Game 18: Portland vs Philadelphia 4:00pm SNW

[zzaj]

Harkless isn't wrong. Nor do I think he's deflecting blame. IMO, he's calling it like it is. The article even mentions that he's simply reacting honestly to tough questions. The Blazers DO run most of it's offense through Lillard and CJ. The article mentions Nurkic, but I don't see a huge amount of offense getting run through Nurkic. More goes through Turner. I actually wish MORE offense ran through Nurkic. To Harkless' credit, in the article he says he has to hit the shots that he gets, and he's right. Many of his shots are wide open. IMO, there is no excuse for missing wide open shots at the NBA level.

If we're looking for blame, I think a good chunk of it goes on Stotts. What is the role of a SF in the Stotts motion offense? We've seen clear roles for PG/SG/PF/C...but never a clear role for SF stretching back to his Dallas days. And if you look at the roots on which he built his system--Adelman in SAC and Karl in SEA/MIL, it's still pretty murky for the SF position.

I'm bad at finding team stats, but I wonder how this year's team looks in comparison to the past couple of years when it comes to fastbreak points. Harkless may be a better fit in a more uptempo, getting out in transition style offense. This year's team is certainly the antithesis of that and we've never really seen Harkless in that type of situation.

One other thing that has been puzzling me. I usually equate good defense with a higher number of transition baskets. It's a bit odd that the Blazers defense is ranked so high, yet they are dead last in fastbreak points. It makes me wonder if rebounding numbers and SOS are skewing the defense to look better than it is. Certainly, when I watch the Blazers I don't see the second best defense in the NBA.

[Blazinaway]

OMG HAKRLESS IS COMPLAINING TO QUICK RIGHT NOW ABOUT HIS ROLE LIKE HE WASN"T LITERALLY GIVEN WIDE OPEN SHOTS ALL YEAR THAT HE BRICKED.

How do we run plays for a guy that can't even shoot open shots or dribble, we gotta trade him at this point. HELL PLAY LAYMAN AT THE STARTING SF.

The guy has the gull to blame the coaches or insinuate we only run stuff for Dame CJ and Nurk. LIKE YOU ARE LITERAL GARBAGE MY MAN RUNNING PLAYS WON"T MAKE YOUR JUMPER GOOD. YOU ARE LUCKY DAME EVEN SAVED YOUR CAREER AFTER NO OTHER TEAM IN THE LEAGUE OFFERED YOU A CONTRACT.

I can't wait for Harkless to journeyman his way around the league and be gone before he is 30.

Meh.... he's right though... this offense is a MAAAASSSSSIVVVEEE step back from previous years. It's basically buddy ball right now. Nothing is run for other players, there's no diversity in the offense.... it stinks. Yea... Harkless isn't great or anything, but in all honesty, he's also right. Does nobody else watch this offense and get the distinct notion that we're watching 3 guys taking turns jacking up and bricking bad shots, all the while getting free reign to do so? It's like we're playing with a bunch of Carmelo's on offense, it's gross.

There's not much we can do but if Harkless starts to deflect blame for his poor play rather than take responsibility for it and accept any changes Stotts might make then that's absolute poison that can filter through the whole group and lays a negative vibe that's hard to come out of.

I read the article and I didn't get the vibe that Harkless was deflecting all blame for his play. I tend to agree with RTN that Harkless is mainly trying figure out what his role is in the offense because there's been some significant changes from last season, and none of them appear to be changes for the better

* Portland ranks 28th in opponent turnovers a game

* Portland is dead last in fast break points/game:

26 Utah 8.0
27 Cleveland 8.0
28 Chicago 7.9
29 New York 6.4
30 Portland 4.5

last season Portland was 22nd at 11.3 points/game. That's a massive drop of nearly 7 points a game in a season in which 6 of 8 losses have been by less then 7 points

* Portland is dead last in FG% at the rim:

26 Los Angeles Clippers .607
27 Phoenix Suns .603
28 Chicago Bulls .602
29 Boston Celtics .582
30 Portland Trail Blazers .561

the gaps in those two stats above between 30th place Portland and the 29th place teams are sizable.

* last season, Portland ranked 11th in the NBA in offensive rating at 110.3 (points/100-possessions). This season, they rank 21st at 104.8. Again, that's a huge drop in offensive efficiency.

