PDA

View Full Version : How good is Serge Ibaka?



poleandreel
02-22-2014, 09:30 PM
Serge gets no recognition and is never talked about. His mid range jump shot might be the best in the NBA, he is an amazing rim protector, and is a great teammate.

Last 2 years stats:

14/8.5/3 blocks on 57% FG, 59% TS, and a 78 ft shooter as a big man.

He has improved every year and has a career ws/48 of .167.

For comparison, Rose career is .135 and Carmelo is career .138.

Can he be a #2 on a championship team? I think he can if that team was built a little better. OKC is not that team because they get 0 scoring from 2 starters in Sefalosha and Perkins. If those positions had average scorers, I think he could be the second best player on a championship team.

mngopher35
02-22-2014, 09:42 PM
I guess it's possible in the right situation for him to be the second best player (but they would need a lot of similar type talents ala Detroit 2004). Right now he is in a great situation and is a great fit for them imo. With Westbrook and Durant to take the scoring load he can focus on making the easy shots and taking over defensively and on the boards. He is basically the perfect third option.

Baller1
02-22-2014, 09:47 PM
He still has to improve significantly on his consistency. If he can consistently put up 16+, 10+ on efficient scoring with his elite defense then he has a chance to make a few all-star teams.

Realistically though, he's nothing more than a very good third option.

Sadds The Gr8
02-22-2014, 09:49 PM
Amazing how invisible he becomes in big games. He'll always be a #3 or 4 guy to me. I think he's overrated

MagicBucsSox
02-22-2014, 09:50 PM
He's nothing. He should've been traded not Harden. The guy is so overrated.

poleandreel
02-22-2014, 09:51 PM
What makes drummond better than Serge then? Obviously Drummond is a better rebounder, but serge has a great jumpshot, decent post moves/finishing, better defense, and wayyy better ft shooting.

Drummond will never develop a jumper, his ft shooting will always be less than 50%, and I don't see him becoming a great back to the basket player. Yet everyone considers drummond a franchise player.

poleandreel
02-22-2014, 09:54 PM
Amazing how invisible he becomes in big games. He'll always be a #3 or 4 guy to me.

Like his 12 for 12 performance against the spurs in the western conference finals?

If you watched the games you would see that in big games KD/Westbrook tend to jack up way more shots each trying to win the game and there is nothing serge can do about it because he doesn't touch the ball. He disappears because he has two high volume shooters on his team, not because he shrinks under pressure.

poleandreel
02-22-2014, 09:55 PM
He's nothing. He should've been traded not Harden. The guy is so overrated.

Yes, because okc hasn't gotten better since Harden was moved. Without Serge we wouldn't have the 2nd best defense in the NBA. Without Harden we still have a top 3 offense...so YEA great point...

Sadds The Gr8
02-22-2014, 09:57 PM
Like his 12 for 12 performance against the spurs in the western conference finals?

If you watched the games you would see that in big games KD/Westbrook tend to jack up way more shots each trying to win the game and there is nothing serge can do about it because he doesn't touch the ball. He disappears because he has two high volume shooters on his team, not because he shrinks under pressure.
Uh, 1 game?

And what about that grizzlies series last year? Russell wasn't there and ibaka stunk in that series

EL_MACHETE
02-22-2014, 09:59 PM
Serge I-Blocka

KnicksorBust
02-22-2014, 10:00 PM
He's nothing. He should've been traded not Harden. The guy is so overrated.

So wrong. Ibaka is a quality 2way big who can play PF/C. Every team needs that. The piece that left should have been Westbrook.

ManRam
02-22-2014, 10:00 PM
He's long been overrated as a defender. Took some steps forward at times, but I honestly have no idea where he lies. People get caught up in blocks, but his overall impact hasn't always been nearly what it should be.

the guy's shot chart is a thing of beauty tho. His jumper has turned into a HUGE weapon.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.html?PlayerID=201586

He's a tremendous third option. Not a number 2, obviously. Overrated by some, underrated by others (ie the guy who said he's "nothing" ;) ). But he's a very good two-way power forward and those are VERY rare these days.

I don't think prioritizing a big man with a great mid range game over a third perimeter ball-dominant scoring option was the wrong move :shrug:

poleandreel
02-22-2014, 10:01 PM
Uh, 1 game?

And what about that grizzlies series last year? Russell wasn't there and ibaka stunk in that series

So you're going to use a series in which he was going against the best defensive team in the NBA, against the defensive player of the year? All while the team was learning to play without Russ for the first time in 4 years? Yea point taken...

smith&wesson
02-22-2014, 10:05 PM
Serge I-Blocka

I love his D

TheNumber37
02-22-2014, 10:07 PM
One of the ultimate compliment player.

He should be a teams 4th or 5th best player if they are to win it all...

sep11ie
02-22-2014, 10:09 PM
I love his D

No homo?

mngopher35
02-22-2014, 10:11 PM
One of the ultimate compliment player.

He should be a teams 4th or 5th best player if they are to win it all...

What? I think he makes an excellent 3rd option on that Thunder team and they have a very good chance to win it all within the next few years.

mngopher35
02-22-2014, 10:11 PM
I love his D

haha

Sadds The Gr8
02-22-2014, 10:13 PM
So you're going to use a series in which he was going against the best defensive team in the NBA, against the defensive player of the year? All while the team was learning to play without Russ for the first time in 4 years? Yea point taken...

And that was my point...in big games he usually becomes a non-factor. U can throw the nba finals in that mix too. Guy was a no show.

Also wasn't as good as I expected him to be against Houston last playoffs

Sadds The Gr8
02-22-2014, 10:15 PM
I love his D
Hes prolly packing since he's african

Dade County
02-22-2014, 10:15 PM
Serge gets no recognition and is never talked about. His mid range jump shot might be the best in the NBA, he is an amazing rim protector, and is a great teammate.

Last 2 years stats:

14/8.5/3 blocks on 57% FG, 59% TS, and a 78 ft shooter as a big man.

He has improved every year and has a career ws/48 of .167.

For comparison, Rose career is .135 and Carmelo is career .138.

Can he be a #2 on a championship team? I think he can if that team was built a little better. OKC is not that team because they get 0 scoring from 2 starters in Sefalosha and Perkins. If those positions had average scorers, I think he could be the second best player on a championship team.

No...

But for some reason, I would like to see Ibaka and Bosh on the same team.

ManRam
02-22-2014, 10:18 PM
One of the ultimate compliment player.

He should be a teams 4th or 5th best player if they are to win it all...

Easily could be #3 if you value defense. He's hardly any worse than Bosh at this point.

douglas
02-22-2014, 10:26 PM
Serge Ibaka is really good at blocking the basketball shots that players from the opposing teams shoot. When he blocks the shot, he makes the opposing player miss their shot.

MagicBucsSox
02-22-2014, 10:35 PM
Yes, because okc hasn't gotten better since Harden was moved. Without Serge we wouldn't have the 2nd best defense in the NBA. Without Harden we still have a top 3 offense...so YEA great point...

How's Okc gotten better since Harden? A finals team with james. Ibaka didn't pic king scoring when Russ went down, because he can't.
And who says you couldn't have moved Ibaka for a quality big with an inside post game like say a Al Jefferson or horford etc etc just saying names. Ibaka's hype back then was so high people would've jumped all over that deal. He isn't even a great rebounder, he above average.
No team is winning a title without some kinda big in the paint with post play. It's never happened . Hell even the bulls 90's teams had centers who can play in the post.

MagicBucsSox
02-22-2014, 10:36 PM
Serge Ibaka is really good at blocking the basketball shots that players from the opposing teams shoot. When he blocks the shot, he makes the opposing player miss their shot.

Lmao that's 2-3 times a game. He can't stop nobody of quality man. I'd move him for Noah in a heartbeat

smith&wesson
02-22-2014, 11:05 PM
Hes prolly packing since he's african

lol the real black mamba

sunsfan88
02-22-2014, 11:08 PM
He's Anthony Davis lite.

smith&wesson
02-22-2014, 11:14 PM
No homo?


haha


Hes prolly packing since he's african

I didnt know what you meant. so I googled packing african and this is what I found lol

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/african%20kid%20n%20machine%20gun.jpg

Hawkeye15
02-22-2014, 11:23 PM
He is a top 6-7 PF overall, and while he can't be a legit #2 on a chip team imo, is one of those guys who is absolutely a championship type player/contributor. Losing Harden hurt, but they made the right move. The need for a rim protector who can score when plays are never run for them is invaluable.

blahblahyoutoo
02-23-2014, 12:01 AM
MIP, hands down

Hawkeye15
02-23-2014, 12:04 AM
MIP, hands down

Lance will win that award imo

Raps18-19 Champ
02-23-2014, 12:05 AM
Tyson Chandler with more points and less defense.

Chronz
02-23-2014, 12:26 AM
Bosh for Ibaka, which side says no ?

Hawkeye15
02-23-2014, 12:28 AM
Bosh for Ibaka, which side says no ?

Thunder. Their core is young enough to contend for years, bringing Bosh shortens the front court window slightly.

3RDASYSTEM
02-23-2014, 12:42 AM
Serge gets no recognition and is never talked about. His mid range jump shot might be the best in the NBA, he is an amazing rim protector, and is a great teammate.

Last 2 years stats:

14/8.5/3 blocks on 57% FG, 59% TS, and a 78 ft shooter as a big man.

He has improved every year and has a career ws/48 of .167.

For comparison, Rose career is .135 and Carmelo is career .138.

Can he be a #2 on a championship team? I think he can if that team was built a little better. OKC is not that team because they get 0 scoring from 2 starters in Sefalosha and Perkins. If those positions had average scorers, I think he could be the second best player on a championship team.

He is like a better scoring version of B WALLACE but he cant anchor the interior/nor rebound but can 'block shots' like B WALLACE could, that's how I view him pretty much, imagine if B WALLACE could hit a mid range jumper at consistent level? he would have been even more dangerous, top 10 player easily in the league during his dominant stretch of DPOY if he could have dropped 15-17ppg to go along with his other stats on d side

TheMightyHumph
02-23-2014, 12:42 AM
Serge gets no recognition and is never talked about. His mid range jump shot might be the best in the NBA, he is an amazing rim protector, and is a great teammate.

