PDA

View Full Version : How has this player escaped the "chucker" label?



Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 02:44 PM
his career FG% seems pretty solid at 49.0%, which places him just below a pair of certain HOF's in Bosh (50.4%) and Garnett (49.7%). but look a little closer.

due to a lack of 3 point shot and relatively low free throw rates, his shot attempts produce an average of just 1.15 points per shot, sitting him in the bottom 15% of all qualified players in the NBA, placing him squarely in the company of well known "chuckers" Al Jefferson and Zach Randolph.

this is not new for him. he has compiled a 1.19 points per shot rate spanning his 8 seasons in the NBA, routinely sitting in the bottom 15-25%. except this season he has taken it to an entirely new level.

if you are not familiar with points per shot (PPS), it is exactly as it sounds. it tells us essentially how good an investment a shot attempt from a player is for his teams offense.

there are only so many offensive possession in a game, although the exact number obviously varies. the average usually falls within the range of 90-100. if a player consumes 15-20 of them per game with a very low PPS he is putting a very large burden on his teammates to make up the difference with efficient offensive play.

with that in mind let's consider what our two previous examples, Bosh and Garnett did in their seasons up to this players current age while they were the clear undisputed best offensive players on their team. again using PPS as our measure.

Bosh: 1.38
Garnett: 1.21

this is interesting. for a moment i almost reconsidered this entire post when i turned up that number on Garnett.

if Kevin Garnett was barely producing more per field goal attempt than 'player X' than maybe i've got this all wrong. but then i thought, who exactly did Garnett have to help him offensively? did it make a difference? as you might expect, it did.

his highest PPS while he was with those dreadful TWolves teams was 1.33 in his age 28 season when he had help from Szczerbiak, Cassell and Sprewell. that seems logical, the more help you get the easier your job should theoretically be on the offensive end.

so Garnett fits the description of a guy who struggled to carry an offense because he wasn't a great scorer. hard to call a guy a chucker under those circumstances.

but enough about Garnett. does our mystery player fit that description as well? not really.

the player in question is shooting more often, and less efficiently, the more talent he has around him, or so it seems.

so that brings me back to the original question: how has this player managed to escape the dreaded label of chucker?

Al Jefferson, despite very similar offensive numbers and efficiency didn't. Carmelo Anthony can't go 2 days in this forum without being called a chucker (for good reason) despite being much more efficient that this player. Monta Ellis did not, despite a career PPS that is exactly 0.01 lower than this player.

and a new one arises: how on earth is this guy, who leads the NBA in field goal attempts despite very poor efficiency (and numerous teammates who are much more efficient weapons) 3rd on NBA.com's MVP Ladder? Shoot, i gave it away didn't i.

shame on you NBA.com. shame on you.

kozelkid
02-02-2014, 02:59 PM
I've always thought he was a rather inefficient player. :shrug:

Hence why I never wanted to deal Noah for him when rumors of his availability came out.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-02-2014, 03:07 PM
I'm guessing LA?

I didnt cheat.

TimeForAHoliday
02-02-2014, 03:11 PM
and his ORtg this year is below his career average.

P&GRealist
02-02-2014, 03:11 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

Next thing you'll know, we'll be using the word "HOARDERS" for guys who have a tendency to dribble the ball just a little more than other guys. They'll probably average 12+ assists per game, but if they are the guys who constantly dribble the ball to set up other guys, and take up most of the 24 second shot clock, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN started this movement of calling them HOARDERS, which then idiots on this sports forum will start overusing, like they have with the word CHUCKER.

It's comical how the mind of a basketball fan continues to de-evolve into dumb crap.

Minimal
02-02-2014, 03:13 PM
That exactly what I was bringing up before. Bosh in Toronto averaged 24 ppg shooting only 16 something times per game, LA needs 21 shots per game to average that. Kind of crazy.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
02-02-2014, 03:21 PM
always thought what was so special about this guy.

he has always taken a lot of shots to score a lot of points.

Takes a lot of long 2 point shots, average rebounder. doesnt get to the line often.

bholly
02-02-2014, 03:23 PM
The numbers I see have him at 1.15 this year and 1.17 for his career - avge for PFs is 1.21 and the league is at 1.21 this season too. It's not like he's awful.

I'd say it's partly because he's a big, and 'chucker' is applied to them much less often than it is to guards and wings; partly because 'chucker' is a loose term that usually applies to guys with a low FG% and high volume - ie it's a guy perception thing rather than taking into things like threes and free throws like PPS does, and his FG% hasn't been that bad; and mostly because 'chucker' is largely reputational and his volume hasn't been that high until recently - he hadn't even been in the top 20 in usage rate until this season, despite being a bona fide star.

bucketss
02-02-2014, 03:26 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

Next thing you'll know, we'll be using the word "HOARDERS" for guys who have a tendency to dribble the ball just a little more than other guys. They'll probably average 12+ assists per game, but if they are the guys who constantly dribble the ball to set up other guys, and take up most of the 24 second shot clock, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN started this movement of calling them HOARDERS, which then idiots on this sports forum will start overusing, like they have with the word CHUCKER.

It's comical how the mind of a basketball fan continues to de-evolve into dumb crap.

let me guess.. laker fan?

LanceUpperCut
02-02-2014, 03:28 PM
He is pretty inefficient for a big but I think the MVP ladder has some to do with the really good interior defense, very good rebounding and great FT shoot for a big.

Nick O
02-02-2014, 03:34 PM
hes good but not as good as people make him out to be. he takes some pretty ill advised shots

ThuglifeJ
02-02-2014, 03:36 PM
Never liked the 'poor LA being so underappreciated'. He's so boring and like this thread states, a chucker.

But slow down on the Bosh a certain HOFer... just because he rides the Heat overly stacked roster doesn't make him hof worthy. At least not in my eyes

Goose17
02-02-2014, 03:38 PM
I still wouldn't call him a chucker, it's not a significant enough difference from the average.

Nick O
02-02-2014, 03:42 PM
Never liked the 'poor LA being so underappreciated'. He's so boring and like this thread states, a chucker.

But slow down on the Bosh a certain HOFer... just because he rides the Heat overly stacked roster doesn't make him hof worthy. At least not in my eyes

hes probaby going to finish his career with like 19/8 2-4 titles. probably 14 all star games.. yeah. thats HOF

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 03:47 PM
I still wouldn't call him a chucker, it's not a significant enough difference from the average.

if he's not a chucker though, why is anybody called a chucker? to me it's for below average efficiency and high volume and he certainly meets both those criteria.

Melo has the stigma of chucker.
Jefferson who has similar numbers is definitely labeled by most a chucker.

again, he's a very good player. but the biggest difference between Portland this year is the play of Lillard, Matthews and Batum. because other than the nice jump in rebounding Aldridge is doing the same as always.

kobe4thewinbang
02-02-2014, 03:47 PM
So you wrote 10 paragraphs and don't even tell us who you're talking about?
:eyebrow:

KniCks4LiFe
02-02-2014, 03:48 PM
He is pretty inefficient for a big but I think the MVP ladder has some to do with the really good interior defense, very good rebounding and great FT shoot for a big.

but that's mostly Robin Lopez and Nicolas Batum.

The OP posed a great question.

I'd say b/c the NBA fell into this trend, started by Chris Webber and Jermaine O'neal, in which you have to feed the big man in quantities even though the production isn't as great per possession. According to those numbers LA is basically Chris Webber.

TheMightyHumph
02-02-2014, 03:50 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

Next thing you'll know, we'll be using the word "HOARDERS" for guys who have a tendency to dribble the ball just a little more than other guys. They'll probably average 12+ assists per game, but if they are the guys who constantly dribble the ball to set up other guys, and take up most of the 24 second shot clock, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN started this movement of calling them HOARDERS, which then idiots on this sports forum will start overusing, like they have with the word CHUCKER.

It's comical how the mind of a basketball fan continues to de-evolve into dumb crap.

Geez, we were using the word 'chucker' in the '60s. I know. I was one.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 03:53 PM
Geez, we were using the word 'chucker' in the '60s. I know. I was one.
you have to admit, hoarders is a great idea. Calderon anyone? and i'm a fan but man does that describe his style. i was going to suggest "surveyors".

albertajaysfan
02-02-2014, 03:57 PM
So you wrote 10 paragraphs and don't even tell us who you're talking about?
:eyebrow:

He gave it away at the end. You shouldn't even have to check who it is based on the 'hint'.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 03:59 PM
The numbers I see have him at 1.15 this year and 1.17 for his career - avge for PFs is 1.21 and the league is at 1.21 this season too. It's not like he's awful.

I'd say it's partly because he's a big, and 'chucker' is applied to them much less often than it is to guards and wings; partly because 'chucker' is a loose term that usually applies to guys with a low FG% and high volume - ie it's a guy perception thing rather than taking into things like threes and free throws like PPS does, and his FG% hasn't been that bad; and mostly because 'chucker' is largely reputational and his volume hasn't been that high until recently - he hadn't even been in the top 20 in usage rate until this season, despite being a bona fide star.

where are you looking? perhaps i need a better source. ESPN has him near the bottom even for PF behind 20 other players at the position.

KnicksorBust
02-02-2014, 04:02 PM
Yeah Aldridge is not a chucker. First of all, the chucker label to mean refers to shooters who fire way too many ill-advised jump shots (see: three-pointers). Zach Randolph once averaged 18ppg on shooting splits of 43%fg/29%3pt/71% FT. Big men who like to shoot from the perimeter like Randolph or an older name like Antoine Walker define the team chucker or black hole. Aldridge has never had a season that inefficient. He's also incredibly under the radar playing for a team that has never seen the 2nd round in his career. This is the first year that you could even consider his style of play "chucking" and yet it's coinciding with the most successful season the Trail Blazers have had since the late 90s/early 2000s. Additionally his 5.5 FTA per game is higher than any Al Jefferson season and the majority of Zach Randolph seasons. His 2.8 apg is also higher than any Al Jefferson season or Zach Randolph. To recap:

He rarely take 3's.
He gets to the foul line.
He passes.
His team is successful.

All of those things absolve him of that negative "chucker" label.

KniCks4LiFe
02-02-2014, 04:05 PM
@Jamiecballer you do realize this also makes the case that Goran Dragic Jeremy Lin, Darren Collison and Eric Bledsoe [when he was healthy] were all outproducing Curry, CP3, Lilliard, Parker, Lowry and obviously Deron Williams.

KniCks4LiFe
02-02-2014, 04:07 PM
Yeah Aldridge is not a chucker. First of all, the chucker label to mean refers to shooters who fire way too many ill-advised jump shots (see: three-pointers). Zach Randolph once averaged 18ppg on shooting splits of 43%fg/29%3pt/71% FT. Big men who like to shoot from the perimeter like Randolph or an older name like Antoine Walker define the team chucker or black hole. Aldridge has never had a season that inefficient. He's also incredibly under the radar playing for a team that has never seen the 2nd round in his career. This is the first year that you could even consider his style of play "chucking" and yet it's coinciding with the most successful season the Trail Blazers have had since the late 90s/early 2000s. Additionally his 5.5 FTA per game is higher than any Al Jefferson season and the majority of Zach Randolph seasons. His 2.8 apg is also higher than any Al Jefferson season or Zach Randolph. To recap:

He rarely take 3's.
He gets to the foul line.
He passes.
His team is successful.

All of those things absolve him of that negative "chucker" label.

I think he's only talking about this season. How we use chucker for Melo and etc. but LA is in the MVP race and the media darling but we never hear the word chucker attached to him, even tho his PPS is pretty average for the shots he takes.

12loser12
02-02-2014, 04:21 PM
I think using points per shot attempt to decide if someone is a chucker isn't right. It is very biased towards those that get to the line a lot, and depending on one's FT%, that may or may not be a good thing. To illustrate:

Player A:
Takes 20 shots
Is fouled on 19 of them and makes the other FG attempt
Makes 8 of his 38 Free throws
That gives him a total of 10 points on one shot attempt (10 points per shot)

Player B:
Takes 20 shots
Is not fouled on any of them
Makes 12 of his 20 shots
That gives him 24 points on 20 shots (1.2 pps)

Player B's points per shot are far, far worse, however his team actually scored 24 points vs the 10 scored by player A on the same amount of possessions. Pretending that FT attempts do not account for possessions just because they are not FG attempts is wrong. (Also, Player B's team likely had a better chance at an offensive rebound on his 8 missed FGs if they were taken in the flow of the offense, than Player A's team had at rebounding his missed FTs).

Personally, I think shot selection goes a long way into becoming a chucker as well. When someone takes a 3pt attempt in a 1vs4 fast break, his team will not get the rebound if he misses. However, is someone takes a 3 from the wing on a ball reversal in the flow of the offense while the defense is running out to attempt to cover him may miss, but to me the miss is far more acceptable as there is a better chance at your team getting the rebound. Many other things go into being a chucker (floor vision, ability to make the extra pass for a better shot, having a well rounded game besides just shooting, etc). That's why I think using PPS to determine if you're a chucker is inherently flawed.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 04:21 PM
Yeah Aldridge is not a chucker. First of all, the chucker label to mean refers to shooters who fire way too many ill-advised jump shots (see: three-pointers). Zach Randolph once averaged 18ppg on shooting splits of 43%fg/29%3pt/71% FT. Big men who like to shoot from the perimeter like Randolph or an older name like Antoine Walker define the team chucker or black hole. Aldridge has never had a season that inefficient. He's also incredibly under the radar playing for a team that has never seen the 2nd round in his career. This is the first year that you could even consider his style of play "chucking" and yet it's coinciding with the most successful season the Trail Blazers have had since the late 90s/early 2000s. Additionally his 5.5 FTA per game is higher than any Al Jefferson season and the majority of Zach Randolph seasons. His 2.8 apg is also higher than any Al Jefferson season or Zach Randolph. To recap:

He rarely take 3's.
He gets to the foul line.
He passes.
His team is successful.

All of those things absolve him of that negative "chucker" label.

well i was going to say just now that i suppose it depends on your definition. if ill-advised shots outside of the flow of the offense is your definition - you probably have a case.

if your definition is (like mine) taking a ton of shots consistently without a great return, and consuming possessions that would be better distributed amongst your teammates - then the case for calling him a chucker is pretty solid.

bholly
02-02-2014, 04:24 PM
where are you looking? perhaps i need a better source. ESPN has him near the bottom even for PF behind 20 other players at the position.

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/players/273-lamarcus-aldridge

^That's where I got the PF average. I calculated the league average.
The problem is that the ESPN page you're looking at only has 'qualifying players', ie players on track for 300 made field goals. That's why there's only 26 PFs for 30 teams.
You need to click 'all players' to compare him to everyone. He isn't in the bottom 15% of the entire NBA, he's in the bottom 15% of the qualifying players - he's at about the median for the NBA.

Sadds The Gr8
02-02-2014, 04:31 PM
starting to hate the word chucker...it's so overused. I agree with KOB, I don't consider LMA a chucker because his offense isn't killing his team's production...they're the #1 offense in the NBA.

Josh Smith is a chucker, not Aldridge.