* and, perhaps most important, Portland's assists/game numbers have cratered. Last season, they ranked 23rd at 21.1 assists/game. This season, once again, they rank dead last at 17.6. Their assisted FG rate on 2ptFG's has dropped from .444 to .413; and on 3ptFG's it's dropped massively from .789 to .713.

it's become and even heavier iso-one-on-one-hero-ball offense then it was last season and it's easily argued that it was too heavy last season

now, I'd think the common wisdom would be that adding a low post big-man who has mobility and passing ability would help ball movement, assist rates, and open shot opportunities. But that sure hasn't happened for Portland. And with significantly reduced ball movement and assist rates, a player like Harkless is going to have difficulty finding his offense role. That has obviously happened

all that's not to excuse Harkless completely. But everywhere you look statistically you can see a marked difference between last year and now. His usage rate has dropped from 15.2% too 11.6% and his FGA's have dropped from 8.1 to 5.6. You can even see it on the glass: his defensive rebounding rate has improved from 10.8% to 11.9%, but his offensive rebounding rate has fallen from 6.2% to 3.7%. In other words, his def reb rate indicates the effort is there, but his off reb rate indicates he's lost in the offensive flow, what little flow there is

those stats are really depressing, a lot of that is on Stotts, he does seem more lost this yr on what to do or how to try to adjust to the guys he has. And Neil should get his share of blame as well for an overpaid and unbalanced roster that lacks shooting

[monopoman]

It's hilarious that the Celtics have the 2nd worst FG% at the rim and yet they are 16-3 to start the season. Talk about a team relying heavily on hitting outside shots and defense. Every other team in the bottom 5 of at the rim shooting besides the Blazers and Celtics are sub .500 teams.

[GreenRiddler]

We are I believe running the same amount of iso plays this year compared to last year. I think the difference is 0.5 more per 100 possessions. Immaterial. Less FBs sure but players have to make open shots. That makes the floor wider and less chance of being challenged at the rim.

[Wizenheimer]

I'm bad at finding team stats, but I wonder how this year's team looks in comparison to the past couple of years when it comes to fastbreak points. Harkless may be a better fit in a more uptempo, getting out in transition style offense. This year's team is certainly the antithesis of that and we've never really seen Harkless in that type of situation.

2004-05 - 9th.... 13.4 points/game (Cheeks)
2008-09 - 29th....9.0 (Nate)
2009-10 - 29th....9.5 (Nate)
2010-11 - 29th....10.2 (Nate)
2011-12 - 24th....10.9 (Nate)
2012-13 - 25th....9.9 (Stotts)
2013-14 - 22nd....11.0 (Stotts)
2014-15 - 25th....10.1 (Stotts)
2015-16 - 21st....11.1 (Stotts)
2016-17 - 22nd....11.3 (Stotts)
2017-18 - 30th....4.5 (Stotts)

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game?date=2017-11-24

so, Blazer fans are real lucksacks to have had 12 consecutive years of coaches who throttle down transition offense. Then, in the 13th year, the luck expands as we get to watch a team that only gets half of the points from transition the Blazers scored in the worst of the previous dozen years

One other thing that has been puzzling me. I usually equate good defense with a higher number of transition baskets. It's a bit odd that the Blazers defense is ranked so high, yet they are dead last in fastbreak points. It makes me wonder if rebounding numbers and SOS are skewing the defense to look better than it is. Certainly, when I watch the Blazers I don't see the second best defense in the NBA.

could Portland be one of those teams now that uglies up the offense on both ends of the floor?

it might have something to do with SOS; Portland is dead last in a lot of stats, and that includes SOS:

26 - San Antonio Spurs: -0.97
27- Washington Wizards: -1.22
28 - Phoenix Suns: -1.31
29 - Los Angeles Lakers: -1.47
30 - Portland Trail Blazers: -1.87

it's not encouraging that Portland only has a 10-8 record while having by far the easiest schedule

[zzaj]

I'm bad at finding team stats, but I wonder how this year's team looks in comparison to the past couple of years when it comes to fastbreak points. Harkless may be a better fit in a more uptempo, getting out in transition style offense. This year's team is certainly the antithesis of that and we've never really seen Harkless in that type of situation.

