Former Lives: The Once-Blazer Playoff Rankings

The conference finals are three-quarters set and there will no doubt be more compelling basketball to come. While the 15 players on the Blazers’ roster this season weren’t able to make the playoffs, 19 former Blazers were part of teams that did participate. Here are the rankings of how these Blazers of yore have fared in the postseason.

The Old, Washed-Up Big Man Category

Juwan Howard, PF, Miami Heat

Yeah, he’s still in the league. I’m as surprised as you are.

Joel Przybilla, C, Milwaukee Bucks

Didn’t play much during the year and logged 0 minutes in the Bucks’ short-lived playoff venture.

Kurt Thomas, PF, New York Knicks

Rasheed Wallace, C, New York Knicks

Earl Barron, C, New York Knicks

Wow, the Knicks are putting together an awesome 2002 big man rotation. These guys have been solely working on their suit game this postseason.

The Slightly Less Old, Washed-Up Big Man Category

Marcus Camby, C, New York Knicks

Shavlik Randolph, PF, Boston Celtics

These guys have both played exactly 3 minutes in the playoffs. Again, is there an early 2000s quality big man the Knicks don’t have? What’s Elden Campbell up to? Is there still time to sign Scott Pollard?

Actual Guys

12. Hasheem Thabeet, C, Oklahoma City Thunder

Thabeet was basically the most unplayable Thunder big not named Perkins. Final tally: 26 minutes, -0.8 PER.

11. Jeff Pendergraph, PF, Indiana Pacers

Pendergraph graces the worst bench currently in the playoffs. He’s played 66 minutes, shot 7 for 22, and has as many fouls as rebounds. Take a seat, Jeff.

10. Patty Mills, PG, San Antonio Spurs

Mills plays exclusively in garbage time, but isn’t terrible when he does. Still, to be any higher you’d have to be able to beat out Cory Joseph for rotation minutes. 

9. Steve Blake, PG, Los Angeles Lakers

He got hurt. But, man, if he hadn’t, the Lakers still would have gotten swept. 

8. Anthony Tolliver, SF, Atlanta Hawks

Played 11.3 minutes per game and appeared in all 6 games for the Hawks. Shot 63.6 percent from 3, which is kind of crazy.

7. Jerryd Bayless, PG, Memphis Grizzlies

Bayless is supposed to be the Jarrett Jack of the Grizzlies, except he isn’t as good as Jack. He’s shooting 36.3 percent overall and 32.6 percent from 3. He’s also not a strong defender unlike most of the Grizzlies. Still, he’s an important rotation piece for a Western Conference finalist. 

6. Jamal Crawford, SG, Los Angeles Clippers

He was unconscious (in the good way) in game 2 against the Grizzlies. He was unconscious (in the bad way) for the rest of that series.

5. Gerald Wallace, SF, Brooklyn Nets

Wallace played so well that he completely justified the trade that ultimately led to Portland drafting Damian Lillard! Ok, not actually, but he rebounded decently and finally made some shots.

4. Andre Miller, PG, Denver Nuggets

Miller had the game-winning layup in game 1 and continued to be a go-to source of offensive creation for the Nuggets. Unfortunately, his defense on Steph Curry was woeful and thus the Nuggets were ousted in the first round.

3. Raymond Felton, PG, New York Knicks

Felton may be keeping it 100 in life, but he’s keeping it 3rd in these rankings. He’s not shooting all that well, but has barely been turning it over. Plus, he’s been an important part of the Knicks’ high-powered, 3-point happy offense all season, running pick-and-rolls and attacking the basket. 

2. Jarrett Jack, SG, Golden State Warriors

Jack can be frustrating due to limited court vision, which often leads to him missing Steph Curry or Klay Thompson open on the wings. He was also atrocious on defense at times. However, Jack is a great mid-range shooter and a guy who created offense when the effects of Steph Curry’s ankle injury started to show. 

1. Zach Randolph, PF, Memphis Grizzlies

Randolph has been doing his thing, creating space under the basket and rebounding very well. He was able to beat up most of the defenders the Thunder put on him. It will be incredibly fun to watch Randolph and Marc Gasol battle against Tim Duncan and Tiago Splitter in the next round. 

