go out and get that player. I believe if B-Rex doesn’t start soon he will start to privately complain.
I want the best “fit” for this team and it’s too bad if one of my favorite players needs to go so that we can move forward.
Mid-Season
Let’s face it. This debate isn’t going away. With Blake and Sergio gone, Bayless will be the second team PG this year. And this will be his first season on the depth chart at that slot. Previously, he was sharing second team PG minutes – or playing injury minutes at the SG slot, which is why 60% of his minutes came there – not as the PG. Now, with Matthews on board as the second team SG behind Roy, we’re very likely going to see that 70% or more of his minutes will come as a PG, as the only time he’s likely to play the SG is when Roy is injured and he picks up minutes behind Matthews. And, hopefully, there won’t be a lot of those.
As a result, the only stats I pay much attention to are those he put together once Blake was traded, Fernandez dropped down the depth chart, and Bayless became the 3rd guard. After all, up to that point, Bayless was really used little more than as a 5th guard picking up inconsistent minutes or injury minutes behind Roy/Fernandez and Miller/Blake.
In point of fact, we have very inconsistent data precisely because Bayless has had very inconsistent playing time at both guard slots. We’ve expected Bayless, as a result, to step into various roles at different times with different players, yet he’s really had very little PT to date at the PG slot. Mac’s used him for his combo skills as a filler as needed.
From where I sit, if Bayless is to be a PG and a contributor, he is going to need to have consistent time at that slot. You don’t learn merely by practicing and training. Mac couldn’t claim, for example, that Aldridge might improve his game playing summer ball on team USA, and then pretend that Bayless could improve his game at the PG slot if he doesn’t play him there.
So, this appears to finally be the year that Bayless will get some consistent PT at the PG slot. Given how little time he’s had there to date, however, I expect to see early inconsistency. By mid – season, I’ll start looking more seriously at this stats. Until then, I consider his time on the court to be little more than the learning curve and practice time he hasn’t gotten to date.
by Eben Calder on Aug 7, 2010 6:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Quit being so even handed and logical in this thread
it isn’t appreciated
Umpqua: "Just follow the dead government proof link to find out."
playing time is key
good points- you can’t get much out of his stats when there have not been consistent minutes and role clarity. And with all the injuries- last year was a scramble for everybody, but for a very young player- not fair at all to make large assumptions about his future path.
I like your posts sir. Another rec for you.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
I'm sure something like this has been said, but here is my take anyway
If you think court vision is a skill that can be learned and a scorer can learn to be a distributor then you will tend to be a Bayless fan. If you don’t think these qualities are changeable, then you will likely either follow the ‘Bayless is not a PG’ line of thinking or question his fit in PDX. That is the simplest common thread I’ve seen reading these comments.
His other flaws (shooting range, defensive limitations) don’t seem to be dealbreakers, probably because hard work has been proven to improve these skills and we all know about Bayless’ work ethic .
I’m conflicted on the Bayless issue personally. I love that he is an intense guy who works hard and the improvement in his game gives me reason for hope but at my core I think style of play is something that is pretty set by the time someone hits the NBA. Because of that I see Bayless as a likely to be a combo/scoring guard even if he improves his PG skills/court vision to a degree. I think a Bayless/Roy backcourt could work if one of them took the reigns and fed the post, ran the offense etc (basically we cannot have too dribble drive guys who get their assists off kick outs). As I don’t think this is likely to happen, I’m pulling for a Paul, Collison, Conley type stylistic upgrade.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
by MadBlaze on Aug 7, 2010 8:42 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I disagree with your conclusion, but I think you did an excellent job of summarizing the debate.
Rec’ed for reasonableness.
I have no problem at all with those who acknowledge Bayless’ abilities and improvements, but who don’t think he will be able to develop into enough of a distributor to be a good fit for the team’s needs. In my mind their is a wold of difference between your argument and the dismissive “he is not a PG” assertion that drives me nuts.
I also think that part of the disagreement is about just how much of the traditional “pass first” PG skills you think are necessary next to Roy. Personally I think a two combo guard offense combined with a SF (Batum) who also has playmaking skills makes the team tougher to defend than if you have a traditional PG who is much less of a scoring threat. I realize that many disagree and are very fervent and sincere in their belief that we need a traditional “Floor General.”
Bayless is already at 4.7 assists per 36. I think he needs to get to the Blake level of about 6 per 36. If you think we need somebody who averages over 8 assists per 36, then you aren’t likely to be satisfied with a player like Bayless.
Again, nice post.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the problem will not be whether Bayless, Roy and Batum can get enough assists
But rather who in that scenario would run the offense.
Roy is great at creating his own shot or driving and kicking it out but he is not a guy who is a natural playmaker in the open court nor does he excel at feeding the post, hitting cutters or running the pick and roll with anyone other than LA.
Bayless is a incredibly agressive with the ball in his hands and will likely become a great dribble drive scorer as he improves his ability to finish but again his primary way of getting assists is from kicking it out to shooters. The statistics cited in this thread were than Bayless gets 80% of his assists this way, while for Roy it was 69%. That duplication is a concern to me.
Finally, Batum does show some playmaking ability but to think he would be the guy who would handle the ball in the open court, feed the post etc is a bit of an ambitious projection IMO.
In short, I don’t necessarily want a floor general type but I do think we need someone capable of getting Oden involved, someone who compliments Brandons weaknesses (ie. good defensively, good in the open court, adept at hitting a big man who rolls to the basket etc) and someone who doesn’t need to score to be successful. I’m just not sure that is Bayless’ MO.
BTW this was not really intended as a rebuttal to anything you wrote – just trying to capture my feelings on why I have doubts about the Bayless/Roy/Batum trio,
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Yeah, some pro-Bayless homers are laughably misguided in thinking that all of his detractors ...
want a pure point guard. I’m an anti-Bayless guy, albeit one who also doesn’t find Brandon Roy and Andre Miller to be a good fit with each other; that’s ‘cause Miller is a pure point guard who prefers to initiate the offense on almost every play. Now, Miller is tremendous for Greg Oden — as he was the one guard here last season who’d consistently feed the big guy inside with post entry passes — yet, there’s a definite conflict with him and Roy due to his high usage and inability to spread the floor.
For what it's worth, there are folks like me who'd prefer to have a floor spreading off guard beside ...
Brandon Roy instead of a pure point guard like Andre Miller or a dribble-drive combo guard like Jerryd Bayless. When looking for an apt stylistic fit next to Roy, I’d seek out somebody who’s low usage, plays hard-nosed defense, looks to make a simple entry pass or run a pro-style pick-and-roll play more often than slash and kick when running the offense, has an assist-to-turnover ratio of 2.5+, is consistent from beyond the arc at a clip of 37%+, et cetera.