2004-05 - 9th.... 13.4 points/game (Cheeks)
2008-09 - 29th....9.0 (Nate)
2009-10 - 29th....9.5 (Nate)
2010-11 - 29th....10.2 (Nate)
2011-12 - 24th....10.9 (Nate)
2012-13 - 25th....9.9 (Stotts)
2013-14 - 22nd....11.0 (Stotts)
2014-15 - 25th....10.1 (Stotts)
2015-16 - 21st....11.1 (Stotts)
2016-17 - 22nd....11.3 (Stotts)
2017-18 - 30th....4.5 (Stotts)

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game?date=2017-11-24

so, Blazer fans are real lucksacks to have had 12 consecutive years of coaches who throttle down transition offense. Then, in the 13th year, the luck expands as we get to watch a team that only gets half of the points from transition the Blazers scored in the worst of the previous dozen years

One other thing that has been puzzling me. I usually equate good defense with a higher number of transition baskets. It's a bit odd that the Blazers defense is ranked so high, yet they are dead last in fastbreak points. It makes me wonder if rebounding numbers and SOS are skewing the defense to look better than it is. Certainly, when I watch the Blazers I don't see the second best defense in the NBA.

could Portland be one of those teams now that uglies up the offense on both ends of the floor?

it might have something to do with SOS; Portland is dead last in a lot of stats, and that includes SOS:

26 - San Antonio Spurs: -0.97
27- Washington Wizards: -1.22
28 - Phoenix Suns: -1.31
29 - Los Angeles Lakers: -1.47
30 - Portland Trail Blazers: -1.87

it's not encouraging that Portland only has a 10-8 record while having by far the easiest schedule

Thanks for looking those up Wiz.

A couple of years ago you started using a "Window" as an analogy for the Blazers...an analogy that I like and have since adopted (read, stolen). Scoring only 4.5 points in transition (which are typically dunks and layups) is only decreasing the size of the window for winning a game. GS is probably an outlier at 25 FB points per game, but the average of all the teams on that list is about 11points made in transition. The Blazers are basically giving a 6.5 point handicap to their opposition simply by scoring so poorly in transition.

I don't really know what the answer is. No doubt Nate and Stotts are two fairly conservative coaches. They both seem old school in their 'value possessions' approach. Then again, Stotts seems to have no problem with Lillard taking 28' jumpshots with 18 seconds on the shot clock.

Obviously, it's silly to look too closely at any stat in a vaccum...especially in only an 18 game sample size...but as you mentioned, when you couple some of these stats with by far the easiest SOS? Not good omens for things to come...

[DeBlazerRiddem]

could Portland be one of those teams now that uglies up the offense on both ends of the floor?

This is one of the things that makes me skeptical about some defensive stats, teams that play an ugly low-possession games seem to be overrated even thought that is not a desirable way to play basketball or truly good defense.


As for the ISO stuff, we may only be averaging a few more statistically but there is WAY less ball movement. I've always kind of used 20 assists a game as a very rough barometer for a decently functioning offense. We are force feeding Nurkic and Turner I think for largely political reasons, which combined with Dame and CJ's already big appetites leaves very little left over for other players.

[baas9]

My guess is that we are force feeding Turner to showcase his talents in the hopes that he attracts some interest and then we dump him. The problem with that strategy is that other teams aren't stupid. If anything, his style fits Portland's ugly offense because he seems to be an ugly offense guy. Doesn't facilitate movement but stalls things up when he has the ball in his hands. So, what team would be interested in a bench rotation player who stagnates the offense when he comes on the floor? I can't think of any. Presumably a fluid offensive team wouldn't want him because of the different offensive philosophy and flow... And if no other team sees value in him, we are stuck with him and that bloated contract.

I think trading him is a pipe dream at this point.

[Epicurus]

could Portland be one of those teams now that uglies up the offense on both ends of the floor?

This is one of the things that makes me skeptical about some defensive stats, teams that play an ugly low-possession games seem to be overrated even thought that is not a desirable way to play basketball or truly good defense.


As for the ISO stuff, we may only be averaging a few more statistically but there is WAY less ball movement. I've always kind of used 20 assists a game as a very rough barometer for a decently functioning offense. We are force feeding Nurkic and Turner I think for largely political reasons, which combined with Dame and CJ's already big appetites leaves very little left over for other players.

Or assist rate may related to fg%, latter goes down, so does the former. I believe that somewhere in the stats world is measurement of both ball movement and player movement. I bet such would indicate faulty perception from fans disappointed in the lack of wins and not a reduction in either. BTW, the defensive rating controls for possessions. Nothing overrated about keeping an opponent scoring down per possession.