KniCks4LiFe
02-02-2014, 04:33 PM
I think using points per shot attempt to decide if someone is a chucker isn't right. It is very biased towards those that get to the line a lot, and depending on one's FT%, that may or may not be a good thing. To illustrate:

Player A:
Takes 20 shots
Is fouled on 19 of them and makes the other FG attempt
Makes 8 of his 38 Free throws
That gives him a total of 10 points on one shot attempt (10 points per shot)

Player B:
Takes 20 shots
Is not fouled on any of them
Makes 12 of his 20 shots
That gives him 24 points on 20 shots (1.2 pps)

Player B's points per shot are far, far worse, however his team actually scored 24 points vs the 10 scored by player A on the same amount of possessions. Pretending that FT attempts do not account for possessions just because they are not FG attempts is wrong. (Also, Player B's team likely had a better chance at an offensive rebound on his 8 missed FGs if they were taken in the flow of the offense, than Player A's team had at rebounding his missed FTs).

Personally, I think shot selection goes a long way into becoming a chucker as well. When someone takes a 3pt attempt in a 1vs4 fast break, his team will not get the rebound if he misses. However, is someone takes a 3 from the wing on a ball reversal in the flow of the offense while the defense is running out to attempt to cover him may miss, but to me the miss is far more acceptable as there is a better chance at your team getting the rebound. Many other things go into being a chucker (floor vision, ability to make the extra pass for a better shot, having a well rounded game besides just shooting, etc). That's why I think using PPS to determine if you're a chucker is inherently flawed.

but the point is that player A is still being outproduced. Player B for whatever reason makes more of his foul shots, so the illustration here, I mean I get what you're saying but umm I think this is the better example, take the case of Dwight Howard and James Harden.

Dwight can be 14 for 19
but gets to the line 15 times aka hack-a-Howard
If he's 6 for 15
That gives him 34 pts. on 34 shots, a 1.00 PPS

Harden can be 13 for 15, 2 of 3 from 3PT
sent to the line 13 times aka crash dummy ref gifted touch fouls
If he's 13 for 13
That gives him 41 pts. on 28 shots a, 1.46 PPS

Who is the better player now? actually who's the chucker now?

bholly
02-02-2014, 04:54 PM
^No, I think the way he had it made the point perfectly. They take the same number of shots but the one who scores far more points has a lower PPS because the FGAs from when the other guy got fouled aren't counted as shots even though they use up a possession the exact same way.

I think you're confused about what PPS is. It isn't PTS/(FGA+FT) it's just PTS/FGA. Beyond that I don't see the point of your example at all - the guy who shoots better from the field and the line, and gets to the line on a higher percentage of his shots, is scoring more points - what's supposed to be interesting about that?

12loser12
02-02-2014, 05:00 PM
Thanks bholly, at least someone got my long-winded explanation.

tldr version: FT attempts count as possessions too, so PPS is a bad metric

KniCks4LiFe
02-02-2014, 05:02 PM
^No, I think the way he had it made the point perfectly. They take the same number of shots but the one who scores far more points has a lower PPS because the FGAs from when the other guy got fouled aren't counted as shots even though they use up a possession the exact same way.

I think you're confused about what PPS is. It isn't PTS/(FGA+FT) it's just PTS/FGA. Beyond that I don't see the point of your example at all - the guy who shoots better from the field and the line, and gets to the line on a higher percentage of his shots, is scoring more points - what's supposed to be interesting about that?

Thank you. You actually changed my stance on it and made me more aware of what PPS was. And you're right I was confused w/ what it was. I thought it was based on total shots and production per shot. Now I see the flaw here is total shots recorded on the field recorded officially as a metric, while the shots via the penalties can make a player seem better than he really is.

I'd guess Steph Curry and Dwayne Wade in his prime would be the example of that.

KnicksorBust
02-02-2014, 05:09 PM
well i was going to say just now that i suppose it depends on your definition. if ill-advised shots outside of the flow of the offense is your definition - you probably have a case.

if your definition is (like mine) taking a ton of shots consistently without a great return, and consuming possession that would be better distributed amongst your teammates - then the case for calling him a chucker is pretty well rock solid.

Yeah if we narrow the whole discussion to relying on PPP then there is no need to even make the thread. You are missing the full picture and the context of his statistics. Plus you continue to ignore the fact that he gets to the foul line, passes well for a PF, and his "chucking" is producing go-to player raw stats on a winning team. If his style is conducive to winning than how bad can it really be?

KniCks4LiFe
02-02-2014, 05:10 PM
Thanks bholly, at least someone got my long-winded explanation.

tldr version: FT attempts count as possessions too, so PPS is a bad metric

So you're more in favor of being against FTAs counting for PPS? Even tho a player doesn't control how many times he's sent there, but controls what he produces from being put there.

nastynice
02-02-2014, 05:21 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

That's cuz 5-6 yrs ago kobe was doing this thing on the court that we all saw but didn't know how to describe it. Enter: chucker

lol

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 05:27 PM
@Jamiecballer you do realize this also makes the case that Goran Dragic Jeremy Lin, Darren Collison and Eric Bledsoe [when he was healthy] were all outproducing Curry, CP3, Lilliard, Parker, Lowry and obviously Deron Williams.

that assumes a whole bunch of things that i definitely was not saying...

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 05:33 PM
http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/players/273-lamarcus-aldridge

^That's where I got the PF average. I calculated the league average.
The problem is that the ESPN page you're looking at only has 'qualifying players', ie players on track for 300 made field goals. That's why there's only 26 PFs for 30 teams.
You need to click 'all players' to compare him to everyone. He isn't in the bottom 15% of the entire NBA, he's in the bottom 15% of the qualifying players - he's at about the median for the NBA.

i figured that was what you were looking at. i will concede that i did not make that distinction in the original post. i will go back and edit it because i knew full well i was looking at qualifying players.

you can include the guys who are only hanging around the nba for their defense, backups who don't shoot much and generally ****** players if you'd like. but as far as i'm concerned it doesn't change the point one bit.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 05:39 PM
starting to hate the word chucker...it's so overused. I agree with KOB, I don't consider LMA a chucker because his offense isn't killing his team's production...they're the #1 offense in the NBA.

Josh Smith is a chucker, not Aldridge.

that's a point of view i can understand even though i don't agree with it.

they have the top offense in the NBA on the back of Lillard/Matthews/Batum & Lopez(!!) all having excellent efficiency to offset the poor efficiency of Aldridge.

Lillard 1.30 (4th among qualified PG's)
Matthews 1.40 (4th among qualified SG's)
Batum 1.31 (4th among qualified SF's)
Lopez 1.35 (5th among qualified C's)


Aldridge 1.14 (21st among qualified PF's)

there is really no mystery there

personally, i don't think it makes a lot of sense to define chucker based on the offensive ranking of the team the player plays for since it obviously has a ton to do with the other 11 players - or in this case 4 exceptionally efficient starters & LaMarcus Aldridge.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 05:46 PM
I think using points per shot attempt to decide if someone is a chucker isn't right. It is very biased towards those that get to the line a lot, and depending on one's FT%, that may or may not be a good thing. To illustrate:

Player A:
Takes 20 shots
Is fouled on 19 of them and makes the other FG attempt
Makes 8 of his 38 Free throws
That gives him a total of 10 points on one shot attempt (10 points per shot)

Player B:
Takes 20 shots
Is not fouled on any of them
Makes 12 of his 20 shots
That gives him 24 points on 20 shots (1.2 pps)

Player B's points per shot are far, far worse, however his team actually scored 24 points vs the 10 scored by player A on the same amount of possessions. Pretending that FT attempts do not account for possessions just because they are not FG attempts is wrong. (Also, Player B's team likely had a better chance at an offensive rebound on his 8 missed FGs if they were taken in the flow of the offense, than Player A's team had at rebounding his missed FTs).

Personally, I think shot selection goes a long way into becoming a chucker as well. When someone takes a 3pt attempt in a 1vs4 fast break, his team will not get the rebound if he misses. However, is someone takes a 3 from the wing on a ball reversal in the flow of the offense while the defense is running out to attempt to cover him may miss, but to me the miss is far more acceptable as there is a better chance at your team getting the rebound. Many other things go into being a chucker (floor vision, ability to make the extra pass for a better shot, having a well rounded game besides just shooting, etc). That's why I think using PPS to determine if you're a chucker is inherently flawed.

your example is correct, however by using a ridiculously far-fetched example i think it hurts your point

HOWEVER,

i have been toying around with a formula that would address that i just haven't had much chance to go through the data.

in the case of aldridge i imagine it wouldn't have a huge impact because there aren't a whole lot of forwards that draw a ton of fouls anyways. but i am interested in refining it.

bholly
02-02-2014, 05:46 PM
Thanks bholly, at least someone got my long-winded explanation.

tldr version: FT attempts count as possessions too, so PPS is a bad metric

The added problem is that not all FT attempts do count as possessions - and-1s are legit extra points that you should be recognized for, same for when you shoot 3 FTs rather than 2. A lot of our metrics (incl TS%) would be a lot better if it was common to track and report FTAs in a way that distinguished between the types. Just having FTAs is fine for the regular box score, but it should be more widespread amongst the big online databases to have more than that. I know hoopdata sort of had and-1s, but they're gone now. Def something I expect to change in the future, but for whatever reason we aren't there yet.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 05:51 PM
Yeah if we narrow the whole discussion to relying on PPP then there is no need to even make the thread. You are missing the full picture and the context of his statistics. Plus you continue to ignore the fact that he gets to the foul line, passes well for a PF, and his "chucking" is producing go-to player raw stats on a winning team. If his style is conducive to winning than how bad can it really be?

unless i missed it you didn't provide any evidence that his style is conducive to winning. the only evidence we actually have is that if you have super efficient teammates that it doesn't necessarily kill you.

ThuglifeJ
02-02-2014, 05:56 PM
Never liked the 'poor LA being so underappreciated'. He's so boring and like this thread states, a chucker.

But slow down on the Bosh a certain HOFer... just because he rides the Heat overly stacked roster doesn't make him hof worthy. At least not in my eyes

hes probaby going to finish his career with like 19/8 2-4 titles. probably 14 all star games.. yeah. thats HOF

Ok. 14 all star games because there are no other bigs in the east

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 06:00 PM
Thanks bholly, at least someone got my long-winded explanation.

tldr version: FT attempts count as possessions too, so PPS is a bad metric

i see the issue and am interested in seeing what happens when you adjust it.

shouldn't be hard

PTS % (FGA + ((FTA - AND 1's) X 0.5))

i'm almost 100% certain this is a stat already i just haven't the foggiest what it's called.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 06:33 PM
actually god we are stupid. accounting for free throws as partial possessions will probably make Aldridge less efficient since he is 13th in the league in free throws in addition to his 20 official FG attempts.

sure it will bring guys like Bosh and particularly Howard back to the pack but it probably won't help Aldridge at all.

albertajaysfan
02-02-2014, 06:51 PM
^No, I think the way he had it made the point perfectly. They take the same number of shots but the one who scores far more points has a lower PPS because the FGAs from when the other guy got fouled aren't counted as shots even though they use up a possession the exact same way.

I think you're confused about what PPS is. It isn't PTS/(FGA+FT) it's just PTS/FGA. Beyond that I don't see the point of your example at all - the guy who shoots better from the field and the line, and gets to the line on a higher percentage of his shots, is scoring more points - what's supposed to be interesting about that?

If your calculation for PPS is correct it is a super flawed stat. I am curious.

It should be as follows to have any real worth

PTS/(FGA+FTA/2)

Anyone have an answer for this?

Edit: I see Jamie beat me to it already and accounted for and1's

albertajaysfan
02-02-2014, 06:56 PM
http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/players/273-lamarcus-aldridge

^That's where I got the PF average. I calculated the league average.
The problem is that the ESPN page you're looking at only has 'qualifying players', ie players on track for 300 made field goals. That's why there's only 26 PFs for 30 teams.
You need to click 'all players' to compare him to everyone. He isn't in the bottom 15% of the entire NBA, he's in the bottom 15% of the qualifying players - he's at about the median for the NBA.

Why include all players? He should be better than bench players. He is a starter and should therefor only be compared to other starters. Plus he is a high usage starter. Comparing him to low usage players makes little sense.

A chucker by definition isn't a low usage player. They are just a crappy shooter if they have bad percentages.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 07:07 PM
Why include all players? He should be better than bench players. He is a starter and should therefor only be compared to other starters. Plus he is a high usage starter. Comparing him to low usage players makes little sense.

A chucker by definition isn't a low usage player. They are just a crappy shooter if they have bad percentages.

exactly. the point i was trying to illustrate is the folly of riding a low efficiency player. of course in order to do that, i first had to make the point that his efficiency was poor.

i've got the modified data loaded into a spreadsheet to take free throws and "and 1's" into account, probably won't be able to present findings until after the superbowl!

Chronz
02-02-2014, 07:57 PM
Ortg is more important, dude never turns it over

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 08:14 PM
Ortg is more important, dude never turns it over

1) is that two points? or one?

2) can i ask then - if you think Ortg is more important - what would your reasoning be for why Aldridge has the lowest offensive rating of all 5 portland starters?

pulzar
02-02-2014, 08:56 PM
PTS % (FGA + ((FTA - AND 1's) X 0.5))

i'm almost 100% certain this is a stat already i just haven't the foggiest what it's called.

It's "True Shooting Percentage times 2". TS %1 doesn't count "and 1s" to keep it simple, but it approximates it by multiplying FTAs with 0.44 instead of 0.5.

TS% = PTS / (2 * (FGA + FTA * 0.44))

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 09:49 PM
i recalculated the values for the same 26 qualifying players from before because of very valid concerns regarding the lack of accounting for free throws as possessions (or really, half possessions).

step by step this was the calculation

1. take the players free throws attempted, subtracting the number of times they were fouled on a made basket to differentiate between free throws that are in-place of a field goal attempt from those that are a bonus added on to a field goal attempt.

we will call that number "adjusted free throws"

2. with that number in hand, we multiply the adjusted free throws by .5 to and add it to field goal attempts to derive the number of "possessions" that the offensive player "consumed" through the act of shooting.

we will call that number "scoring attempts"

3. finally, we can divide the number of points they've scored by the number of scoring attempts.

here are the adjusted results, in a stat that i will call "return on investment" or ROI

1. Diaw (1.24)
2. Nowitzki (1.18)
3. Johnson (1.18)
4. Frye (1.17)
5. Love (1.17)
6. Griffin (1.16)
7. Davis (1.16)
8. Ibaka (1.14)
9. Lee (1.13)
10. Jones (1.12)
11. Morris (1.10)
12. Faried (1.10)
13. Millsap (1.09)
14. Monroe (1.08)
15. Young (1.07)
16. Bass (1.07)
17. Gibson (1.06)
18. Duncan (1.05)
19. Middleton (1.05)
20. Hilario (1.05)
21. Aldridge (1.03)
22. West (1.03)
23. Thompson (0.99)
24. Randolph (0.99)
25. Boozer (0.99)
26. Davis (0.96)

as you can see, we haven't helped Aldridge at all.

pulzar
02-02-2014, 09:51 PM
And, Aldrige is 51st out of all qualified PFs in the league in TS%.