I’m sorry, but Bayless doesn’t fit that criteria of mine. Plus, while Bayless can improve his long-range shooting efficiency and may be able to cut down on his overaggressive defense, players almost never change their stripes from being a dribble-drive combo guard to someone who can facilitate an offense by running the pick-and-roll and making sharp entry passes, as Chauncey Billups is a RARE example.
Bayless, moreover, will never grow out longer arms — which makes him unable to effectively clog the passing lanes — and he’s got a long way to go at improving on things like team defense and fighting through screens successfully. Yet, like I said above, he should be expected to cut down on the stupid fouls.
Alas, this guy still fits my definition of a low usage, floor spreading off guard: http://tinyurl.com/2bykvbu
Agreed
It is not an either or decision. Bayless is a certain style of player but just because you might think he is a poor fit does not mean you yearn for a completely different player.
Even the two young guys I like, Collison and Conley, have question marks but their style of play is a better fit with Roy and also Matthews and Batum, who need a guy who can pass the rock to them at the right time. I think Bayless is always thinking about how he can score before he thinks about where other guys are, who’s in good scoring position, has a mismatch etc. While I’d be concerned that Collison’s great 3pt% might not hold up due to the low number of attempts he has in his rookie year I know that he has a reputation for playing decent defense and balances scoring and distributing. I’d also have reservations about Conley due to his reputation for lacklustre defense despite having better tools than Bayless or Collison but his well established exceptional 3pt shooting and low usage rate make me think he could fit in here better than in Memphis.
By no means am I interested in a pure pass first PG just because I don’t think Bayless is the guy anymore.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Yeah, I'd much rather go after someone such as Darren Collison -- who's the perfect mix ...
between a point guard and off guard on offense — than try and force a square peg into a round hole with Jerryd Bayless.
Does his usage rate concern you?
23 is pretty high, especially for a rookie. His situation was pretty unique, being shuffled between starting and backing up CP3, but nevertheless it makes me question how he’d do next to a ball dominant guy like Roy. I’d love to have him but in terms of fit he’s not my no.1 choice.
All in all, despite his flaws, I want Mike Conley to be a Trail Blazer next season.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Darren Collison showed at UCLA that he can defer to his teammates and handle ...
not being the focal point on offense, so him lowering his usage percentage when called upon to do so doesn’t worry me.
Hey, you got through the whole post without saying Kirk Hinrich!
…I wish we could grab a 24 year old Kirk Hinrich.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Oh curses, fooled again - didn't click the link.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Its a loophole
Technically he didn’t mention him!
I do wish in hindsight that we had traded for Hinrich last offseason rather than getting Miller This is despite the fact that he had a poor year and given the same circumstances (injuries) we would be lucky to have gone .500 let alone win 50 games with Hinrich instead of Miller. I do think his decline last year was partly due to his situation – I can see him thriving playing off Roy far more than he did playing 80% of his minutes out of position next to Derrick Rose.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Unfortunately given his age and the beginning signs of a decline, he likely wouldn't have been who we want for the next four years...
which is pretty much the window we’re talking about for the PGOTF.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Kirk Hinrich, however, would be nice for the next two seasons, but after that it's ...
safe to assume he’ll begin to decline — perhaps rapidly — once his current contract expires.
I'd still be fine with getting Hinrich if we had an expiring contract attached to a guy we don't really need
As it is, I’d consider trading Przy for Hinrich straight up but I don’t think its likely after he was dumped for nothing more than capspace. A new GM does not need bad press for his first move.
Hinrich does make sense as a 30mpg starter for the next couple of seasons and after that could be useful as a low cost backup as he gets past his prime. I’m probably in a vast minority in holding this opinion but I believe if the rest of our personnel are relatively healthy then Hinrich would help us more than Miller next season.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
An Andre Miller for Kirk Hinrich trade would be interesting to consider even ...
today; yet, I’d rather keep pushing for Chris Paul or, if that falls through, instead try to pry away Darren Collison from the New Orleans Hornets.
It would have to be considered, certainly.
I think I might rather have Collison as well though. If we get Hinrich, and Bayless doesn’t pan out (I’m optimistic but I’d put odds at him becoming our longer-term starter no higher than 30%), we’re stuck in the same position, barring major playoff success in the interim.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
At this point, I'd easily take Darren Collison over Kirk Hinrich if I had to ...
pick one of them going forward. Even it was for just this upcoming season, I’d avoid using my heart and let my mind go with Collison.
I, however, would still gladly acquire Hinrich for the next two seasons. Yet, for that to occur, it’d likely have to be as part of a multi-team deal — which I outlined in another comment below — so as to justify to trade value aspect of making such a transaction.
Plus, then we'd have Hinrich, Miller AND Bayless.
I’d rather go into the season with who we have at PG. Let’s see if Bayless can continue to show the progression that was evident in the playoffs last year. If he regresses or looks to have plateaued, package him with AMEC in a trade for one of these other options as we near the deadline.
Don't get me wrong
It would be better if we did Miller for Hinrich. I just think that Miller makes even less sense for the Wizards than Hinrich does. How many minutes are going to be left behind Wall and Arenas in the backcourt (assuming the keep Gil) and how would Miller and Wall play together?
Przy makes more sense for them and leaves us with Miller and Camby to make a further consolidation trade – such as the Paul or Iggy ones suggested. Miller could conceivably be the centerpiece of a trade for Anderson Varejao, how I know some on this site hanker for and I’d be more than happy to have if the asking price was right.
I know I’d be happy with a Paul, Roy, Hinrich backcourt rotation and an Oden, LA, Varejao frontcourt.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Should read
*who I know….
I’ve been having a crappy day for typos. Bleh.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
I still dream of acquiring Kirk Hinrich, even today. Yet, I'd only acquire ...
him in a multi-team trade wherein the Portland Trail Blazers also obtained a star player — such as Andre Iguodala, who you mentioned above — so as to make it a palatable transaction for the fan base.