[Wizenheimer]

As for the ISO stuff, we may only be averaging a few more statistically but there is WAY less ball movement. I've always kind of used 20 assists a game as a very rough barometer for a decently functioning offense. We are force feeding Nurkic and Turner I think for largely political reasons, which combined with Dame and CJ's already big appetites leaves very little left over for other players.

to flesh that out a little,

assisted FG Rate:

Dame - last season .319....this season .234
CJ - last season .389....this season .379
Turner - last season .272....this season .192
Napier - last season .370....this season .351

Portland - last season .534....this season .488

assists/36:

Dame - last season 5.9....this season 6.0
CJ - last season 3.7....this season 2.3
Turner - last season 4.5....this season 3.2
Napier - last season 4.7....this season 3.7

Portland - last season 15.65....this season 13.34 (it took a while to figure that one out)

assist/turnover ratio:

Dame - last season 2.23....this season 2.18
CJ - last season 1.66....this season 1.14
Turner - last season 2.05....this season 1.33
Napier - last season 1.63....this season 2.30

Portland - last season 1.54....this season 1.13

Portland's 4 ball-handlers are all doing more one-on-one this season, and their play-making production & efficiency have sunk at the same time. I think it's safe to say those are all related; and since Portland has several players reliant on those play-makers to create offensive opportunities for them, that's affected the role players as well

whether it's bad choices by the players or bad coaching or some of both, it's still an offense that is having major difficulty this season and spends a lot of time just looking ugly

[Epicurus]

Assists say as much about shooting skill as it does about play making. well-established basketball analytics expert, Dean Oliver, sees assists as a rather meaningless (little explanatory power as to winning percentage or even offensive rating).

[d-train]

4th quarter GLB pic

Spoiler:

You changed GLB's on us. It's your fault we lost!!!!!!!

I don't want to get a reputation as being a nitpicker, but I'm not crazy about the toes overhanging the shoes. And, the big toe isn't the longest toe. I find that distracting.

[Wizenheimer]

Assists say as much about shooting skill as it does about play making. well-established basketball analytics expert, Dean Oliver, sees assists as a rather meaningless (little explanatory power as to winning percentage or even offensive rating).

I'm not sure if that's a response to the numbers I posted or not

a couple of things, certainly, the value of raw assist numbers is debatable. It might be they are no more then symptoms of bad offense or indicators of good offense rather then the force that is driving either. It is worth noting that right now, out of the 10 'worst' teams in assists/game only one, Portland, has a winning record

all that aside though, that's not what I was pointing to or the 'discussion' I was having. It was about the difference between last year's Blazer offense and this year's version in terms of ball movement (lack of) and iso (more of). Those numbers are fairly substantial confirmation of what out eyes are telling us about how disjointed and disorganized the offense has been so far this season

[Epicurus]

I'd love to see some comparative (by season) figures for "ball movement." I think the iso comparative numbers aren't very great, if even existing. What I have seen is that the efg% is notably lower (.487 compared to .520). Is that due to lower assists or to poorer shooting? And is it not possible that any assists reduction is thereby related also? I guess my eyes are telling me that more makeable shots are being missed and my brain is suggesting to me that is what makes the offense look to some more disjointed and disorganized.

[Wizenheimer]

I'd love to see some comparative (by season) figures for "ball movement." I think the iso comparative numbers aren't very great, if even existing. What I have seen is that the efg% is notably lower (.487 compared to .520). Is that due to lower assists or to poorer shooting? And is it not possible that any assists reduction is thereby related also? I guess my eyes are telling me that more makeable shots are being missed and my brain is suggesting to me that is what makes the offense look to some more disjointed and disorganized.

what's happening with the offense has a lot more going on compared to last season then just missing shots. Don't need any stats to tell that, eyeballs work. You may dismiss ball movement, but it's a component of any offense and it's painfully obvious it's not good so far this season, and certainly not as good as it was last season

it may be that NBA scouting has effectively taken away enough of what the Blazers try to run that they feel compelled to resort to one-on-one when things break down so often

[zzaj]

Assists say as much about shooting skill as it does about play making. well-established basketball analytics expert, Dean Oliver, sees assists as a rather meaningless (little explanatory power as to winning percentage or even offensive rating).