Nic Batum and the Questions Swirling Around the Trail Blazers' Secondary Offensive Creator

Winds of change swept the Portland backcourt this season with the addition of Damian Lillard and the departures of Jamal Crawford and Raymond Felton. While Crawford wasn’t as successful in his run in Portland as some would have hoped, he did at least fill the role of secondary creator for himself and others. With other holes in the roster, that role went unaddressed last offseason and consequently needed to be addressed from within.

Enter fifth year Small Forward Nicolas Batum, who has been a man of many hats in his time with the Trail Blazers. Nic as secondary facilitator sure had its ups, with Batum hitting his career high in Assist Percentage at 20.3% and adding a bit of flair to some of his passes. At the same time, he showed that he needs to refine this part of game; his turnover percentage crept up to 17 as he adjusted to his new role. As in previous years, he showed a tendency to telegraph passes, which resulted in deadly live ball turnovers. All the strides were nice, but there is definitely a need for a polishing process if he sticks to being this type of player for Portland.

And with the roster the way it is, he’s going to keep being this type of player. LaMarcus Aldridge was third on the team in assists. While his ability to find an open man on the money from the post is a great asset to the team, he’s not going to be creating shots from the perimiter. Spacing is becoming such a large deal with modern defenses in the NBA, and having that second guy on the floor who can be dangerous putting the ball on the floor to create for himself and others is becoming vital. Here is a breakdown of Portland’s assists this past season.

(Chart courtesy hotshotcharts.com. Check it out if you need an explination of how the chart works)

As you can see from the chart, with no surprise to anyone, no player from the bench is ready to step into this kind of role in the near future. Wes Matthews is fourth on the team, but shows real value being the team’s best spot up option from three. So, despite the increased turnovers and career low field goal percentage, Batum really is the best internal option to address these needs going forward. Breaking down what the Blazers could do comes down to this:

1. Keep Batum in the Role:  The originization has made so much progress with Batum facilitating this season that taking him out of the role now would be counterproductive. Nic has made some really strong strides in the role, and has the potiential to fill it adequately with improved decision making. This could also give Portland flexibility to address other off season issues with free agency and the draft.
2. Draft and Groom: The issue here is the current draft pool is relatively dry for this kind of player. Archie Goodwin, Dario Saric, Jamal Franklin, and Giannis Adetokunbo have the potential to play in this role some day, but don’t seem like great value picks at 10 (the Blazers’ projected lottery spot) as they all have some questions around them. So if Portland could trade down—or even deal all three second round picks to jump back into the first round—to select one of these guys, there could be solid value found there. They could also look into taking someone like Tim Hardaway Jr. as somone they could groom into an NBA in the second round.
3. Free Agents: As nice as J.J. Redick would be, he more than likely wouldn’t be in Portland’s price range, as a defensive center seems to be the first team need. There aren’t too many middling priced options that seem like great fits either, so if that is how Portland would plan to address this then overpaying for a Marco Bellinelli type and hoping that it works out might be the case. It would be nice if it did, but overpaying for that type of player is way too big of a risk to feel remotely comfortable about.

It seems sticking with Batum is the best move here. First off, this would make sure that more is understood on Batum’s capabilities as a secondary creator before counteractively taking him from the role there. Also, the players who the Blazers could potential add are all modest risks as best, maybe even overstretching their ablilities completely. So what is the worst that can come from another year of data? Since nothing seems definitive at the moment, addressing other pressing needs and reassesing this at a later time seems very prudent.

The Offseason

I do think the Blazers should acquire Blake Griffin. Great idea, Neil!

The NBA playoffs are raging on, creating nightly excitement for fans across the country. For 22 teams, however, the offseason has begun. This means that personnel decisions are right around the corner and scrutiny over every contract and cap move will be cast.

It’s hard to imagine anybody being busier during this period than my good friend Neil Olshey. Portland has 8 players that are going to be free agents or subject to team options. I’ve decided to give Neil a little help by offering my takes on how to handle some of these moves. Of course tons of information and details go into these choices that are beyond my particular pay grade (available trades and players, the handling of the draft, long-term plans, rumors, etc.), but that doesn’t mean I can’t offer the most humble of opinions.

Note: For salary comparisons and value measures, I relied heavily on basketball-reference’s win shares. 

J.J. Hickson

Hickson is an unrestricted free agent and the centerpiece of the Blazers’ offseason. We know what he does well. Hickson is a beast of a rebounder and has developed an effective offensive game with a true shooting percentage of 59.1 and a better mid-range game. However, he is bad defensively and probably playing out of position in Portland. 

