David Locke not surprised by Blazers success

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Wizard Mentor

Wizard Mentor
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
14,685
Likes
14,948
Points
113
Addresses the Blazers specifically at the 11:55 mark.

He is the voice of the Utah Jazz and has a radio show. He's definitely a student of the game. It was good to hear not only his opinion about us, but why he has that opinion.

http://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/?powerpress_pinw=9701-podcast

Give the last 3.5 minutes a listen when you have the time.
 
Thanks for sharing this, Wiz.

Interesting theory Locke has about building a team around players who uses possessions efficiently above the league average, what he calls PAAC (Points above average created). PAAC is an offensive efficiency stat he came up with; however he doesn't explain how he formulates it in this audio clip.

For those that didn't listen to the audio, Locke said LaMarcus was below average in this stat. And that the Blazers this year are full of guys that are above average in this stat. He then stated that the Sacramento Kings are comparable to the Blazers in players that are above average in PAAC, but the Kings players' bad attitude and problems may override the analytics.
 
I agree with his theory that low post scorers hurt their teams more than they help them. Lamarcus was a black hole. Once the ball made it to him it just died. This doesn't just apply to him though. I'll take the ball movement any day. Remember how we beat Houston by letting dwight go off? No one else was able to get in a rhythm on Houston because the ball didn't move once it got to Howard.
 
Thanks for sharing this, Wiz.

Interesting theory Locke has about building a team around players who uses possessions efficiently above the league average, what he calls PAAC (Points above average created). PAAC is an offensive efficiency stat he came up with; however he doesn't explain how he formulates it in this audio clip.

For those that didn't listen to the audio, Locke said LaMarcus was below average in this stat. And that the Blazers this year are full of guys that are above average in this stat. He then stated that the Sacramento Kings are comparable to the Blazers in players that are above average in PAAC, but the Kings players' bad attitude and problems may override the analytics.

great summary.
 
Holy fucking shit, this is EXACTLY what I've been saying for years, and many blazer fans didn't want to listen to me, all they could say is shit like "La is the highest scoring player on the team"
 
Though I don't agree with the idea that post play in general is ineffective, it's just that today, there are not many efficient post up players.

The really good post up layers of years past would be 55+% from 2. Today, there are a plethora of "post players" that are under 50. And they can scarecly be called post players when you compare them to true ones like Kevin McHale
 
Great analysis. It doesn't surprise me that analytics guys aren't surprised. We have an analytics coach, an analytics GM, and an analytics owner. We dumped an entire team's worth of average guys, and min-maxed our acquisitions for the best use of possessions: pick and roll guys, slashers, garbage men that extend possessions, shooters who know their spots and hit them.

I feel like we uncovered three or four Zach Randolphs (you know, a good player stuck on the bench or not getting enough time, wh blossoms with minutes) in Harkless, CJ, Aminu, and Ed Davis.
 
I think we're going to see a lot of back pedaling in sports journalism early on here. Utah always has top shelf media guys from everything I've listened to and this just adds to the list...great link..thanks for posting it
 
What I love about this roster is the equality I feel in our rotation guys...doesn't matter who starts or comes off the bench, there's just no vast drop off..they can build a lead or hold one..it's not like, the days when you held your breath if any starter was in foul trouble...now, no problem
 
Though I don't agree with the idea that post play in general is ineffective, it's just that today, there are not many efficient post up players.

The really good post up layers of years past would be 55+% from 2. Today, there are a plethora of "post players" that are under 50. And they can scarecly be called post players when you compare them to true ones like Kevin McHale
I agree with this. The post scorer is not dead in the modern NBA. But, unless a player is fucking phenomenal at scoring in the low post, it should be used situationally to add a different look and further diversify an offense. It is a valuable tool to keep the other team guessing. It can also be used to target a specific defender who is weak at defending the post, or used to get a dominant opponent big into foul trouble. It is situational, but still effective when used intelligently in small doses. Given the way that the NBA game has evolved though, it doesn't make sense to have a post scorer as a primary option. Not going to cut it in today's game.
 
I'm still in shock that we have several 7 ft guys who can dribble the length of a court and finish a layup...we used to suck at finishing layups
 
I think we're going to see a lot of back pedaling in sports journalism early on here. Utah always has top shelf media guys from everything I've listened to and this just adds to the list...great link..thanks for posting it

David Locke replaced "Hot Rod Hundley" for the Jazz radio play-by-play and made me sometimes listen to their games just to hear his insight. Easily the most cerebral and knows his shizz.
 
The thing about low post scorers is you can pretty easily shut them down if you want to just by doubling. Yeah it opens things up for others but that guy still has to know where and when to pass out of the double team. LA never really perfected it. Then again teams couldn't really double him because he was surrounded by shooters. That actually hurt us IMO.

It's a lot harder to shut down guys that can get to wherever they want on the court like Lillard and CJ
 
I used to listen to Locke all the time on the radio as well. Usually for about the first 39 minutes of his show to get his analysis and then it got kind of monotonous.

I believe he was the one who was "forced out" of SLC in the 90's when Karl Malone disliked him for some comments. I was glad to see him eventually go back. I always liked him, even if he can be a bit dry with his delivery.
 
