When a win isn't a win

With the new schedule at work I have not been able to listen to or watch the last few Blazer games.  I did catch the last 5 minutes or so of the New York game, but otherwise it has simply been post-game shows. On the bright side, those post-game shows have all been after victories. On the downside, I note a trend among Blazer broadcasters. They are showing disappointment at times over margin of victory. 

The difference between good teams and bad teams has never been margin of victory. Sure, your Boston Celtic type teams will have more big-margin wins than a Minnesota, for example. More importantly, however, is they find a way to win all the games they are supposed to, even when the opponent plays over their head.

There is not an NBA team that is not extremely talented from top to bottom. When you watch pre-game warm-ups, for example, you will see the 12th man on the glorified D-League team the Oklahoma (lack of) Thunder drill shot after shot after shot, demonstrate lateral movement that ordinary people can only dream of, and just generally show in every way, shape and form that he is a superior athlete.

Yet Oklahoma has won 2 games in nineteen attempts. Sure, the players on the Celtics are slightly stronger, faster, better shooters and rebounders, but not so much so that on a great night for Oklahoma where every Celtic has a horrific night, the Thunder could not win.

Yet if teams like Oklahoma have good games for 40 minutes, they will still lose because teams like Boston figure out ways to win. They come up with the big stops, find ways to put the ball in the bucket at the end of the game, and come away with the W. 

By contrast, mediocre teams like New York or Golden State often build leads but find ways to fritter them away and pull defeat out of the jaws of victory. 

And at the end of the day, they find a loss is still a loss just as the winning teams figure out a win is still a win.

Portland is a team moving towards being outstanding. They are winning at home and on the road. They are beating all the teams they should and a couple teams where the outcome might be surprising. However, sometimes that is not enough for their announcers or some fans.

Again and again after the Washington Wizard game I heard the phrase, "Well, they didn't win by as much as you might have expected but it was still a victory."

I would take a certain exception to that phrase. How can you say ahead of time that one team should win by x number of points? There are so many uncertain factors that come into play.

 Will young legs be unprepared for the second night of a back to back after playing New York the night before? Will Washington get jacked up about all the losing, come out and play over their heads all night? Will Brandon Roy see his shot off by just that tiny bit that turns 2 points into a fast break the other way?

One difference between the good teams and the bad ones is that even when they don't get the "expected" margin of victory, they still come away with the victory. It is not as if the game suddenly goes in the loss column after a team wins by less than they expected.

Last year's Memphis game provides an excellent example. Prior to the game, it seemed Portland should win by at least 10 points.  As it turned out, they didn't...they won inside the last second on a bucket that had to be reviewed for about 3 minutes to determine if it beat the buzzer or not. 

While it was not the double digit win that it should have been, it was still a key moment. Portland did not stop winning for quite some time, going on to win their next 12 games after the Memphis win. That last-second bank shot turned around their season.

Mostly, it turned it around because it was a win. Their final record of 41-41 counted it as just one game. If they lost, they would have finished 40-42. Obvious, right? Well, if they had won by 20, they still would have finished 41-41. Unlike the bizarre, Machiavellian machinations of the BCS system, in the NBA a one point win is as good as a 38 point win in the standings.

The main thing is to get that win. It doesn't matter if it is one point or 20, the point is to get the win. When the team has an off-night, whether offensively, defensively, or both, the good teams still find a way to win games against the teams they should beat. 

Right now, Portland is doing that. Sure, in a perfect world they beat both the Wizards and Knicks by double digits, but come playoff time when they are doing the seeding, a pair of wins by a combined 13 points will look just as good to Portland as the 2 wins by a combined 78 they had last week. 

So an open memo to Blazer fans; worry less about margin of victory and more about enjoying the wins. It hasn't been that long since winning seven road games in a season would have been a success, so enjoy winning that many in the first 13 attempts. A win is a win whether by one or one hundred and, far from being a reason to worry, it is a reason to celebrate.

Why the Outlaw hate? A Phoenix hangover

Portland played pretty well for half a game in Phoenix. Unfortunately, that half extended from late in the first quarter until early in the third quarter. Before and after those periods, they flat-out got toasted.

Making a mockery of my assertion that Joel "the Vanilla Gorilla" Przybilla plays him better than most, Shaquille O'Neal had a dominating game, missing something like 2 shots all night. As expected, Steve Nash ran wild, Amare Stoudemire scored seemingly at will, Matt Barnes and Raja Bell scored a great deal...well, if you are going to beat the Suns and let Stoudemire, Nash, and the Big Cactus score big numbers you certainly better shut everyone else down completely if you want to win. Letting Barnes hit for 21 is not going to get the job done.

There were some good signs from the game. For one, after getting kicked in the teeth early and getting down by double digits, the Blazers' second unit came back to get them a lead which they then carried into the third quarter. LaMarcus Aldridge had a better offensive game against Stoudemire than he typically does and is showing improved aggressiveness in looking for his shot.