Jamiecballer
02-02-2014, 10:10 PM
And, Aldrige is 51st out of all qualified PFs in the league in TS%.

so the numbers are basically gross no matter what stat you use.

in case you missed it earlier, and yes it was PPS, but based on the chart i just showed it's probably much the same after factoring FT's:

Robin Lopez: 1.35pps (5th among all qualified C's)
LaMarcus Aldridge: 1.14 (21st among all qualified PF's)
Nicolas Batum: 1.30 (6th among all qualified SF's)
Wes Matthews: 1.40 (4th among all qualified SG's)
Damian Lillard: 1.30 (6th among all qualified PG's)

WOW. basically confirming that Portland has a supremely strong offense in spite of Aldridge.

bholly
02-02-2014, 11:22 PM
Why include all players? He should be better than bench players. He is a starter and should therefor only be compared to other starters. Plus he is a high usage starter. Comparing him to low usage players makes little sense.

A chucker by definition isn't a low usage player. They are just a crappy shooter if they have bad percentages.

I don't care who you compare him to, I was just objecting to comparing him to the qualifying players and then stating it as "bottom 15% in the entire NBA" with bolded letter and everything.

KingstonHawke
02-02-2014, 11:32 PM
Basketball is a little more complex than that. Sometimes a star taking a lower % shot is the right play. Stars need to force themselves to be double teamed, and that comes from shooting... a lot. The numbers might say you're doing too much, but your teammates are getting open looks not because you're going off tonight. But because they know you have the potential to go off and have to be preemptive if they want to stop you. Can you tell my favorite player is Kobe? lol

Shammyguy3
02-03-2014, 01:11 AM
if he's not a chucker though, why is anybody called a chucker? to me it's for below average efficiency and high volume and he certainly meets both those criteria.

Melo has the stigma of chucker.
Jefferson who has similar numbers is definitely labeled by most a chucker.

again, he's a very good player. but the biggest difference between Portland this year is the play of Lillard, Matthews and Batum. because other than the nice jump in rebounding Aldridge is doing the same as always.

This


EDIT: a chucker and a blackhole are different things. I don't think LMA's a blackhole, but he's been a chucker this season

b@llhog24
02-03-2014, 06:49 AM
Ortg is more important, dude never turns it over

This.


1) is that two points? or one?

2) can i ask then - if you think Ortg is more important - what would your reasoning be for why Aldridge has the lowest offensive rating of all 5 portland starters?

Because he has an insanely high USG%?

D-Leethal
02-03-2014, 10:55 AM
That "chucker" seems to have little to no trouble winning a ton of basketball games as the teams top threat this year. If you want to call his scoring "chucking" than his "chucking" seems to be what the team needs.

Minimal
02-03-2014, 11:24 AM
That "chucker" seems to have little to no trouble winning a ton of basketball games as the teams top threat this year. If you want to call his scoring "chucking" than his "chucking" seems to be what the team needs.
I don't think you get it, if he didn't take the amount of shots he takes, they would be even better.

D-Leethal
02-03-2014, 01:06 PM
I don't think you get it, if he didn't take the amount of shots he takes, they would be even better.

Says who?

I think I "get it" far too well, actually.

D-Leethal
02-03-2014, 01:07 PM
If you think its as simple as "Give player X who scores 1.5 PPS more shots than Player Y who scores 1.3 PPS and the team will be better!" you are doing a major disservice to the game and should stick to analyzing spreadsheets.

D-Leethal
02-03-2014, 01:09 PM
It would be a seesaw effect and the next guy who is taking more shots, would be taking shots he isn't as equipped to taking or making, his PPS would go down, Aldridge would go up as he would not be taking as many tough shots as the #1 option and go-to option late in the clock. Its not rocket science, its simple logic.

This is not baseball, its not simply replacing a .260 power hitter with a .300 power hitter.

KnickaBocka.44
02-03-2014, 02:21 PM
I don't think you get it, if he didn't take the amount of shots he takes, they would be even better.

This is not guaranteed to be true.

D-Leethal
02-03-2014, 02:27 PM
This is not guaranteed to be true.

I bet if Iverson gave more shots to Tyrone Hill they win the 2001 championship.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 02:45 PM
Basketball is a little more complex than that. Sometimes a star taking a lower % shot is the right play. Stars need to force themselves to be double teamed, and that comes from shooting... a lot. The numbers might say you're doing too much, but your teammates are getting open looks not because you're going off tonight. But because they know you have the potential to go off and have to be preemptive if they want to stop you. Can you tell my favorite player is Kobe? lol

see. now this is an argument i can give credibility to. question is how much is too much.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 02:47 PM
This.



Because he has an insanely high USG%?

i ask this question honestly because i don't know the answer... high usage makes your offensive rating low?

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 02:50 PM
That "chucker" seems to have little to no trouble winning a ton of basketball games as the teams top threat this year. If you want to call his scoring "chucking" than his "chucking" seems to be what the team needs.

that is very questionable though. because with the exception of a few extra attempts this year his numbers offensively are identical to years past. was his chucking what his team needed last year when they won 33 games?

the difference is the fact that he is surrounded by four other starters that have all been incredibly efficient offensively this year.

if you've got another theory though i'd love to hear it.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 02:52 PM
If you think its as simple as "Give player X who scores 1.5 PPS more shots than Player Y who scores 1.3 PPS and the team will be better!" you are doing a major disservice to the game and should stick to analyzing spreadsheets.

nobody has said anything as simplistic like that.

but i do question why nobody has been able to reign him in a bit. if he elimated his five worst shot decisions a game (like a lot of guys who are chucking) his team would be better.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 02:56 PM
If you think its as simple as "Give player X who scores 1.5 PPS more shots than Player Y who scores 1.3 PPS and the team will be better!" you are doing a major disservice to the game and should stick to analyzing spreadsheets.


It would be a seesaw effect and the next guy who is taking more shots, would be taking shots he isn't as equipped to taking or making, his PPS would go down, Aldridge would go up as he would not be taking as many tough shots as the #1 option and go-to option late in the clock. Its not rocket science, its simple logic.

This is not baseball, its not simply replacing a .260 power hitter with a .300 power hitter.


I bet if Iverson gave more shots to Tyrone Hill they win the 2001 championship.
continue to put words in peoples mouth. i find it amusing.

KnickaBocka.44
02-03-2014, 04:10 PM
that is very questionable though. because with the exception of a few extra attempts this year his numbers offensively are identical to years past. was his chucking what his team needed last year when they won 33 games?

the difference is the fact that he is surrounded by four other starters that have all been incredibly efficient offensively this year.

That doesn't make him a chucker though. If Lillard isn't on the floor they don't have another guy who can create his own shot other than Aldridge. Therefore, Aldridge ends up taking more iso's and shots at the end of the clock than other players do.

This is the problem you run into when you only consider numbers and not the context they are created in.

KnickaBocka.44
02-03-2014, 04:10 PM
nobody has said anything as simplistic like that.

but i do question why nobody has been able to reign him in a bit. if he elimated his five worst shot decisions a game (like a lot of guys who are chucking) his team would be better.

Go to the last page and someone said exactly that.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 04:16 PM
That doesn't make him a chucker though. If Lillard isn't on the floor they don't have another guy who can create his own shot other than Aldridge. Therefore, Aldridge ends up taking more iso's and shots at the end of the clock than other players do.

This is the problem you run into when you only consider numbers and not the context they are created in.
i hear you. but a lot of good offensive players have only one or two other guys on their team who are good at creating their own shot so the same would apply to them as well. but while we are on the topic, when did Mo Williams become incapable of running an offense or running a play to get someone else a good look? it doesn't make sense.

i'm not saying he's a bad player in the least. but he's not a terribly productive offensive player. he gets the majority of his value on the defensive side IMO.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 04:27 PM
Go to the last page and someone said exactly that.

not true. i believe what he said was that if Aldridge took fewer shots (*that have an extremely low rate of return) that the Blazers would be better.

to me that doesn't imply giving 3 shots a game to player X, Y, or Z. to me it implies that the ball be shared more amongst the group.

KnicksorBust
02-03-2014, 04:39 PM
How valuable is it having a low-post player who can provide almost 25ppg? He's by far their best player on the block and one of the best high usage low post players in the league. The attention he commands down low makes it that much easier for players like Lillard/Batum/Matthews to get open looks on the perimeter.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 04:49 PM
How valuable is it having a low-post player who can provide almost 25ppg? He's by far their best player on the block and one of the best high usage low post players in the league. The attention he commands down low makes it that much easier for players like Lillard/Batum/Matthews to get open looks on the perimeter.

i hear ya. he's one of the better low post guys in the NBA and he should stick with that. but 21.2 shots per game? c'mon man, he's got to be smarter about that.

KnickaBocka.44
02-03-2014, 04:50 PM
i hear you. but a lot of good offensive players have only one or two other guys on their team who are good at creating their own shot so the same would apply to them as well. but while we are on the topic, when did Mo Williams become incapable of running an offense or running a play to get someone else a good look? it doesn't make sense.

i'm not saying he's a bad player in the least. but he's not a terribly productive offensive player. he gets the majority of his value on the defensive side IMO.

Running a play isn't the same as breaking down the defense and creating a shot for someone else. That has never been Mo's strong-suit, primarily an outside shooter. You have to know that those 2 things are entirely different front one another.

KnickaBocka.44
02-03-2014, 04:51 PM
not true. i believe what he said was that if Aldridge took fewer shots (*that have an extremely low rate of return) that the Blazers would be better.

to me that doesn't imply giving 3 shots a game to player X, Y, or Z. to me it implies that the ball be shared more amongst the group.

If they are sharing the ball then it's only logical to assume that someone else is taking the shot...you are trying to split hairs to support your argument and it's not working.

Chronz
02-03-2014, 05:04 PM
1) is that two points? or one?
Low turnover rate makes it ok to be less efficient from the floor, particularly when that threat is opening up the offense for his teammates and allowing them to optimize their efficiency.


2) can i ask then - if you think Ortg is more important - what would your reasoning be for why Aldridge has the lowest offensive rating of all 5 portland starters?
Not sure I need any reasoning, it is what it is, they are more efficient on a possession basis but he is the fulcrum of the offense, an offense that ranks tops in the league last I checked. If LMA was more efficient himself, then obviously the offense would improve and he would be in another class as a player but to suggest he tones it down would leave only 1 question, WHO should be taking more shots. Which of these players do you think has the skill curve that could thrive with more plays called for them?

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 05:06 PM
If they are sharing the ball then it's only logical to assume that someone else is taking the shot...you are trying to split hairs to support your argument and it's not working.

of course someone else is taking the shot. if you think i am trying to split hairs then you are not understanding what i mean.

D-Leethal
02-03-2014, 05:12 PM
of course someone else is taking the shot. if you think i am trying to split hairs then you are not understanding what i mean.

We get what your saying. If you could take 4-5 tough shots LMA takes a game, say the amount of shots he probably takes on a nightly basis while the shot clock is winding down, and replace them with wide open 3s from Wes Matthews that the Blazers would be better off. Great analysis bro.

LMA takes those shots for a reason - his team depends on him taking the bulk of the shots and with that, comes some shots that are doomed for failure even before its released. Its all part of being THAT GUY for your team. Your 4 other efficient teammates are able to do what they do efficiently because LMA is constantly putting pressure on the defense by scoring the **** out of the ball and commanding attention of multiple eyes and defenders.

Aldridge isn't the most efficient big man but you can't just sit there and say you can subtract his less efficient FGA's and replace them with more efficient shots dispersed amongst the group and your team gets better. That is not how basketball works.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 05:13 PM
Low turnover rate makes it ok to be less efficient from the floor, particularly when that threat is opening up the offense for his teammates and allowing them to optimize their efficiency.
i agree with that.



Not sure I need any reasoning, it is what it is, they are more efficient on a possession basis but he is the fulcrum of the offense, an offense that ranks tops in the league last I checked. If LMA was more efficient himself, then obviously the offense would improve and he would be in another class as a player but to suggest he tones it down would leave only 1 question, WHO should be taking more shots. Which of these players do you think has the skill curve that could thrive with more plays called for them?

they don't need to thrive because the guy taking them sure isn't. that's the point.

that's what chuckers do though isn't it. they show little awareness for what's a good shot to take and what is not.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 05:23 PM
We get what your saying. If you could take 4-5 tough shots LMA takes a game, say the amount of shots he probably takes on a nightly basis while the shot clock is winding down, and replace them with wide open 3s from Wes Matthews that the Blazers would be better off. Great analysis bro.


i didn't say that at all. good try though.

and the data over 8 years doesn't support your microanalysis. he's had the same terrible efficiency numbers his whole career. are you suggesting he's always had nobody who could create their own shot?

this isn't Kevin Garnett. this is the profile of a guy who has ALWAYS thought he was a better offensive player than he is IMO.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 05:26 PM
by the way D-Leethal. no need to be disrespectful. i didn't bring out how terrible your pre-season analysis of the Knicks was so how about you cut the **** and stick to facts, okay?

Chronz
02-03-2014, 05:35 PM
they don't need to thrive because the guy taking them sure isn't. that's the point.

that's what chuckers do though isn't it. they show little awareness for what's a good shot to take and what is not.
They need to thrive because if you redistribute possessions, the other guys efficiency is likely to be altered while LMA's may see his own efficiency improved with the lightened load (as hes done in the past).

What you might find is that with a different offense you single out another player and think LMA should start getting more looks. What matters is the teams offense, and in order for it to statistically improve, you would need to hope the guy getting more opportunities can convert them at a higher rate than LMA and/or that LMA is more efficient himself as a result.

And I dont think hes at chucker level either, still above league average in O-RTG despite the high usage.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 05:53 PM
They need to thrive because if you redistribute possessions, the other guys efficiency is likely to be altered while LMA's may see his own efficiency improved with the lightened load (as hes done in the past).

What you might find is that with a different offense you single out another player and think LMA should start getting more looks. What matters is the teams offense, and in order for it to statistically improve, you would need to hope the guy getting more opportunities can convert them at a higher rate than LMA and/or that LMA is more efficient himself as a result.

And I dont think hes at chucker level either, still above league average in O-RTG despite the high usage.

is it possible for a guy to be on the best offensive team in the league and have a below average Offensive Rating Chronz? i ask because i don't know how the number is derived.

Minimal
02-03-2014, 06:01 PM
LA eFG% is the worst of starting 5.

Wesley Matthews .587
Nicolas Batum .539
Robin Lopez .538
Damian Lillard .511
Lamarcus Aldridge .469

Portland season average is .507, that means LA is kind of harming the team in some way.

Sorry but what this statistics say is that the guys should share the ball more, and LA should get less touches. Wesley Matthews should take more shots. Its not really LA who makes this team great, its other 4 guys who play alongside him.

THE MTL
02-03-2014, 06:05 PM
I missed raw statistics. A player averaging 24ppg on one of the best 4 teams in the league is simply a great player. Period.

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 06:12 PM
I missed raw statistics. A player averaging 24ppg on one of the best 4 teams in the league is simply a great player. Period.

what if he took 36 shots per game? in your eyes, still a great player regardless? how about 50 shots per game? still a great player?

Chronz
02-03-2014, 07:48 PM
is it possible for a guy to be on the best offensive team in the league and have a below average Offensive Rating Chronz? i ask because i don't know how the number is derived.
Its more a form of individual efficiency, insignificant team influence here. The whole idea behind ur PPS is taken to another level when you account for the value of turnovers and offensive rebounding. Its basically Pts Per Possession but if youd rather get the strictly individual "PPP" then you can definitely look it up yourself. Tho keep in mind, turnovers are more costly than missed shots because at least with a missed shot, your teammates have a slight rebounding opportunity as opposed to a transition opportunity for the other guys.