Last 2 years stats:

14/8.5/3 blocks on 57% FG, 59% TS, and a 78 ft shooter as a big man.

He has improved every year and has a career ws/48 of .167.

For comparison, Rose career is .135 and Carmelo is career .138.

Can he be a #2 on a championship team? I think he can if that team was built a little better. OKC is not that team because they get 0 scoring from 2 starters in Sefalosha and Perkins. If those positions had average scorers, I think he could be the second best player on a championship team.

He's pretty good

3RDASYSTEM
02-23-2014, 12:56 AM
Thunder. Their core is young enough to contend for years, bringing Bosh shortens the front court window slightly.

But that core has reached its peak pertaining to KD/RUSS/and insert name because RUSS is damaged goods believe it or not with like 3 knife cutters in less than a year or little over, him and RUSS have made a finals trip(defeat) in like 5yrs and it will prob max out at 1 more in next 5 yrs with the WEST having a old and couple young teams gunning for the crown, OKC is more so built for the reg season now since RUSS cant seem to stay healthy and the rest of the young core isn't good enough to help carry KD like the individual. ability/game that RUSS has

bringing in BOSH would be trading a better stretch/battle tested all star pf for a better shot blocker who is also battle tested but not a champion, BOSH defense is underrated to me so that's a wash outside of blocking actual shots

BOSH is better player to me so IBAKA can only be more valuable via youth/health if you want to stay young and keep that intact

but once players start going under the knife its a wrap no matter how young and when it gets to multi levels then its time to cut bait, im pretty sure that RUSS for HOWARD swap isn't looking so bad, even with HOWARD coming off back/labrum surgery, you stick it out with the big man in big man's league but that's neither here nor there since they are probably stuck with RUSS for duration of that 80mil deal

you always take the better player at same position especially if that player is 28yrs old and 2x champ over 24-25yr old shot blocking champ, IBAKA is not a franchise style player like BOSH was in Canada, not even close

Chrisclover
02-23-2014, 01:33 AM
He is very good :D

Sadds The Gr8
02-23-2014, 01:35 AM
Lance will win that award imo

That award is locked up in Dragic's closet already. It'd be a crime if he didn't win considering he was left outta the ASG


Bosh for Ibaka, which side says no ?

Miami imo.

OKC
02-23-2014, 02:39 AM
I actually think serge would benefit more from being on a team based team rather than individual scoring, like the Pacers or the Spurs.

Riodagoat
02-23-2014, 04:05 AM
Best mid range shooter?
What happened to Bosh? Dirk? Aldridge?

He gets no recognition because he doesn't deserve any more than what he's already getting. Hes a great 3rd option. But that's about it.

b@llhog24
02-23-2014, 04:09 AM
I actually think serge would benefit more from being on a team based team rather than individual scoring, like the Pacers or the Spurs.

Thanks for that mini-orgasm.

b@llhog24
02-23-2014, 04:10 AM
Best mid range shooter?
What happened to Bosh? Dirk? Aldridge?

He gets no recognition because he doesn't deserve any more than what he's already getting. Hes a great 3rd option. But that's about it.

Pretty much. Nobody regards him as much more or less than a great 3rd option.

b@llhog24
02-23-2014, 04:11 AM
Even still sometimes third options are under appreciated. Lord knows I used to be furious when Harden and Manu (still doesn't imo) weren't getting the recognition they deserve.

Phenom1
02-23-2014, 04:36 AM
He's good but I think if he's the 2nd option, his weakness will be exposed. He's perfect for his role though.

Chronz
02-23-2014, 06:35 AM
Miami imo.
Whys that?


Thunder. Their core is young enough to contend for years, bringing Bosh shortens the front court window slightly.

OK, lets say it was for one run. Or say they wanted to win ASAP

MagicBucsSox
02-23-2014, 08:33 AM
MIP, hands down

Um that's going to Lowry Lillard Affalo Derozan Drummond stephen do my man.

JasonJohnHorn
02-23-2014, 09:34 AM
think he's pretty good. Certainly good enough that he could be a starter on a contender.

Swashcuff
02-23-2014, 10:09 AM
What makes drummond better than Serge then? Obviously Drummond is a better rebounder, but serge has a great jumpshot, decent post moves/finishing, better defense, and wayyy better ft shooting.

Drummond will never develop a jumper, his ft shooting will always be less than 50%, and I don't see him becoming a great back to the basket player. Yet everyone considers drummond a franchise player.

One word. Upside.

Ibaka may honestly be more polished than Drummond but polish isn't everything Drummond may be the more productive player when its all said and done.

Everyone doesn't consider Drummond a franchise player they acknowledge his upside to be a legit force down low.

Sadds The Gr8
02-23-2014, 12:29 PM
Whys that?



OK, lets say it was for one run. Or say they wanted to win ASAP

Because he's a more reliable #2 if wade isn't healthy enough to consistently be that. If wade slows down like he did last year then I'd trust him more than ibaka on offense. Ibaka is just an easier cover because he doesn't really have an iso or post up game. He's mostly a spot up guy and a trash man

KnickaBocka.44
02-23-2014, 01:02 PM
One word. Upside.

Ibaka may honestly be more polished than Drummond but polish isn't everything Drummond may be the more productive player when its all said and done.

Everyone doesn't consider Drummond a franchise player they acknowledge his upside to be a legit force down low.

In a draft scenario you might be right, but upside doesn't make younger players better than older players at a given moment, or for a given year. You don't say someone is currently better than someone else because they could be better than them in the future...it doesn't make sense.

tredigs
02-23-2014, 01:11 PM
Anybody that airballs an open 20 footer (see: Miami) is not the best mid range shooter in the NBA. I had mentioned in a prior game thread that it was reaching the point of Duncan/KG status from 18, but in reality he's not there. He relies massively on KD or Westbrook to open up his shots (I wouldn't be surprised if stats show that >50% of his shots are an uncontested jumper or uncontested PnR dunk). But I do love Serge and have a lot of respect for the fact that he has made that shot something that OKC can legitimately rely on. In his first 2 seasons he was a mess from that range.

Defensively he's good to very good, but commonly overrated. His paint protection is lower than a Robin Lopez or Taj Gibson from an Opponent FG% factor (44.7%), but still on the higher end. His synergy stats for D are pretty pitiful from what you'd expect from a guy that gets his level of praise. Opponents average 0.94 PPP overall which ranks him in the BOTTOM THIRD of the league, and in ISO the 0.81 PPP doesn't have him crack the top 100.

If you watch him a lot like I have you notice that he still makes a lot of defensive mistakes and is often caught in the air going for the block over the solid hand in the face without jumping.

In short, he's an awesome asset and a great piece to have, but still a young/developing player who is so often overrated by box score fans and highlight reel watchers. Still very dependent on his teammates at this point.

KnicksorBust
02-23-2014, 01:13 PM
Bosh for Ibaka, which side says no ?

Both actually. Miami need Bosh to 3peat and OKC needs Ibaka to keep their window as long as Durants career will last.

LJEATON26
02-23-2014, 01:28 PM
Ibaka is insanely underrated. He is the best shot blocker since mutombo, constantly improving his jump shot and his range (36% from beyond the arc in 41 attempts). If he could improve his low post game he could be an impossible cover. Not to mention hes only 24 and still has plenty of upside.

tredigs
02-23-2014, 01:32 PM
Ibaka is insanely underrated. He is the best shot blocker since mutombo, constantly improving his jump shot and his range (36% from beyond the arc in 41 attempts). If he could improve his low post game he could be an impossible cover. Not to mention hes only 24 and still has plenty of upside.

He has a highly limited 1v1 game on both ends and his shot blocking gets him in trouble way too often for my liking.

I don't like to bag on Serge because I feel like he's one of the harder workers in the league (just based on little improvements I see every year, mostly the jumper), but he's got a ways to go. MANY consider Serge a top 3 defender in the NBA and an elite PF. That's "insanely underrated". I'd say the exact opposite.

If he develops a post game or any offensive game whatsoever that isn't predicated on KD or Westbrook opening up his game then we can talk. He was a mess in the playoffs against Memphis when they had the ability to double KD and still leave someone on Serge with Westbrook out.

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 02:13 PM
Amazing how invisible he becomes in big games. He'll always be a #3 or 4 guy to me. I think he's overrated

in what way does he become invisible? this is an honest question, i'm wondering if you mean he plays poorly, like terrible shooting nights, or if you mean he doesn't seem to play as big. a superstar like Durant, and a super talent like Westbrook, those guys are expected to step up and play even bigger which might be a factor in how Ibaka looks as well.

KnicksorBust
02-23-2014, 02:19 PM
Honestly, and I am not just saying this to create controversy, he is the best nba player named Serge in NBA history.

ManRam
02-23-2014, 02:26 PM
Anybody that airballs an open 20 footer (see: Miami) is not the best mid range shooter in the NBA.

Convinced me! Didn't even have to read the rest of the post!

tredigs
02-23-2014, 02:28 PM
in what way does he become invisible? this is an honest question, i'm wondering if you mean he plays poorly, like terrible shooting nights, or if you mean he doesn't seem to play as big. a superstar like Durant, and a super talent like Westbrook, those guys are expected to step up and play even bigger which might be a factor in how Ibaka looks as well.

Just check out last years playoffs against Memphis. They needed him desperately and he offered next to nothing for OKC.

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 02:41 PM
Just check out last years playoffs against Memphis. They needed him desperately and he offered next to nothing for OKC.

he shot very poorly in that series for sure.

OlivaThor
02-23-2014, 03:05 PM
I love his D

Lol

Sadds The Gr8
02-23-2014, 03:18 PM
in what way does he become invisible? this is an honest question, i'm wondering if you mean he plays poorly, like terrible shooting nights, or if you mean he doesn't seem to play as big. a superstar like Durant, and a super talent like Westbrook, those guys are expected to step up and play even bigger which might be a factor in how Ibaka looks as well.
I already explained it earlier. Memphis series he was awful, finals he no-showed, and i expected more vs the rockets after Westbrook went down

And like tredigs said, he relies on Westbrook and kd so much for his pts. It's either wide open jumpers or easy dunks. His shot chart is amazing no doubt but I don't know if there's a player in the league that benefits more off open looks

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 03:21 PM
I already explained it earlier. Memphis series he was awful, finals he no-showed, and i expected more vs the rockets after Westbrook went down

i know, i didn't read the whole thread. i was lazy.

waveycrockett
02-23-2014, 03:25 PM
Ibaka is quality but he is not an allstar yet. His post game can still use work and he is a great shot blocker but he gets pushed around in the post against bigger guys. I think he is solid but gets overrated

Bostonjorge
02-23-2014, 03:38 PM
In the west alone there are at least 5 PF that are better then Ibaka.