FROM CHARLOTTE
Erick Dampier ($13,078,000) {Non-Guaranteed Salary}
FROM PHILADELPHIA
Andre Iguodala ($12,345,250)
FROM PORTLAND
Joel Przybilla ($7,405,300) {15% Trade Kicker}
Andre Miller ($7,269,264)
Jerryd Bayless ($2,292,600)
Nicolas Batum ($1,196,760)
FROM WASHINGTON
Kirk Hinrich ($9,000,000)
TO CHARLOTTE
Andre Miller ($7,269,264)
TO PHILADELPHIA
Erick Dampier ($13,078,000) {Non-Guaranteed Salary}
Nicolas Batum ($1,196,760)
TO PORTLAND
Andre Iguodala ($12,345,250)
Kirk Hinrich ($9,000,000)
TO WASHINGTON
Joel Przybilla ($8,516,095) {15% Trade Kicker}
Jerryd Bayless ($2,292,600)
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=2fgslcs
Charlotte gets a starting caliber point guard in Miller, Philadelphia goes into full-on rebuilding mode in Batum along with some immediate salary relief in Dampier, and Washington gets a younger third guard in Bayless along with a stopgap at center to anchor the defense in Przybilla.
Afterward, I’d settle on moving Rudy Fernandez to the New York Knicks for backup off guard Toney Douglas — in conjuction with its future first-round draft pick , which’d be conveyed sometime between 2014 and 2017 — and call it a day.
C: Greg Oden (30 m.p.g.)
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge (36 m.p.g.)
SF: Andre Iguodala (36 m.p.g.)
SG: Brandon Roy (36 m.p.g.)
OG: Kirk Hinrich (30 m.p.g.)
C/PF: Marcus Camby (30 m.p.g.)
SF/SG: Wes Matthews (24 m.p.g.)
OG: Toney Douglas (18 m.p.g.)
C: Jeff Pendergraph (0 m.p.g.)
PF: Dante Cunningham (0 m.p.g.)
SF: Luke Babbitt (0 m.p.g.)
SG: Elliot Williams (NBDL)
PG: Armon Johnson (0 m.p.g.)
Doesn't have much to do with Hinrich
But the following is my attempt to fashion a championship calibre roster
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=2a6k9ud
Following this trade I would sign Delonte West using the BAE
Using your format:
C: Greg Oden (30 m.p.g.)
PF: Anderson Varejao (34 m.p.g.)
SF: Andre Iguodala (36 m.p.g.)
SG: Brandon Roy (36 m.p.g.)
PG: Chris Paul (36 m.p.g.)
C/PF: Emeka Okafor (24 m.p.g.)
PF: Leon Powe (8 m.p.g.)
SF/SG: Wes Matthews (24 m.p.g.)
OG: Delonte West (12 m.p.g.)
C: Jeff Pendergraph (0 m.p.g.)
PF: Dante Cunningham (0 m.p.g.)
SF: Luke Babbitt (0 m.p.g.)
SG: Elliot Williams (0 m.p.g.)
PG: Armon Johnson (0 m.p.g.)
I’d go to war with that team any day.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
I'd be down for this.
Andre Iguodala is just about a best-case Batum (except regarding 3pt shooting). It would raise expectations somewhat too, I’d think.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Developing PG's
From the moment he was drafted, OKC decided that Westbrook, with his one year of college ball, would start at the PG. Over his first two years, he’s played 34 mpg, shot 42% from the floor, 23% from 3 pt range. His assists picked up from about 5 to 8 year to year, whereas his TO’s stayed about the same at 3.3 for both years, and his shootings stats showed no meaningful improvement.
Now, given the posts on this board, I have no doubt that an entire chorus would be calling for Westbrooks head. His assists are up, but he’s shown no improvement at all in his shooting or in reducing his TO’s. And that’s after 34 mpg for two years.
Yet, OKC is committed to him – and there seems to be no effort to replace him.
If there is one thing I know, it is that playing Bayless 7 minutes at the PG slot(as opposed to 34 mpg for Westbrook), and 10 at the SG slot (60% of his 17 mpg), isn’t going to develop your next PG.
We are judging Bayless on 7 mpg for the year as a PG. Now you know why I discount most of this debate.
At some point we stop the nonsense and decide we’re going to develop our next PG, or, we give it up. That’s my take. In sum, play Bayless and accept him and his mistakes – which is what we’ll get for awhile given how little experience he has gotten to date playing PG, or trade him to someone who will give him a position and play him.
Bayless, for Portland, has to date been little more than a cheap convenience that we’ve kept around as a filler – which enabled us, among other things, to dump Blake’s contract, and earlier, Jack’s, while giving us some insurance at the 2 slot. He was, after all good enough for that.
This will be Bayless’s year to stay or go. He has no reason to spend another year in this town if Mac and the Blazers don’t start to use him in any meaningful way.
Personally, I don’t kid myself. I don’t think Mac or the fans have the patience to develop PG’s in Portland. After all, we talk incessantly about the PG slot, but we’ve played Bayless more at the 2 than the 1. Then, we rag on him because he doesn’t show “improvement”. Anyone mind telling just what improvement at which slot you’re looking for? I’m sure Bayless would like to know.
by Eben Calder on Aug 7, 2010 8:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Major Difference
Westbrook is already a top 3 PG defender as a second year player. Also, he was playing on a team that was about 2 years behind Portland in its development when drafted. In short – they could afford to put Westbrook in there for better or worse and it has turned out exceptionally well for them, we couldn’t/wouldn’t do the same as we were at the point of worrying about getting into the playoffs.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Yeah, we're more in San Antonio's boat with Hill
We still need to win, but we need to give Bayless enough minutes to develop. Eventually, we’ll have to bite the bullet, even if Bayless is still, like Hill, a little raw and inexperienced, but we can afford to wait and bring him along a little bit more before throwing him to the wolves.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
There's a big difference between Jerryd Bayless and George Hill, though, and that's usage rate.
Ignoring their differences in long-range shooting efficiency — for that’s one aspect in which Bayless can be expected to make an improvement — Hill’s a much lower usage player than Bayless, which makes him a good fit next to Manu Ginobili. With Bayless, it’s exceptionally doubtful that his inherent me-first ways would lend to him being more deferential out on the court alongside Brandon Roy. For me, I don’t believe that Bayless can adapt to being a role player in a starting lineup such as Nicolas Batum. Unlike the relatively passive Batum, Bayless is too aggressive to adjust his game to a team-oriented style of play.
You keep grinding away at this
If you want Bayless to have a lower utilization rate, try playing him with the first unit guys. His usage rate was lower than Miller’s in the Phoenix series.
Saying “inherently me first” is based on nothing and means nothing. Put the kid in the right position and then if he doesn’t defer to the more efficient scorers on the floor, your criticism may have some validity. At this point, not so much, IMO.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
You do realize I don't think Andre Miller is the best stylistic fit next to Brandon Roy, either.
Anyhow, Miller’s usage rate was higher in the playoffs than the regular season due mostly to Roy’s injury. The burden was on Miller to produce in that situation as a more focal point of the offense in light of the circumstances.