But heres the BBR breakdown:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

Chronz
02-03-2014, 07:51 PM
I missed raw statistics. A player averaging 24ppg on one of the best 4 teams in the league is simply a great player. Period.

But not all great players are equally great. For the most part you're right, guys that prolific on great teams tend to be great players, if thats where we wanted the conversation to end....

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 08:06 PM
But not all great players are equally great. For the most part you're right, guys that prolific on great teams tend to be great players, if thats where we wanted the conversation to end....

thing is, if he's a great player this year, then he's always been a great player because the only difference this year is the number of shots. i don't believe that to be the case. he's a pretty good player IMO. an outstanding defender who loses a fair bit of offensive value in my eyes by being extremely inefficient.

Chronz
02-03-2014, 08:13 PM
LA eFG% is the worst of starting 5.

Wesley Matthews .587
Nicolas Batum .539
Robin Lopez .538
Damian Lillard .511
Lamarcus Aldridge .469

Portland season average is .507, that means LA is kind of harming the team in some way.

Sorry but what this statistics say is that the guys should share the ball more, and LA should get less touches. Wesley Matthews should take more shots. Its not really LA who makes this team great, its other 4 guys who play alongside him.

Mathews is handling the ball less than he has since his rookie season and having a career year in his current role, could be a sign hes ready for a bigger one but would you really want to change his game based on where his improvements have come? This year hes assisted on alot more of his shots, hes deadly in the catch and shoot. Many of those opportunities are created by the threat of LMA and of course, Lillard. Right now, those 2 are the primary off the dribble shooters. Assuming you wanted a role reversal and preferred to see a guy as efficient as Mathews create more of the offense, think of what you would be turning LMA into. What little benefit in efficiency you may get from Mathews could be offset by the fact that you go from having an elite 3pt shooting outlet in Mathews (when LMA has the ball) to a strong mid range outlet in LMA for Wes.

Chronz
02-03-2014, 08:16 PM
thing is, if he's a great player this year, then he's always been a great player because the only difference this year is the number of shots. i don't believe that to be the case. he's a pretty good player IMO. an outstanding defender who loses a fair bit of offensive value in my eyes by being extremely inefficient.
I never saw him as a great defender but where does he rank offensively vs todays best PF?

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 08:36 PM
Its more a form of individual efficiency, insignificant team influence here. The whole idea behind ur PPS is taken to another level when you account for the value of turnovers and offensive rebounding. Its basically Pts Per Possession but if youd rather get the strictly individual "PPP" then you can definitely look it up yourself. Tho keep in mind, turnovers are more costly than missed shots because at least with a missed shot, your teammates have a slight rebounding opportunity as opposed to a transition opportunity for the other guys.

But heres the BBR breakdown:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ratings.html

thanks for the info. and i agree about turnovers vs missed shots.

what's your take on John Wall's season, by the way, because he does plenty of both lol

Jamiecballer
02-03-2014, 08:38 PM
I never saw him as a great defender but where does he rank offensively vs todays best PF?

that's the crux of the debate right? to me not that high. you?

purpleNgold24
02-04-2014, 12:50 AM
Stats are nice but nothing beats watching the game. How do you know some of those shots weren't because of bad offense and him having the ball with few seconds on the shot clock? or good looks that just aren't going down? is a player a chucker if he takes good solid looks and misses? Maybe LA is a chucker but i don't think using his stats compared to other "known" chuckers automatically qualifies him as one.

Jamiecballer
02-04-2014, 09:41 AM
Stats are nice but nothing beats watching the game. How do you know some of those shots weren't because of bad offense and him having the ball with few seconds on the shot clock? or good looks that just aren't going down? is a player a chucker if he takes good solid looks and misses? Maybe LA is a chucker but i don't think using his stats compared to other "known" chuckers automatically qualifies him as one.

those are all good questions but it reminds me of a debate i had with a poster in the Raptors forum once. this was before Rudy Gay decided to go banana's and be a good shooter in Sacramento, mind you.

basically the debate was this: is it a good look if you've got a long history that suggests the shot in question is an unproductive one, for you specifically? in my eyes, the answer is no.

D-Leethal
02-04-2014, 01:53 PM
LA eFG% is the worst of starting 5.

Wesley Matthews .587
Nicolas Batum .539
Robin Lopez .538
Damian Lillard .511
Lamarcus Aldridge .469

Portland season average is .507, that means LA is kind of harming the team in some way.

Sorry but what this statistics say is that the guys should share the ball more, and LA should get less touches. Wesley Matthews should take more shots. Its not really LA who makes this team great, its other 4 guys who play alongside him.

How do you draw that conclusion? That does NOT mean LMA is harming the team simply because he doesn't score as efficiently. Its WAY too complex and intertwined to say that with certainty at all. These aren't 5 guys playing isolated 1 on 1 games. The reason those guys are able to be so efficient on less touches is BECAUSE LMA is out there putting non stop pressure on the defense with his scoring.

"Sorry but what the statistics say"

Thats not what they say, thats your interpretation of them, which I find (and seems most here agree) to be extremely flawed. If thats what they are telling you, you should probably stop listening.

A lot of the time, the crappiest, least talented scorers on your team are the most efficient. You think you can give Tyson Chandler 15 touches and still get 70% shooting out of him? You think Matthews is gonna maintain that efficiency when he is asked to do more than simply catch and shoot wide open shots?

Giving Matthews more shots doesn't mean he's giving you the same results. How exactly do you plan to increase his shot attempts while maintaing the same level of ease for each attempt? He is so efficient because he doesn't need to take tough shots, if you could get Wes Matthews 20 wide open catch and shoot attempts a game of course they would do that. The same way if the Knicks were able to get Tyson Chandler 20 dunks a game they would love to do that. LMA is less efficient because his role is to do way more than shoot wide open catch and shoot jumpers all day.

Make Matthews the #1 banana, force him to take 5-6 bailout end-of-clock shots a game, feed him the bulk of possessions in crunch time, ask him to go 1 on 1 against the oppositions best defender and get you a bucket during crucial moments, ask him to score off the dribble, ask him to score in the mid range, ask him to score off drives, you think he's still maintaining that eFG%? On the flip side, let Lamarcus pick his spots 12 times a game when he's wide open instead of 20+ against an array of defenders and double teams and his eFG will skyrocket.

What is so hard to understand here?

D-Leethal
02-04-2014, 02:03 PM
You give Steve Novak 20 FGA a game, and all of a sudden that dude will be shooting below 40%. Why? Because those shots will go from being wide open catch and shoot 3s in his sweet spots to awkward, contested shots off the dribble with defenders draped all over him. What happens if you start feeding Tyson Chandler for 15 FGA instead of his 6 dunks? He starts turning it over due to pressure, misses everything in sight under the rim, ugly hooks and forced shots he can't hit. All of a sudden he's no longer the efficient dynamo. It might not be as drastic as Matthews but the idea is still the same. Start feeding Matthews against stationary defenders, ask him to beat guys off the dribble, ask him to take tough fadeaways with no time left on the clock, tell him to go get you a bucket 1 on 1 in crunch time and it will get ugly. Thats why Lamarcus does it, and his efficiency will reflect that. Matthews is so efficient because he is asked to do less, ask him to do more, his efficiency goes down.

When Matthews has a defender draped all over him what does he do? He passes to Aldridge or Lillard to bail him out.

Its not far off the same logic that goes into basic supply and demand theory. Supply (shot attempts) are up? Demand (efficiency) goes down. You decrease the supply, the demand goes up.

Jamiecballer
02-04-2014, 02:31 PM
How do you draw that conclusion? That does NOT mean LMA is harming the team simply because he doesn't score as efficiently. Its WAY too complex and intertwined to say that with certainty at all. These aren't 5 guys playing isolated 1 on 1 games. The reason those guys are able to be so efficient on less touches is BECAUSE LMA is out there putting non stop pressure on the defense with his scoring.

"Sorry but what the statistics say"

Thats not what they say, thats your interpretation of them, which I find (and seems most here agree) to be extremely flawed. If thats what they are telling you, you should probably stop listening.

A lot of the time, the crappiest, least talented scorers on your team are the most efficient. You think you can give Tyson Chandler 15 touches and still get 70% shooting out of him? You think Matthews is gonna maintain that efficiency when he is asked to do more than simply catch and shoot wide open shots?

Giving Matthews more shots doesn't mean he's giving you the same results. How exactly do you plan to increase his shot attempts while maintaing the same level of ease for each attempt? He is so efficient because he doesn't need to take tough shots, if you could get Wes Matthews 20 wide open catch and shoot attempts a game of course they would do that. The same way if the Knicks were able to get Tyson Chandler 20 dunks a game they would love to do that. LMA is less efficient because his role is to do way more than shoot wide open catch and shoot jumpers all day.

Make Matthews the #1 banana, force him to take 5-6 bailout end-of-clock shots a game, feed him the bulk of possessions in crunch time, ask him to go 1 on 1 against the oppositions best defender and get you a bucket during crucial moments, ask him to score off the dribble, ask him to score in the mid range, ask him to score off drives, you think he's still maintaining that eFG%? On the flip side, let Lamarcus pick his spots 12 times a game when he's wide open instead of 20+ against an array of defenders and double teams and his eFG will skyrocket.

What is so hard to understand here?

are you sure you are being completely objective here? if Aldridge was having this transformative effect on his teammates "because he is putting so much pressure on the other team with his scoring" then where has this effect been the other 7 years of his career. he's not Wilt. we aren't talking about a force inside. we are talking about a 7 footer who takes a ton of low percentage shots.

in fact 78% of his attempts this year are jumpshots according to 82games. he's not a dominant player in the post which would give credence to what D-Leethal is saying.

D-Leethal
02-04-2014, 02:41 PM
are you sure you are being completely objective here? if Aldridge was having this transformative effect on his teammates "because he is putting so much pressure on the other team with his scoring" then where has this effect been the other 7 years of his career. he's not Wilt. we aren't talking about a force inside. we are talking about a 7 footer who takes a ton of low percentage shots.

I never said he had a transformative effect on his teammates. Those guys are all great role players but none of them are go-to scorers (sans Lillard). They need a go-to bulk scorer to do what they do best - pick their spots, hit open shots, move the ball back to their go-to guy when they are contested. I know were not talking about Wilt, were talking about Lamarcus Aldridge, the #1 scoring option on the best offensive team in the NBA. Obviously, his supporting cast is great this season, their roles are defined and they are all thriving in their roles, but that doesn't change the fact that they (sans Lillard) are role players who need a bulkload scorer in order to thrive. Take LMA off that team for a long term stretch of games, all of a sudden they have a much more difficult time doing what they do best, they have to slide up into roles they aren't suited for, they have to play above their heads, and the team will struggle.

When a guy is taking so many shots on the #1 offensive team in the NBA, he needs to get credit for being THAT GUY on THAT TEAM. You can't assume they will be BETTER than that by giving his shots to everyone else. They could (and I'd say definitely would) be WORSE if that was the case.

Stunner
02-04-2014, 03:32 PM
Lol been saying the Blazers succeess was more of the team than LMA himself , everyone gives Aldridge the praise and forgets everyone else .

Jamiecballer
02-04-2014, 03:44 PM
here is an excerpt from a an article drawing the same conclusions that i am

"The problem is he’s shooting waaay too many long 2s:

Many players would be happy to just SHOOT every four minutes. Aldridge is taking the least efficient shot in basketball once every four minutes. A certain number of these shots is acceptable, but to do it with this level of frequency (it’s currently the most common single shot location for any Blazer) means this isn’t a bailout option, it’s something the Blazers are actively gunning for. And it’s not like LA’s efficiency level from mid-range could not have been anticipated. It has essentially been the same for his whole career:

I suppose LA deserves some credit for maintaining the same (very pedestrian) level of efficiency while doubling his number of attempts. But the effect on his overall efficiency has been predictable, as increased time drifting around has resulted in a decreased free throw rate (down from .31 to .26 from his 2010-11 banner year) and a drastic drop in at-rim attempts (down from 6.1 to 3.3/40, and for reference he managed 4.1/40 08/09 at the height of Roy’s powers).

The key here is to think of the tradeoffs. When Aldridge is in the game, this team is not short of offensive options. Every long he takes is a missed opportunity for Lillard, Matthews or Batum to hit a 3, Batum to dunk or draw a foul, or LA himself to put his defender in a signature spin-cycle on the left block. In comparison to those options the only benefit of an 18 footer is JJ Hickson gets a chance to pad his offensive rebounding totals. Please, Mr. Stotts. Make it stop."

http://pinwheelempire.com/p/ripcity/the-stotts-offense-and-lamarcus-aldridges-ugly-shot-chart/

Tony_Starks
02-05-2014, 03:03 AM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

Next thing you'll know, we'll be using the word "HOARDERS" for guys who have a tendency to dribble the ball just a little more than other guys. They'll probably average 12+ assists per game, but if they are the guys who constantly dribble the ball to set up other guys, and take up most of the 24 second shot clock, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN started this movement of calling them HOARDERS, which then idiots on this sports forum will start overusing, like they have with the word CHUCKER.

It's comical how the mind of a basketball fan continues to de-evolve into dumb crap.

Chucker is one of the most overrated and overused terms these days. I made a thread a while back that if Dominique Wilkins played today he'd be called a chucker.

I miss the days of when the Vinnie "the microwave" Johnsons of the world instant offense types were actually like, you know admired!

But those days are long dead.....

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 03:26 AM
Stats are nice but nothing beats watching the game. How do you know some of those shots weren't because of bad offense and him having the ball with few seconds on the shot clock? or good looks that just aren't going down? is a player a chucker if he takes good solid looks and misses? Maybe LA is a chucker but i don't think using his stats compared to other "known" chuckers automatically qualifies him as one.

we get percentage of shots blocked on paper....

we can look at a play by play to see when the shot came...

Stats aren't perfect, but they tell a very compelling story

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 03:27 AM
Chucker is one of the most overrated and overused terms these days. I made a thread a while back that if Dominique Wilkins played today he'd be called a chucker.

I miss the days of when the Vinnie "the microwave" Johnsons of the world instant offense types were actually like, you know admired!

But those days are long dead.....

thank god

a chucker is a player who shoots at a high volume at the expense of their team. Any "star" who averages 19 a game on 18 shots is a chucker (Rudy Gay is the definition).

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 10:46 AM
thank god

a chucker is a player who shoots at a high volume at the expense of their team. Any "star" who averages 19 a game on 18 shots is a chucker (Rudy Gay is the definition).

but a guy averaging 24.3 a game on 21.1 shots (mostly long jumpers) is apparently doing what it takes to win.

if his supporting cast can't maintain their red-hot efficiency in the second half Portland will drop in the standings big-time.

D-Leethal
02-05-2014, 11:30 AM
The term "chucker" needs to be re-evaluated if the #1 offense in the league is being spearheaded by a "chucker". How does one "hurt" an offense that is tops in the NBA? Are you saying they would be all time great status without chucking Lamarcus holding them back?

Tony_Starks
02-05-2014, 12:05 PM
People are so disrespectful to LA it's ridiculous. But I hope they keep it up, because he's definitely getting the last laugh.....