Love
Griffin
Duncan
Dirk
Aldridge

Then there's guys like Randolf, gasol, lee, Davis and faried. These guys might also be better.

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 03:42 PM
In the west alone there are at least 5 PF that are better then Ibaka.

Love
Griffin
Duncan
Dirk
Aldridge

Then there's guys like Randolf, gasol, lee, Davis and faried. These guys might also be better.

you are so in love with the PPG. there are 4-6 tops.

Sadds The Gr8
02-23-2014, 03:48 PM
you are so in love with the PPG. there are 4-6 tops.
I say the 5 he listed then Davis and lee, so 7 imo.

I think gasol would be better on another team but that's hypothetical

tredigs
02-23-2014, 03:50 PM
you are so in love with the PPG. there are 4-6 tops.

Faried's a joke and he's probably more impactful than Pau at this point, but it would be tough to convince me that Serge is better than Love, Griffin, Duncan, Dirk, Aldridge or Davis in the West. Actually, impossible. Lee and him is an interesting debate, but I'd say it's fair to put him in the 7-9 range in the league as a whole.

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 03:56 PM
Faried's a joke and he's probably more impactful than Pau at this point, but it would be tough to convince me that Serge is better than Love, Griffin, Duncan, Dirk, Aldridge or Davis in the West. Actually, impossible. Lee and him is an interesting debate, but I'd say it's fair to put him in the 7-9 range in the league as a whole.
to me he's 5th.
Love
Griffin
Davis
Dirk
Ibaka

Hawkeye15
02-23-2014, 04:01 PM
Whys that?



OK, lets say it was for one run. Or say they wanted to win ASAP

then Miami imo. Bosh is probably the better player right now, and Miami uses him in a pinch as a #1, something Ibaka is not capable of imo. Bosh's defense is also underrated.

mightybosstone
02-23-2014, 04:05 PM
Ibaka has the ability to be a really solid No. 3 on a contending team, and he's a great fit for what OKC does on both ends of the floor. I can see him cracking a couple of All-Star games over his career and maybe more if he can elevate his game to become a more reliable scorer. My issue is, as others have already mentioned, he's gained a reputation for disappearing in big games. Last postseason was his chance to step up with Westbrook going down, and he failed on a monumental level. I'd like to see him become a more consistent offensive presence, but right now I see him as a top 8-10 PF in the league with room to grow.

valade16
02-23-2014, 04:10 PM
In the west alone there are at least 5 PF that are better then Ibaka.

Love
Griffin
Duncan
Dirk
Aldridge

Then there's guys like Randolf, gasol, lee, Davis and faried. These guys might also be better.

While true that is a little unfair to Ibaka because all the best PFs are in the West. How many top notch PFs are there in the East? Bosh. Then Milsap? Jefferson?

valade16
02-23-2014, 04:15 PM
to me he's 5th.
Love
Griffin
Davis
Dirk
Ibaka

I know we’ve gone over this but you seriously think Ibaka is better than LMA? LMA beats him in almost every measurable way outside of scoring efficiency. TRB% (16.7 to 15.0), AST% (13.6 to 4.8), STL% (1.2 to 0.7), TO% (10.6 to 7.1) and PER (22.4 to 19.6).

And has been pointed out, Ibaka is completely incapable of being a No. 1 offensive option on a team whereas LMA has shown he can at least do it.

You keep telling me you don’t hate on LMA then post stuff like this. Getting pretty hard to take you seriously…

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 04:25 PM
I know we’ve gone over this but you seriously think Ibaka is better than LMA? LMA beats him in almost every measurable way outside of scoring efficiency. TRB% (16.7 to 15.0), AST% (13.6 to 4.8), STL% (1.2 to 0.7), TO% (10.6 to 7.1) and PER (22.4 to 19.6).

And has been pointed out, Ibaka is completely incapable of being a No. 1 offensive option on a team whereas LMA has shown he can at least do it.

You keep telling me you don’t hate on LMA then post stuff like this. Getting pretty hard to take you seriously…

you already know my view. i give full credit to players for their productivity, but i levy a real penalty against those i think are harming their team with their efficiency. how can i not?

but if that's not a view you can respect than just don't reply. i'm not posting hoping to get a rise out of you.

valade16
02-23-2014, 04:35 PM
you already know my view. i give full credit to players for their productivity, but i levy a real penalty against those i think are harming their team with their efficiency. how can i not?

but if that's not a view you can respect than just don't reply. i'm not posting hoping to get a rise out of you.

So in your opinion LMA is actually not only not helping the Blazers, but actively harming them?

I just don’t think your view takes into account role, fit, usage, and perhaps literally everything else about the game of basketball outside of TS%. In fact, is there one part of the game outside of LMAs volume of shots that you consider below average or bad?

MTar786
02-23-2014, 04:55 PM
over rated

Swashcuff
02-23-2014, 05:19 PM
In a draft scenario you might be right, but upside doesn't make younger players better than older players at a given moment, or for a given year. You don't say someone is currently better than someone else because they could be better than them in the future...it doesn't make sense.

At the end of that post I saw the individual say that Drummond is being spoken of as a franchise player. I responded to that as well.

Swashcuff
02-23-2014, 05:26 PM
you already know my view. i give full credit to players for their productivity, but i levy a real penalty against those i think are harming their team with their efficiency. how can i not?

but if that's not a view you can respect than just don't reply. i'm not posting hoping to get a rise out of you.

Are you suggesting LMA is a player who harm's his team's offense?

Chronz
02-23-2014, 05:47 PM
then Miami imo. Bosh is probably the better player right now, and Miami uses him in a pinch as a #1, something Ibaka is not capable of imo. Bosh's defense is also underrated.

They use him as a number 1?

Chronz
02-23-2014, 05:52 PM
Because he's a more reliable #2 if wade isn't healthy enough to consistently be that. If wade slows down like he did last year then I'd trust him more than ibaka on offense. Ibaka is just an easier cover because he doesn't really have an iso or post up game. He's mostly a spot up guy and a trash man

Good point. Do you think Ibaka would have helped them more in years past but now that Wade is hobbled, the importance of Bosh's potential offensive contributions are more important?

The reason I wonder is because Bosh hasn't really seen much of a change over the years in his role despite Wade's decline, and if you're not using Bosh as a primary option, wouldn;t you rather have a superior defender who can fill the outlet role as well or better?

Ibaka being an easier cover than Bosh in his current role is debatable thats for sure. Remember, we are talking about a guy who went scoreless in the biggest game of the year. You dont think Ibaka could do that while providing more defensively?

Chronz
02-23-2014, 06:08 PM
He has a highly limited 1v1 game on both ends and his shot blocking gets him in trouble way too often for my liking.

I don't like to bag on Serge because I feel like he's one of the harder workers in the league (just based on little improvements I see every year, mostly the jumper), but he's got a ways to go. MANY consider Serge a top 3 defender in the NBA and an elite PF. That's "insanely underrated". I'd say the exact opposite.

If he develops a post game or any offensive game whatsoever that isn't predicated on KD or Westbrook opening up his game then we can talk. He was a mess in the playoffs against Memphis when they had the ability to double KD and still leave someone on Serge with Westbrook out.

Yeah but the same copout/excuse you gave for Durant struggling vs Memphis in a sudden, new role without Westbrook holds true here. I agree hes more of an outlet option than a go to option but thats not necessarily an insult. Every team needs a combination of both to reach an elite level, and in Ibaka's case hes one of the best 2-way players in the league, not since Rasheed have I felt there was a "role player" with a fringe star level impact. I feel Bron's Heat would have thrived more with this guy than a guy like Bosh who is overqualified for 3rd bannanna roel offensively but not quite as dominant as Ibaka in the same role.

Chronz
02-23-2014, 06:11 PM
I already explained it earlier. Memphis series he was awful, finals he no-showed, and i expected more vs the rockets after Westbrook went down
Durant saw similar declines vs the Grizz, Harden no showed harder than anyone those finals, would you say he has an inability to perform under dire circumstances based on that sample, or does the fact that he was less of an offensive priority play a role?

And by this standard, are there only like 3-4 players that can "show up" in big games considering plenty or players dont get as far as Ibaka has?




And like tredigs said, he relies on Westbrook and kd so much for his pts. It's either wide open jumpers or easy dunks. His shot chart is amazing no doubt but I don't know if there's a player in the league that benefits more off open looks
Im not seeing the evidence or relevance here.

Sadds The Gr8
02-23-2014, 06:32 PM
Good point. Do you think Ibaka would have helped them more in years past but now that Wade is hobbled, the importance of Bosh's potential offensive contributions are more important?
I guess you could make that argument because I've always felt that he's been misused/underutilized there. But back then Ibaka wasn't the shooter he is now.


The reason I wonder is because Bosh hasn't really seen much of a change over the years in his role despite Wade's decline, and if you're not using Bosh as a primary option, wouldn;t you rather have a superior defender who can fill the outlet role as well or better?

Ibaka being an easier cover than Bosh in his current role is debatable thats for sure. Remember, we are talking about a guy who went scoreless in the biggest game of the year. You dont think Ibaka could do that while providing more defensively?
these are good arguments. I guess as 3rd options they're very comparable. Me comparing their skillsets has clouded my judgment because obviously Ibaka isn't as skilled in terms of being a potential #2 or #1.

Sadds The Gr8
02-23-2014, 06:33 PM
Durant saw similar declines vs the Grizz, Harden no showed harder than anyone those finals, would you say he has an inability to perform under dire circumstances based on that sample, or does the fact that he was less of an offensive priority play a role?

And by this standard, are there only like 3-4 players that can "show up" in big games considering plenty or players dont get as far as Ibaka has?




