GAME THREAD: BLAZERS @ PISTONS - DECEMBER 9, 2014 - TUESDAY, 4:30 PM (PST), CSN

[Sinobas]

I get that you want them to win but you kind of didn't answer my question, do you think they will lose if they continue going to LMA as they have been and him taking the shots that he has been?

Of course they are going to lose. Winning and losing is a % game just like shooting is. The point is, I think the team would score more points if LA cut back on those forced mid range jumpers.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Of course they are going to lose. Winning and losing is a % game just like shooting is. The point is, I think the team would score more points if LA cut back on those forced mid range jumpers.

You do understand that the threat of LMA taking those "forced" mid range jumpers opens the court for the rest of our players, right? That our success beyond the 3pt line is a direct result of teams having to defend LMA? Maybe instead of just looking at one cog in our offensive machine you look at it as a whole. I know you watch the games because you're in the game threads throwing out negative generalities on a possession by possession basis.

 

[MarAzul]

So far, none of you have refuted anything I said with any kind of logic or reasoning.

Well Sir, I am not sure any sort of reasoning will help you, but I will give one short take.

I would like to see a better climax to a possession than and Aldridge fade a way. However, I am not about to hang that observation around his neck like a it was a fault.

The Blazers play in the NBA which has a 24 second rule, which means, you must take a shot, within 24 seconds, starting count down at the time you control the ball sufficiently to count as a possession.

Portland's offense under this coach now has some plays and a system approach to the game that was sorely missing with the previous coaches of the past ten years. When Aldridge takes that shot, the fade a way, when most of us would like to see something better, perhaps he and his team would also. However, it probably is the best shot the team is going to get out of the current 24 second possession. Although the time on the shot clock may not be chuck it up time, the time is too short to restart a set. LA's fade away is better that pissing away more time until it is chuck it up time for another teammate.

Just imagine what his shooting percentage could be if he we not the man tabbed to make the attempt, and the set had one more cut, one more screen, or the previous one had succeeded. But, as it is, he take the attempt, time to move on, perhaps the next possession will run like a fine clock.

 

[Boise Blazer]

Of course they are going to lose. Winning and losing is a % game just like shooting is. The point is, I think the team would score more points if LA cut back on those forced mid range jumpers.

What leads you to believe that he will shoot worse than he has been? What will change? And what then makes you think that it happens to the severity that we start to lose? That's really just a guess on your part. For all the stats you have posted your argument still boils down to a guess because there are no stats that are going to confirm that he will start shooting worse and that we will lose as a result. You of course are welcome to your opinion but it is no more than a guess.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You do understand that the threat of LMA taking those "forced" mid range jumpers opens the court for the rest of our players, right? That our success beyond the 3pt line is a direct result of teams having to defend LMA? Maybe instead of just looking at one cog in our offensive machine you look at it as a whole. I know you watch the games because you're in the game threads throwing out negative generalities on a possession by possession basis.

No, the threat of him forcing mid-range J's doesn't do anything. Yes, the "threat" of LMA taking those jumpers opens the court. However, all the open space in the world means nothing if he doesn't pass the ball to them and takes a low-percentage shot.

1) LMA can make wide-open jumpshots with ease. 3pt shots at about 40-50% (small sample), mid-range at a very high percentage (let's say, just for grins, 70%. Maybe a bit higher or lower, but close).
2) Because of #1, teams are forced to have a player guard him closely. Sometimes they even use 2 players.
3) Because of #2, the rest of the team has less defensive pressure (call it "spacing", "opening the court", "defense has to rotate", whatever), when the ball is passed to them.
4) If the ball isn't passed to them, #3 doesn't matter.
5) LMA does not always pass the ball when double-teamed.
6) LMA does not always pass the ball when guarded closely.
7) When #5 and #6 occur, LMA takes some number (between 1 and 10) of "closely guarded" or "double-teamed" shot per game.
8) When #8 occurs, LMA is taking a very-low-percentage shot at the expense of one of the rest of our players taking a wide-open, little-defensive-pressure shot.
9) When #9 occurs, our team's efficiency (the amount of points you get for every possession) goes down, because LMA taking a heavily-contested two-point shot nets fewer points per possession than Wes or Dame or Nic or Crabbe taking a wide-open 3-point shot or driving the lane.