D-Leethal
02-05-2014, 12:10 PM
People are so disrespectful to LA it's ridiculous. But I hope they keep it up, because he's definitely getting the last laugh.....

I think people need to re-evaluate what makes an offense tick in general, and how "hurtful" these chuckers are for an offense. Building an offense isn't tallying up efficiency points. Its too complex for people to simply say "add mr efficient, subtract mr chucker, win more games". This year the best offense in the league is being led by a chucker (2 chuckers if you count Lillard), last year the Knicks ranked 3rd with Melo and JR, two infamous PSD blackhole chuckers leading the way.

The mindset should change from "well if you give Wes Matthews and Tyson Chandler more shots they'd be even better" to "those chuckers allow Wes Matthews and Tyson Chandler to settle in their roles, not overdo it and be the efficient dynamo's they are". The efficient guys are efficient for a reason, and its not because they are superior offensive players, its actually the complete opposite, which is why I laugh when guys around here consider the more efficient guy to be the better guy 9/10.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 12:24 PM
The term "chucker" needs to be re-evaluated if the #1 offense in the league is being spearheaded by a "chucker". How does one "hurt" an offense that is tops in the NBA? Are you saying they would be all time great status without chucking Lamarcus holding them back?

it really doesn't. being the teams leading scorer and being a big reason for having the top ranked offense in the game is not synonymous.

the Blazers were 15th last year, and 11th the year before. and yet nothing in Aldridge's numbers (except the raw stats) has changed. he is taking approximately 3 and a half more shots per game, at even lower levels of efficiency than usual. are you going to tell me that taking 4 extra low efficiency shots is the difference between being the kind of team they were last year offensively and the team they are this year? because that's ludicrous.

the difference is obviously the supporting cast, which by the way is basically a 6 man offensive juggernaut. the blazers top 6 guys are being ridden hard big-time, and have missed a combined total of 1 game.

there is your likely cause of being the number one offense.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 12:30 PM
I think people need to re-evaluate what makes an offense tick in general, and how "hurtful" these chuckers are for an offense. Building an offense isn't tallying up efficiency points. Its too complex for people to simply say "add mr efficient, subtract mr chucker, win more games". This year the best offense in the league is being led by a chucker (2 chuckers if you count Lillard), last year the Knicks ranked 3rd with Melo and JR, two infamous PSD blackhole chuckers leading the way.

The mindset should change from "well if you give Wes Matthews and Tyson Chandler more shots they'd be even better" to "those chuckers allow Wes Matthews and Tyson Chandler to settle in their roles, not overdo it and be the efficient dynamo's they are". The efficient guys are efficient for a reason, and its not because they are superior offensive players, its actually the complete opposite, which is why I laugh when guys around here consider the more efficient guy to be the better guy 9/10.

I do agree that an offensive hierarchy helps the lesser role players be more effective in their roles, something the Knicks had working in their favor last season. but let's be honest the league record 3's played a big part in that ranking as well.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 01:50 PM
but a guy averaging 24.3 a game on 21.1 shots (mostly long jumpers) is apparently doing what it takes to win.

if his supporting cast can't maintain their red-hot efficiency in the second half Portland will drop in the standings big-time.

I wouldn't call LMA a chucker, but he isn't even an average efficiency scorer. It's not as if he hurts his team with his scoring, ala, a chucker...

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 01:53 PM
The term "chucker" needs to be re-evaluated if the #1 offense in the league is being spearheaded by a "chucker". How does one "hurt" an offense that is tops in the NBA? Are you saying they would be all time great status without chucking Lamarcus holding them back?

all 4 other starters are WAY above the league average in efficiency, with Matthews scoring incredibly efficient to lead that category. They hit a ton of 3's, their opponents do not, and they make a ton of FT's, there opponents do not. THAT is why they are the #1 offense. Not because of LMA.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 02:40 PM
People are so disrespectful to LA it's ridiculous. But I hope they keep it up, because he's definitely getting the last laugh.....

is it disrespect? if thinking he isn't a deserving MVP candidate is disrespecting him then absolutely. but i think he is a pretty good player. and i don't think that's disrespect.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 02:41 PM
I wouldn't call LMA a chucker, but he isn't even an average efficiency scorer. It's not as if he hurts his team with his scoring, ala, a chucker...

referring to the bold -

then who does, and what's the criteria for hurting his team?

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 02:58 PM
referring to the bold -

then who does, and what's the criteria for hurting his team?

a player can move in and out of the "chucker" label for me personally. Rudy Gay is not a chucker at all in Sacramento, but was in Toronto for instance. Josh Smith absolutely is this season. When your team is as good or better scoring the ball with you sitting, and you are a featured scorer, you are a chucker. Monta Ellis 2 years ago is another example.

Chuckers also offer nothing but points imo. So a guy like LMA who grabs rebounds for instance, is at least helping his team in other ways.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 03:09 PM
a player can move in and out of the "chucker" label for me personally. Rudy Gay is not a chucker at all in Sacramento, but was in Toronto for instance. Josh Smith absolutely is this season. When your team is as good or better scoring the ball with you sitting, and you are a featured scorer, you are a chucker. Monta Ellis 2 years ago is another example.

Chuckers also offer nothing but points imo. So a guy like LMA who grabs rebounds for instance, is at least helping his team in other ways.
interesting distinction that i personally don't have in my criteria.

to me a chucker is simply someone who consumes a lot of possessions with a poor rate of return over a significant period of time ie. years.

that last part to me is key. every pro has sort of a feeling themselves out period where they are learning the limits of their games and deserve the benefit of the doubt. the onus is on them however, IMO, to pay attention to the results and adjust accordingly.

Bramaca
02-05-2014, 03:40 PM
I think a chucker is an elite level scorer without a similar elite level of ability to get teammates involved. It's not that they are necesarily selfish, they just play more to their strengths which isn't passing. It can work very well in the regular season when opposing teams just don't have the time to gameplan for a player like this but in the playoffs when there is more time and opportunity to plan they will eventually be beat.

You basically just set up your defense to make that player the decision maker with the ball in their hands. More often then not when being forced those players will end up taking a contested shot or even turn the ball over before making a pass out. It's why you see players like Melo have monster games in the playoffs and everyone ends up blaming the rest of the team when they lose. The opposing team is forcing the ball into that players hands because in the long run the teams offense will suffer because of it.

LA sort of fits that mold but Portland also has the players that they can play through and minimze his role in the playoffs some.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 04:18 PM
I think a chucker is an elite level scorer without a similar elite level of ability to get teammates involved. It's not that they are necesarily selfish, they just play more to their strengths which isn't passing. It can work very well in the regular season when opposing teams just don't have the time to gameplan for a player like this but in the playoffs when there is more time and opportunity to plan they will eventually be beat.

You basically just set up your defense to make that player the decision maker with the ball in their hands. More often then not when being forced those players will end up taking a contested shot or even turn the ball over before making a pass out. It's why you see players like Melo have monster games in the playoffs and everyone ends up blaming the rest of the team when they lose. The opposing team is forcing the ball into that players hands because in the long run the teams offense will suffer because of it.

LA sort of fits that mold but Portland also has the players that they can play through and minimze his role in the playoffs some.

EXACTLY. if i'm a coach and i want to beat Portland my game-plan is simple. invite the big guy to take as many shots as possible. although i suspect that strategy is just as sound in the regular season as post-season.

it's pretty straight forward math IMO. if he produces at the level that he always has and he's consuming a third of his teams possessions then his teammates will need to counter that with high efficiency to win.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 04:39 PM
interesting distinction that i personally don't have in my criteria.

to me a chucker is simply someone who consumes a lot of possessions with a poor rate of return over a significant period of time ie. years.

that last part to me is key. every pro has sort of a feeling themselves out period where they are learning the limits of their games and deserve the benefit of the doubt. the onus is on them however, IMO, to pay attention to the results and adjust accordingly.

I can side with the majority of that, if not all of that. I just factor in a couple other things as well

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 04:41 PM
I think a chucker is an elite level scorer without a similar elite level of ability to get teammates involved. It's not that they are necesarily selfish, they just play more to their strengths which isn't passing. It can work very well in the regular season when opposing teams just don't have the time to gameplan for a player like this but in the playoffs when there is more time and opportunity to plan they will eventually be beat.

You basically just set up your defense to make that player the decision maker with the ball in their hands. More often then not when being forced those players will end up taking a contested shot or even turn the ball over before making a pass out. It's why you see players like Melo have monster games in the playoffs and everyone ends up blaming the rest of the team when they lose. The opposing team is forcing the ball into that players hands because in the long run the teams offense will suffer because of it.

LA sort of fits that mold but Portland also has the players that they can play through and minimze his role in the playoffs some.

you literally just described Dominique Wilkins and Carmelo Anthony.

Bramaca
02-05-2014, 04:57 PM
you literally just described Dominique Wilkins and Carmelo Anthony.

Yeah, I know. They are the hardest players to build around.

valade16
02-05-2014, 05:12 PM
all 4 other starters are WAY above the league average in efficiency, with Matthews scoring incredibly efficient to lead that category. They hit a ton of 3's, their opponents do not, and they make a ton of FT's, there opponents do not. THAT is why they are the #1 offense. Not because of LMA.

This is where the statistics start to become in a sense, fallible. The reason everyone is having such great efficiency is the attention paid to LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard. With Lillard able to hit a 3 from the parking lot the defender has to play way up on him, thus when him and LMA do a pick and roll it creates a huge open space in the middle of the court because the defenders now have to decide whether to leave their man (generally a top notch 3 point shooter) or watch Lillard drive to the hoop.

The obvious counter would be to have the big man on the pick and role slide down to keep Lillard from getting in the paint, and this is where LMA true value becomes apparent. LMA is a good to great (especially for a big man) shooter on jump shots, which means if the big man leaves LMA to cover Lillard you're getting a good jump shot from LMA that generally goes in a lot for the difficulty of the shot. This is where the analysis fails.

The analysis says something like LMA's shot is average efficiency based on only his shooting, and not what his ability to shoot does for the rest of the offense. Is LMA's post up game more efficient than his jump shot? Yes. His post game and interior scoring numbers are good and efficient. But they are not as efficient as LMA's jump shot coupled with Damian Lillards 3 point shot (or Mathews, or Batums), and one of the big reasons why they are able to shoot so many open looks is the attention paid to LMA.

Now, the counter point people will likely make is that LaMarcus Aldridge has generally put up this efficiency his whole career and the last 2 years the Blazers had close to the same personnel and weren't as successful. I would say that is shortsighted analysis based on 2 factors. 1). is Damian Lillard's growth. He has gone from a 36% 3pt shooter to a 40% 3pt shooter. Part of that is his maturity and knowing when to take shots and part of that is his general improvement as a player in accuracy. But it also has to do with 2). Coach Terry Stotts changed gameplan. His first year as coach he tried to plug LMA in Dirk Nowitzki's role in the offense he brought from Dallas and it didn't work out quite as well. This past offseason he has tweaked his offense to better cater to LMAs preferences on where he wants the ball on the court and when and then had all the other players space themselves on the floor according to where LMA wants it. This caused a natural rhythm that has allowed virtually everyone to shoot when relatively open on the court; which has led to higher efficiency.

I would further debate the idea that LMAs efficiency hasn't been changed as a result of this strategy, effectively lowering his personal efficiency while increasing the teams. His current TS% is .517. The previous 3 years it was .545 with a high of .560. Those are hardly inefficient numbers. Those actually put him a shade below the guys generally considered highly efficient for big men (Blake Griffin, Brook Lopez, David Lee, etc.).

LMAs ability to play both outside and inside and score is what makes him valuable, even if his personal efficiency isn't as high as someone like David Lee; his on court offensive value is much higher because he is so much more versatile and a better scorer in terms of overall ability and talent that he affects the game and defense in a much more profound way.

If you truly think that the efficiency is a sort of arbitor on your offensive capabilities, then consider this scenario. What would happen to the Blazers offense were to switch out LMA for any one of the following: Al Jefferson, David Lee, or Nikola Pekovic. According to the efficiency numgers, the Blazers offense should increase in efficiency. But does anyone seriously think the offense gets better as a result of that trade? Would you consider anyone of those 3 a better pure scorer than LMA?

LMA's efficiency only looks terrible when compared to guys (as this thread did) like Chris Bosh, Kevin Garnett, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love, Dwight Howard, etc. Well guess what, those guys are really freaking good. It's not exactly some big put down to say LaMarcus was not quite as good as Chris Bosh in Toronto, because Chris Bosh was a very good player. But it doesn't change the fact that LMA is a good player in his own right too.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 05:50 PM
This is where the statistics start to become in a sense, fallible. The reason everyone is having such great efficiency is the attention paid to LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard. With Lillard able to hit a 3 from the parking lot the defender has to play way up on him, thus when him and LMA do a pick and roll it creates a huge open space in the middle of the court because the defenders now have to decide whether to leave their man (generally a top notch 3 point shooter) or watch Lillard drive to the hoop.

The obvious counter would be to have the big man on the pick and role slide down to keep Lillard from getting in the paint, and this is where LMA true value becomes apparent. LMA is a good to great (especially for a big man) shooter on jump shots, which means if the big man leaves LMA to cover Lillard you're getting a good jump shot from LMA that generally goes in a lot for the difficulty of the shot. This is where the analysis fails.

The analysis says something like LMA's shot is average efficiency based on only his shooting, and not what his ability to shoot does for the rest of the offense. Is LMA's post up game more efficient than his jump shot? Yes. His post game and interior scoring numbers are good and efficient. But they are not as efficient as LMA's jump shot coupled with Damian Lillards 3 point shot (or Mathews, or Batums), and one of the big reasons why they are able to shoot so many open looks is the attention paid to LMA.

Now, the counter point people will likely make is that LaMarcus Aldridge has generally put up this efficiency his whole career and the last 2 years the Blazers had close to the same personnel and weren't as successful. I would say that is shortsighted analysis based on 2 factors. 1). is Damian Lillard's growth. He has gone from a 36% 3pt shooter to a 40% 3pt shooter. Part of that is his maturity and knowing when to take shots and part of that is his general improvement as a player in accuracy. But it also has to do with 2). Coach Terry Stotts changed gameplan. His first year as coach he tried to plug LMA in Dirk Nowitzki's role in the offense he brought from Dallas and it didn't work out quite as well. This past offseason he has tweaked his offense to better cater to LMAs preferences on where he wants the ball on the court and when and then had all the other players space themselves on the floor according to where LMA wants it. This caused a natural rhythm that has allowed virtually everyone to shoot when relatively open on the court; which has led to higher efficiency.

I would further debate the idea that LMAs efficiency hasn't been changed as a result of this strategy, effectively lowering his personal efficiency while increasing the teams. His current TS% is .517. The previous 3 years it was .545 with a high of .560. Those are hardly inefficient numbers. Those actually put him a shade below the guys generally considered highly efficient for big men (Blake Griffin, Brook Lopez, David Lee, etc.).

LMAs ability to play both outside and inside and score is what makes him valuable, even if his personal efficiency isn't as high as someone like David Lee; his on court offensive value is much higher because he is so much more versatile and a better scorer in terms of overall ability and talent that he affects the game and defense in a much more profound way.