Im not seeing the evidence or relevance here.
Ibaka no-showed in both though, whereas those are just the 1 circumstances each for Harden and Durant

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 07:15 PM
duplicate

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 07:16 PM
So in your opinion LMA is actually not only not helping the Blazers, but actively harming them?

I just donít think your view takes into account role, fit, usage, and perhaps literally everything else about the game of basketball outside of TS%. In fact, is there one part of the game outside of LMAs volume of shots that you consider below average or bad?

on the whole, no i don't think he harms them more than he helps. i have never stated it in those terms. but there is a fine balance, is there not? if i shoot 45 times in a game to get 40 points - and finish with the most points on my team by a fair bit - can you definitely say i've helped the team?

and to the bolded - no.

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 07:18 PM
Are you suggesting LMA is a player who harm's his team's offense?

mildly. let's just say i take those PPG with an enormous grain of salt. hard not to with that efficiency.

Swashcuff
02-23-2014, 07:33 PM
mildly. let's just say i take those PPG with an enormous grain of salt. hard not to with that efficiency.

Thing is though are we about to ignore effectiveness for efficiency? Are we going to look at TS% and eFG% and ignore USG%? How about the roles each player plays and the focus they'd see from opposing defenses. Are we going to ignore a player's ability (or in Serge's case inability) to create his own shot. I'm in Serge's corner pretty strong but IMO as good as he has been offensively (especially given that his D is his calling card) production wise I can't put him ahead of LMA because he's a more efficient scorer. I believe LMA can do a better job at what Serge does that Serge would do in LMA's role.

I honestly don't see how you can use a stat to say LMA harms his teams offense when there are stats that paint them to be vastly superior offensively with him than they are without him. I understand if you say they'd be even better if he was a more efficient scorer but him just being on the floor makes their offense considerably better.

Jamiecballer
02-23-2014, 08:40 PM
Thing is though are we about to ignore effectiveness for efficiency? Are we going to look at TS% and eFG% and ignore USG%?
it's hard for me to say definitely that USG% should factor in because we can't look at that number and say that the coach is demanding a player to play that way. roles on a basketball team sometimes grow organically. some players just want to shoot the ball more than they should and just don't have a coach who can clamp down on it. there are lots of theoreticals here.

How about the roles each player plays and the focus they'd see from opposing defenses. Are we going to ignore a player's ability (or in Serge's case inability) to create his own shot. I'm in Serge's corner pretty strong but IMO as good as he has been offensively (especially given that his D is his calling card) production wise I can't put him ahead of LMA because he's a more efficient scorer. I believe LMA can do a better job at what Serge does that Serge would do in LMA's role.
a role a player plays definitely deserves consideration. that's why i don't use a predetermined number for how effective a player should be - rather i look at how that level of effectiveness ranks amongst their peers.


I honestly don't see how you can use a stat to say LMA harms his teams offense when there are stats that paint them to be vastly superior offensively with him than they are without him. I understand if you say they'd be even better if he was a more efficient scorer
i don't see those two statements as being mutually exclusive though. you can be far better than the next available option but still be hurting your team offensively with your decision to shoot so much IMO.

D-Leethal
02-23-2014, 09:39 PM
The defensive anchor on the leagues second best defense has got to be doing something right. I agree that blocks are overrated, but this guy alters everything in sight on defense. I put him on the impact level of a Joakim Noah.

Hawkeye15
02-23-2014, 09:50 PM
They use him as a number 1?

when they are dire and Bron/Wade aren't playing. I also think he doesn't need the same help getting his shots as Ibaka, and has proven himself to be a better playoff contributor to THIS Miami team right now, outside of his Indy series.

D-Leethal
02-23-2014, 09:57 PM
Serge isn't a guy who should even be considered a "scoring option". He's a bail out option with a money jump shot who can only really "get his" when he's wide open from the attention KD and RW garner. He's no more of a scoring option than Charles Oakley. FGA don't make you a scoring option - how you get those FGA does. You have to be able to be relied upon to produce points when the ball comes your way regardless of the position of the defense/defender. I'd say Reggie Jackson is their 3rd option. He leads the bench, the ball is in his hands and he's the guy they ask to make plays on offense.

koreancabbage
02-23-2014, 10:19 PM
Serge isn't a guy who should even be considered a "scoring option". He's a bail out option with a money jump shot who can only really "get his" when he's wide open from the attention KD and RW garner. He's no more of a scoring option than Charles Oakley. FGA don't make you a scoring option - how you get those FGA does. You have to be able to be relied upon to produce points when the ball comes your way regardless of the position of the defense/defender. I'd say Reggie Jackson is their 3rd option. He leads the bench, the ball is in his hands and he's the guy they ask to make plays on offense.

I think Serge is the third option in the pick and roll and he's the only big who can be a reliable option upfront.

b@llhog24
02-24-2014, 01:18 AM
In a draft scenario you might be right, but upside doesn't make younger players better than older players at a given moment, or for a given year. You don't say someone is currently better than someone else because they could be better than them in the future...it doesn't make sense.

That's not what he's saying though. You think Serge has more franchise player potential than Drummound?

ThuglifeJ
02-24-2014, 01:26 AM
He's not smart enough..ego gets in his way. Overrated IMO.

Drummond is awesome, huge potential and seems intelligent on court.

Serge is just a meat head

Clippersfan86
02-24-2014, 12:29 PM
Ibaka is an arrogant mother fu**er and everytime I see him on the TV screen I want to punch him in the face. If there was just one player in the NBA that I could name king of the douchebags it would be Serge Ibaka. Incredibly disrespectful of opponents, cheap shot artist, boastful, acts like a ****ot. Tries to steal Mutombo's signature finger wag... just a fu**ing dirtbag.

He's the only player in the entire NBA that I strongly dislike on a personal level. Even guys like Cousins/Harden who are other douchenozzles... I don't dislike on a PERSONAL level really.

mightybosstone
02-24-2014, 12:30 PM
Ibaka is an arrogant mother fu**er and everytime I see him on the TV screen I want to punch him in the face. If there was just one player in the NBA that I could name king of the douchebags it would be Serge Ibaka. Incredibly disrespectful of opponents, cheap shot artist, boastful, acts like a ****ot. Tries to steal Mutombo's signature finger wag... just a fu**ing dirtbag.

Yeah, but how do you REALLY feel about him? I mean, don't hold back.

Clippersfan86
02-24-2014, 12:32 PM
Yeah, but how do you REALLY feel about him? I mean, don't hold back.

:p he's a good player, but a limpdi*k.

KniCks4LiFe
02-24-2014, 12:59 PM
:p he's a good player, but a limpdi*k.

wtf?:eyebrow:

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 01:07 PM
I think Serge is the third option in the pick and roll and he's the only big who can be a reliable option upfront.

Thats fair - its semantics but I would consider the pick and roll/pop with Serge the "option" more than Serge being the option, because Jackson/KD/Westbrook (or whoever initiates the PnR) all have an opportunity to score the ball in that scenario as well as Serge getting the "pop" jumper.

tredigs
02-24-2014, 01:45 PM
Yeah but the same copout/excuse you gave for Durant struggling vs Memphis in a sudden, new role without Westbrook holds true here. I agree hes more of an outlet option than a go to option but thats not necessarily an insult. Every team needs a combination of both to reach an elite level, and in Ibaka's case hes one of the best 2-way players in the league, not since Rasheed have I felt there was a "role player" with a fringe star level impact. I feel Bron's Heat would have thrived more with this guy than a guy like Bosh who is overqualified for 3rd bannanna roel offensively but not quite as dominant as Ibaka in the same role.

I definitely do not see the two in the same light. Both as it related to their new role with Westbrook down or on the level of struggle they had. Durant was facing massive defensive pressure from the top D in the West and his scoring efficiency dipped as a result, but he was able to get his guys a decent array of open looks (still averaged close to a 30 point double double with 7 assists). For a big like Serge to shoot 37% from the field in that situation is just inexcusable.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 01:55 PM
I definitely do not see the two in the same light. Both as it related to their new role with Westbrook down or on the level of struggle they had. Durant was facing massive defensive pressure from the top D in the West and his scoring efficiency dipped as a result, but he was able to get his guys a decent array of open looks (still averaged close to a 30 point double double with 7 assists). For a big like Serge to shoot 37% from the field in that situation is just inexcusable.

But that added pressure is what curtailed both of their games, they both played against an elite defense and they both saw their efficiency dip massively. What you call a decent array of looks is still a downgrade in quality compared to what he got when Westbrook was around.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 01:57 PM
Thats fair - its semantics but I would consider the pick and roll/pop with Serge the "option" more than Serge being the option, because Jackson/KD/Westbrook (or whoever initiates the PnR) all have an opportunity to score the ball in that scenario as well as Serge getting the "pop" jumper.

It is semantics, like Jackson may be the creator but Ibaka is still the superior offensive player for them.

tredigs
02-24-2014, 02:08 PM
But that added pressure is what curtailed both of their games, they both played against an elite defense and they both saw their efficiency dip massively. What you call a decent array of looks is still a downgrade in quality compared to what he got when Westbrook was around.

I'm not entirely sure that's true in that case. I haven't seen any of those games since they aired, but I can recall an astounding amount of wide open looks for Ibaka. Martin as well. They were definitely employing the "just stop KD, we'll live with the rest" defensive scheme. When I get a chance I'll rewatch a bit of it. It's definitely more likely than not that Westbrook being out threw off their place in the offense as a whole, and KD wasn't great himself in multiple games, but there were countless gimmies missed by the role players in that one.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 02:16 PM
when they are dire and Bron/Wade aren't playing. I also think he doesn't need the same help getting his shots as Ibaka, and has proven himself to be a better playoff contributor to THIS Miami team right now, outside of his Indy series.
I think its more important to worry about how the starting unit meshes than how Bosh played when Bron and Wade aren't out there. I mean, in the playoffs you're talking about a very minute portion of the game.