If it was up to me, I’d want the usage rate of guys like Roy to be about 25%, Greg Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge to be around 22%, and Nicolas Batum and the point guard to be around 16% when the starting lineup is on the court. And yeah, I doubt Bayless has the mindset to play a low usage rate, defer to teammates instead of pounding the rock when the ball is in his hands, and be effective off the ball; it’s just not his style or personality.
Starting PG at 16%??????
Give me a break. 19 of the top 20 Pgs in the league have higher rates than that. In fact, 16 of the top twenty have rates over twenty.
So, Jason Kidd is your guy? If that is the case, then you really do hate scoring PGs. That is such an extreme position, AK it is hard to figure out where to take the conversation from here.
Bayless spent half his time at SG filling in for Roy and Rudy when the coaches were begging for more scoring. Obviously that had a significant effect on his rate. Bayless is also the second highest per minute scorer on the team, and he is reasonably efficient for a second year guy, a bit better than Roy was in his second year. So accusing him of being “inherently me first” is just a gross overstatement. Everything isn’t black and white; the world does have shades of gray.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Mike Conley is a PG with a low usage rate (18 last year)
Who can still score well when called upon. Plus AK did say that usage division was while the starters were all on the floor. I’m sure he’d be happy if we got a guy like Collison and he had a 20-25% usage rate when playing with primarily second unit guys.
I think you are blowing the ‘inherently me first’ thing out of proportion. Bayless looks to score before he looks to pass, that makes him inherently me first. The statement is accurate. He gets the vast majority of his assists by passing after making an attempt to score (drive and kick). You can agree or disagree with AK conclusions but stylistically Bayless is a me first guy.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Right, I'd expect the guy's overall usage rate to be approximately 20% -- but ...
a bit less (e.g., 16% to 18%) when he’s on the floor with fellow starters, especially Brandon Roy — which is why Jerryd Bayless’ nearly 25% usage rate last season is much, much too high for my liking.
Bayless USG rate is pretty consistent with other young, scoring PGs
Particularly, when you factor in that his rate was pushed up be the fact that over 50% of his minutes came at SG. Is Steve Nash “me first,” his rate is 24.5? Bayless was at 24.0. Here is a partial list of the guys with higher rates than Bayless: Rose, Westbrook, Jennings, Evans, Parker, D Harris, Brooks, D Will, are all these guys “me first”?
Calling him “inherently me first” is offensive. It seems to be part of AK’s “inherent” tendency to make hyperbolic statements and judgemental pronouncements that are poorly grounded in fact.
It is certainly appropriate to have a conversation about: 1) why Bayless rate is where it is; 2) would his rate be lower if he was with the first unit?, and 3) what kind of rate would be optimal for the overall efficiency of the team?
I like the idea of having a PG who is more of a scoring threat, provided that he is able to do so efficiently. I believe that having this type of PG will make it more difficult for the defense to double team either Roy or the PG. I realize that others have different opinions. We should be able to have a good conversation without throwing around a bunch of pejorative labels.
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
One thing to keep in mind there
Hollinger’s Usage rate = Usage %, at least as we typically think of it in discussions on BE.
What Hollinger’s is estimating is the number of possessions that a player “uses” per 40 minutes, while usage % is an estimate of what percentage of a teams possessions that a player “uses”.
The most obvious difference is that Hollinger includes assists as part of his calculation, so someone who gets a lot more assists (like Nash) will have an added usage rate over usage % (which only looks at shots and TOs), although I don’t think you could really say that would make them more “me first” by dishing it to other guys.
The other big difference is that since Hollinger measures it on a per minute instead of a per possession basis, he has to adjust for pace, which will artificially inflate the usage rate of guys who play for fast teams since there are more possession to go around, and deflate the guys who play for slower teams.
Looking at the traditionally defined usage % for some of your guys listed here, Bayless is right about even with most of the younger guys, and above Nash and Williams, as would be expected.
#52
Apparently strikethrough's don't work for = signs
Let’s just go with programming conventions, then:
Hollinger’s Usage rate != Usage %.
#52
While I appreciate the education, I wonder what you think about the substance of my comment
I think the central point of my comment remains valid. Bayless’ rate is very close to other young, scoring PGs and is likely inflated by the number of minutes he spent playing SG.
Any reaction to my suggestion that having a a PG who is more of a legitimate scorer will make it difficult for the defense to key on either Roy or the PG?
by upper left corner on Aug 9, 2010 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm probably closer to AK here, to be honest
Sure, it’s nice to have a scoring threat next to Roy, but I think too much time and energy is focused on “who fits best with Roy” instead of “who fits best with our starting lineup”. Sure, it’s nice to have a guy can take pressure off of Roy, but we also have one other uber-efficient offensive presence (Greg) who needs as many shots as he can get, one more efficient guy in Nic (although his efficiency will no doubt drop a bit with an increased role in the offense), and another guy who will be a big part of the offense for better or worse (LA), although for as much as we dog on his scoring efficiency and praise Jerryd’s, he still had a barely higher TS% than Bayless last year.
So really if I’m being honest, I want those 4 guys taking as many shots as possible, so I think it’s just a waste to have Jerryd in there, too. For all the disagreements about him, it’s patently obvious that scoring is his main strength, which would be somewhat wasted there even if the rest of his game is adequate/becomes adequate (depending on who you talk to).
Of course, since we’re talking about comparisons, the difference is that most of the “young, scoring PGs” that you’re comparing him to, play with a lot of guys who have simply no offensive game. Yeah, Bayless has a lower usage than Derrick Rose, but instead of playing alongside Brandon, Nic, Oden, and LA, Rose played with Gibson, Noah, Hinrich, and Deng, none of which have much ability to create for themselves. Most of the other guys listed are in similar situations (as anyone who has seen L-R Mbah a Moute try to dribble can attest to).
It’s not that I think he can’t play with the starters, just that he’s better suited to be used in a role like the Spurs did with TP at the end of last season when they started Manu, or like they’ve traditionally used Manu. Why try and force a square peg into a round hole when we have a nice square hole ready for it?
#52
You are combining to separate points here
Usage rate is important to look at for me in terms of who would be using the majority of possessions in a hypothetical starting unit. It is not the reason I think he is a ‘me first’ player. That is because when he has the ball, he looks to drive and score before he looks to pass. It is a simple, observable difference between him and the players I would like us to get (Conley, Collison, Hinrich).
To address the point about having a PG who is a scoring threat, it is entirely possible to have your cake and eat it too. Collison is a scoring threat who can also rack up assists in a number of different ways. Conley has the ability to score in a number of different ways both on and off the ball and also is a decent distributor. You don’t have to have two dribble-drive guys in the backcourt in order for there to be two scoring threats, indeed it is far better if a backcourt has diverse scoring threats as it makes them harder to defend.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Confirmation bias?