If you truly think that the efficiency is a sort of arbitor on your offensive capabilities, then consider this scenario. What would happen to the Blazers offense were to switch out LMA for any one of the following: Al Jefferson, David Lee, or Nikola Pekovic. According to the efficiency numgers, the Blazers offense should increase in efficiency. But does anyone seriously think the offense gets better as a result of that trade? Would you consider anyone of those 3 a better pure scorer than LMA?

LMA's efficiency only looks terrible when compared to guys (as this thread did) like Chris Bosh, Kevin Garnett, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love, Dwight Howard, etc. Well guess what, those guys are really freaking good. It's not exactly some big put down to say LaMarcus was not quite as good as Chris Bosh in Toronto, because Chris Bosh was a very good player. But it doesn't change the fact that LMA is a good player in his own right too.

I don't deny that LMA's and Lillard's play makes life easier for those around them. But we are talking huge years from the scorers they have outside those guys. LMA is an all star caliber player, and yes, when comparing his efficiency to the most efficient scorers in the game, of course he looks meh. I never said he was a chucker, I simply said that the Blazers success is due to much, much more than LMA. Trade him for an average PF, and the Blazers are nowhere near that record, but that can be said of Lillard, or replacing their awesome shooters with average ones.

The Blazers are a very efficient TEAM. No one player is carrying them. And the trade for Lopez has gone unnoticed by so many on what impact it had. LMA always whined about playing center, now he never needs to, and they have a perfect compliment to him.

b@llhog24
02-05-2014, 05:52 PM
i ask this question honestly because i don't know the answer... high usage makes your offensive rating low?

It doesn't necessarily make your ortg lower, it contributes a **** ton though. Simple laws of deduction, they have an inverse relationship. As one goes the down the other goes up and vice versa. Some cases are special and LMA is somewhat indicative of that. He can maintain above league average efficiency regardless of usage but he'll never be absurdly efficient a la Dirk for instance.


i hear you. but a lot of good offensive players have only one or two other guys on their team who are good at creating their own shot so the same would apply to them as well. but while we are on the topic, when did Mo Williams become incapable of running an offense or running a play to get someone else a good look? it doesn't make sense.

Uh birthh?


i'm not saying he's a bad player in the least. but he's not a terribly productive offensive player. he gets the majority of his value on the defensive side IMO.

And that's where you went wrong, he's not a terribly productive scorer. While the word productive is subjective, his stats aren't that's what we're trying to tell you the fact that he never turns the ball over, makes great passes and offensive rebounds well makes him a pretty darn productive offensive player.


i hear ya. he's one of the better low post guys in the NBA and he should stick with that. but 21.2 shots per game? c'mon man, he's got to be smarter about that.

The problem with your analysis is you're not saying WHO should get the shots over him. The game doesn't exist in a vacuum of space where you can just say "Wesley Matthews or Robin Lopez should take more shots cause they're PPS is higher" they'd be less efficient as a result and the team would suffer more if LMA took his six worst shots and transferred those to them. This isn't a case of Elgin Baylor being a cancer and taking shots from more deserving players like Wilt, the only other candidate that could possibly replicate his success is Lillard and I've said a ton of times (not so much on here) that I wish he shot more.


I missed raw statistics. A player averaging 24ppg on one of the best 4 teams in the league is simply a great player. Period.

Depends on your definition of "great" and not all "greats" are created equally. Patrick Ewing's great isn't the same as Shaq's or Chamberlain.


thing is, if he's a great player this year, then he's always been a great player because the only difference this year is the number of shots. i don't believe that to be the case. he's a pretty good player IMO. an outstanding defender who loses a fair bit of offensive value in my eyes by being extremely inefficient.

Great and good are subjective, while you and I see a really good player others may see him as being great. That's just how life works.


that's the crux of the debate right? to me not that high. you?

Where do you rank him?


Stats are nice but nothing beats watching the game. How do you know some of those shots weren't because of bad offense and him having the ball with few seconds on the shot clock? or good looks that just aren't going down? is a player a chucker if he takes good solid looks and misses? Maybe LA is a chucker but i don't think using his stats compared to other "known" chuckers automatically qualifies him as one.

He's not a chucker because he doesn't kill our offense. Within the scope of our team there's no one that's really suited to do what he does. Look at him more so as the spoils that goes to the loser. He's taking bad/difficult shots but that's what the "star" players are forced to do. The best shots in basketball are at the rim and the three point line but at the same time spacing is crucial; teams aren't gonna just let Batum, Mo and Matthews bomb away at them, they're gonna force you to shot the "worst shot in basketball" aka the long two. This explains but doesn't exonerate his efficiency. (Btw if anybody can provide me with a breakdown of LMA's percentages from varying distances that'd be great. I think the site that I used to use went down.)


are you sure you are being completely objective here? if Aldridge was having this transformative effect on his teammates "because he is putting so much pressure on the other team with his scoring" then where has this effect been the other 7 years of his career. he's not Wilt. we aren't talking about a force inside. we are talking about a 7 footer who takes a ton of low percentage shots.

in fact 78% of his attempts this year are jumpshots according to 82games. he's not a dominant player in the post which would give credence to what D-Leethal is saying.

He's not having a "transformative effect" on his teammates. From the games that I've been able to catch he's creating less than he has in the past but they're just hitting more of the shots that he has created AND Lillards growth in that department have been crucial. Getting rid of Hickson and replacing him with a C that can defend at a league average level also helps.


Lol been saying the Blazers succeess was more of the team than LMA himself , everyone gives Aldridge the praise and forgets everyone else .

I'm not sure if anybody ever says that the Blazers are a one man team. Like ever. And whoever's saying it is an idiot.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 07:04 PM
If you truly think that the efficiency is a sort of arbitor on your offensive capabilities, then consider this scenario. What would happen to the Blazers offense were to switch out LMA for any one of the following: Al Jefferson, David Lee, or Nikola Pekovic. According to the efficiency numgers, the Blazers offense should increase in efficiency. But does anyone seriously think the offense gets better as a result of that trade? Would you consider anyone of those 3 a better pure scorer than LMA?
I haven't seen enough of Lee or Pekovic this past year or two to comment but Jefferson, i would expect essentially the same results. Scoring efficiency is almost identical, Assist %'s over their careers are almost identical. of course Al sucks on defense.

I am reposting this because from your post i gather you probably only read the initial post and the conversation has evolved from there.

initially i used points per shot as a starting point, to show that Aldridge was a very inefficient scorer. he was 21st out of 26 qualifying players.

i recalculated the values for the same 26 qualifying players from before because of very valid concerns regarding the lack of accounting for free throws as possessions (or really, half possessions).

step by step this was the calculation

1. take the players free throws attempted, subtracting the number of times they were fouled on a made basket to differentiate between free throws that are in-place of a field goal attempt from those that are a bonus added on to a field goal attempt.

we will call that number "adjusted free throws"

2. with that number in hand, we multiply the adjusted free throws by .5 to and add it to field goal attempts to derive the number of "possessions" that the offensive player "consumed" through the act of shooting.

we will call that number "scoring attempts"

3. finally, we can divide the number of points they've scored by the number of scoring attempts.

here are the adjusted results, in a stat that i will call "return on investment" or ROI

1. Diaw (1.24)
2. Nowitzki (1.18)
3. Johnson (1.18)
4. Frye (1.17)
5. Love (1.17)
6. Griffin (1.16)
7. Davis (1.16)
8. Ibaka (1.14)
9. Lee (1.13)
10. Jones (1.12)
11. Morris (1.10)
12. Faried (1.10)
13. Millsap (1.09)
14. Monroe (1.08)
15. Young (1.07)
16. Bass (1.07)
17. Gibson (1.06)
18. Duncan (1.05)
19. Middleton (1.05)
20. Hilario (1.05)
21. Aldridge (1.03)
22. West (1.03)
23. Thompson (0.99)
24. Randolph (0.99)
25. Boozer (0.99)
26. Davis (0.96)

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 07:55 PM
This is where the statistics start to become in a sense, fallible. The reason everyone is having such great efficiency is the attention paid to LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard. With Lillard able to hit a 3 from the parking lot the defender has to play way up on him, thus when him and LMA do a pick and roll it creates a huge open space in the middle of the court because the defenders now have to decide whether to leave their man (generally a top notch 3 point shooter) or watch Lillard drive to the hoop.

The obvious counter would be to have the big man on the pick and role slide down to keep Lillard from getting in the paint, and this is where LMA true value becomes apparent. LMA is a good to great (especially for a big man) shooter on jump shots, which means if the big man leaves LMA to cover Lillard you're getting a good jump shot from LMA that generally goes in a lot for the difficulty of the shot. This is where the analysis fails.

The analysis says something like LMA's shot is average efficiency based on only his shooting, and not what his ability to shoot does for the rest of the offense. Is LMA's post up game more efficient than his jump shot? Yes. His post game and interior scoring numbers are good and efficient. But they are not as efficient as LMA's jump shot coupled with Damian Lillards 3 point shot (or Mathews, or Batums), and one of the big reasons why they are able to shoot so many open looks is the attention paid to LMA.

Now, the counter point people will likely make is that LaMarcus Aldridge has generally put up this efficiency his whole career and the last 2 years the Blazers had close to the same personnel and weren't as successful. I would say that is shortsighted analysis based on 2 factors. 1). is Damian Lillard's growth. He has gone from a 36% 3pt shooter to a 40% 3pt shooter. Part of that is his maturity and knowing when to take shots and part of that is his general improvement as a player in accuracy. But it also has to do with 2). Coach Terry Stotts changed gameplan. His first year as coach he tried to plug LMA in Dirk Nowitzki's role in the offense he brought from Dallas and it didn't work out quite as well. This past offseason he has tweaked his offense to better cater to LMAs preferences on where he wants the ball on the court and when and then had all the other players space themselves on the floor according to where LMA wants it. This caused a natural rhythm that has allowed virtually everyone to shoot when relatively open on the court; which has led to higher efficiency.

I would further debate the idea that LMAs efficiency hasn't been changed as a result of this strategy, effectively lowering his personal efficiency while increasing the teams. His current TS% is .517. The previous 3 years it was .545 with a high of .560. Those are hardly inefficient numbers. Those actually put him a shade below the guys generally considered highly efficient for big men (Blake Griffin, Brook Lopez, David Lee, etc.).

LMAs ability to play both outside and inside and score is what makes him valuable, even if his personal efficiency isn't as high as someone like David Lee; his on court offensive value is much higher because he is so much more versatile and a better scorer in terms of overall ability and talent that he affects the game and defense in a much more profound way.

If you truly think that the efficiency is a sort of arbitor on your offensive capabilities, then consider this scenario. What would happen to the Blazers offense were to switch out LMA for any one of the following: Al Jefferson, David Lee, or Nikola Pekovic. According to the efficiency numgers, the Blazers offense should increase in efficiency. But does anyone seriously think the offense gets better as a result of that trade? Would you consider anyone of those 3 a better pure scorer than LMA?

LMA's efficiency only looks terrible when compared to guys (as this thread did) like Chris Bosh, Kevin Garnett, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love, Dwight Howard, etc. Well guess what, those guys are really freaking good. It's not exactly some big put down to say LaMarcus was not quite as good as Chris Bosh in Toronto, because Chris Bosh was a very good player. But it doesn't change the fact that LMA is a good player in his own right too.

i don't want to come off as disrespectful because this is a very well thought out post.

in my experience watching basketball and dissecting statistics for the past 20 years i have noticed something and i'm sure i will set off a riot on PSD for saying it - your teammates have far less effect on a players stats than just about any other factor. of course raw totals might change if you swap a player from one situation with another, but rate and efficiency stats seem to stay steady in the vast majority of cases. i don't say that with any special degree only years of observation.

so even though everything you are saying sounds sensible, it makes basketball sense, i don't think it ultimately has the significance that you believe it does. just my opinion.

imo his teammates are just shooting out of their minds in the first half, i would be very surprised if they are able to maintain it through the second half.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 08:02 PM
i don't want to come off as disrespectful because this is a very well thought out post.

in my experience watching basketball and dissecting statistics for the past 20 years i have noticed something and i'm sure i will set off a riot on PSD for saying it - your teammates have far less effect on a players stats than just about any other factor. of course raw totals might change if you swap a player from one situation with another, but rate and efficiency stats seem to stay steady in the vast majority of cases. i don't say that with any special degree only years of observation.

so even though everything you are saying sounds sensible, it makes basketball sense, i don't think it ultimately has the significance that you believe it does. just my opinion.

imo his teammates are just shooting out of their minds in the first half, i would be very surprised if they are able to maintain it through the second half.

they have, but we are 60% into the season. I posted it forever ago, but Portland has a ROUGH last 35 games, SOS wise. So I expect a regression as well, but not just a natural one individually, but because they have a very tough schedule.

I mean, every starter they have is destroying it shooting wise. Ridiculous.

I do disagree with you that switching players doesn't have an impact. Above, I stated how huge of an impact Lopez has, it was a great trade for them. It pushes LMA back to his desired position, and is a fit on defense/rebounding that they didn't have prior. Now, if we were to swap him with a similar player, I see what you are talking about.

KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 08:14 PM
Alridge gives POR exactly what they need. Low post offense and mid-range shooting. That is the piece that makes the rest of their offense so effective. Anyone who read the grantland article on the Heat and Bosh knows what I am talking. If you need a link let me know jaime.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 08:15 PM
Alridge gives POR exactly what they need. Low post offense and mid-range shooting. That is the piece that makes the rest of their offense so effective. Anyone who read the grantland article on the Heat and Bosh knows what I am talking. If you need a link let me know jaime.

do you think if you swap Love with LMA, Portland is even better?

valade16
02-05-2014, 08:24 PM
i don't want to come off as disrespectful because this is a very well thought out post.

in my experience watching basketball and dissecting statistics for the past 20 years i have noticed something and i'm sure i will set off a riot on PSD for saying it - your teammates have far less effect on a players stats than just about any other factor. of course raw totals might change if you swap a player from one situation with another, but rate and efficiency stats seem to stay steady in the vast majority of cases. i don't say that with any special degree only years of observation.

so even though everything you are saying sounds sensible, it makes basketball sense, i don't think it ultimately has the significance that you believe it does. just my opinion.

imo his teammates are just shooting out of their minds in the first half, i would be very surprised if they are able to maintain it through the second half.

While it may be true that teammates have little effect on your actual statistical impact, that doesn't mean they can't drastically affect the on court basketball impact. Hawkeye actually provides a good example.


they have, but we are 60% into the season. I posted it forever ago, but Portland has a ROUGH last 35 games, SOS wise. So I expect a regression as well, but not just a natural one individually, but because they have a very tough schedule.

I mean, every starter they have is destroying it shooting wise. Ridiculous.

I do disagree with you that switching players doesn't have an impact. Above, I stated how huge of an impact Lopez has, it was a great trade for them. It pushes LMA back to his desired position, and is a fit on defense/rebounding that they didn't have prior. Now, if we were to swap him with a similar player, I see what you are talking about.

Lopez completely changed the defensive dynamic of the team, which in turn helped change the offensive dynamic as well. His stats aren't markedly better or worse in terms of advanced stats or efficiency, but his impact has far surpassed what the stats would indicate he has done for the team. And it's not even him necessarily, it's that he perfectly fits the role he plays.