No one is saying for him to not shoot wide-open jumpers (even wide-open "mid-range" jumpers, though those would be better from 3 ). No one is saying not to abuse a smaller/less-skilled player if able (like when they try to guard him with Quincy Acy. What sinobas has shown is that LMA does #7 more than he should, and the offense is not as effective (or efficient) when he does. If every time he was double-teamed he passed out to an open shooter (instead of taking a low-percentage shot), it would either a) keep happening, in which case he keeps passing out and our shooters shoot lots of open 3s or b) they stop double-teaming him and he abuses smaller/worse defenders one-on-one, which gets him back to higher-percentage shots.

I don't get the hate.

 

[trailblazer18]

You do understand that the threat of LMA taking those "forced" mid range jumpers opens the court for the rest of our players, right? That our success beyond the 3pt line is a direct result of teams having to defend LMA? Maybe instead of just looking at one cog in our offensive machine you look at it as a whole. I know you watch the games because you're in the game threads throwing out negative generalities on a possession by possession basis.

This ^

LA's mid range game is much more than the shot being taken in a given possession. The threat of the shot and the itself opens up the floor and creates a great dynamic for the team on the offensive end that other teams don't get. That is why stretch fours a popular in the NBA.

You could compare it to a running game that sets up the play action pass in football. Those 2 and 3 yard runs aren't very efficient, but that 50 yard TD pass on play action would never happen without them.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I would say the Blazers as a whole did not play smart last night. Too many bad shots and careless passes. I support LA taking a lot of mid range shots, but last night he forced too many.

They keep winning but they can play a lot better. I still would like to see them get more of the 50/50 balls that hit the floor. They do a great job of rebounding, but not so well in regards to loose balls.

I love that I can bitch about this when over the last 15 games they are winning 90% of them......

 

[magnifier661]

No, the threat of him forcing mid-range J's doesn't do anything. Yes, the "threat" of LMA taking those jumpers opens the court. However, all the open space in the world means nothing if he doesn't pass the ball to them and takes a low-percentage shot.

1) LMA can make wide-open jumpshots with ease. 3pt shots at about 40-50% (small sample), mid-range at a very high percentage (let's say, just for grins, 70%. Maybe a bit higher or lower, but close).
2) Because of #1, teams are forced to have a player guard him closely. Sometimes they even use 2 players.
3) Because of #2, the rest of the team has less defensive pressure (call it "spacing", "opening the court", "defense has to rotate", whatever), when the ball is passed to them.
4) If the ball isn't passed to them, #3 doesn't matter.
5) LMA does not always pass the ball when double-teamed.
6) LMA does not always pass the ball when guarded closely.
7) When #5 and #6 occur, LMA takes some number (between 1 and 10) of "closely guarded" or "double-teamed" shot per game.
8) When #8 occurs, LMA is taking a very-low-percentage shot at the expense of one of the rest of our players taking a wide-open, little-defensive-pressure shot.
9) When #9 occurs, our team's efficiency (the amount of points you get for every possession) goes down, because LMA taking a heavily-contested two-point shot nets fewer points per possession than Wes or Dame or Nic or Crabbe taking a wide-open 3-point shot or driving the lane.

No one is saying for him to not shoot wide-open jumpers (even wide-open "mid-range" jumpers, though those would be better from 3 ). No one is saying not to abuse a smaller/less-skilled player if able (like when they try to guard him with Quincy Acy. What sinobas has shown is that LMA does #7 more than he should, and the offense is not as effective (or efficient) when he does. If every time he was double-teamed he passed out to an open shooter (instead of taking a low-percentage shot), it would either a) keep happening, in which case he keeps passing out and our shooters shoot lots of open 3s or b) they stop double-teaming him and he abuses smaller/worse defenders one-on-one, which gets him back to higher-percentage shots.

I don't get the hate.

I agree for the most part, with the exception that Aldridge needs to drain some of those "low efficiency" shots to keep the defense honest. The fact that he gets doubled 15-20ft from the basket says more about his reputation.