That is because when he has the ball, he looks to drive and score before he looks to pass
This seems like a highly subjective statement. Perhaps that is what you notice because that is what you expect to see?
Every PG in the league makes decisions about trying to set up teammates and trying to take advantage of scoring opportunities. As I said above, Bayless’ USG% is right in line with other young scoring PGs. Do you apply the same pejorative label to those players? If Bayless is looking to score first more than these other guys, why is his rate the same?
Again, your statement seems very subjective and doesn’t seem to be backed up by any measurable stats.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Jerryd's raw stats ...
6.5 FGAs
3.3 FTAs
1.3 TOs
2.3 ASTs
It may sound like a subjective statement, but It’s not a “confirmation bias” to state an observation … especially when there is raw data to compare that observation against.
Add up the number of times he takes a shot or attempts a free throw and compare that to the number of times he made an assist. I’ll be generous and let you count the turnovers as an attempted pass and the picture is still pretty clear that he looks for his own offense before he looks for others.
by nikolokolus on Aug 10, 2010 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions
So do you count every time he passes to a teammate...
……and the teammate misses the shot?
The USG% is what it is 24.5% As I keep stating and you guys keep ignoring, this is in line with other young scoring PGs. Go look it up:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics?position=pg&sort=usageRate&seasontype=3&action=login&appRedirect=http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics%3fposition%3dpg%26sort%3dusageRate%26seasontype%3d3
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not really quibbling with the usage% part as it relates to other young point guards
Usage just measures the number of team possessions Bayless uses (either shooting, assisting or turning the ball over)
The percentage of Bayless’ own production that results in him looking for his own shot is the part I don’t like.
by nikolokolus on Aug 10, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
16 or the PGs in the top 20 on that list (regular season rather than playoffs, I like a decent sample size)
Is either the first or second option on their team. The only other low minute, 5th or worse options in Bayless’ range are Sebastian Telfair, Bobby Brown and Jannero Pargo.
Bayless is better than those guys but he is not on the level of anyone else on that list, so why is his usage rate that high?
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Bayless was the second best per minute scorer on the Blazers
…….and his TS% (.534) was essentially the same as LMA (.535) and Miller (.530).
Bayless was the best bench scorer for the team last year. A significant portion of his minutes came in the 14 games he started in place of Roy when the team badly needed scoring. Those games definitely jacked up his overall utilization rate.
I don’t understand the comparisons you are trying to make.
Telfair TS .476; 11.4 pts/36
Brown TS .441; 14.3 pts/36
Pargo TS . 429; 15.0 pts/36
These guys are dramatically less efficient than Bayless. The point I keep making to AK is that Bayless is one of the most efficient perimeter scorers on the team and definitely one of the most efficient scorers on the second unit, so complaining about his utilization rate doesn’t make much sense to me.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
The point I am making is that his usage last year was comparable to guys who are first or second options for their teams
Bayless is likely to be our 4th option on offense at best and I just question whether he is designed for that role or would be better off on a bad team where he can be a go to guy playing with the ball in his hands, attacking and where no one will care about how many possessions he uses.
His USG% + his style of play+skill duplication with Roy =/= Bayless as Blazers starting PGOTF (IMO)
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
It would be interesting to separate his usage at the SG and PG positions.
It’s clear in 82games stats that he was both more efficient and created significantly more assists while playing at PG…but honestly I’m still willing to give him a year as a backup to see if he can adjust.
Last year his role was a mess.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
No
Not confirmation bias. I have been a fan of Bayless for the past two years, I am just trying to illustrate why I believe he is a bad fit for this team. My OBSERVATIONS have led me to believe that Bayless is someone who looks to score first. This is not a bad thing it is just not what I want to see in our starting PG.
The fact that his USG% is in line with other young scoring PG’s is irrelevant to me. I do not want a scoring PG. I want a guy who balances both distributing and scoring – Conley, Collison and Hinrich are my examples. I have looked at the stats and see the improvements you also see – difference is I see a player who has a distinct style of play and look at history to tell me that it is highly unlikely that he will change this style of play and become what we need, no matter how much I would like that to happen.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Collison's rate is very close to Bayless' as is his TS%
I do appreciate that you are being straight about the fact that you don’t want a scoring PG.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
If you at my previous comments, I expressed concern about Collison's usage rate
AK’s explanation that he played in a more deferential way in college combined with the fact that he became the 2nd best offensive weapon in NO with CP3 out means I’m not worried about his ability to fit in.
Stats like USG% certainly need context. If you think Bayless’ would fit in the starting unit and that usage rate would come down and he could play without the ball then fine, I just don’t buy it.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
I think the usage rate argument is pretty overblown
1) Bayless’ rate was artificially increased by all the SG minutes he played;
2) His rate was lower in the playoffs which suggests that he is capable of psychologically dialing back his scorer impulses and willing to defer to more efficient scorers.
3) Bayless is already fairly efficient as my post above indicates. As his shooting and decision making continues to improve his efficiency will take a big jump. For example, if he had shot 3 pointers for the entire season at the same 38% rate he posted after the All-Star break, I’d estimate that his TS% would have been around .550-.560. That would put his efficiency in the same neighborhood as B Roy.
Having too highly efficient combo guards who are able both to hit from outside, drive to the hole and find open teammates would make it almost impossible for teams to double Roy with impunity. This is the reason I want a PG who can score. I want someone who will force teams to play us straight up and who can punish teams that try to key on Roy the way so many did last year.
Bottom Line: Efficiency is far more important than who is taking the shots.
by upper left corner on Aug 10, 2010 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Maintaining the efficiency of our current 4 core starters is my priority
Bringing in someone who may need to either sacrifice his game or take away from others game to keep being productive is not ideal. Plus he doesn’t add to our offensive versatility in the way that a true floor spreading, low usage PG would.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Improving the overall efficiency of our offense is my priority
Why so hung up on keeping all the shots for the other four starters? What matters is the overall efficiency of the offense.
If Bayless can continue to improve his 3 pt shooting, he is perfectly capable of spreading the floor. I would argue that his college numbers, 38% after the All-Star break, and work ethic all suggest that he will.
You and AK also make the argument that Bayless somehow replicates Roy. I think that is a very superficial view. Roy plays slow. His ability to get to the rim is based on being able to subtly change speeds and angles. His fall away jumper is based on pivots and changes of direction.
Bayless plays very fast. He is a meteor in the open court. His ability to get to the rim is based on an explosive first step and his jumper comes from his ability to stop on a dime and rise up.