The thing about low post scorers is you can pretty easily shut them down if you want to just by doubling. Yeah it opens things up for others but that guy still has to know where and when to pass out of the double team. LA never really perfected it. Then again teams couldn't really double him because he was surrounded by shooters. That actually hurt us IMO.

This is why low post scorers seldom take big shots in the last minute of ball games. Especially after time outs. Once the double comes.....it's over. You have to be able to do it all to routinely hit game winners. (Shoot the 3, attack the basket, and pull up for a mid range jumper.) Other wise you are too predictable. We had Dame, now we have Dame and CJ.
 
Addresses the Blazers specifically at the 11:55 mark.

He is the voice of the Utah Jazz and has a radio show. He's definitely a student of the game. It was good to hear not only his opinion about us, but why he has that opinion.

http://weareutahjazz.com/lockedonjazz/?powerpress_pinw=9701-podcast

Give the last 3.5 minutes a listen when you have the time.

Fabulous!!!!!!

Thanks for sharing this, Wiz.

Interesting theory Locke has about building a team around players who uses possessions efficiently above the league average, what he calls PAAC (Points above average created). PAAC is an offensive efficiency stat he came up with; however he doesn't explain how he formulates it in this audio clip.

For those that didn't listen to the audio, Locke said LaMarcus was below average in this stat. And that the Blazers this year are full of guys that are above average in this stat. He then stated that the Sacramento Kings are comparable to the Blazers in players that are above average in PAAC, but the Kings players' bad attitude and problems may override the analytics.

Yes Sir.. BRING ON THE PAAC!!!! Gonna PAAC your ass up and send you back home crying...! Your in the house of the PAAC!

The thing about low post scorers is you can pretty easily shut them down if you want to just by doubling. Yeah it opens things up for others but that guy still has to know where and when to pass out of the double team. LA never really perfected it. Then again teams couldn't really double him because he was surrounded by shooters. That actually hurt us IMO.

It's a lot harder to shut down guys that can get to wherever they want on the court like Lillard and CJ

Honestly, I think a low post scorer also needs to rely on a true point guard of old. Another reason they aren't as efficient in today's game, is because PG's have also evolved into a hybrid guard and there are very few true PG's in comparison to the old days of the 80's and 90's. As much as a post player must know how to pass out and when, The PG must know when and where to get the ball into him.

Some great great post up play??? UTAH. They would know. Night in, night out, of watching the ball go back and forth between Stockton and Malone until they timed it right against the defense and Malone could slip to the basket once getting the pass in the right spot. I remember watching that ball go back and fourth like 7 or 8 times in one play during the Drex playoff days.
 
talking about efficiency---among the bigs, it can really only get better. Small sample size warning...

So far, in 517 minutes (86 of the 96 per game allotted to the 4/5 position) Plumlee, Davis, Vonleh and Leonard have combined to go 60-122, or 49%. Not stellar, in fact the same percentage that Tex/Lopez/Kaman did last year (in 83 of the 96 4/5 minutes) in many more attempts (17.1-34.8/g last year vs. 10-20.2/g this year). But let's break those numbers down:

First, even though they're shooting way fewer shots per game, they're actually averaging more FTs/g than last year's crew (9.2 this year compared to 8.7 last year). So they're doing something that's getting them relatively efficient shots while drawing many more shooting fouls. Now, granted, they're only shooting 44% from FT :banghead:, they're doing something right by getting to the line much more frequently on a per-shot basis, and slightly more on a per-minute basis.

Second, check out this shot breakdown:
0-3': 26-39 (67%)
3-10': 21-37 (57%)
10-23': 10-19 (53%)
3pt: 3-27 (11%) :shock2:

Obviously 3-27 from 3 is not good, and I don't think anyone's thinking that's how it's going to be for the rest of the year. But we're taking 50% more threes than mid-range J's, and 4x as many shots in the paint as from mid-range. And even the mid-range we do take seem to be good shots, as they're shooting 53% on them (10-12% higher than every year Tex played for us...and higher than Dirk shot from mid-range in his MVP season). These guys (echoing a sentiment from the summer) just don't take bad shots!

Everything good that they've done so far seems in line with their career progression and seems sustainable. The bad parts (<50% FT and 11% 3pt) seem only to be able to go up. Big-by-committee looks like an upgrade in efficiency, and by giving a bunch of Tex's midrange shots to be shots by CJ and Dame (drives and 3's), amazingly enough, team offensive efficiency is only slightly down from last year while TS% and eFG% are higher. Once a few 3's start to fall....watch out.
 
He might be comparing their TS% to the league average? The league TS% average is 53% Portland is ranked 5th so far as a team, despite their terrible FT shooting. They'd be #2 otherwise.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/player-stat/ts-percentage Blazers have 5 players in the top 50 so far https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/player-stat/ts-percentage

Can you imagine if Plumlee and Davis could start hitting FT's at even a mid 60% range? Hopefully someone can help Plums figure out not to shoot FT's basically one-handed. Did he think Shaq doing that was a good thing?
 
Shaq is a punk for not taking Rick Barry's advice and tutelage on his underhanded free throw shot. Didn't Rick shoot something like 91%? Shaquille O'Neal could have had millions of kids shooting underhanded free throws.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top