Aldridge PER

[Rhal]

I remember it when Roy was playing as, the board often noted that Aldridge disappeared in the 2nd half in every single game. Nothing has changed. Aldridge has not become a worse clutch player because of Roy's absence. He would still fold when it counts, if we had a good shooter available, just like he does now, and always has.

He builds stats when it doesn't matter, to keep us in the game until the 4th quarter, when he's a decoy to distract the defense, so that his teammates can win the game. Good player, but I can see how he barely misses the All-Star game every year.

If we could trade a $12M Aldridge for two $6M Batums, we'd be much better. Of course there aren't two Batums, but the point is, every team would give us two good players for Aldridge. We could get more for our money and win more games.

LA doesn't really dissapear until the teams decide to prevent him from getting the ball and make our guards try and win the game. Guys aren't making shots in the clutch and since we only have 1 reliable target when he is covered in the paint he can't do anything. LA is double teamed leaving 1 guy open, that is EXTREMELY valuable but only if our guys will take and make those clutch shots, which they aren't. Bigs can't create there own shots in the clutch when there double covered so I don't get all the LA hate in the 4th, we need a guard who can reliably create there own shot so teams can stop taking LA out of the game. Garnett/Howard/Shaq/Duncan can't create there own shot at the end of the game but you give it to them down in the post, they have to get doubled because if they don't there scoring, double them though and they were forced to kick it out. Teams waited for them to get the ball before double covering on them because they couldn't risk leaving one of there shooters open, with us its the opposite. Teams make sure LA won't beat them and make our guards which don't.
My only real knock on LA in the 4th is not attempting to O rebound more often.

 

[jlprk]

I answered that. To repeat: We once had a guard who could do that, Roy, and Aldridge disappeared even more then than now. So getting a new Roy wouldn't help Aldridge in the 4th, it would make him invisible even more than now.

 

[magnifier661]

I answered that. To repeat: We once had a guard who could do that, Roy, and Aldridge disappeared even more then than now. So getting a new Roy wouldn't help Aldridge in the 4th, it would make him invisible even more than now.

If we had a Nash; I guarantee you Aldridge would beast in the 4th.

 

[Rhal]

I answered that. To repeat: We once had a guard who could do that, Roy, and Aldridge disappeared even more then than now. So getting a new Roy wouldn't help Aldridge in the 4th, it would make him invisible even more than now.

You gave the example of Roy but his definition of 4th quarter play was just take over the game. EVERYONE disappeared when Roy decided to take over the game not just LA. The blazers just stood around as Roy did his thing waiting for the kick out. We won't really know if LA actually disappears or not tell our team starts hitting some clutch shots in the 4th and he is stopped being double teamed. If he can move around without the ball and get deep post position on single coverage then thats what we need. If he just sits there with getting pushed out to above the foul line and just watch's everyone else then i'd agree.
You can point out that he usually isn't there when we make a run but he fights for position down low and we just ignore him when trying for a come back. Fall in love with the three when were down needs to stop. LA does need to be more assertive in those times but at the end of the game when teams change there strategy I stick with my previous statement.

 

[jlprk]

If you're saying that Aldridge might lose his flaws if we replaced McMillan, I completely agree.

 

[Nikolokolus]

If we had a Nash; I guarantee you Aldridge would beast in the 4th.

Don't forget curing cancer and fixing the economy.

 

[magnifier661]

Don't forget curing cancer and fixing the economy.

I know you are against the Nash idea because you think we are better set to get players via draft. Personally I don't have a lot of confidence in our management to find a diamond in the rough. Nash is a sure thing. We know exactly what to expect and know he is a proven leader, shooter and distributor. If we have any shot at making it to the finals; I suspect you will see a much different Nash.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I know you are against the Nash idea because you think we are better set to get players via draft. Personally I don't have a lot of confidence in our management to find a diamond in the rough. Nash is a sure thing. We know exactly what to expect and know he is a proven leader, shooter and distributor. If we have any shot at making it to the finals; I suspect you will see a much different Nash.

Nash is great, but I just don't think he's the panacea that you think he is.

 

[illmatic99]

LaMarcus is now 5th in the league in scoring with 23.7ppg.

Sick.

 

[jlprk]

I had no criticism of Aldridge in the late minutes of regulation tonight. He played like a man right to the end. McMillan has not designed any end-of-game plays that ever work, but it wasn't Aldridge's fault.

 

[THE HCP]

What's his PER up to?

 

[magnifier661]

What's his PER up to?

I would guess around 25 now.

 

[illmatic99]

I had no criticism of Aldridge in the late minutes of regulation tonight. He played like a man right to the end. McMillan has not designed any end-of-game plays that ever work, but it wasn't Aldridge's fault.

From Quick tonight:

Aldridge admirably wants to carry that weight. He just hasn't yet been able to follow through enough.

The Blazers may have found their All-Star to replace Roy, but they haven't yet found their Closer.