You're right about Bosh creating more on his own, hes assisted far less but that can be a good and bad thing for a teams 3rd option, as it means hes shooting less within the flow of the offense created by the teams most important players.
The reason Bosh has seen his isolation/post ups dwindle since the formation of the Big3 was because hes simply not as good of a creator as Bron and Wade were, so they've been trying to fit him into Ibaka's role ever since. Now that Wade's declining, Im hoping he takes a bigger load. I just think its a waste of Bosh's skills and that Miami would easily improve by trading him for Ibaka, mostly because of his defensive presence than offense tho.


But, I guess there are key moments when Bosh's skillset frees up Bron-Wade, more than Ibaka ever could, I just find it hard to believe a guy who could go scoreless in the biggest game of the year is that important to his teams offense, and that in those such games, Ibaka could at least make a bigger impact defensively.



Ibaka no-showed in both though, whereas those are just the 1 circumstances each for Harden and Durant
Still "no showed" harder than anyone in the most important series

Clippersfan86
02-24-2014, 02:17 PM
Serge Ibaka is a son of a...

valade16
02-24-2014, 02:18 PM
Thing is though are we about to ignore effectiveness for efficiency? Are we going to look at TS% and eFG% and ignore USG%? How about the roles each player plays and the focus they'd see from opposing defenses. Are we going to ignore a player's ability (or in Serge's case inability) to create his own shot. I'm in Serge's corner pretty strong but IMO as good as he has been offensively (especially given that his D is his calling card) production wise I can't put him ahead of LMA because he's a more efficient scorer. I believe LMA can do a better job at what Serge does that Serge would do in LMA's role.

I honestly don't see how you can use a stat to say LMA harms his teams offense when there are stats that paint them to be vastly superior offensively with him than they are without him. I understand if you say they'd be even better if he was a more efficient scorer but him just being on the floor makes their offense considerably better.

First bolded: pull up any interview or talk with coach Terry Stotts and you will see that LMAís role is completely at the behest of the coach. There are literally dozens of articles talking about how Stotts tweaked his offensive game-plan to cater to Aldridge. To insinuate or say that you donít know if he is playing within his coachesí instructions is pure ignorance stemming from either the inability or the lack of desire to ascertain the truth.

Second bolded: It sounds like what you are saying is that if Player A is a better 3rd option compared to all other 3rd options in the league than Player B is as a 1st option compared to other 1st options then Player A is better. But again, as swashcuff says, that doesnít mean Player A would be a better 1st option compared to Player B, merely that he is good in his role. Fact is, he is probably only a 3rd option (and not a 1st option) for a reason. In this specific instance, itís that Ibaka canít create his own shot.

I also refute the idea that LMA is somehow below average at his job. Heís got the 13th highest PER in the league. He is by no means playing poorly. He is doing one thing badly, his TS%, and as you yourself said you donít consider any other facet of his game to be below average. So what you are saying is that you value TS% more than everything else on a basketball court combined. Highly dubious evaluation system.

Further, as swashcuff said, LMA is shown by nearly every metric to be integral to their offensive efficiency. The Blazersí 7 most efficient lineups this season have been with LMA on the court. As counter-intuitive as you believe it is, when LMA leaves the court the teamís scoring gets less efficient.

Iíve said it before (and I believe youíre the first person Iíve ever called one before), but you come off as a hater. You focus in on TS% as if itís the end all be all that determines how valuable a player is.

Clearly, there is more to basketball than that, sadly, it appears that isnít true of your evaluation systemÖ


it's hard for me to say definitely that USG% should factor in because we can't look at that number and say that the coach is demanding a player to play that way. roles on a basketball team sometimes grow organically. some players just want to shoot the ball more than they should and just don't have a coach who can clamp down on it. there are lots of theoreticals here.

a role a player plays definitely deserves consideration. that's why i don't use a predetermined number for how effective a player should be - rather i look at how that level of effectiveness ranks amongst their peers.

i don't see those two statements as being mutually exclusive though. you can be far better than the next available option but still be hurting your team offensively with your decision to shoot so much IMO.

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 02:30 PM
Thats fair - its semantics but I would consider the pick and roll/pop with Serge the "option" more than Serge being the option, because Jackson/KD/Westbrook (or whoever initiates the PnR) all have an opportunity to score the ball in that scenario as well as Serge getting the "pop" jumper.

It is semantics, like Jackson may be the creator but Ibaka is still the superior offensive player for them.

I don't think the guy who needs everything spoonfed is the superior offensive player than the guy holding the spoon in any scenario.

If Ibaka had any 1v1 or post skills I'd agree with you but right now all he can do is wait for open jumpers to fall into his lap and get hustle points. Jackson is the guy they gI've the ball to for offense behind West and Durant because is the better option when it comes to putting up offense.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 02:34 PM
I'm not entirely sure that's true in that case. I haven't seen any of those games since they aired, but I can recall an astounding amount of wide open looks for Ibaka. Martin as well. They were definitely employing the "just stop KD, we'll live with the rest" defensive scheme. When I get a chance I'll rewatch a bit of it. It's definitely more likely than not that Westbrook being out threw off their place in the offense as a whole, and KD wasn't great himself in multiple games, but there were countless gimmies missed by the role players in that one.
So in other words, he was relegated to more jumpshots, as opposed to the threat of multiple dives to the rim created by the presence of KD/Westbrook. Just because they are wide open doesnt mean the quality of looks are the same.


I just remember warning that Ibaka would see his efficiency suffer without Westbrook around, he had done so ALL year prior to that event, as Durant was still evolving as a playmaker. He obviously thrived more with both on the court but it was clear that Westbrook was more important to his game given their roles.

Looking at his shot chart splits, he actually got more shots within 5ft with Westbrook around than without, so if you're focusing on just wide open jumpshots, you're ignoring the lanes/put backs that open up from the presence of duel slashers. You are fundamentally changing his role, just like Durants role changed without Westbrook and both saw declines in that series as a result.

Kashmir13579
02-24-2014, 02:39 PM
I don't think the guy who needs everything spoonfed is the superior offensive player than the guy holding the spoon in any scenario.

If Ibaka had any 1v1 or post skills I'd agree with you but right now all he can do is wait for open jumpers to fall into his lap and get hustle points. Jackson is the guy they gI've the ball to for offense behind West and Durant because is the better option when it comes to putting up offense.
A philosophy you took on for the sole reason of elevating 'Melo's impact over superior players. You ain't fooling me.

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 02:40 PM
A philosophy you took on for the sole reason of elevating 'Melo's impact over superior players. You ain't fooling me.

No, a philosophy I took on because it make sense.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 02:44 PM
I don't think the guy who needs everything spoonfed is the superior offensive player than the guy holding the spoon in any scenario.

If Ibaka had any 1v1 or post skills I'd agree with you but right now all he can do is wait for open jumpers to fall into his lap and get hustle points.
Whys that? Those possession do occur, and they occur frequently, its a symbiotic relationship between go-to guys and outlet options, those possessions along with putbacks/O-Rebounding still hold value.

I mean at what point do you start to worry about efficiency? Bad spoonholders can have less of an impact than elite play finishers.

I think you're being hardheaded when you say there are no scenarios in which you will second guess yourself. I know for a fact that Battier was at one point more valuable than a degraded Tmac and it was because he could finish plays and because the Rockets could survive without Tmac's playmaking. Thats because they had Yao to attract attention and had less use for a guy with inefficient playmaking. But once Yao was out, only then did Tmac's skillset become more valuable than Battiers, so to me, it depends on the makeup of the team.

A guy like Reggie Jackson isn't that good of a spoonholder to ignore the disparity in efficiency. The guys who use the most possessions aren't always the teams most important offensive player.

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 02:44 PM
I will never put the guys with severely limited offensive skills who aren't asked to shoulder any load offensively outside of taking easy, wide open shots when they present themselves and fight for put backs over the guys who are put in the position by their coaches to have the ball, maneuver screens/traffic, collapse defenses, and create open shots for themselves and others. That doesn't seem fair to you guys?

Chronz
02-24-2014, 02:49 PM
No, a philosophy I took on because it make sense.
You really cant conceive of a team that would thrive more with a guy like prime Battier than a guy like prime Stephen Jackson, offensively?

I'd say thats the opposite of common sense.

ThuglifeJ
02-24-2014, 02:56 PM
Ibaka is an arrogant mother fu**er and everytime I see him on the TV screen I want to punch him in the face. If there was just one player in the NBA that I could name king of the douchebags it would be Serge Ibaka. Incredibly disrespectful of opponents, cheap shot artist, boastful, acts like a ****ot. Tries to steal Mutombo's signature finger wag... just a fu**ing dirtbag.

.

First post I can say I fully agree with you. Theres no one more arrogant than Serge

Chronz
02-24-2014, 02:56 PM
I will never put the guys with severely limited offensive skills who aren't asked to shoulder any load offensively outside of taking easy, wide open shots when they present themselves and fight for put backs over the guys who are put in the position by their coaches to have the ball, maneuver screens/traffic, collapse defenses, and create open shots for themselves and others. That doesn't seem fair to you guys?

But teams need both and there are guys who can do each job better than others. Just because it looks easy to you doesn't mean the value is always minimal, it totally depends on the make up of the team. Its not like you can guarantee that playmaker can finish those plays at as high of a rate if you asked him to focus on only those so called easy shots.


For the easiest example I can think of, is the switch of Trevor Ariza and Ron Artest for both LA and Houston a few years back.

Artest is an example of a player with a stagnant skill curve, no matter how you changed his role, his level of possession efficiency was pretty much the same, and Ariza was very clearly a guy who was at his best in an outlet role.

Artest may be deemed the superior offensive player in your book but the truth is he made LA's offense worse, to the point where Phil Jackson urged Kobe to stop passing him the ball so much. On a team like LA's, that had Pau/Kobe taking up the brunt of the offense, a guy like Ariza was the perfect compliment because he took advantage of open lanes in ways that a guy like Artest couldn't, he simply wasn't athletic enough nor as capable without the ball.

On the flip side, Ariza tried his best, put up the best superficial averages of his career as the defacto go-to guy for his team, but his efficiency struggled to the point where it wasn't even worth the exchange. Artest had better go-to moves and better playmaking, he was a better primary option than Ariza, while Ariza was the better outlet option than Artest.

How can you ignore that kind of chemistry , rly makes no sense.

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 03:00 PM
Whys that? Those possession do occur, and they occur frequently, its a symbiotic relationship between go-to guys and outlet options, those possessions along with putbacks/O-Rebounding still hold value.