I place great importance on having multiple players who can draw fouls. An ability to get the other team in foul trouble is a huge weapon. I want as many players who can draw fouls as possible. Combining Bayless with Roy, Miller and GO is going to put a ton of pressure on the opposing teams big men.
Above all, I want a second perimeter guy who can get his own shot so that teams can’t focus so much energy on Roy. Having a low usage guy whose primary scoring threat is the spot up three is precisely where we were when we had Blake. I want more.
by upper left corner on Aug 11, 2010 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions
To speak for MadBlaze
As far as this:
Why so hung up on keeping all the shots for the other four starters?
Because, for his supposedly great TS% last year, Bayless still had a lower TS% than every single one of the other 4 projected starters. It’s not that Bayless is an inefficient scorer, but that Greg Oden absolutely needs as many shots as he can get. Brandon does, too. Even if Nic takes a drop in efficiency with increased usage (almost certain), he’ll be a more efficient shooter than Jerryd. And then there’s obviously LaMarcus. Which one of those guys should Jerryd be taking shots instead of?
Of course, if more of his minutes came without all 4 of those guys on the court, he’d have all the shots he could want. Swap out Roy for Matthews and Oden for Camby and he has all the shots he could ever want.
It’s not that I don’t think it would be nice to have a guy who could get to the rim and draw fouls starting at PG, it’s just not one of the most important things I’m looking for in our starting PG. Basically, Bayless’s strengths are nice bonuses for me, and his weaknesses are what I’d consider important. It’s nothing personal.
#52
Barely
Miller TS .530, USG% 23.8
LMA TS .534, USG% 22.9
Roy TS .568, USG% 26.7
Bayless TS.534, USG 24.9
Your argument seems predicated on several assumptions:
1) That Bayless will not continue to improve his efficiency. I expect him to continue to improve his efficiency as his decision making improves and as his distance shooting continues to improve. If all he does is shoot the % he shot from 3 and from the FT line after the All-/Star break for the entire season, his TS would be around .550-.560.
2) You are assuming that his USG% won’t drop. Given that his rate last season was artificially bumped by all the SG minutes and that he would be likely to defer more if he shared some minutes with Roy, expecting a modest drop seems highly reasonable.
My argument isn’t that Bayless should start. My argument is that the PG rotation should be staggered so that Bayless plays some minutes with Roy, and Miller plays some minutes with the second unit.
by upper left corner on Aug 11, 2010 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Its more than likely you will get your wish
I assume that this year the Blazers will want to see what they have at the point in Bayless so they can decide what to do to prepare for the post-Miller era.
I absolutely agree with Royster though and am dubious that a Roy-Bayless tandem will do be able to properly integrate Oden or Batum in the offense – which is the key to our improvement as a team IMO.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Your idea of more is my idea of less
Not once in that comment did you mention the need for a player who can distribute the ball in a variety of ways. That is the truly concerning duplication between Bayless and Roy – how similarly they get their assists. If you don’t think we need more offensive versatility than would be provided by a Roy-Bayless backcourt then this discussion is no longer productive, for we will just be talking in circles.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
I do not expect the situation to be static.
You seem to be assuming that players future play is determined by their past play. I expect Bayless to continue to improve significantly.
If I didn’t, I would agree with the rest of you guys that Bayless would be a poor stylistic fit.
I expect Roy to get better at distributing the ball to the bigs. I expect Bayless to add to his current repertoire of drive and kick and pick and pop. I expect to see him working on dropping the ball to the bigs off the drive. I am hoping that Ociepka and Bickerstaff convince Nate to add a real P&R to the Blazer offense. I think Bayless and Oden could be devastating with their combination of speed and size.
Please see my additional comments to Royster above.
Thanks to all three of you Roster, AK and MB for a very thought provoking discussion. I think you guys have made some very strong points. I hope I have acquitted myself as well.
by upper left corner on Aug 11, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Its been at times enjoyable and at times frustrating
I doubt its the last time the subject will be discussed before the season starts but perhaps if you should hold off on part 2 so people can recharge their batteries on the Bayless thing (assuming the topic is Bayless centric – I know you said it is related to all guard/wing positions).
Needless to say I don’t quite have your optimism in terms of Bayless changing his style of play to become a guy who feeds the low post and distributes in the pick and roll. I do still hope you are right though, as it would be best for the team if Bayless can be that guy and we don’t have to give up assets to bring someone in. I just don’t think you are unfortunately.
Final point – I do not see Bayless as static, rather that he will impove along his current trajectory as a player. I do think past play is a good indicator of future play if not a determining factor as you indicated.
Well, thats that then.
| MC2PDX | Horf2PDX | Cho4GM | Griff4AGM | JVG4HC | 1/5
Well if anybody would know how to spot it? ...
by nikolokolus on Aug 11, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
it would be me...
I AM the essence of confirmation bias when it comes to Rudy. I happily admit it tho.
hmmm
There is a pretty good nba team that is built very similarly to what the blazers hope to become. They are built around a ball dominant superstar sg, a very dominant big man, a defensive stopper at sf and some complimentary pieces to tie it all together. Their pg had a usage around 15 the last 2 years, and they walked away with championships both years. Is it really that extreme of a position?
Unless Chris Paul is walking through that door, I'd rather go after a solid, yet not ...
otherworldly off guard who’d complement Brandon Roy — such as Darren Collison, Kirk Hinrich, Mike Conley, Jr., et al. — rather than trot out a high-octane combo guard, Jerryd Bayless, whose playing style would clash with B-Roy’s game.
No, I got your point.
My response was meant to point out that even if Jerryd Bayless and George Hill are in similar situations, they’re different types of players. That must be taken into account.
And the Oklahoma City Rustlers had so many...
injuries last year. And Westbrook was constantly being tossed between the 1 and the 2, had his minutes up and down, and had to deal with an out of shape and fussing Roy.
Was he a top 3 PG defender?
I thought Thunder fans were saying he had the tools, but was a little disappointing
on defense sometimes?
I remember him being a great defender in college, but not nearly as impressive in the pros.
by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 7, 2010 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
????So.
It doesn’t change the fact that Westbrooks lack of improvement in shooting and TO’s would garner plenty of criticism on this board given those 34 mpg he’s been playing for 2 years. And how much of that defense comes from playing time?
My point is that you don’t develop a PG playing him 7 minutes a game. And it doesn’t really matter why. We want to critisize him for not developing, yet won’t play him so that he can. And, when we do play him, we flop him back and forth between positions.
So, like I said. This will be Bayless’s last year. We either play him and keep him – or we trade him to someone who will play him. He’s been a cheap convenience – but we can’t expect him to keep putting up with this. I certainly wouldn’t.