I'm not sure if that's a response to the numbers I posted or not

a couple of things, certainly, the value of raw assist numbers is debatable. It might be they are no more then symptoms of bad offense or indicators of good offense rather then the force that is driving either. It is worth noting that right now, out of the 10 'worst' teams in assists/game only one, Portland, has a winning record

all that aside though, that's not what I was pointing to or the 'discussion' I was having. It was about the difference between last year's Blazer offense and this year's version in terms of ball movement (lack of) and iso (more of). Those numbers are fairly substantial confirmation of what out eyes are telling us about how disjointed and disorganized the offense has been so far this season

Interesting. I just did a quick Google search for what Dean Oliver has to say about assists, and while I can't read the whole book in 10 minutes, a journalistic review of Oliver's famous "Basketball On Paper" has a nice summary.

This couple of lines stood out, "Most offensively successful teams have a high percentage of assists on their scores. Assists lead to higher quality shots and a higher shooting percentage. The NBA team with the higher number of assists wins about 72 percent of games."

Again, I didn't read the book, but based on this I'd guess Dean Oliver actually does see assists as quite meaningful in regard to winning percentage and offensive rating.

http://www.sfandllaw.com/Articles/What-Wins-Basketball-Games-a-Review-of-Basketball-on-Paper-Rules-and-Tools-for-Performance-Analysis.shtml

[Epicurus]

I don't necessarily dismiss ball movement, but I wish for some objective measurement of it (I've seen such in the past, but can't find it now). Shots go in and teams look better, even perceptions of ball and player movement. That too is painfully obvious. I think that NBA scouting has had more than this season to take away what the Blazers prefer doing offensively. Again are isos really significantly higher this season than last? I read someone here say not really. And again more makeable shots go in, we don't have this discussion.

[Epicurus]

It's been years since my reading of Oliver, but I am pretty sure his not including assists as a four factor relates to his belief regarding the relative merit of assists. I must admit that maybe it was Berri who discounted assists. No matter, the point remains better shooting, more assists seems as realistic, more so to me, than more assists, better shooting. What is a better measure is passes leading to an open or lightly contested shot (making the merit of such a pass not dependent upon permanent or that shooting skills).

[Wizenheimer]

Assists say as much about shooting skill as it does about play making. well-established basketball analytics expert, Dean Oliver, sees assists as a rather meaningless (little explanatory power as to winning percentage or even offensive rating).

I'm not sure if that's a response to the numbers I posted or not

a couple of things, certainly, the value of raw assist numbers is debatable. It might be they are no more then symptoms of bad offense or indicators of good offense rather then the force that is driving either. It is worth noting that right now, out of the 10 'worst' teams in assists/game only one, Portland, has a winning record

all that aside though, that's not what I was pointing to or the 'discussion' I was having. It was about the difference between last year's Blazer offense and this year's version in terms of ball movement (lack of) and iso (more of). Those numbers are fairly substantial confirmation of what out eyes are telling us about how disjointed and disorganized the offense has been so far this season

Interesting. I just did a quick Google search for what Dean Oliver has to say about assists, and while I can't read the whole book in 10 minutes, a journalistic review of Oliver's famous "Basketball On Paper" has a nice summary.

This couple of lines stood out, "Most offensively successful teams have a high percentage of assists on their scores. Assists lead to higher quality shots and a higher shooting percentage. The NBA team with the higher number of assists wins about 72 percent of games."

Again, I didn't read the book, but based on this I'd guess Dean Oliver actually does see assists as quite meaningful in regard to winning percentage and offensive rating.

http://www.sfandllaw.com/Articles/What-Wins-Basketball-Games-a-Review-of-Basketball-on-Paper-Rules-and-Tools-for-Performance-Analysis.shtml

lol...ok then. Thanks zzaj.

as I said earlier, it may have some merit to think as assists as a symptom or an indicator rather then the engine that drives the train. But even then, assists are still important as they tend to lead (indicate) to higher scoring efficiency

those numbers I posted certainly show that Portland has fallen in just about every assist-type category. I think maybe the most important in that assist/turnover ratio (I see the link you posted emphasized the importance of fewer turnovers). For Portland to go from 1.54 last season to 1.13 this season is a gigantic drop

[Epicurus]

Yes, turnovers (singular concept) is an important factor in offensive efficiency (turn it over and that possession doesn't even get an fga). Yet assists/turnover is contaminated by shooting skill. And turnovers themselves come from more than poor passes. Finally, and apologetically repetitive, it is a bit redundant to say that assists lead or indicate higher scoring efficiency, since fg% or efg% gives scoring efficiency (when coupled with number of FGA/game) are scoring efficiency. We agree that more assists are better, we disagree, it seems, as to why and the actual importance of assists as a concept.