And Nicolas "Boom Boom" Batum is looking more and more like a guy who can be used at crunch time to play defense on scoring point guards, talented wing defenders, and so forth.

On the downside, it was obvious to me even when Portland had a third quarter lead that they would eventually lose. It had to do with the Blazers' radio announcers.

"The Wild One" Mike Rice is a complete and unapologetic homer. Any given Blazer could put a choke-hold on an opponent, drop a couple elbows, kick the guy in the groin, and Rice would think it was clean. Conversely, if there was no opponent over the mid-court line when a Blazer missed a dunk, he would be screaming for the (non-existent) foul to be called.

Brian "Wheels" Wheeler on the other hand is much more even-handed. He leans slightly towards homer-ism without being as over the top as Rice.

Yet in this game, both guys were livid about the officiating, going on about horrific calls (an Aldridge block called a goal-tend, a few hack jobs by the Suns not called while touch fouls were being called on the Blazers, free throws awarded when the Sun was kicking the ball outside) for minutes at a time.

This was while Portland was LEADING. When a young team gets distracted by the officiating...and it was clear from Wheel's call of the game they were...they are eventually going to lose. The only question remaining is by how much.

I suspect the calls were not as egregious as Wheels and Rice made them out to be but when things start going south against a team that is in your head, as the Suns are after their recent dominance of the Blazers, you start looking for reasons to fail. Portland found one in the officials.

Not that the Suns need much help. They remain a top-shelf title contender. At home against a team that needs to click on all cylinders to beat them, the Suns are simply too good to let this game get away.

Ultimately, I figured Portland would come up short and they did.

After the game, I noticed another trend which somewhat stems from the unexpected success of Batum. Many Blazer fans are howling for Travis "Trout" Outlaw to be traded.

This is something I don't understand. Take Outlaw off last year's squad and the Blazers are maybe a 30 win team. Take him off this year's team and they are 6 - 8 games worse at least. He provides the team with so many valuable assets.

As of this moment, Portland has 2 guys who can create their own shot: Brandon Roy and Trout. Roy of course looks to pass first. Outlaw's jab-step fall-away is all but impossible to block and not much easier to even contest. There are times that is a much-needed commodity.

He also provides versatility. He has the length to guard power forwards while still having the quickness and agility to defend small forwards and shooting guards. To be fair, one of the complaints against Outlaw has been his defensive weaknesses. On a team that has given up 50% plus shooting even on a night they won, that is hardly unusual or a fair criticism. He has defensive holes, but who doesn't?

Finally, he provides a very key component. He is a great chemistry guy. He is regularly referred to as the most-liked guy on the team, is credited for building a friendship between Aldridge and Roy, and is able to bring the team together.

So let's look at his positives: good scorer, clutch player, versatility, unstoppable offensive moves, 50%+ from three-point range.

Now let's look at his negatives: He can stop the flow of the offense at times, sometimes has trouble getting to the right spot on defense, and is unsteady as a rebounder.

Why would anyone be in a hurry to get rid of this guy? He is working on a cheap contract, fills several valuable roles that nobody else on the current team can fill, provides a more than serviceable back-up at both forward positions and sometimes the shooting guard...and he can be a game-changer.

Every so often, there will be a game that completely changes direction based on one play or a short period of time involving 2 or 3 key plays. Outlaw has a knack for providing those. Sometimes it is a spectacular blocked shot, at others an adrenaline-boosting highlight reel dunk. He brings intensity to the Rose Garden and the Blazers. Players who can do that are few and far between.

There are some deals out there I would listen to that involve Outlaw. But they are not deals that the other teams would listen to: Outlaw and Sergio Rodriguez for Tayshaun Prince, for example. Good for the Blazers as they would acquire a talented, versatile veteran who can play some lock-down D and is a good team guy. Why would the Pistons do that?

Outlaw, Blake, and Channing Frye for Rudy Gay and Mike Conley. I heard rumors of Portland offering Outlaw straight up for Conley and pretty much laughed them off. Yeah, as if Portland would trade a clutch 4th quarter guy, a player who last year was one of Portland's big three, why would they trade him straight up for a guy who is sliding down the depth-chart of Memphis, a team that will consider it a success if they top 30 wins this year?

Conversely, why would Memphis give up Rudy Gay, perhaps their most talented player and best drawing card? I suspect they would not think of the trade as good for them. I don;t know (or care since it is irrelevant) whether the salary match. I am only demonstrating how much regard I have for Outlaw and what I would want back.

Outlaw did not get worse over the course of the summer. He is not a cancer on the team. He is still a guy who will score double figures, bring energy to the second unit, and help the team win. Saying you would trade him straight up for an inferior player is just non-sensical. Hopefully Blazer fans wake up soon and stop their bleating.