Hickson’s per game numbers were impressive with 12.7 points and 10.4 rebounds, something other GMs are bound to notice. Basketball-reference credited him with 6.9 win shares, though the 2.3 of those that came from defense are probably overstating his impact. However, it seems like he could be in the same boat as Nikola Pekovic this offseason and could draw somewhere between 8 and 10 million dollars per year. 

Verdict: Hickson just doesn’t fit in any long-term plan for the Blazers. They need a center that can make a defensive impact. You can read here for some thoughts on who could potentially fill that role. It’s nice that Hickson might get paid in the offseason, but I just don’t think it should be by Portland. 

Eric Maynor

Maynor is a restricted free agent whose qualifying offer stands at $3.4 million. Maynor was a nice mid-season addition, taking some of the playmaking responsibility off of Damian Lillard while also being able to play along side him. He shot 38 percent from 3 in Portland, which bodes well for the 2 point guard lineups.

Maynor was good for 0.2 win shares and while that isn’t great, I think he’ll look better with more time in Portland. Plus, at 25 years old he already constitutes a solid backup and a noticeable upgrade over Nolan Smith and Ronnie Price.

Verdict: It’s hard to say whether someone will try to sign him to an offer sheet, but the qualifying offer seems fair to me. 

Luke Babbitt

How could you not bring back a guy who tied for 14th in 6th Man of the Year voting? In all seriousness, Babbitt is only 23 and is a career 36.7 percent shooter on 3-pointers. That’s only a little above average, but perhaps with a more consistent role he’ll be able to bring that percentage up. Additionally, Babbitt won’t really turn the ball over and could potentially be at least an average defensive rebounder. 

Verdict: At 0.7 win shares, Babbitt was one of the few bench players who was actually in the black. The $1.8 million he’s getting now might be a bit much, but hopefully there’s room for improvement. I would suggest bringing him back on a short, low-figure deal.

Jared Jeffries

Jeffries had no offensive value this season and was an average rebounder. He’s 31 years old and created 0.1 defensive win shares (-0.3 overall) last year while costing $1.4 million. This seems bad until you realize that Tyrus Thomas did the same thing for $8 million in Charlotte.

Verdict: The Blazers can find 0.1 defensive win shares for less than $1 million dollars, so I’d let Jeffries go and find somebody else to be the fifth big man.

Sasha Pavlovic 

Pavlovic was somewhat of a human white flag last season. He only appeared in 39 games and averaged around 13 minutes per game. He shot badly, but didn’t use very many possessions. 

Verdict: The team option on Pavlovic is for $1.4 million and considering he created as much value as guys like Kent Bazemore and E’Twaun Moore, I don’t think the Blazers should exercise that option.

Elliot Williams

Williams is a tough call due to the injuries. However, he is only 23 and a great athlete. In his one season of action he showed that, while he might not have much range, he can shoot well inside the arc and not cough up the ball. Plus, his athleticism means he has some defensive potential.

Verdict: It’s too early for me to rule him out. If Portland can bring him back at around or below the $1.4 million they paid him this past season, I would do it. 

Nolan Smith

I’m afraid he’s destined for the D-league. He hasn’t shot well (43.5 true shooting percentage) or shown an ability to create offense and played his way out of the Blazers’ bench rotation, which is saying something. Overall he was worth -0.5 win shares last season. Yes, negative.

Verdict: Hate to say it, but they probably should let him go.

Ronnie Price

Price was only slightly better than Smith (-0.2 win shares) and is five years older.

Verdict: Sorry, Ronnie.

Shawne Williams

Who?

Verdict: What are we going to do with all this extra cash?

Salary information courtesy hoopshype.com

The Last of the LaMarcus Critics

Last week, Yahoo! Sports’ Adrian Wojnarowski navigated the presumably terrifying dreamscape of Cleveland Cavaliers’ owner Dan Gilbert to extract the nugget that the Cavs have been privately fantasizing about trading for LaMarcus Aldridge. Of course, a trade seems unlikely in reality because, as Wojnarowski put it, “Cleveland is far higher on its two top-five picks, Tristan Thompson and Dion Waiters, than the rest of the NBA”. Normally, this would be the point when I would drop a quick “O RLY?” owl in Woj’s comments section before scrolling back up to the speculation on Mrs. Battier’s feelings about Anchorage and the emotional scars between Gilbert and his rehired coach, Mike Brown. But I have been hoping for an escape from the LaMarcus Aldridge experience ever since Argentine forward and rugged gaucho Luis Scola played a superior payada in the first round of the 2009 playoffs. An inefficient wing scorer, a younger, worse version of Aldridge, and a possible top-3 draft pick (Otto Porter?), might represent my only chance at freedom from a nightmarish future filled only with the relentless onslaught of elbow jumpers.