I mean at what point do you start to worry about efficiency? Bad spoonholders can have less of an impact than elite play finishers.

I think you're being hardheaded when you say there are no scenarios in which you will second guess yourself. I know for a fact that Battier was at one point more valuable than a degraded Tmac and it was because he could finish plays and because the Rockets could survive without Tmac's playmaking. Thats because they had Yao to attract attention and had less use for a guy with inefficient playmaking. But once Yao was out, only then did Tmac's skillset become more valuable than Battiers, so to me, it depends on the makeup of the team.

A guy like Reggie Jackson isn't that good of a spoonholder to ignore the disparity in efficiency. The guys who use the most possessions aren't always the teams most important offensive player.

I guess I value skills and responsibility . The lack of efficiency you see between the two would be even more drastic in reverse if you asked Ibaka to start creating offense in the post and taking guys off the dribble and only asked Jackson to be a Mario Chalmers-type bailout option who only took the open shots that presented themselves and wasn't asked to set up himself and others or lead the bench unit.

The part about Yao-Tmac is completely dependent on the roster at hand. "More important" and "superior" are two completely different labels. The first is team dependent, and the second is not. That second is what I have been arguing - I won't consider the efficient guy with little to no skills outside of a wide open jump shot the superior player in basically any scenario. Battier was never a superior offensive player than TMac. Was he more important and was the team better balanced when it was Yao + catch and shoot players instead of TMac? Maybe so.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 03:07 PM
Was he more important and was the team better balanced when it was Yao + catch and shoot players instead of TMac? Maybe so.

So long as you agree that a limited specialist can be more important/productive than a flawed go to option, thats all I care about because it happens alot.

As for the role reversal, its a pointless designation but yea, it depends on how extreme the difference in skillset is. In the case of Artest vs Ariza, its a decent argument.




Still, what about a case like Jamal Crawford vs JJ Reddick? Who do you deem the superior offensive player and would that change depending on the team.

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 03:08 PM
Ibakas efficient, spoonfed and reliant offense was probably more important than Hardens ball dominant, creating offense for OKC too.

D-Leethal
02-24-2014, 03:10 PM
I will never put the guys with severely limited offensive skills who aren't asked to shoulder any load offensively outside of taking easy, wide open shots when they present themselves and fight for put backs over the guys who are put in the position by their coaches to have the ball, maneuver screens/traffic, collapse defenses, and create open shots for themselves and others. That doesn't seem fair to you guys?

But teams need both and there are guys who can do each job better than others. Just because it looks easy to you doesn't mean the value is always minimal, it totally depends on the make up of the team. Its not like you can guarantee that playmaker can finish those plays at as high of a rate if you asked him to focus on only those so called easy shots.


For the easiest example I can think of, is the switch of Trevor Ariza and Ron Artest for both LA and Houston a few years back.

Artest is an example of a player with a stagnant skill curve, no matter how you changed his role, his level of possession efficiency was pretty much the same, and Ariza was very clearly a guy who was at his best in an outlet role.

Artest may be deemed the superior offensive player in your book but the truth is he made LA's offense worse, to the point where Phil Jackson urged Kobe to stop passing him the ball so much. On a team like LA's, that had Pau/Kobe taking up the brunt of the offense, a guy like Ariza was the perfect compliment because he took advantage of open lanes in ways that a guy like Artest couldn't, he simply wasn't athletic enough nor as capable without the ball.

On the flip side, Ariza tried his best, put up the best superficial averages of his career as the defacto go-to guy for his team, but his efficiency struggled to the point where it wasn't even worth the exchange. Artest had better go-to moves and better playmaking, he was a better primary option than Ariza, while Ariza was the better outlet option than Artest.

How can you ignore that kind of chemistry , rly makes no sense.

Ill respond to this after work because I enjoy this convo but I keep typing half assed thoughts from my phone nd I want to give a proper response.

Chronz
02-24-2014, 03:11 PM
OK , semantics of the argument confused me earlier, good chat.... off to work now

Chronz
02-24-2014, 03:15 PM
Ill respond to this after work because I enjoy this convo but I keep typing half assed thoughts from my phone nd I want to give a proper response.

I think we get each other. Im just curious to what point do you ignore the efficiency disparity. I feel like so long as they are in the league, you will value them.

Like back in the day, Ron Mercer was the king of creating long range 2's, Al Thornton was another guy I remember being a good off the dribble guy, but was so drastically inefficient that he couldn't improve a teams offense at all. Those guys dont last long.

Whereas great off the ball players will always have a place. So there has to be some sort of efficiency threshold where a players 1 on 1 skillset simply isn't worth the trouble.

Jamiecballer
02-24-2014, 03:17 PM
First bolded: pull up any interview or talk with coach Terry Stotts and you will see that LMAís role is completely at the behest of the coach. There are literally dozens of articles talking about how Stotts tweaked his offensive game-plan to cater to Aldridge. To insinuate or say that you donít know if he is playing within his coachesí instructions is pure ignorance stemming from either the inability or the lack of desire to ascertain the truth.
i'm not saying you are wrong, only that i don't put a whole lot of stock into what is said publicly by coaches, or players.

i would only point once again to the fact that there is very little to differentiate his numbers this season from seasons prior, and if i am not mistaken Stotts has only been head coach 2 out of 7.


Second bolded: It sounds like what you are saying is that if Player A is a better 3rd option compared to all other 3rd options in the league than Player B is as a 1st option compared to other 1st options then Player A is better. But again, as swashcuff says, that doesnít mean Player A would be a better 1st option compared to Player B, merely that he is good in his role. Fact is, he is probably only a 3rd option (and not a 1st option) for a reason. In this specific instance, itís that Ibaka canít create his own shot.
that's not quite it. think of it more like "if you are 103rd out of 123 qualified players in efficiency than perhaps you are shooting more than you should". now if that's the coaches strategy than it's on him. but based on the fact that Aldridge has been roughly the same high volume low efficiency player since year one though i do think part of it is self-awareness.


I also refute the idea that LMA is somehow below average at his job. Heís got the 13th highest PER in the league. He is by no means playing poorly. He is doing one thing badly, his TS%, and as you yourself said you donít consider any other facet of his game to be below average. So what you are saying is that you value TS% more than everything else on a basketball court combined. Highly dubious evaluation system.
now you are getting a little too vague for my liking. did i say he was below average at his job, cause geez that sounds like it encompasses a lot. i simply told you i don't think he's as valuable as perhaps the general population believes because his teammates have to offset the relatively poor output he gets from the 25 or so possessions he consumes by shooting. simply put, if those players hit dry spell portland will sink like a stone IMO.

Further, as swashcuff said, LMA is shown by nearly every metric to be integral to their offensive efficiency. The Blazersí 7 most efficient lineups this season have been with LMA on the court. As counter-intuitive as you believe it is, when LMA leaves the court the teamís scoring gets less efficient.
I'm sure that's true and I am not surprised. He's a solid 2-way player. Just keep in mind the Blazers have one of, if not the worst bench in the league. And little used at that.

i know you really want to credit Aldridge for having made big strides this year, but really the only change has been a substantial increase in rebounds. is that valuable? you bet. but how much? is that the difference between the team that won 33 last year and the team that is playing .679 basketball this year? certainly not.

valade16
02-24-2014, 04:09 PM
i'm not saying you are wrong, only that i don't put a whole lot of stock into what is said publicly by coaches, or players.

i would only point once again to the fact that there is very little to differentiate his numbers this season from seasons prior, and if i am not mistaken Stotts has only been head coach 2 out of 7.

that's not quite it. think of it more like "if you are 103rd out of 123 qualified players in efficiency than perhaps you are shooting more than you should". now if that's the coaches strategy than it's on him. but based on the fact that Aldridge has been roughly the same high volume low efficiency player since year one though i do think part of it is self-awareness.

now you are getting a little too vague for my liking. did i say he was below average at his job, cause geez that sounds like it encompasses a lot. i simply told you i don't think he's as valuable as perhaps the general population believes because his teammates have to offset the relatively poor output he gets from the 25 or so possessions he consumes by shooting. simply put, if those players hit dry spell portland will sink like a stone IMO.

I'm sure that's true and I am not surprised. He's a solid 2-way player. Just keep in mind the Blazers have one of, if not the worst bench in the league. And little used at that.

i know you really want to credit Aldridge for having made big strides this year, but really the only change has been a substantial increase in rebounds. is that valuable? you bet. but how much? is that the difference between the team that won 33 last year and the team that is playing .679 basketball this year? certainly not.

Itís not even that your assertions arenít facts, itís that they are factually incorrect at this point. I mean, have you ever actually looked at LMA stats?

First bolded: Heís been the same high volume/low efficiency scorer?! This is his worst TS% of his career. That last 3 years it has been at .530, .560 and .549 for a combined TS% of .545Ö

During those 3 seasons, here are some other TS%s of top PFs:

Kevin Love: .565
Blake Griffin: .558
David Lee: .553
LMA: .545

Was LMA really that much lower than the other PFs that Love, Griffin and Lee had great efficiency and LMA was below average?

This year, LMA does not have a good TS%, but again, that is the exception and not the norm...

Second bolded: He is posting his lowest TO% of his entire career and the highest AST% of his career yet rebounds is the only area heís improved?

And you ask how valuable is he. Well that is what we are trying to answer, and thus far the answer is a hell of a lot more valuable than you believe. You have just said he is not better than Serge Ibaka. You didnít initially have him on your Top 5 PF list for this season (though you later claimed 5-9 are interchangeable and then proceeded to go on and say he is below even that benchmark).

You are a hater. The only, and I mean literally, only thing you have is he has a poor TS% this season. That is enough to overlook everything else about the game of basketball to you.

That is certainly your right to think that way. Iím telling you itís a pretty poor way of analyzing the game, and unfortunately for you pretty much everyone who analyzes the game concurs with me.

KnickaBocka.44
02-24-2014, 04:41 PM
That's not what he's saying though. You think Serge has more franchise player potential than Drummound?

We aren't talking about potential here, we are talking about who is the better player right now.