"It's something I want to be," Aldridge said Monday night. "And I'm going to get it. I've worked too hard not to get it. I've gotten better every year, and last year, I did it for a stretch. But maybe me and Nate (McMillan) have to talk about different positions to put me in late in the game. This is all about growth, and working on it."

You can only develop that to an extent. Some of that clutch ability is innate. You either have it or you don't.

 

[THE HCP]

From Quick tonight:


You can only develop that to an extent. Some of that clutch ability is innate. You either have it or you don't.

I honestly never have thought of LA as a down the stretch kinda' clutch player. Not his fault, he's a perfect #2.

 

[THE HCP]

I see he was a 24.34 before tonights game.
Behind only-

'Bron 32.82
Durant 26.91
CP3 25.91
Kobe 25.78
Rose 25.62
Love 25.57
Millsap? 25.19
D12 24.52

MILLSAP?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

For the last six games LMA has averaged 28 PPG and that's with our shooters building brick houses.

 

[illmatic99]

I honestly never have thought of LA as a down the stretch kinda' clutch player. Not his fault, he's a perfect #2.

Late in games, perimeter players always have an advantage, but one guy I want LA to emulate is Dirk. Early in his career, he was much maligned for choking in the clutch. But failing enough times and developing some essential skills (ball handling, dead-eye shooting from the outside, and passing out of double teams) sorta mitigated any concerns of not being clutch.

 

[BlazerBeav]

I honestly never have thought of LA as a down the stretch kinda' clutch player. Not his fault, he's a perfect #2.

A perfect #2 who is 5th in the ENTIRE LEAGUE in scoring? #2 to whom?! LA is our franchise cornerstone - what's it going to take for people to get that?

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

He could be a #1 but our spacing is preventing that because he's surrounded by streaky (at best) shooters.

 

[illmatic99]

A perfect #2 who is 5th in the ENTIRE LEAGUE in scoring? #2 to whom?! LA is our franchise cornerstone - what's it going to take for people to get that?

Yup. BRoy cast some huge shadows and is leaving behind a huge clutch legacy that won't be easy to match. LA is fine for about 40 mins, but with this supporting cast, and his current skills, he can only get so far.

 

[illmatic99]

LA now at 24.66. Nic climbs to 18.72.

 

[mook]

He's fine as a #1 option. But he can't be expected to win games all the time like Roy did. We need a Ginobili or Tony Parker type. He doesn't have to be as good as Brandon Roy, but he has to be a lot better creator from the perimeter than Crawford or Batum.

 

[illmatic99]

Taking into account his impact, stats, and overall value to the team, LaMarcus is a top 10 player in the league right now.

The others:

1. LBJ
2. CP
3. Kobe
4. Dwight
5. Rose
6. KD
7. DWade
8. Aldridge
9. Westbrook
10/11. Love/Griffin

 

[magnifier661]

Taking into account his impact, stats, and overall value to the team, LaMarcus is a top 10 player in the league right now.

The others:

1. LBJ
2. CP
3. Kobe
4. Dwight
5. Rose
6. KD
7. DWade
8. Aldridge
9. Westbrook
10/11. Love/Griffin

Aldridge and Wade will eventually pass KD soon.

 

[mook]

Roy, Clyde and Walton cast huge shadows, but I'm starting to wonder if Aldridge might just be on course to being the best Blazer of all time.

If he can reproduce this season for the next 6-7 years, he'll have had a higher, longer PER prime years than Clyde (who had a PER over 23 only three times), and much longer shelf life than Walton or Roy.

 

[magnifier661]

Aldridge moved up to #5 in scoring after last night's game.

 

[Boise Blazer]

Roy, Clyde and Walton cast huge shadows, but I'm starting to wonder if Aldridge might just be on course to being the best Blazer of all time.

If he can reproduce this season for the next 6-7 years, he'll have had a higher, longer PER prime years than Clyde (who had a PER over 23 only three times), and much longer shelf life than Walton or Roy.

For anyone interested here are some of the Blazers scoring leaders through their 6th year.

http://bkref.com/tiny/uhmw0

 

[THE HCP]

Aldridge moved up to #5 in scoring after last night's game.

Post that list!

 

[illmatic99]

Post that list!

LbJ, Kobe, KD, Love, Aldridge.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Roy, Clyde and Walton cast huge shadows, but I'm starting to wonder if Aldridge might just be on course to being the best Blazer of all time.

If he can reproduce this season for the next 6-7 years, he'll have had a higher, longer PER prime years than Clyde (who had a PER over 23 only three times), and much longer shelf life than Walton or Roy.

That's an interesting thought ...

Here's the players that have posted a PER over 20 for the team in a given year. Aldridge WS/48 is third highest behind only behind Sabonis and Porter and bests Roy and Clyde's best years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=ws_per_48

EDIT: It also makes you wonder just how awesome Sabonis would have been in his prime if he hadn't been held up by the Rooskies from coming over.