The ranks of LaMarcus detractors have thinned with each passing year. Our criticisms continue to become obsolete as the former Texas Longhorn improves his game each season. We used to be able to call him raw until he developed and refined his offensive skills. We used to be able to call him soft until his midrange game became so devastatingly consistent that it may supercede his mediocre rebounding rate and aversion to interior scoring – I’ll leave that verdict to the mathematicians with advanced degrees and big chalkboards. Even one of our favorite weapons of criticism, Aldridge’s interior defense, was revealed to be actually very good in Michigan State University assistant geography professor Kirk Goldsberry’s research paper, The Dwight Effect: A New Ensemble of Defense Analytics for the NBA. Et tu, Goldsberry?

What few of us that remain are now holed up deep in Forest Park, subsisting on rainwater and errant joggers, clinging to what few arguments remain. The argument of cost value of Aldridge compared to the availability of cheaper but effective power forward options (I see you Hickson!) is a fairly compelling one, but like my main man Sir William of Ockham says, the simplest solution is best (It’s safe to assume that in the Ockham City League, Sir William wasn’t throwing a lot of 360 windmills in transition). At the most simple level, I watch basketball because I enjoy it as entertainment. Regular statistics, advanced metrics, research papers presented at the Sloan Conference, and the ghost players employed by the Toronto Raptors and their SportsVU cameras all help me to understand what is happening on that 94-foot stretch of finished maple, but it doesn’t significantly add to my enjoyment. Rather, my enjoyment is defined almost entirely by the level of style and creativity displayed by a team on the pursuit to that golden Larry O’Brien Trophy, and the contributions of the players as characters in the overall drama of the Association.

I don’t enjoy LaMarcus Aldridge because his game is bland like dry white toast with a side of packing peanuts. Has anyone ever looked up an Aldridge highlight on YouTube? Has a drop of Ninkasi ever been spilled on the floor of the Cheerful Tortoise in excitement over Aldridge’s perfect spacing on the pick-and-pop? Watching Aldridge can 18-footers over and over is like watching someone play Pop-A-Shot or like the trick shot toddler on YouTube who borrowed Rasheed Wallace’s stroke from ’02. Speaking of Sheed, he was another reluctant power forward who did more damage with his jumper than on the block, but at least he had the good sense to spice it up by coining rebellious catchphrases, setting technical foul records, rocking patent leather Air Force I hi-tops, stepping to refs on the loading dock postgame, and being spotted at the Washington Square location of Barnes & Noble in a Cat in the Hat hat (Sheed needed that Chicken Soup for the Misunderstood Forward Soul). Apart from an appearance with Penny Marshall on Portlandia – which may turn out to be our Bhagavad-Gita when it’s all said and done – I’m not sure if Aldridge even exists outside of the left elbow, at least in that weird philosophical sense of existence. Of course, Tim Duncan made a career out of being an unemotional robot, but he has that Garry Kasparov vs. Deep Blue kind of style, a perfect machine designed to counter any type of defense. LaMarcus, meanwhile, is a toaster.

The only possibility that could change my feeling towards LaMarcus is if his blandness has been carefully and knowingly cultivated, like some sort of Andy Kaufman performance art or how I hope that Inspectah Deck intended his solo work. Inside though, I fear that a purpose behind Aldridge’s act would indicate a larger evil genius bent on conquest. I worry his entire career might be part of a great campaign to rid professional basketball of all joy and excitement, in the name of consistency and production, while brainwashing converts in the process. Even the stubborn likes of Bill Simmons and Dwight Jaynes seem to have already fallen under his spell. It’s only a matter of time until Zach Lowe pens a 1,000 word analysis of how Aldridge and his stretch-4 apostles open up movement in NBA offenses. The end is near, my friends. In 20 years, when our city is a wasteland of electro-zydeco indie bands riding around on penny-farthing bicycles and Aldridge is still silently filling it up from 18 feet, don’t say I didn’t warn you. Not even Dion Waiters can save us then.