HowBoutDemBulls
02-24-2014, 04:53 PM
He's overrated as hell. How far off is Taj Gibson from Ibaka? Not very

tredigs
02-24-2014, 05:04 PM
Right now, Drummond is already better than Serge. Worst FT shooter in NBA history and all.

Swashcuff
02-24-2014, 07:31 PM
it's hard for me to say definitely that USG% should factor in because we can't look at that number and say that the coach is demanding a player to play that way. roles on a basketball team sometimes grow organically. some players just want to shoot the ball more than they should and just don't have a coach who can clamp down on it. there are lots of theoreticals here.

So wait when you measure a player's offensive efficiency from a statistical POV you don't take USG% into consideration? Interesting. Also I wasn't speaking of any theoreticals you're going completely off tangent I'm speaking of the two players currently being discussed.


a role a player plays definitely deserves consideration. that's why i don't use a predetermined number for how effective a player should be - rather i look at how that level of effectiveness ranks amongst their peers.

Who is Ibaka peers? If we're speaking of roles then Ibaka shouldn't be considered as Blake, Dirk, LMA, Love, Davis etc peers. They are legit number 1 or 2 options. Based on role Ibaka's peers are guys like Bosh (he's only here because of the team in which he plays), Millsap, Randolph, David West etc


i don't see those two statements as being mutually exclusive though. you can be far better than the next available option but still be hurting your team offensively with your decision to shoot so much IMO.

My point is you're making a statistical argument right? Basing your entire opinion on LMA based on his individual inefficiency and saying that he hurts his team but the adjusted team statistics with him on the floor states that his team is better when he is on the floor than when he isn't. If you are speaking of statistics that's honestly the end of the discussion.

Him shooting less and sharing the ball a bit more may be beneficial to his team I'm not going to argue that but to insinuate that he's hurting his team offense is completely ignorant IMO.

c.c.
02-24-2014, 07:36 PM
I think the guy is very underrated

Hangin n Wangin
02-24-2014, 08:16 PM
Good.

Jamiecballer
02-24-2014, 08:54 PM
It’s not even that your assertions aren’t facts, it’s that they are factually incorrect at this point. I mean, have you ever actually looked at LMA stats?

First bolded: He’s been the same high volume/low efficiency scorer?! This is his worst TS% of his career. That last 3 years it has been at .530, .560 and .549 for a combined TS% of .545…

During those 3 seasons, here are some other TS%s of top PFs:

Kevin Love: .565
Blake Griffin: .558
David Lee: .553
LMA: .545

Was LMA really that much lower than the other PFs that Love, Griffin and Lee had great efficiency and LMA was below average?

This year, LMA does not have a good TS%, but again, that is the exception and not the norm...

Second bolded: He is posting his lowest TO% of his entire career and the highest AST% of his career yet rebounds is the only area he’s improved?

And you ask how valuable is he. Well that is what we are trying to answer, and thus far the answer is a hell of a lot more valuable than you believe. You have just said he is not better than Serge Ibaka. You didn’t initially have him on your Top 5 PF list for this season (though you later claimed 5-9 are interchangeable and then proceeded to go on and say he is below even that benchmark).

You are a hater. The only, and I mean literally, only thing you have is he has a poor TS% this season. That is enough to overlook everything else about the game of basketball to you.

That is certainly your right to think that way. I’m telling you it’s a pretty poor way of analyzing the game, and unfortunately for you pretty much everyone who analyzes the game concurs with me.

that's a nice bit of sleight of hand to go back 3 years - since 3 years ago is literally the only year since he became a pro that Aldridge had a TS% that wasn't in the back half of the league. almost as dishonest as counting last year for Love.

Why don't we try something a little more fair and look career.

Love: .565
Griffin: .565
Aldridge: .534

not so close now is it, especially considering that Love and Griffin haven't even reached peak age like Aldridge has

another way of looking at that

top 2 seasons in TS%

Love:
.597
.593

Griffin:
.588
.572

Aldridge:
.560
.549

again, how close are they really? the answer is obviously NOT very

you guys are missing a very subtle distinction to my argument. it's not that he's terrible. it's that there is a fine line between too little, too much, and just right. Love and Griffin are true #1 offensive options. Aldridge is a 2/3 masquerading as a 1 but unlike most 2/3's who are miscast as 1's he's always performed as a 2/3.

massaging the numbers doesn't help your argument, it weakens it.

and again, it's not just this season by any stretch of the imagination

TS%(rank among qualifying PF's)
.513(48)
.530(39)
.560(15)
.549(37)
.535(36)
.529(43)

he has literally been in the back half of the league, often within 3 or 4 spots of the very bottom in TS% for his position. it's a gross distortion to say that he hasn't been inefficient his whole career.

valade16
02-25-2014, 09:18 PM
that's a nice bit of sleight of hand to go back 3 years - since 3 years ago is literally the only year since he became a pro that Aldridge had a TS% that wasn't in the back half of the league. almost as dishonest as counting last year for Love.

Why don't we try something a little more fair and look career.

Love: .565
Griffin: .565
Aldridge: .534

not so close now is it, especially considering that Love and Griffin haven't even reached peak age like Aldridge has

another way of looking at that

top 2 seasons in TS%

Love:
.597
.593

Griffin:
.588
.572

Aldridge:
.560
.549

again, how close are they really? the answer is obviously NOT very

you guys are missing a very subtle distinction to my argument. it's not that he's terrible. it's that there is a fine line between too little, too much, and just right. Love and Griffin are true #1 offensive options. Aldridge is a 2/3 masquerading as a 1 but unlike most 2/3's who are miscast as 1's he's always performed as a 2/3.

massaging the numbers doesn't help your argument, it weakens it.

and again, it's not just this season by any stretch of the imagination

TS%(rank among qualifying PF's)
.513(48)
.530(39)
.560(15)
.549(37)
.535(36)
.529(43)

he has literally been in the back half of the league, often within 3 or 4 spots of the very bottom in TS% for his position. it's a gross distortion to say that he hasn't been inefficient his whole career.

First point: I wasn't saying LMA was as efficient as David Lee or Kevin Love or Blake Griffin, I was saying the past 3 years the discrepancy was not that large.

Second point: the reason I only went back 3 years was not a sleight of hand. You said LMA has always been an inefficient shooter, so all I have to do to refute that notion is to show years in which he wasn’t, which were the last 3.

Third point: could I get a link to those numbers? What constitutes “qualifying”? Because I looked at the 2011-2012 season and ordered all PFs with over 1,000 minutes by TS% and LMA was 10th:

1. Steve Novak - .684%
2. Nick Collison - .622%
3. Kenneth Faried - .618%
4. Amir Johnson - .600%
5. Matt Bonner - .597%
6. Ryan Anderson - .589%
7. Ersan Ilyasova - .577%
8. Kevin Love - .568%
9. Dirk Nowitzki - .564%
10. LaMarcus Aldridge - .560%
11. Jason Thompson - .558%
12. Blake Griffin - .557%
13. Serge Ibaka - .556%
14. Gustavo Ayon - .552%
15. Chris Bosh - .551%
16. David Lee - .549%
17. Carlos Boozer - .549%
18. Trevor Booker - .549%
19. DeJuan Blair - .549%
20. Jonas Jerebko - .548%

The list continues to 52 players.

That was in LMA’s best year, I also show him as being at 29th in 2012-2013 and tied for 32nd in 2010-2011 with David Lee and Blake Griffin. Not optimal but certainly not as far down as you make it sound (especially considering the company he kept in some of those years).

I also find the assertion that he was often within 3 or 4 spots of the very bottom in TS% for his position to be a gross exaggeration as well considering a quick look at the PF spot shows the Top 10 (and in many cases more) spots to be below .500% or around .510, something LMA never was at until this season. Could you provide a link for that as well?

But I guess we solved the riddle, you believe that because you are using incorrect data.

Jamiecballer
02-25-2014, 09:58 PM
First point: I wasn't saying LMA was as efficient as David Lee or Kevin Love or Blake Griffin, I was saying the past 3 years the discrepancy was not that large.
and i was pointing out that by using Aldridge's one good year shooting that the numbers were not representative of their norms. not even close.


Second point: the reason I only went back 3 years was not a sleight of hand. You said LMA has always been an inefficient shooter, so all I have to do to refute that notion is to show years in which he wasn’t, which were the last 3.
yes and no. i stand corrected that he was in the back half of all qualified players as i did not realize there were some more players on a second page. upon review he has been right in the middle.

i'll revise my statement to say he's been a relatively inefficient scorer most of his career, if that suits you better.


Third point: could I get a link to those numbers? What constitutes “qualifying”? Because I looked at the 2011-2012 season and ordered all PFs with over 1,000 minutes by TS% and LMA was 10th:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pf/sort/trueShootingPct/page/2

as for what constitutes qualifying, i think it's basically anyone who attempts or is on pace to attempt 300 field goals, something along those lines.

beyourself
02-25-2014, 10:08 PM
I wonder what Ibaka would look like in legit offensive system.

The Thunder system is stunningly simple.

tredigs
02-26-2014, 12:38 AM
I wonder what Ibaka would look like in legit offensive system.

The Thunder system is stunningly simple.

It is, but still offers him many, many open looks due to the massive defensive pressure and passing abilities that KD and Westbrook bring to the floor. I'm not sure there are many teams that could do more for him on that end. And without the ability to create for himself at an above average level, he is at the mercy of his teammates to do it for him. Seeing as he's also not a very good offensive rebounder, that's limiting him pretty significantly in others systems.

Bostonjorge
02-26-2014, 12:48 AM
Ibaka is the guy I would want guarding all the top PF's in the league but he is not a top tier PF.

valade16
02-26-2014, 01:50 PM
yes and no. i stand corrected that he was in the back half of all qualified players as i did not realize there were some more players on a second page. upon review he has been right in the middle.

i'll revise my statement to say he's been a relatively inefficient scorer most of his career, if that suits you better.


This right here should show the inherent bias you have when judging Aldridge. In one sentence you say he has been ďright in the middleĒ in terms of TS% and then in the very next sentence say he has been a relatively inefficient scorer.

Wouldnít being in the middle make you average?

Jamiecballer
02-26-2014, 04:01 PM
This right here should show the inherent bias you have when judging Aldridge. In one sentence you say he has been “right in the middle” in terms of TS% and then in the very next sentence say he has been a relatively inefficient scorer.