If Aldridge only shoots when he's wide open, then teams will play him like they did when Roy was here. Soft pressure to get the ball out of his hands and take out the perimeter.

I will admit, I want him inside the most. He is stronger than any other PF in the game. Back the fuckers down and get to the line or pass to a wide open 3.

But he must keep defense honest with that dirk type mid range post up. It's important for the flow of Stotts game plan

 

[BrianFromWA]

This ^

LA's mid range game is much more than the shot being taken in a given possession. The threat of the shot and the itself opens up the floor and creates a great dynamic for the team on the offensive end that other teams don't get. That is why stretch fours a popular in the NBA.

You could compare it to a running game that sets up the play action pass in football. Those 2 and 3 yard runs aren't very efficient, but that 50 yard TD pass on play action would never happen without them.

no, I don't think you can, (in fact, I think it's much more similar to the triple-option), but let's run with your analogy.

If you say "I will run some running plays to set up the play-action", I get it. Understand, though, that even on those running plays you're placing the effort of the play to get the best possible outcome. You know that you will most likely not get a 50-yard TD (though it sometime can happen). But you still have everyone block really hard, you still have the best running back on the team taking the ball, and you set yourself up for the best possible outcome for the team as a result of that play. Which is why I think your analogy doesn't work here, and it's the triple-option one.

In a triple-option, you can go multiple ways. You can hand the ball off to the fullback for the dive, which will most likely not get a lot of yards but you can't cheat off of it or else he'll run right up the middle for a long gain. (In our offense, this is the "LMA setting up at 18' for an initial entry pass" or something. If you leave him open (or guard him with a sub-standard defender), he'll score easily, which is why you have to guard him). If that option is covered, the QB takes a pre-conceived pathway/direction to try to get the best play out of it--like running strong side or weak side along the line. (This might be our pre-conceived play, like Dame getting the ball back and running a pick-and-roll and attacking the hoop). If the defense guards both the FB dive and the QB option such that the QB decides that taking either of those options will be sub-optimal, he can pitch to the wingback following (this would be one of our shooters camped out at the 3pt line).

I have no problem with this progression. LMA has a lot of tools and can score efficiently in a lot of different ways, so there's no heartburn with trying to start the offense off through him (the FB dive play). But most of the time the opponent will try to take that away with putting a superior defender or double-team on him. The next option is usually to have Dame run a P&R with him, which again I have no problem with...best ballhandler and long-range shooter on the team working with the most skilled big-man in a play. Usually, though, the defense is trying to take away Dame's drives as well. Which ends up with either the ball in LMA's hands on a pretty open shot (great! efficient!) or at the 3point line with one of the shooters (great! efficient!) or Dame barreling down the lane into a wall of bodies (great if he gets the foul called or makes it, sucks if he doesn't).

the TL;dr version? Exploit the defense with stuff you do well. LMA shoots wide-open shots very well. LMA abuses smaller/poorer defenders down low very well. He does not shoot contested shots well, and he doesn't shoot fadeaways over double-teams well. Dame shoots open 3's well. Dame does not shoot contested 3's very well, but b/c they're worth 3 rather than 2 it's more efficient to take a contested 3 than a contested 2 (with the %'s the team shoots them). Nic and Wes (and Crabbe and Blake) shoot open 3's well. There should be no reason for LMA to shoot a contested shot when our shooters are open, just as there is no reason for Dame to drive against a double- or triple-team when LMA is open for the "pop" or the wings are open in the corners. Just as there is no reason to go 1-on-3 on a break instead of waiting for your teammates to show up.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I agree for the most part, with the exception that Aldridge needs to drain some of those "low efficiency" shots to keep the defense honest. The fact that he gets doubled 15-20ft from the basket says more about his reputation.

If Aldridge only shoots when he's wide open, then teams will play him like they did when Roy was here. Soft pressure to get the ball out of his hands and take out the perimeter.