The Good, The Bad, and The What?

There will be plenty of places for Blazers’ fans to turn for season retrospectives. They will no doubt be well thought out and written. In order not to pile on, I’ve decided to take a different approach to looking back at the 2012-2013 year. I compiled a few quick hits about things that were good this season, things that were bad, and things that just made me turn my head.

The Good: J.J. Hickson’s Mid-Range Game

This was a very pleasant development for the Blazers. Normally a guy who did most of his damage on put-backs or feeds close to the rim, Hickson showed he was able to step away and make a defense remain honest. Hickson hit 47.3 percent of his shots from outside of the paint while launching 146 attempts. Often Stotts would call a down screen for J.J. as an opening game play. Again, this is a radical improvement after Hickson shot no better than 30.5 percent from this range in the previous 3 years. In fact, he shot an abysmal 30 percent on 305 outside-the-paint shots in the 2010-2011 season with Cleveland. 

Going forward this might not mean much if the Blazers don’t bring Hickson back, but it was nice to see during the season.

The Bad: Jared Jeffries, Net Rating King

Who had the best net rating of all Blazers’ players? None other than Jared Jeffries.

Unfortunately, this warns us of the perils of this stat in individual funky samples because Jeffries was not actually good. He shot 29.6 percent from the floor and only converted 3 shots outside of the paint. He averaged 5 points per 40 minutes and was not very good on defense, getting torched by opposing bigs. Despite this he somehow was plus-2.8 in net rating. 

The What?: Luke Babbitt’s 6th Man Vote

I know that all the possible jokes have been made about this, but it still is one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen. A team that had one of the worst benches in recent memory somehow garnered a 6th Man vote. And it wasn’t even one of the arguably decent players.

Babbitt is a specialist to end all specialists. He shot 76 percent of his attempts from 3-point land and only converted at a 34.8 percent clip. This is below the league average (36 percent). Per 40 minutes he jacked 9.8 three pointers, second only to Carlos Delfino of players that played 60 games. 

Even if he had played well, he saw under 12 minutes of action per game and missed 20 games due to Coach’s Decision. I mean, Babbitt took 13 free throws for the entire year! Go home, 6th Man voter, you’re drunk.

The Good: The Playmakers

Going forward it’s good to know that Portland has 3 legitimate sources of offense. LaMarcus Aldridge is a rock and will always be able to loft jumpers over even the lankiest of opponents. Damian Lillard has shown incredible poise and scoring ability for a rookie. 

The encouraging development is Nic Batum, who has set himself apart as a great shooter and shot creator for others. His assist rate was 24.1 this year, almost double the average for forwards in the league and a huge improvement from previous seasons. Combine this ability with his 37.2 percent mark from 3 where he is good off the catch and in handoff situations and he has made himself into a dangerous wing option. For a guy who gets heralded for defensive potential, he will have a prominent role in the creation of offense for the Blazers in the future

The Bad: April Sours

It was a bad last month for the Blazers. They dropped their final 13 games and often didn’t look competitive. On the bright side, there was plenty of time for the young guys to get minutes, which is important on a team that is begging for depth. However, the defense gave up 113.3 points per 100 possessions, which is disastrous. 

The What?: On the Shoulders’ of Starters

Three teams had a lineup that played over 1,000 minutes this year. It comes as o surprise that the Blazers were one of them.

The question I have is whether this is a good thing or not. Lillard led the league in minutes and, along with Aldridge and Batum, was in the top 10 in minutes per game. These guys will have some rest over the summer, but I wonder if the heavy use will have any effects on this group next season, especially the rookie Lillard. 

The other concern is that, while relative to the other Portland lineups this group looked good, it didn’t perform well overall. The other 1,000 minute lineups (the starters for the Thunder and Pacers) were standout groups and warranted such heavy playing time. The Blazers’ starters, in contrast, had a minus-2.0 net rating and had particular trouble rebounding. 

The good news is that it was a pretty decent offensive group and the extended minutes together might mean better chemistry next season when most of these guys return.

Thoughts On Stotts

This year’s Coach of the Year award voting will be crowded with deserving candidates. Time tested veterans like Gregg Popovich and George Karl will be joined by the up-and-coming likes of Mark Jackson and Frank Vogel on a ballot that has already generated lots of discussion.

