Forensic look at Big-Man Shooting

[BrianFromWA]

No. You. Didn't. Not close.

You showed the following:

One particular way of calculating a "top-10 offense" still puts us as a "top-10 offense" even with LMA leaving.

That is a long, long way from being able to claim that missing LMA's offense has nothing to do with us being 8-12. Perhaps your metrics are the wrong metrics. You're starting from a possibly false premise and running with it as if it's an accepted fact.

I'll state this again because I seem to be masochistic and, while I know you don't back off of points once ingrained, I also don't think that you're using your mental powers for good.

Point 1: I didn't "calculate us" as a top-10 offense. We are in efficiency, SRS and points per game. We have a higher-ranked offense than last year. Now, if there are other metrics you think I should use to state that our offense is just as good, if not better, than last year, I'm happy to hear them. No calculation, data mining, filtering or rigid analysis was done to refute honkicracker's off-the-cuff "8-12" response. I just stated facts. I put in just about as much effort as he did in writing it.
(now, on to the point of the post)

Point 2 (broken down into small chunks): stats show that losing LMA and replacing him with Leonard/Davis/Plumlee/Vonleh has increased offensive efficiency among the bigs This is what was postulated in July and the point of the analysis at the 25% mark, and as I stated before, if you have stats you'd like to use in your own analysis I'm happy to hear them. The offensive efficiency among the bigs is much higher. Every time one of the 4 hoists a shot they score with the efficiency of Cousins (1.32 points per shot), compared to last year (1.11 for all of the rotation bigs, 1.09 for LMA). Or, basically, what I predicted in July. And the breakdown of just how efficient they are (or, better said, "how much more efficient than LMA was last year") used shot data than many might not have taken the time to look up on their own, but from the 20+ likes I've received, at least a couple folks are happy to read it.

and kept the Blazers as a top-10 offense (currently #8), See Point #1. No analysis (by me, anyway) needed. Just pulling from whatever flavor of offensive effectiveness you want: SRS, OEff, PPG....reported by whoever you want: basketball-reference, ESPN, hoopshype, ...?

even with a poor shooting start to the season from Dame/CJ/Aminu, Also didn't think this needed to be articulated, but if you disagree that there was a poor start to the season in the shooting efficiency it can relatively easily be shown, one way or another.

most probably because the distribution of the shots away from mid-range to more paint-and-3's. No support offered or intended. Likely wouldn't take much effort, and you're welcome to show that it's not that, but some other cause like fewer turnovers, higher pace, better bench, whatever...if that's your intent.

You're correct in that, for point two I'm starting from a hypothesis (which, I guess, by definition is a "possibly false premise" but also is a possibly true premise and thus, the reason for the analysis)--vice the statistical ranking of the Blazers, which is not disputed (at least, I hope you're not).

Yes. You continually confuse correlation and causation, and I continually notice.

You keep trying to fit this cliche into arguments as if many of us here haven't taken a couple of stats courses. Won't work. Talk about what's wrong in point 1. Or talk about what's wrong with point 2. Don't confuse the two in order to make it seem as if you pulled a "gotcha", especially if unsupported.