I disagree with this. If they give "soft pressure" in order to stay with guys on the perimeter, he now (versus 5 years ago) will abuse them. I didn't say "if soft pressure comes, don't shoot". If you recall the game thread from 3 nights ago, I was screaming for him to keep shooting with Acy "guarding" him. Quincy Acy is not the same as, say, ANthony Davis or a double-team (or, Heaven forbid, shooting against a double-team with Anthony Davis as one of them--how many times did that happen?!). There's a difference between backing down Reggie Evans and backing down Kyle Singler. Keep shooting if they're guarding you with Acy/Singler/JJ Hickson/Love. They'll either adjust or you'll score 40. Don't keep shooting if they're throwing a double at you (your teammates are now open!) or if you're not getting good shots. LMA's good, but if it's LMA-vs-Davis at the same time as it's Dame v. Jrue Holiday, let Dame run for a while.

 

[magnifier661]

I disagree with this. If they give "soft pressure" in order to stay with guys on the perimeter, he now (versus 5 years ago) will abuse them. I didn't say "if soft pressure comes, don't shoot". If you recall the game thread from 3 nights ago, I was screaming for him to keep shooting with Acy "guarding" him. Quincy Acy is not the same as, say, ANthony Davis or a double-team (or, Heaven forbid, shooting against a double-team with Anthony Davis as one of them--how many times did that happen?!). There's a difference between backing down Reggie Evans and backing down Kyle Singler. Keep shooting if they're guarding you with Acy/Singler/JJ Hickson/Love. They'll either adjust or you'll score 40. Don't keep shooting if they're throwing a double at you (your teammates are now open!) or if you're not getting good shots. LMA's good, but if it's LMA-vs-Davis at the same time as it's Dame v. Jrue Holiday, let Dame run for a while.

How did that AD defense work for NOLA in the 4th?

 

[BrianFromWA]

If the Pels offense had not acted like the Blazers O and gone away from their most efficient scoring option, we lose by 15.

 

[magnifier661]

If the Pels offense had not acted like the Blazers O and gone away from their most efficient scoring option, we lose by 15.

If the refs didn't blow the calls in the clipper and GS game, we would be 19-2.

Btw, AD was shooting a bunch in the 4th, so I don't know what you are trying to say

 

[BrianFromWA]

c'mon Mags, try to understand here.

NO lost because they did the same things that our offense does regularly. They went away from a very efficient scoring option (Davis) to a much less efficient one, but one who normally gets "counting stats" (Evans and Holiday have decent PPGs). At one point in the 4th quarter that efficient offense combined with LMA's 6-13 (edit: not saying it was just his fault, Dame was shooting poorly as well) shooting had them up by 15. He took 2 good jumpers (made both), made a layup, got fouled on an inside attempt and missed 2 jumpers. He scored 10 of the 34 points in the 4th. You know who else scored? Blake on an open 3. CJ on an open 3. CJ on a drive where he got fouled. Wes on an open 3. Blake dished twice for layups on P&Rs. Kaman buried an open J. See the trend? Open shots, layups and foul shots >> inefficient shooting. In this case it was 23 points better in a 10-minute stretch.

 

[magnifier661]

Brian, here is the game log for the 4th quarter...

http://espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=400578445

9:12 - Anthony Davis enters the game for Alexis Ajinca
9:12 - 83-73 - Robin Lopez enters the game for Chris Kaman
9:12 - 83-73 - LaMarcus Aldridge enters the game for Joel Freeland

Anthony Davis personal foul (Robin Lopez draws the foul)
Anthony Davis makes 9-foot two point shot
LaMarcus Aldridge misses hook shot
Anthony Davis misses running hook shot
LaMarcus Aldridge defensive rebound
LaMarcus Aldridge makes 20-foot jumper (Steve Blake assists)
Anthony Davis makes two point shot
LaMarcus Aldridge makes driving layup (Steve Blake assists)
Anthony Davis shooting foul (Robin Lopez draws the foul)
LaMarcus Aldridge makes two point shot (Steve Blake assists)
LaMarcus Aldridge defensive rebound
Anthony Davis defensive rebound
LaMarcus Aldridge misses 18-foot jumper
Ryan Anderson shooting foul (LaMarcus Aldridge draws the foul)
Anthony Davis misses layup
LaMarcus Aldridge defensive rebound
LaMarcus Aldridge defensive rebound
Anthony Davis shooting foul (Robin Lopez draws the foul)
Anthony Davis offensive rebound
Anthony Davis misses three point jumper
LaMarcus Aldridge defensive rebound
Tyreke Evans personal take foul (LaMarcus Aldridge draws the foul)


As you see, both players enter the game at the same exact time. Aldridge clearly out played AD in the 4th. We would have "lost the game" if Aldridge didn't do what he normally does. The fact, that you assume that if NOLA played the same "game plan" as they did earlier in the game (going to AD) they would have won by 15 is ludicrous! They did try and play that way. They DID try to defend Aldridge the same and they lost.