If you mean the other way (i.e. switching a similar player statistically from one team to another) such as replacing LMA with an Al Jefferson I have to disagree. As I've mentioned before, I think if you switch out Kevin Love with LaMarcus Aldridge the Blazers get worse (I think the Wolves get worse as well). I think this based on fit. The pieces around Aldridge are good/bad mainly at the 3 following things: 3-point shooting, rebounding, and not playing interior defense. Kevin Love literally only provides what the Blazers already have in both a positive and negative aspect. His skills would be completely redundant and would change the dynamic of the offense in a negative way.

That is not to say Kevin Love is a worse player than LaMarcus Aldridge, because he is probably a better player. Certainly more talented. But Basketball can't be all about stats, fit has to play a part somewhere in there.

As another Reducto Ad Absurdum argument, imagine a team of Pablo Prigioni, Kyle Korver, Mike Miller, Channing Frye, and Spencer Hawes. According to offensive efficiency they should be one of the best offenses in the league, as every single member of the team has a high TS% (.583, .661, .595, .583 & .565). We can know just by looking that this team probably won't do well because all any of them can really do is shoot 3s. So while the efficiency stat is great and all, it only tells part of the offensive story.

valade16
02-05-2014, 08:24 PM
do you think if you swap Love with LMA, Portland is even better?

They would not be. Can you think of one thing Love would give the Blazers that they don't already have more than enough of?

Bramaca
02-05-2014, 08:27 PM
I haven't seen enough of Lee or Pekovic this past year or two to comment but Jefferson, i would expect essentially the same results. Scoring efficiency is almost identical, Assist %'s over their careers are almost identical. of course Al sucks on defense.

I am reposting this because from your post i gather you probably only read the initial post and the conversation has evolved from there.

initially i used points per shot as a starting point, to show that Aldridge was a very inefficient scorer. he was 21st out of 26 qualifying players.

i recalculated the values for the same 26 qualifying players from before because of very valid concerns regarding the lack of accounting for free throws as possessions (or really, half possessions).

step by step this was the calculation

1. take the players free throws attempted, subtracting the number of times they were fouled on a made basket to differentiate between free throws that are in-place of a field goal attempt from those that are a bonus added on to a field goal attempt.

we will call that number "adjusted free throws"

2. with that number in hand, we multiply the adjusted free throws by .5 to and add it to field goal attempts to derive the number of "possessions" that the offensive player "consumed" through the act of shooting.

we will call that number "scoring attempts"

3. finally, we can divide the number of points they've scored by the number of scoring attempts.

here are the adjusted results, in a stat that i will call "return on investment" or ROI

1. Diaw (1.24)
2. Nowitzki (1.18)
3. Johnson (1.18)
4. Frye (1.17)
5. Love (1.17)
6. Griffin (1.16)
7. Davis (1.16)
8. Ibaka (1.14)
9. Lee (1.13)
10. Jones (1.12)
11. Morris (1.10)
12. Faried (1.10)
13. Millsap (1.09)
14. Monroe (1.08)
15. Young (1.07)
16. Bass (1.07)
17. Gibson (1.06)
18. Duncan (1.05)
19. Middleton (1.05)
20. Hilario (1.05)
21. Aldridge (1.03)
22. West (1.03)
23. Thompson (0.99)
24. Randolph (0.99)
25. Boozer (0.99)
26. Davis (0.96)

I'm sure you have put alot of effort into figuring all this out but you do know that there is a stat, True Shooting % that does all these calculations and displays them as a fg%.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 08:35 PM
They would not be. Can you think of one thing Love would give the Blazers that they don't already have more than enough of?

more efficient scoring, three point shooting, more rebounding, and those sexy outlet passes :)

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 08:45 PM
they have, but we are 60% into the season. I posted it forever ago, but Portland has a ROUGH last 35 games, SOS wise. So I expect a regression as well, but not just a natural one individually, but because they have a very tough schedule.

I mean, every starter they have is destroying it shooting wise. Ridiculous.

I do disagree with you that switching players doesn't have an impact. Above, I stated how huge of an impact Lopez has, it was a great trade for them. It pushes LMA back to his desired position, and is a fit on defense/rebounding that they didn't have prior. Now, if we were to swap him with a similar player, I see what you are talking about.

Team success is very much a function of individual skills.

I just mean guys usually are what they are and will usually produce towards their averages regardless of teammates no matter how much we overanalyze it.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 08:49 PM
Alridge gives POR exactly what they need. Low post offense and mid-range shooting. That is the piece that makes the rest of their offense so effective. Anyone who read the grantland article on the Heat and Bosh knows what I am talking. If you need a link let me know jaime.
I am interested.

KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 08:50 PM
Alridge gives POR exactly what they need. Low post offense and mid-range shooting. That is the piece that makes the rest of their offense so effective. Anyone who read the grantland article on the Heat and Bosh knows what I am talking. If you need a link let me know jaime.

do you think if you swap Love with LMA, Portland is even better?

Great question. I say no because of the built in chemistry that Lillard-Wm-Batum all have with LMA.

KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 08:52 PM
Alridge gives POR exactly what they need. Low post offense and mid-range shooting. That is the piece that makes the rest of their offense so effective. Anyone who read the grantland article on the Heat and Bosh knows what I am talking. If you need a link let me know jaime.
I am interested.

http://grantland.com/features/lebron-james-nba-most-highly-evolved-offense/

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 08:52 PM
I'm sure you have put alot of effort into figuring all this out but you do know that there is a stat, True Shooting % that does all these calculations and displays them as a fg%.
It was my understanding that true shooting didn't use actual and 1 data which definitely makes a difference.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 09:00 PM
Team success is very much a function of individual skills.

I just mean guys usually are what they are and will usually produce towards their averages regardless of teammates no matter how much we overanalyze it.

I agree with that to some point, but every player has ideal skillsets around them to maximize their own for example, and vice versa.

I just don't think swapping Pekovic and Lopez for example does anything for the Blazers. Quite the opposite actually.

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 09:03 PM
do you think if you swap Love with LMA, Portland is even better?

i say they would get better. quite a bit better. i was tempted to say that their defense would suffer but how much worse can it get than it already is? not that much.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 09:05 PM
i say they would get better. quite a bit better. i was tempted to say that their defense would suffer but how much worse can it get than it already is? not that much.

I think if the chemistry was there (for example, if it was Love in Portland the past couple of years instead), they are easily better, and maybe a real contender. But, it's all hypothetical anyways..

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 09:05 PM
I agree with that to some point, but every player has ideal skillsets around them to maximize their own for example, and vice versa.

I just don't think swapping Pekovic and Lopez for example does anything for the Blazers. Quite the opposite actually.
i think you've misunderstood my point then. why would we be switching those two?

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 09:07 PM
i think you've misunderstood my point then. why would we be switching those two?

what am I missing?

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 09:11 PM
what am I missing?

that's what i am asking you! what did i say that made you think swapping Pekovic for Lopez?

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 09:18 PM
that's what i am asking you! what did i say that made you think swapping Pekovic for Lopez?

From what I am reading from your posts, by replacing a player at his position with a more efficient player, it will result in a better team.

3RDASYSTEM
02-05-2014, 09:35 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

Next thing you'll know, we'll be using the word "HOARDERS" for guys who have a tendency to dribble the ball just a little more than other guys. They'll probably average 12+ assists per game, but if they are the guys who constantly dribble the ball to set up other guys, and take up most of the 24 second shot clock, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN started this movement of calling them HOARDERS, which then idiots on this sports forum will start overusing, like they have with the word CHUCKER.

It's comical how the mind of a basketball fan continues to de-evolve into dumb crap.

Its funny you mention 'hoarders' because I've told fanatics on here that in order for any player to be effective top notch HOF style he has to have the ball in his hands, MAGIC/STOCKTON/KIDD/M JACKSON/OSCAR and others had the ball in their hands 95pct of the time to rack up all those dimes, but since they over hoard they don't get crucified like the 'chucker'

chucker to me is somebody who has little to no help, a sidekick like MCKIE/SNOW material comes to mind, or what BRON had in Cleveland or cp3 in new Orleans, or bean Bryant from 05-07, or like M RICHMOND career in sac town, or JORDAN in first 5-6yrs, they all had to chuck with a purpose to win, outside of cp3 who is more of a hoarder but I mentioned him because lack of talent preCLIPPS

Jamiecballer
02-05-2014, 09:44 PM
From what I am reading from your posts, by replacing a player at his position with a more efficient player, it will result in a better team.

oh no no. that's not what i mean at all - although calling him more efficient is not even true. they are almost identical by my calculations.

i just meant that people tend to look at a player they acquire with googley eyes and imagine all the different ways that a player will play better in this new situation because of A,B,C and D but more often than not the player plays exactly to the level he always has.

fit is everything when it comes to team results. but players themselves are usually more or less the same no matter what team they find themselves on. that doesn't apply to raw totals obviously because sometimes there new role is much bigger or smaller than the one they left but when you look closely their rate stats are usually pretty darn similar across the board.

i'll give you an example if i still haven't been all that clear. as a Raptors fan i heard for years how Bargnani would excel if he finally played next to a defensive center, if he wasn't the first option offensively, if not much was asked of him. i never believed that. and look at him in New York, practically an afterthought now after performing almost identically to his time in Toronto.

the reason i brought that up was because i am not buying that Lillard, Matthews, Batum and Lopez are performing at the super high level offensively that they are because of Aldridge. they would post similar numbers just about anywhere, that's what i believe. it's because that's the type of players they are - or are on their way to becoming, or they are just in a particularly hot stretch.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 09:46 PM
oh no no. that's not what i mean at all - although calling him more efficient is not even true. they are almost identical by my calculations.

i just meant that people tend to look at a player they acquire with googley eyes and imagine all the different ways that a player will play better in this new situation because of A,B,C and D but more often than not the player plays exactly to the level he always has.

fit is everything when it comes to team results. but players themselves are usually more or less the same no matter what team they find themselves on. that doesn't apply to raw totals obviously because sometimes there new role is much bigger or smaller than the one they left but when you look closely their rate stats are usually pretty darn similar across the board.

i'll give you an example if i still haven't been all that clear. as a Raptors fan i heard for years how Bargnani would excel if he finally played next to a defensive center, if he wasn't the first option offensively, if not much was asked of him. i never believed that. and look at him in New York, practically an afterthought now after performing almost identically to his time in Toronto.

the reason i brought that up was because i am not buying that Lillard, Matthews, Batum and Lopez are performing at the super high level offensively that they are because of Aldridge. they would post similar numbers just about anywhere, that's what i believe. it's because that's the type of players they are - or are on their way to becoming, or they are just in a particularly hot stretch.

ok, ok. I can agree with much of that

Bramaca
02-05-2014, 11:53 PM
1. Diaw (1.24) - (.515)
2. Nowitzki (1.18) - (.551)
3. Johnson (1.18) - (.497)
4. Frye (1.17) - (.530)
5. Love (1.17) - (.532)
6. Griffin (1.16) - (.515)
7. Davis (1.16) - (.519)
8. Ibaka (1.14) - (.512)
9. Lee (1.13) - (.496)
10. Jones (1.12) - (.510)
11. Morris (1.10) - (.481)
12. Faried (1.10) - (.505)
13. Millsap (1.09) - (.471)
14. Monroe (1.08) - (.465)
15. Young (1.07) - (.479)
16. Bass (1.07) - (.483)
17. Gibson (1.06) - (.455)
18. Duncan (1.05) - (.462)
19. Middleton (1.05) - (.475)
20. Hilario (1.05) - (.449)
21. Aldridge (1.03) - (.480)
22. West (1.03) - (.456)
23. Thompson (0.99) - (.465)
24. Randolph (0.99) - (.437)
25. Boozer (0.99) - (.422)
26. Davis (0.96) - (.432)


It was my understanding that true shooting didn't use actual and 1 data which definitely makes a difference.

TS% may not be exact but it is pretty accurate. For the above players it would look like this.

Diaw - TS% .612 (which would transfer into your stat the equivelent of 1.224)
Nowitzki - .594 (1.188)
Johnson - .583 (1.166)
Frye - .583 (1.166)
Love - .589 (1.178)
Griffin - .584 (1.168)
Davis - .572 (1.144)
etc.

So while it makes a little difference it is fairly similar. If you truly want to get a better determination you should be taking into account turnovers as well. While they aren't a shot they are still a possession used by a player. That would make a much more significant difference. I put what their true shooting % would be if you included turnovers as a possesion used in brackets beside your numbers in the quote. It alters things quite a bit and would put Aldridge in the middle of the pack.

Jamiecballer
02-06-2014, 10:15 AM
TS% may not be exact but it is pretty accurate. For the above players it would look like this.

Diaw - TS% .612 (which would transfer into your stat the equivelent of 1.224)
Nowitzki - .594 (1.188)
Johnson - .583 (1.166)
Frye - .583 (1.166)
Love - .589 (1.178)
Griffin - .584 (1.168)
Davis - .572 (1.144)
etc.

So while it makes a little difference it is fairly similar. If you truly want to get a better determination you should be taking into account turnovers as well. While they aren't a shot they are still a possession used by a player. That would make a much more significant difference. I put what their true shooting % would be if you included turnovers as a possesion used in brackets beside your numbers in the quote. It alters things quite a bit and would put Aldridge in the middle of the pack.

interesting. i suppose that definitely deserves consideration when considering efficiency. does that factor into your definition of chucking though?

Bramaca
02-06-2014, 11:53 AM
interesting. i suppose that definitely deserves consideration when considering efficiency. does that factor into your definition of chucking though?

Not really, it's more of an adjustment to your stat or TS% about efficiency of possesions used. None of them really do anything to determine if the said player is a "chucker" though. Whether the player is a 1st option or the 5th cleaning up boards for a lot of points, taking 7 or 20 spg, what % of teammates fg's were assisted by them, when the ball is in the players hands how often does it result in a shot, turnover or pass by them, how they react when a team forces the offense to them (do they just take more shots or do they pass out to an open man more). It's damn near impossible to come up with an decent stat to identify who is a chucker or not. Efficiency is useful but it also doesn't identify everything a player does on the offensive end and how that impacts the teams offense. Take Duncan for example, he has probably the lowest efficiency of the Spurs rotation players but I think it would dumb to think that he hurts their offense.

IMO its more of an observed determination that really stands out in the playoffs.

JasonJohnHorn
02-06-2014, 12:09 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

I dunno exactly how long the term 'chuck' and 'chucker has been around, but we used it when I played on the black top in grade 7, which was, sadly for me because I'm getting old, over 25 years ago.

JasonJohnHorn
02-06-2014, 12:13 PM
For me, a 'chucker' can't be read in the stats. You have to watch the game.

there are 'chuckers' with high FG%'s. A 'chucker' is somebody who throws up shots off of one-on-one match-ups without a formal play, often forcing a bad shot, and often times with lots of time left on the clock.


A guy like Zach Randolph, or LMA, who have plays set up for them and are taking shot their coaches designed, are not 'chucking the ball'. If you want to see a chucker, watch a Detroit game: Jennings + Smith = Chucker hell!

Jamiecballer
02-06-2014, 12:47 PM
For me, a 'chucker' can't be read in the stats. You have to watch the game.

there are 'chuckers' with high FG%'s. A 'chucker' is somebody who throws up shots off of one-on-one match-ups without a formal play, often forcing a bad shot, and often times with lots of time left on the clock.