Wouldn’t being in the middle make you average?
that depends on how you look at it, i guess.

purely mathematically speaking, yes. but shouldn't some consideration be given to how those numbers compare with other prominent shot-takers at his position? i mean, half the PF's in this league are pretty damn limited offensively and don't shoot very often at all. do we really care that he's more efficient than them? shouldn't he be, if he's going to take all those shots?

valade16
02-26-2014, 05:33 PM
that depends on how you look at it, i guess.

purely mathematically speaking, yes. but shouldn't some consideration be given to how those numbers compare with other prominent shot-takers at his position? i mean, half the PF's in this league are pretty damn limited offensively and don't shoot very often at all. do we really care that he's more efficient than them? shouldn't he be, if he's going to take all those shots?

Then what you are really saying is he has been a relatively inefficient scorer for a #1 option at PF, not that he has been a relatively inefficient scorer compared to all other PFs. There is a monumental difference. By distinguishing his efficiency with the role he plays (as you appear to be doing) you are admitting that he is at least capable of performing a role that many other players couldn't (i.e. be a #1 option), even if he does it at a sub-par level compared to other #1 options at PF.

I think the nexus of your severe minimizing of LMA's rank respective to others at his position stems from the idea that by shooting the ball 20 times per game as he is currently doing, he is not helping his team or it's efficiency to the maximum of his capabilities. I agree with you that his TS% would likely increase if he shot the ball 16-18 times a game as opposed to his 20-21 and that the Blazers would most likely increase their efficiency (even if only slightly).

The disagreement is that you are judging LMA for not playing as well as he is capable of playing as opposed to judging what he actually doing strictly against his peers. For example, suppose there is nothing that Serge Ibaka could do better than he is currently doing based on his physical, mental, and skill limitations (whether that is true or not is irrelevent, it is merely a hypothetical). Serge Ibaka is playing as good as he possibly can and maximizing his talent to the fullest, LMA is not as he could very clearly shoot less and thus up his efficiency. What does that matter if LMA even not maximizing his abilities is still outperforming Serge Ibaka?

You're essentially giving bonus points for Serge Ibaka playing as well as he possibly can compraed to LMA despite the fact that LMA is still a more impactful player. Are 2 FGAs really that bad that they trump everything else that points to LMA being a far superior player than Serge Ibaka?

Jamiecballer
02-26-2014, 06:04 PM
Then what you are really saying is he has been a relatively inefficient scorer for a #1 option at PF, not that he has been a relatively inefficient scorer compared to all other PFs. There is a monumental difference. By distinguishing his efficiency with the role he plays (as you appear to be doing) you are admitting that he is at least capable of performing a role that many other players couldn't (i.e. be a #1 option), even if he does it at a sub-par level compared to other #1 options at PF.

I think the nexus of your severe minimizing of LMA's rank respective to others at his position stems from the idea that by shooting the ball 20 times per game as he is currently doing, he is not helping his team or it's efficiency to the maximum of his capabilities. I agree with you that his TS% would likely increase if he shot the ball 16-18 times a game as opposed to his 20-21 and that the Blazers would most likely increase their efficiency (even if only slightly).

The disagreement is that you are judging LMA for not playing as well as he is capable of playing as opposed to judging what he actually doing strictly against his peers. For example, suppose there is nothing that Serge Ibaka could do better than he is currently doing based on his physical, mental, and skill limitations (whether that is true or not is irrelevent, it is merely a hypothetical). Serge Ibaka is playing as good as he possibly can and maximizing his talent to the fullest, LMA is not as he could very clearly shoot less and thus up his efficiency. What does that matter if LMA even not maximizing his abilities is still outperforming Serge Ibaka?

You're essentially giving bonus points for Serge Ibaka playing as well as he possibly can compraed to LMA despite the fact that LMA is still a more impactful player. Are 2 FGAs really that bad that they trump everything else that points to LMA being a far superior player than Serge Ibaka?

i agree with so much of what you are saying and yet still don't agree with the conclusion. when did i ever say Aldridge was the more impactful player? you may believe that, and i'm sure you will have plenty of support on that, but i didn't say that.

i'm all for giving players credit for producing more, when that production is achieved in an efficient manner. in most cases it's pretty straight forward - more rebounds is more rebounds, more assists is more assists. but scoring is different because there are so many possible outcomes from each possession. so i don't measure it the same way.

as an example. Allen Iverson could have scored 50 points a game and he wouldn't have made my list of top guards - i would argue because of his efficiency his teams chances of winning would actually get worse the more he scored.

should i rank him higher than Ray Allen because of what he was "capable" of doing, or does Allen get more credit for doing only what he does at a superb level and no more? of course everyone would say that Iverson was more impressive, more physically dominant but does that mean his impact was greater and more conducive to winning a game of basketball than Allen's? conversely should Aldridge get more points for over-extending himself to the point of being quite inefficient? not in my books.

i don't know if that makes my opinion more clear, or less.

valade16
02-26-2014, 06:50 PM
i agree with so much of what you are saying and yet still don't agree with the conclusion. when did i ever say Aldridge was the more impactful player? you may believe that, and i'm sure you will have plenty of support on that, but i didn't say that.

i'm all for giving players credit for producing more, when that production is achieved in an efficient manner. in most cases it's pretty straight forward - more rebounds is more rebounds, more assists is more assists. but scoring is different because there are so many possible outcomes from each possession. so i don't measure it the same way.

as an example. Allen Iverson could have scored 50 points a game and he wouldn't have made my list of top guards - i would argue because of his efficiency his teams chances of winning would actually get worse the more he scored.

should i rank him higher than Ray Allen because of what he was "capable" of doing, or does Allen get more credit for doing only what he does at a superb level and no more? of course everyone would say that Iverson was more impressive, more physically dominant but does that mean his impact was greater and more conducive to winning a game of basketball than Allen's? conversely should Aldridge get more points for over-extending himself to the point of being quite inefficient? not in my books.

i don't know if that makes my opinion more clear, or less.

I wasn't implying that you said that, I was saying it as a statement of opinion. That being said, that opinion is overwhelming supported by the facts such as PER, +/- stats, etc.

And that does make your point more clear, it still makes it an incorrect conclusion based on your reasoning however. Yes, if Iverson scored 50 PPG on his efficiency it very likely would have decreased his teams' chances of winning. That being said, we cannot apply that same principle in reverse (i.e. the less shots he takes the more his team has a chance of winning). Simply put, there is a middle ground that is the perfect balance of shooting attempts without sacrificing efficiency. If AI had taken 0 shots per game that would not have helped his team win more than if he had taken his usual 22. However if we look at his year in Denver when he took 16 shots he had a TS% of .567. One could argue that is the perfect balance of how many shots he should take while maximizing his efficiency.

The comparison between AI and Ray Allen is slightly unfair only because Ray Allen in his prime was very capable of being a #1 option and was superb at it. That is not true of Serge Ibaka. We don't know if he could be an adequate or even an inefficient #1. More than likely, given his limitations, NBA experts believe he couldn't be one at all.

Under your thought process, a perfect role player such as Steve Kerr is better than a player like Carmelo Anthony. Kerr in his prime was superb at doing what he was asked to do. I believe there is a point that, even though Anthony is clearly more inefficient at what he does, that doesn't mean Steve Kerr is better than Carmelo Anthony or even more impactful.

That is the problem with your logic. Where is the cutoff?

The logic behind the thought process leads to conclusions counter to most statistics. How do you explain that LMA is by most statistical measurements, a more impactful (and thus better) player overall than Serge Ibaka despite his inferior shooting efficiency? Why does everything else that leads to the stats saying LMA is better than Ibaka not matter?

Jamiecballer
02-26-2014, 09:16 PM
I wasn't implying that you said that, I was saying it as a statement of opinion. That being said, that opinion is overwhelming supported by the facts such as PER, +/- stats, etc.

And that does make your point more clear, it still makes it an incorrect conclusion based on your reasoning however. Yes, if Iverson scored 50 PPG on his efficiency it very likely would have decreased his teams' chances of winning. That being said, we cannot apply that same principle in reverse (i.e. the less shots he takes the more his team has a chance of winning). Simply put, there is a middle ground that is the perfect balance of shooting attempts without sacrificing efficiency. If AI had taken 0 shots per game that would not have helped his team win more than if he had taken his usual 22. However if we look at his year in Denver when he took 16 shots he had a TS% of .567. One could argue that is the perfect balance of how many shots he should take while maximizing his efficiency.

The comparison between AI and Ray Allen is slightly unfair only because Ray Allen in his prime was very capable of being a #1 option and was superb at it. That is not true of Serge Ibaka. We don't know if he could be an adequate or even an inefficient #1. More than likely, given his limitations, NBA experts believe he couldn't be one at all.

Under your thought process, a perfect role player such as Steve Kerr is better than a player like Carmelo Anthony. Kerr in his prime was superb at doing what he was asked to do. I believe there is a point that, even though Anthony is clearly more inefficient at what he does, that doesn't mean Steve Kerr is better than Carmelo Anthony or even more impactful.

That is the problem with your logic. Where is the cutoff?

The logic behind the thought process leads to conclusions counter to most statistics. How do you explain that LMA is by most statistical measurements, a more impactful (and thus better) player overall than Serge Ibaka despite his inferior shooting efficiency? Why does everything else that leads to the stats saying LMA is better than Ibaka not matter?

Taking a simple example like the one I gave of AI, reversing it and taking it to ridiculous extremes does not make you right and me wrong.

And just as Ibaka is not Ray Allen he definitely is not Steve Kerr either. We are debating the merits of 2 of the leagues better PF's. And Ibaka is much closer to Allen in caliber than Kerr IMO.

I realize its easier to put a value on what does happen and the resulting stats that come with it, but how do we put a value on the opportunities that are not realized because a player settles frequently for lower value shots?

That's what this debate is about to me. Would you rather have a good player with more limitations who excels in his role, or a more talented player who is in a role he's not capable of filling particularly well - offense only of course.

I would prefer the former, you the latter. Its cool with me if you do not agree but remember that I had them both clumped in with a bunch of other forwards, not one well ahead of the other.