If Bayless is still here at the start of the year he will almost certainly get all of his minutes at backup PG.
We aren’t paying Matthews $33M to sit on the bench to watch Bayless play SG. If Miller plays about 32 minutes a game, that leaves about 16 minutes for Bayless. Except, Nate likes to put the ball in Roy’s hands late in games and sometimes replace Miller with another 3-pt shooter – which would probably be Matthews. So it’s conceivable that Bayless won’t even get 16 minutes a game. That’s the bad news, but the good news is that it will almost always be at PG.
We will see what happens. I’m fine with keeping Bayless this year and seeing how he develops playing PG with Roy and Matthews, but I’m also fine with trading him if a more promising prospect can be acquired. It wouldn’t take too much to convince me that another player is a more promising prospect. Ideally however, I’d like to see a trade involving Miller+ that got us the starting PG that we will need for the next 5 years now.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 7, 2010 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Depends if Bayless' 3pt shot continues to improve and gain consistency.
We saw him at the end of some games this past year…but of course Nate hardly had as many choices.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
Pay scale means nothing
What matters is who gives the team the best chance to win.
I like the flexibility that having both Mathews and Bayless provides. Mathews provides a very different skill set than does Bayless. He is going to be better in some situations and Bayless is likely to be better in others.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Pay scale means nothing?
Do you think they committed $33M and a 5 year contract to steal Utah’s starting SG with the intention that he will share the 2nd string SG duties with Bayless? Do you think a players role and his expected playing time isn’t related to the amount of money they offer him?
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 10, 2010 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope that you are wrong.
But I fear that you are right.
In Bayless I trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
What Paul Allen did with Matthews is extraordinary.
Over $9M upfront payment and $33M over a 5-year guaranteed contract for a player that has virtually no chance of ever starting for this team (barring an injury to Roy or Batum). He backs up our best player and one of the expected future pillars of the team. His signing also pushed us over the luxury tax threshold. Clearly the expectation is that he will play the bulk of the minutes available at the backup 2 and 3 positions.
I think the Matthews signing was a clear indication that Bayless has to make it at the PG position or move along. There is no future for him playing backup SG for the Blazers, just as there wasn’t for Jarrett Jack.
Matty Walker: You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man. - Body Heat (1981)
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 10, 2010 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, absolutely.
Bayless was drafted and has been developed to be a PG. This is the year for him to show his abilities in that area specifically.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
PA paid that money because he is in win-now mode and Matthews was the best guy for us out there that we could get
PA wants to win and now. He has $10B with a B. He sees this team having a shot and will acquire whomever is reasonable to make this happen sooner that letter.
Thank you, Paul. May your dream come true.
In KP I trusted!
The dunk against NJ his rookie year says it all
Although that moment and that game was a strong indication that he was making progress, I’m joking. Sorry I can’t read 362+ comments so I will just say I am still optimistic about Bayless fitting in with Roy as a solid to spectacular back court over the next 5 years. He has not taken steps backward and yet his stock seems to be sliding with fans and some media folk, if not Blazer brass. I thought he had a solid series against the Suns and proved he could produce consistently in a playoff series. I hope they hold onto him and keep priming him to step up as Miller steps down in the next two years.
PTB Liberation Day - 2/10/04
conformation bias ??
quite an unfair/broad tag to put on people who don’t share your opinion. You seem to want to categorize people into some ideology of how they might evaluate NBA players?
It’s kind of like the LCDC in Oregon trying to designate it’s land use as singular only.. Telling some farmer out in Eastern Oregon that he doesn’t know the best use for his land and in turn setting a rule that compromises his entire lifestyle, is bureaucracy in it’s finest portrait of total ignorance. Simply put, it’s often degrading to people who have ‘in the field" knowledge and often use guts and raw determination to eke out a living. To replace this mature and proven method with a “new world order” slaps your ancestors right in the face and essentially wishes to eliminate their ideas because they no longer serve the new bureaucratic purpose.
I realize this comparison to the LCDC is a bit broad, as well, especially when applied to opinions in a basketball forum. I just used it as an example of how bureaucracy or “new thinking” can take control of something it knows very little about and then confirms their rules simply by dictating them.
I don’t mean any disrespect, what-so-ever, because I do understand and honor good debate, even if it is opposite of mine. What I find a reach is why a person, who wishes to champion a player, position, or system will continue to disregard mankind in general because their ideas don’t fall into a certain set of criteria or rules. (established in a mindset of mathematical logic)..
You do know they have never established a universal mathematical link to the creation of the universe. This is why gravity, the most common known element, always gets left out of the equation and has currently left scientists with the many other theories (even creation) as a possibility of our existence.
Again, I like your posts and realize they are well thought out and have plenty of merit. I just would expect a more balanced view on Bayless as a player, what the Blazers need at point guard, and how they end up eventually “identifying” this position. I’m sure there is some split opinions at the coaching, scouting, and GM levels. This is likely a good thing and may have a lot to do with why they have made some abrupt changes in personnel of late.
It could be a conclusion that potential has been moved to the back burner and trying to fit players into a system, no longer the most viable option….so taking a simple look at the current structure of this team, may come down to the importance of a particular player to the team as a whole.
Who on this team (Identity yet unconfirmed) could be traded away that would have the least impact on the team’s quest to get to the next level? One would have to say that Bayless, could be considered expendable, if certain criteria is applied to the position of point guard.. The team needs to quickly establish an identity of sorts this next season…And I am sure they are seeking to do this…Bayless will hang in the balance unless they determine that they can utilize his skills outside of being a “floor general” Something that is far from proven, so far.
Again I do not disagree with how you fit in Bayless. It is a perfectly feasible way to achieve results…however the net outcome has been, out in the first round, so getting to the next level might require different logic or different players…I just don’t think the team will be in the patience mode for much longer……Do you ?
[Good defense "releases" your offense]
Did you actually read my OP?
We are all subject to “confirmation bias.” It applies to both sides of the debate.
I’m sorry for the brief reply I have to attend to family biz and will try to say more later.
by upper left corner on Aug 7, 2010 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions
yes I read it....
We are all subject to "confirmation bias."