A guy like Zach Randolph, or LMA, who have plays set up for them and are taking shot their coaches designed, are not 'chucking the ball'. If you want to see a chucker, watch a Detroit game: Jennings + Smith = Chucker hell!

so the player bears no responsibility at all in your opinion to take shots they get a positive result from and pass on those they don't? i'm interested in your take on that.

Jamiecballer
02-06-2014, 12:53 PM
Take Duncan for example, he has probably the lowest efficiency of the Spurs rotation players but I think it would dumb to think that he hurts their offense.

he's definitely not the same player offensively he once was though so i'm not sure i agree. i think it's more realistic to say that he does so many things well on both ends that his inefficiency isn't much of a concern. IMO.

IKnowHoops
02-06-2014, 01:04 PM
And some idiots have this guy above Lebron in the MVP race which is absolutely hilarious. It screams "Idontknowhoops".

valade16
02-06-2014, 02:22 PM
the reason i brought that up was because i am not buying that Lillard, Matthews, Batum and Lopez are performing at the super high level offensively that they are because of Aldridge. they would post similar numbers just about anywhere, that's what i believe. it's because that's the type of players they are - or are on their way to becoming, or they are just in a particularly hot stretch.

I sort of disagree with this. I think you're correct in saying that Matthews, Batum and Lillard are the same players they have always been (minus natural personal progression) regardless of whether they play with LMA or not. However, I don't think you can dismiss the stats as merely "being on a hot streak". It's now 50 games in. Matthews and Lillard and Batum have all been on hot streaks followed by cold streaks. Streaks don't last 50 games. That is sustained play.

Also, in regards to "hot streaks", the shooting you are seeing from the Blazers is close to the shooting you've seen from these players their entire careers. Matthews is shooting 41.9% from 3 this year, his average with Portland is 39.6%. Batum is shooting 34.7% from 3, that is his 2nd lowest % ever and his lowest in 3 years. Mo Williams is shooting 37.8% from 3, his last 2 years he was at 38.9% and 38.3%. The only guy who has drastically improved his 3 point shooting % is Lillard, and I attribute that to his increased comfortness with playing in the NBA, playing off LMA and knowing when to shoot 3s rather than some hot streak.

This team isn't winning because it's on some prolonged hot streak. All these players are shooting exactly as they have before. This team is winning because of 3 factors. They have a great scheme, LMA allows everyone to space the floor and maximize their opportunities, and they've had an easy schedule to start the season.

Obviously only 2 of those 3 will continue, but I think you will see the Blazers continue to win more often than not, perhaps not at the same pace, but they will be able to win.

valade16
02-06-2014, 02:23 PM
And some idiots have this guy above Lebron in the MVP race which is absolutely hilarious. It screams "Idontknowhoops".

Who? I have literally not seen a single person rank LMA over LeBron so I'm going to have to see some proof otherwise I will relegater this post to more baseless claims.

IKnowHoops
02-06-2014, 05:32 PM
Who? I have literally not seen a single person rank LMA over LeBron so I'm going to have to see some proof otherwise I will relegater this post to more baseless claims.


Don't even know why lebron's name is even still being mentioned, he's not even in top 3, let alone above durant for MVP.


1.Durant






2.PG

3.LMA


Now you literally have. Holler back

Jamiecballer
02-06-2014, 06:06 PM
Also, in regards to "hot streaks", the shooting you are seeing from the Blazers is close to the shooting you've seen from these players their entire careers. Matthews is shooting 41.9% from 3 this year, his average with Portland is 39.6%. Batum is shooting 34.7% from 3, that is his 2nd lowest % ever and his lowest in 3 years. Mo Williams is shooting 37.8% from 3, his last 2 years he was at 38.9% and 38.3%. The only guy who has drastically improved his 3 point shooting % is Lillard, and I attribute that to his increased comfortness with playing in the NBA, playing off LMA and knowing when to shoot 3s rather than some hot streak.

This team isn't winning because it's on some prolonged hot streak. All these players are shooting exactly as they have before.

you are just reiterating what i myself said with this part.

Here are the factors being attributed to the Blazers #1 offense this year.

1. you've got an extraordinarily efficient starting 4 + Aldridge (as confirmed by the history of the players involved)

2. your teams rotation has been tighter than a nuns *******

3. the top 6 have missed a total of 1 game

4. the "Aldridge factor".

5. easy schedule to this point.

all but one of these factors has actual data to support it. and trust me, i worked awfully hard to verify number 2 lol.

valade16
02-06-2014, 08:59 PM
Now you literally have. Holler back

I should clarify. Someone's opinion that actually means something...

IKnowHoops
02-07-2014, 02:38 AM
I should clarify. Someone's opinion that actually means something...

But then he wouldn't be an idiot would he?

valade16
02-07-2014, 02:12 PM
But then he wouldn't be an idiot would he?

I guess not. :laugh2:

sunsfan88
03-06-2014, 07:58 AM
Shot 1-13 against the Hawks who didn't even have Horford or Millsap playing.

Jamiecballer
03-06-2014, 10:35 AM
Shot 1-13 against the Hawks who didn't even have Horford or Millsap playing.

you bumped the thread for that? i said he was a chucker, i didn't say he was immune to having a bad night shooting.

sunsfan88
03-06-2014, 07:07 PM
I think he avoided the chucker label cause people don't usually call big men chuckers though there are some exceptions.

3RDASYSTEM
03-06-2014, 07:28 PM
It's funny how the word "chucker" wasn't even applicable to the game of basketball until like maybe 5-6 yrs ago.

Next thing you'll know, we'll be using the word "HOARDERS" for guys who have a tendency to dribble the ball just a little more than other guys. They'll probably average 12+ assists per game, but if they are the guys who constantly dribble the ball to set up other guys, and take up most of the 24 second shot clock, I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN started this movement of calling them HOARDERS, which then idiots on this sports forum will start overusing, like they have with the word CHUCKER.

It's comical how the mind of a basketball fan continues to de-evolve into dumb crap.

I know right, when a player(s) shoots too much it should be from not having another go to guy or two

its funny how the word chucker and PER/WS all came around the same time, a bunch of ******** about nothing but more silly debate, nothing will ever trump the game film/actual playing to really see what happens because its been hoarders in the league going way back to when assists where accounted for, MAGIC/STOCKTON/JACKSON/KIDD/BIG O and a slew of others are pure hoarders since they dominated the assists/fast break/half court dribble and pass game

NoahH
03-06-2014, 07:39 PM
Who is it!!!!

NYJ - NYY
03-06-2014, 09:50 PM
Who is it!!!!

Yeahhhhhh

Jamiecballer
03-07-2014, 12:54 AM
yeah yeah yeah boyz

TorontoHuskies
03-07-2014, 02:05 AM
his career FG% seems pretty solid at 49.0%, which places him just below a pair of certain HOF's in Bosh (50.4%) and Garnett (49.7%). but look a little closer.

due to a lack of 3 point shot and relatively low free throw rates, his shot attempts produce an average of just 1.15 points per shot, sitting him in the bottom 15% of all qualified players in the NBA, placing him squarely in the company of well known "chuckers" Al Jefferson and Zach Randolph.

this is not new for him. he has compiled a 1.19 points per shot rate spanning his 8 seasons in the NBA, routinely sitting in the bottom 15-25%. except this season he has taken it to an entirely new level.

if you are not familiar with points per shot (PPS), it is exactly as it sounds. it tells us essentially how good an investment a shot attempt from a player is for his teams offense.

there are only so many offensive possession in a game, although the exact number obviously varies. the average usually falls within the range of 90-100. if a player consumes 15-20 of them per game with a very low PPS he is putting a very large burden on his teammates to make up the difference with efficient offensive play.

with that in mind let's consider what our two previous examples, Bosh and Garnett did in their seasons up to this players current age while they were the clear undisputed best offensive players on their team. again using PPS as our measure.

Bosh: 1.38
Garnett: 1.21

this is interesting. for a moment i almost reconsidered this entire post when i turned up that number on Garnett.

if Kevin Garnett was barely producing more per field goal attempt than 'player X' than maybe i've got this all wrong. but then i thought, who exactly did Garnett have to help him offensively? did it make a difference? as you might expect, it did.

his highest PPS while he was with those dreadful TWolves teams was 1.33 in his age 28 season when he had help from Szczerbiak, Cassell and Sprewell. that seems logical, the more help you get the easier your job should theoretically be on the offensive end.

so Garnett fits the description of a guy who struggled to carry an offense because he wasn't a great scorer. hard to call a guy a chucker under those circumstances.

but enough about Garnett. does our mystery player fit that description as well? not really.

the player in question is shooting more often, and less efficiently, the more talent he has around him, or so it seems.

so that brings me back to the original question: how has this player managed to escape the dreaded label of chucker?

Al Jefferson, despite very similar offensive numbers and efficiency didn't. Carmelo Anthony can't go 2 days in this forum without being called a chucker (for good reason) despite being much more efficient that this player. Monta Ellis did not, despite a career PPS that is exactly 0.01 lower than this player.

and a new one arises: how on earth is this guy, who leads the NBA in field goal attempts despite very poor efficiency (and numerous teammates who are much more efficient weapons) 3rd on NBA.com's MVP Ladder? Shoot, i gave it away didn't i.

shame on you NBA.com. shame on you.

Because he was an elite defender...Chuckers get exposed more often when they are liabilities to their team. Garnett was a great defender and was winning so no body cared and his inefficiencies were ignored

DatDude19
03-07-2014, 02:11 AM
I read the title to this thread and instantly thought Brandon Jennings.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sunsfan88
04-24-2014, 12:59 AM
I read the title to this thread and instantly thought Brandon Jennings.



Lol.

LMA shutting us all up though. Throwing those advanced stats in the trash.

valade16
04-24-2014, 08:37 AM
Lol.

LMA shutting us all up though. Throwing those advanced stats in the trash.

Jamieballer - Still think LMA is overrated?

ThaDubs
04-24-2014, 11:20 AM
OK so I'm assuming this is about LMA then?

He's averaging 44.5, 13 on nearly 60/100/80 shooting. lol. So much for the 50/40/90 club

D-Leethal
04-24-2014, 01:03 PM
Basketball will always be bigger than your favorite stat. Watch the game - LMA is a ****ing beast. Can beat you down anywhere.

valade16
04-24-2014, 01:17 PM
Basketball will always be bigger than your favorite stat. Watch the game - LMA is a ****ing beast. Can beat you down anywhere.

Game 1 he went 12/16 in the paint.

Game 2 he went 13/18 from mid-range.

He can score in more ways than any other star PF.

LanceUpperCut
04-24-2014, 01:30 PM
Lets hope he keeps it up cause we all know how important SSS are compared to a whole season or a career. I actually do like LMA but just cause a guy has two great games in a row doesn't change anything. Almost every so called chucker in this league have great stretches.

Bruno
04-24-2014, 01:39 PM
aldridges advanced line is so dirty. per of 40+, WS/48 of .400+, TS% above .65. he's earned nearly as many playoff winshares in the past two games as he had in his pervious 18 playoff games combined. i predicted houston 4-2 but this has been brilliant. bench production from portland has been better than expected too. i would absolutely love if this team of man-boys, anti-mid-range management, and their groundlessly arrogant fan base got booted in round one. keep it up lma

Jamiecballer
04-24-2014, 05:41 PM
Jamieballer - Still think LMA is overrated?

He's been phenomenal so far this series but the short answer obviously is yes. I don't base an opinion on 2 games or a series or what have you.

valade16
04-24-2014, 06:53 PM
He's been phenomenal so far this series but the short answer obviously is yes. I don't base an opinion on 2 games or a series or what have you.

This is the problem. The stat sheet says he's not that efficient. But his game shows his incredible versatility.

Simply put, he can score in more ways than Love or Griffin. His versatility makes him harder to guard when it matters. Also, his defense (which doesn't show up on PER) is light years ahead of either of theirs.

As I posted in the MVP thread, the recent MIT Sports Analytics conference had a presentation that showed he has been the 5th best bigman on interior defense the last 2 seasons.

His defense far surpasses either Love or Griffin and that's why he deserves consideration to be among them even with his inefficient offense.

Jamiecballer
04-24-2014, 08:44 PM
This is the problem. The stat sheet says he's not that efficient. But his game shows his incredible versatility.

Simply put, he can score in more ways than Love or Griffin. His versatility makes him harder to guard when it matters. Also, his defense (which doesn't show up on PER) is light years ahead of either of theirs.

As I posted in the MVP thread, the recent MIT Sports Analytics conference had a presentation that showed he has been the 5th best bigman on interior defense the last 2 seasons.

His defense far surpasses either Love or Griffin and that's why he deserves consideration to be among them even with his inefficient offense.

I have the be honest. I've never found versatility of value that didn't express itself eventually in numbers.

I won't debate his defensive abilities because I believe it. Is he as good a help defender as he is defending in the post in your opinion?

Tony_Starks
04-24-2014, 09:19 PM
If LMA is a chucker what does that make Harden? At least LMA is actually making his shots and playing defense. Harden has contributed nothing to the series but bricks and horrid D...

valade16
04-25-2014, 11:22 AM
I have the be honest. I've never found versatility of value that didn't express itself eventually in numbers.

I won't debate his defensive abilities because I believe it. Is he as good a help defender as he is defending in the post in your opinion?

He is good at trapping from the backside but in terms help defense he's not anything special, nor is he a shot blocker. His defensive acumen is primarily as an on the ball defender against other bigs.

As for the versatility, I'd say it's expressing itself via #'s now. Game 1 he went 12/16 in the paint. Game 2 Rockets forced him out of the paint and he went 13/18 on from mid. How do you stop that?

Jamiecballer
04-25-2014, 12:20 PM
If LMA is a chucker what does that make Harden? At least LMA is actually making his shots and playing defense. Harden has contributed nothing to the series but bricks and horrid D...
a player shouldn't get a label one way or the other from a game or a series or whatever.

Jamiecballer
04-25-2014, 12:22 PM
He is good at trapping from the backside but in terms help defense he's not anything special, nor is he a shot blocker. His defensive acumen is primarily as an on the ball defender against other bigs.

As for the versatility, I'd say it's expressing itself via #'s now. Game 1 he went 12/16 in the paint. Game 2 Rockets forced him out of the paint and he went 13/18 on from mid. How do you stop that?

you don't stop it. you try and make him play like he did in Game 2 and take your chances.

Tony_Starks
04-25-2014, 02:28 PM
a player shouldn't get a label one way or the other from a game or a series or whatever.

This isn't his first playoff disappearing act offensively and most people have been saying he's a horrible defender for quite some time now. So it's not exactly like this is a knee jerk reaction, he's just getting exposed because the stage is bigger and his team is failing.

Really when you take away his ability to get flops called he's pretty limited. It's the same as last year, the refs aren't going to send him to the line 10-15 times a game in the playoffs unless its legit.

Jamiecballer
04-25-2014, 03:48 PM
This isn't his first playoff disappearing act offensively and most people have been saying he's a horrible defender for quite some time now. So it's not exactly like this is a knee jerk reaction, he's just getting exposed because the stage is bigger and his team is failing.

Really when you take away his ability to get flops called he's pretty limited. It's the same as last year, the refs aren't going to send him to the line 10-15 times a game in the playoffs unless its legit.

You are right. But playing poorly is not the same as being a chucker.