This award, in my opinion, is the hardest to parse. For player awards, there are plenty of statistics to help voters and other opinion-havers bolster their arguments. For coaches, we don’t have as much concrete evidence. Even with measures such as win-loss record it is hard to determine just how much this is affected by the coach. With this in mind, I decided to try to look at how Terry Stotts has done in his first year with Portland.

Record

As I mentioned before, it is quite the travail to assess what part of a team’s record falls on the coach, but this is the down and dirty measure for coaches. The Blazers finished 33-49 and lost their last 13 games. Obviously that record isn’t good and it’s discouraging that Portland wasn’t able to win for almost an entire month. But we have to temper our expectations for a first year coach who had five rookies, one of which was his starting point guard, and a bench that didn’t appear NBA-worthy. Also, the Blazers dealt with injury trouble down the stretch, which hasn’t helped in terms of the losing streak.

Offense and Defense

Stotts came up under offensively talented coaches such as George Karl and Rick Carlisle. It’s no surprise then that the Blazers offense performed pretty well this year. In overall efficiency they were ranked 12^th and the starting line-up, which played 1,104 minutes, was even a little bit better. Stotts put in place the “flow” offense that had worked so well with Dirk Nowitzki and allowed his new sweet shooting big man LaMarcus Aldridge to have yet another good year.

Defensively, it was brutal. Portland ended the season 24^th in defensive efficiency and did not seem to improve. They struggled with pick-and-rolls and didn’t offer much protection at the rim. Again, Stotts was working with an undersized center who doesn’t have great defensive instincts in J.J. Hickson, but some improvement over the course of the year would have been nice. I see this as the most important area for improvement for coach Stotts.

In-Game Coaching

I generally liked the way Stotts called plays during games. Check out our own Sunny Ahluwalia’s “Plays of the Week” segments if you’d like to see some specific examples. He certainly seems prepared as far as X’s and O’s go. There were times he seemed a little trigger happy with timeouts, but with a young team that is perhaps necessary.

Player Development

That Lillard pick helps. Obviously Lillard came into the league pretty ready to take over, but Stotts has to be given some credit for handing over a large portion of the offense to a rookie and having it pan out. He played Lillard a lot of minutes, but when Ronnie Price is your backup for most of the year that becomes understandable.

I’m encouraged by some of the other young guys’ development, too. Meyers Leonard played pretty productive minutes in the absences of J.J. Hickson and LaMarcus Aldridge. Specifically, he seemed confident in shooting some mid-range jumpers towards the end of the season, perhaps because of good coaching. Will Barton flashed impressive athleticism with his dunk show against the Thunder recently. He’s raw, but even over the course of this year has matured. This category is largely unresolved, but with another summer and training camp, Stotts may be able to start to get even more productive minutes out of some of these guys and it would certainly be a testament to his ability.

For the season I liked how Stotts performed and I think he has a chance to stick in Portland. He’s a talented offensive tactician and if he can find a way to cobble together a coherent defense, the Blazers can move back towards competing for the playoffs. Plus, the biggest weakness this year doesn’t fall squarely on him. He can only cook the meal with the ingredients he’s given and it will be more elucidating as to his true quality when he has a better overall roster. 

Warriors 99—Blazers 88: "I have a lot of fondness for this season"

How do you orchestrate a franchise-record losing streak without anybody caring? Tack it on to the end of a season that feels like a new beginning despite a lower winning percentage than the year previous. Throw in a presumptive Rookie of the Year winner, four other rookies in various stages of development, and a coach and GM at the end of their first year with the team, and you have the recipe for willful optimism.

The Blazers’ final game of the season, a 99-88 loss to the playoff-bound Golden State Warriors, was less a microcosm of their season than of the past dozen or so games. The game was mostly close, but the Blazers were content to let a five rookie lineup finish a game that a few months ago they may have pushed to win. That’s how this ends. No Nic Batum, no Wes Matthews, and none of the manic stubbornness that allowed the team to steal December games from playoff caliber opponents. And that’s more or less how it should be.