I have always had trouble with people applying labels to individuals…It bothers me to think it is necessary to categorize people into some kind of social entity that declares the reasons for why they think…..The people in this world (or on a smaller scale in this forum) usually have an essential nature that qualifies their individuality and character. It can be much more far reaching than trying to catalog it into a specific mode of thinking such as “conformation bias” or “attitude polarization”
Sorry to be so nit picky, and I admit I have chosen to read between the lines somewhat…but it does appear that the mathematical people always seem they think they carry all the truth, simply because they have a formula in front of them….When in fact “new truths” are at your window each and every day you awake……keeping your mind fresh is the key to letting the world live in it’s own entity, and for many, not a diversion through a book to try and find out why you have made a particular conclusion on something. It is the very reason, for me as an individual, to understand why I am not subject to “confirmation bias” and would not allow my mind to close all the avenues of gaining truths. And yes, this includes the subjective thinking that is still yet to be proven. Objective views are fine with me, but I just don’t let them carry the weight that some people do. It “cuts and drys” too much, in that it leaves out too many intangibles and narrows down the debate. One could actually determine that it eliminates debate entirely…..?
The very description of a point guard is probably at the center of the Bayless debate. It has been kicked around over and over in this forum…..it is likely the reason for the two opposing views and not as deep as we all seem to make it sound…
[Good defense "releases" your offense]
I don't think he was applying to everyone who disagrees
Obviously that affects everybody to some extent, but he certainly isn’t applying it to everyone who disagrees, and saying that is the only reason they disagree with him.
I like Bayless. Some of the more enjoyable games for me this last year were those where he turned into B-Rex (especially Phoenix and Lakers). Basketball players are meant to be entertainers, and as far as I’m concerned, he has that part down pretty well. :-) I don’t know whether he’s going to be a good long-term fit with the team, but I hope so. He’s still got a lot of room to improve, and he has improved since he was drafted. I always liked seeing him get up off the bench, especially when everybody else was playing flat and lazy, because I knew he would go out there, hustle, and play hard. He’s a fun player to watch, and I hope he does well wherever he ends up. I just also hope that it’s in Portland!
Patience
I don’t think the patience mode has much to do with the team right now given that the reasons we haven’t gone to the next level were the injuries to Roy, Pryz and Oden – as well as additional games lost along the way due to injuries to Batum, Fernandez and Blake.
The issue in my mind has little to do with the point. It’s health.
If we continue to find Roy and Oden injured at critical times – it will take a lot more than an argument over the point guard to take this team to the next level.
It will be clearer who you're responding to if you use the 'reply' button below their posts instead of posting at the very bottom.
Or is the site just glitching out and you’re already doing this? If so, my apologies.
You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.
by austinpwnz on Aug 7, 2010 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bayless can score. I'm waiting to see him help his teammates score.
I value him highly. But I will hang on to my confirmation that he isn’t a pure PG. I’ve never witnessed him string together productive minutes without putting the team on his shoulders. It might be just a style thing. He isn’t the style of PG that I wish he had.
Politics: I like George F. Will and David Brooks is my favorite columnist/analyst. Fox News, despite their tagline, has no pretensions of being unbiased, therefore it’s not where I choose to get news.
Obviously I don't agree with your politics, but I respect both of the guys you mentioned.
Both make me crazy fairly often, but both have real intelligence and insight. I particularly appreciate the fact that Brooks will occasionally stray from the party line and criticize his fellow Repubs.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm suspicious of Brooks' act
He is smart, which is what makes me suspicious. I can’t tell if he is intellectually honest and just happens to be obviously wrong very often, or if he is playing a role of the moderate conservative just because it gives him some measure of centrist credibility and because that’s the role he’s slotted to play on the NYT op-ed page. He just seems to produce an odd mix of truly original insights with party line tripe, and a lot of “both sides are right and both sides are wrong” filler.
George Will though … talk about confirmation bias! I know he believes what he says, but he’s the type that fancies himself an intellectual skeptic and really does research issues, but just knows the answer before he begins studying. The result is he’ll ignore credible sources and cite things that have no credibility or are totally out of context to make his preconceived notions work, and he’s done this consistently enough that it’s eroded the respect I used to have for him.
I hear you....
I was trying to be friendly with the previous commenter. I share some of your concerns. However, if you are comparing Will and Brooks, to whack-jobs like Beck, or shills like Hannity, both are pretty reasonable.
by upper left corner on Aug 8, 2010 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Our politics might be closer than you think
Brooks is my favorite analyst, not because I agree with him but because he clearly articulates viewpoints that contradict my own beliefs. How can I be sure I’m right until I understand the other side of the argument? I don’t like Beck or Hannity for the same reason I didn’t like Franken as a radio personality.
Confirmation bias on a message board? I'm shocked!
Hehe. The interesting question that raises for me is whether message boards actually encourage confirmation bias. When people take a hard stand on something publicly, like commenting on a young player’s future on BEdge, it sure creates some cognitive dissonance to see things turn the other way…
I like Bayless though. I really thought he was our guy when he first came in the league and I’ve tempered expectations since, but he seems to still be growing. If he keeps doing that, he could be pretty good. He’s never going to be an Andre Miller type distributor, but there are many ways to skin a cat.
All i gotta say is that when Russell Westbrook was a sophmore at UCLA
If you even knew he was entering the draft—- noone thought he should go that high, and many, MANY critics said the excact same thing that he was not a true point but an undersized combo guard who can play good D.
Westbrook has definatly showed more improvement early, but alot of people forget that bayless was supposed to be coached by lute olsen and was going to be THE POINT GUARD. When lute left and they used a 3 guard lineup with no established point where he was basically told to SCORE THE BALL he missed that oppurtunity to learn the posistion from a HOF coach.
These guys are athletes and the best ones in the world at that. If you think that this young man who WANTS IT cant learn posistioning, pick and roll, and play development than your so niave its sicking. Bayless has underrated court vision and shooting and to be honest im not sure why more people dont make this comparison.
In a world where “not typicall point guards” are excelling( Parker, Rondo, Harris, Evans, Aaron Brooks—- yea people thought he would do nothing but look what happened after 2 years—- i can only hope that we keep this guy around long enough to show how good he really can be, and how rare it is to find a guy with his heart, size and athletic ability.
surpised more people dont just want the guy here and have him here just for his passion for the game. people always want lamarcus and brandon to play with this " heart" and here we have someone who puts his blood sweat and tears on the court in KG fasion(more respectable) with sooooooooo much talant and willing to give him up as a throw so they can bust nuts imagining a BIg Name player. Wow. Keep it up JBAY and no that alot of people like me respect your work and what you do. Get better man, we know u will!!!!
Welcome back Mr. Williams. Yes.
I like this post
Seems reasonable and well-grounded. Not sure I agree on every point of this discussion, on either “side”, but this particular post stood out.
I would also like to remind every stat-lover here that statistics are never completely objective and that they are not ever capable of measuring intangibles. I think a player like Joel Pryzbilla makes an excellent case for why statistics should not be used as the sole, or even the primary, basis of appraisal.
Go Blazers!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