We have a seminal collection of talent on the floor. The only reason to get rid of any of it is to improve the team. Getting rid of Outlaw makes the team noticeably worse in so many ways...so let's not think about it unless we get like value in return. And frankly...that ain't going to happen.

Is Steve Blake better suited to start for the Blazers than Jerryd Bayless?

It has become an article of faith among many Blazer fans that Jerryd Bayless will unseat the much-maligned Steve Blake from the starting point Guard position. The sterling play, dazzling moves, and potent scoring ability of Bayless will turn the starting 5 into an unstoppable machine that will blow opponents out of game after game as the Blazers steamroll their way through the League. There are several problems with this scenario.

First off, regardless of how much talent he may have, it should be remembered that Bayless is a Rookie. The transition from Pac-10 college ball to the pro level includes a steep learning curve. To be sure there are occasionally players who step in and make huge impacts but for the most part, teams that start Rookies at key positions such as Point Guard do not fare well.

This is not a knock on Bayless. I was pretty excited when General Manager Kevin Pritchard Pritch-slapped the Pacers* and acquired him as I was more excited about him than the undersized alternatives available at the Point coming out in the draft.

My excitement has not abated after seeing him dominate the summer league. Reports coming out of Blazers propaganda central have touted his speed, aggressiveness, defense, and will to win. He sounds like the complete package.

Bayless will bring an ability to slash, to score, and provide tenacious defense. He sounds like an exciting player with few weaknesses. There are really only two things keeping him from being the starter.

First, as a rookie it will take him some time to adjust to the League and team. LaMarcus Aldridge, Martell Webster, Brandon Roy and Steve Blake all have experience playing together. They are already going to be adjusting to replacing the defensive stalwart but offensive liability of Joel Przybilla with the more mobile, more athletic Greg Oden who will demand touches down on the block. Changing point guards at the same time would mean 40% of their starters were changed and, if Travis Outlaw supplants Webster in the starting line-up the changeover would be 60%. That is far too much change for a team that perhaps overachieved a bit last season.

Second, and more importantly, Blake is a better fit in the starting line-up. Blake is not as flashy as Bayless, can't penetrate nearly as well, and is not the defensive force that Bayless provides. However, his skill set is a better fit with the other starters.

Blake is very good at distributing the ball and setting up the offense. He also provides a zone-busting, court-stretching outside presence. His 3 point shot is consistent and deadly meaning teams cannot collapse off him on the Blazer's interior forces of Aldridge and Oden. With Webster and Blake providing the deep threat and Aldridge and Oden standing by to take passes, the slashing game of Roy is taken to yet another level. It is a line-up that integrates very well.

Bayless is better at driving than being the downtown threat. In the starting unit he would not provide as much of an outside threat as Blake and would largely duplicate the role Roy already capably handles.

Meanwhile, the second unit needs a player like Bayless. Przybilla does a good job of controlling the boards and providing a defensive presence on the interior. Bayless will join Rudy Fernandez and Travis Outlaw in providing scoring punch off the bench. When he comes back from knee injury, Channing Frye will add power to the front court and make the Blazers 10 deep. He will provide them with a bit of a post-up game and the ability to pop out for 15 foot jumpers off of the drives of Fernandez and Bayless.

While Outlaw will occasionally drive, by his own admission he has fallen in love with his jump shot. Fernandez has the ability to get to the rim but will not dominate the ball the way Roy will. Thus Bayless provides a key role on the second unit that helps turn them into a potentially explosive unit that has the flexibility to score inside or outside.

Thus Blake, while potentially not being as physically talented as Bayless still provides what the starting line-up needs and would be unable to be as effective with the second unit and Bayless gets the opportunity he needs to produce with the second line-up that he would not get in the starting line-up.

I will be the first to admit I have not been a big Steve Blake fan over the years. I wanted Jarrett Jack to start ahead of him. I wanted to see Sergio Rodriguez get more minutes at his expense. But the plain truth is, Blake provides what this starting unit needs and, while his numbers will never blow anyone away, taking him out of the line-up does not improve the team.

In another year or 2, assuming Bayless is the real deal and develops as expected, he will indeed take away Blake's job. But for this season expect to see Blake penciled into the starting line-up pretty close to 82 times.






Note: Despite the rise of the term "Pritch-slapped", I actually think the Pacers did rather well for themselves in this deal. At the cost of relatively unused Ike Diogu and a draft pick they acquired a proven solid backup point guard in Jarrett Jack, a promising Rookie, and throw in Josh McRoberts. They got what they needed and so did Portland which seems like a pretty good trade all around from where I sit. That has been the secret to Pritchard's success. The deals he offers make sense for his trading partners. They only end up looking so good because they always result in fitting Portland's master plan.