After this game, the mood in the locker room was mostly valedictory. Despite the 13 game skid, Terry Stotts and players were content with a season that in rebuilding seemed to presage a stable future. Said Stotts: “I have a lot of fondness for this season….This losing streak at the end—you can’t wipe that off the record. That’s obviously part of it, but I’ll remember more about the first two thirds of the season than the last 13 games.”

That mood held. More games than they should have won, with moments of real competition: this is what the players are storing away from this season. Which is fitting—this team has at times been a bit drudging in their focus and stoicism, but they’re not a unit to dwell on negatives. This team has felt emotionally stable all season, and the modest confidence they’re taking away is to be expected.

The game itself taught fans almost nothing new. Will Barton played a full 48 minutes, capping his strong end-of-season run with a minutes load reflecting his progress. 14 weeks ago, Barton was shuttling back and forth from Portland to Boise for stints in the D-League; though his game has a few obvious gaps, his close to the season has made him a centerpiece in fans’—and presumably franchise—hopes and plans.

I’d like it to have ended differently. I’d have liked the Blazers to come out and once more defy reason to steal a victory from a team that had every reason to want it more. The loss and the streak it bookends are perhaps the lone blemish on a perfect losing season. The team was competitive without jeopardizing its ability to draft, they tested the limits of their core players without neglecting the developmental projects, and they brought a new playing style to a city that craved it. For now, that has to be enough.

***

Programming note: I’ll be headed to exit interviews tomorrow, and I’ll have extended season thoughts and other year-end essays throughout this week and into next. It’s been a pleasure covering the home games, and I hope you’ll join me for reflection on my first season covering a team.  

Time to reopen ROY debate?

Friend of the blog and crusader for truth and justice Ethan Sherwood Strauss has an article on ESPN Insider currently detailing his belief that Anthony Davis—and not Damian Lillard—deserves to be named Rookie of the Year. The article isn’t trolling; it’s smart, well-supported by numbers, and fun. Here’s a pull:

By averaging 19.1 ppg and 6.5 apg, Lillard has compiled some superficially superior numbers. In fact, those two numbers might be enough by themselves to secure the trophy.

But we know these days that a player’s true ability and performance is best measured by efficiency stats, not by counting stats.

If Davis and Lillard were similar on a per-minute, per-possession basis, then Lillard would clearly deserve the hardware. That’s not the case, though. The statistical evidence speaks loudly on this: Davis has been much more effective while on the floor.

The two main advanced statistics, Player Efficiency Rating (PER) and Win Shares, both dramatically prefer Davis on a possession-to-possession basis. Based on PER, Davis is leading Lillard 21.8 to 16.6, an enormous advantage. In Win Share average, Davis nearly doubles Lillard .159 to .091.

Ethan also writes that while most Lillard supporters point out that Davis has missed a ton of games, he’s still played 60, which is more than the argument seems to account for. Let’s take this in for a second, and take a deep breath.

Where the numbers are concerned, Ethan’s case is airtight: Davis has been more efficient on both ends, and grades out higher. There’s no way to declare your belief in analytics while ignoring that most second-level evidence reveals Davis to be stronger on a per-minute basis. That doesn’t mean he should be Rookie of the Year; in fact, in spite of Ethan’s argument, I would cast my vote for Lillard.

While Lillard has been demonstrably less efficient than Davis, I’d argue that he’s nonetheless been the far more effective this year. He was not his team’s best player, but its catalyst; if his scoring could have been more efficient, he nonetheless shouldered a huge load and delivered consistently in a way that his team was able to rely on him as a primary option. As the season progressed, he began to figure out how to penetrate and get decent looks at the rim. His distributive abilities grew over time, and he has in stretches been the best player on the floor.

Ethan points out that Davis’ defensive ability has not been as advertised due to understandable rookie struggles; Damian’s defense has at times been woeful. And the team offenses are closer than you’d think: New Orleans is tied for 15^th in offensive efficiency, while Portland has slid to a tie for 13^th. So we’re left to judge two primarily offensive players with drastically different styles and roles.

I’m picking Lillard, and I feel good about it. To my mind, he’s filled the bigger role and played a larger hand in his team’s success. Nonetheless, it’s a shame that fans so long ago decided this discussion was over, because Davis vs. Lillard is an illuminating study in player value. On the one hand, a player capable of shouldering an offense inefficiencies and all, on the other a hyper effective bucket-getter and shot bloclker who costs his team very few opportunities. It’s a good discussion, and a fun one, and one I wish we had more of.