 

[magnifier661]

c'mon Mags, try to understand here.

NO lost because they did the same things that our offense does regularly. They went away from a very efficient scoring option (Davis) to a much less efficient one, but one who normally gets "counting stats" (Evans and Holiday have decent PPGs). At one point in the 4th quarter that efficient offense combined with LMA's 6-13 (edit: not saying it was just his fault, Dame was shooting poorly as well) shooting had them up by 15. He took 2 good jumpers (made both), made a layup, got fouled on an inside attempt and missed 2 jumpers. He scored 10 of the 34 points in the 4th. You know who else scored? Blake on an open 3. CJ on an open 3. CJ on a drive where he got fouled. Wes on an open 3. Blake dished twice for layups on P&Rs. Kaman buried an open J. See the trend? Open shots, layups and foul shots >> inefficient shooting. In this case it was 23 points better in a 10-minute stretch.

Davis had 7 shots in the 4th quarter... Davis only shot 20 for the game, so he actually took more shots in the 4th than any other period. So how does that work?!

 

[magnifier661]

When Davis and Aldridge came into the game, Portland was down 10. Davis (7 shots) took more shots than Aldridge (5), yet Aldridge led his team to come back from a 10 point deficit and win by 9. That's a +19 turn around the moment those two entered the game.

 

[BrianFromWA]

They were up 15 right before LMA came in. LMA scored 10 as we outscored them by 23.

You left out a ton of the game log. Like, the parts where Holiday and Evans went 0-12. Like the parts where there shot chart looked like this. Davis only missed one layup, one hook shot and one desperation 3pt shot. He didn't get "outplayed", he got frozen out.

They defended the same way and lost because Blake set up others for 3 layups/open 3's. Because LMA only took 2 "bad" shots (amazingly enough, missed both) and got hockey assists for more. We didn't come back because LMA took bad shots. We came back because he either took good shots or passed to others who had better ones, while NOP went away from their efficient scorer to ones taking inefficient 2's. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LAST 20 OR SO POSTS.

 

[magnifier661]

They were up 15 right before LMA came in. LMA scored 10 as we outscored them by 23.

You left out a ton of the game log. Like, the parts where Holiday and Evans went 0-12. Like the parts where there shot chart looked like this. Davis only missed one layup, one hook shot and one desperation 3pt shot. He didn't get "outplayed", he got frozen out.

They defended the same way and lost because Blake set up others for 3 layups/open 3's. Because LMA only took 2 "bad" shots (amazingly enough, missed both) and got hockey assists for more. We didn't come back because LMA took bad shots. We came back because he either took good shots or passed to others who had better ones, while NOP went away from their efficient scorer to ones taking inefficient 2's. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LAST 20 OR SO POSTS.

No, the Pelicans were up 10...

9:12 (Anthony Davis enters the game for Alexis Ajinca): Score: 83-73

 

[BrianFromWA]

Davis had 7 shots in the 4th quarter... Davis only shot 20 for the game, so he actually took more shots in the 4th than any other period. So how does that work?!

No, he had 5, and one was a desperation 3 at the end. Outside that he had 4 shots. One on an offensive rebound. 3 shots within the flow of an offense. Not 7

 

[magnifier661]

No, he had 5, and one was a desperation 3 at the end. Outside that he had 4 shots. One on an offensive rebound. 3 shots within the flow of an offense. Not 7

1.) Anthony Davis makes 9-foot two point shot
2.) Anthony Davis misses running hook shot
3.) Anthony Davis makes two point shot
4.) Robin Lopez shooting foul (Anthony Davis draws the foul)
5.) Anthony Davis misses layup
6.) Anthony Davis misses three point jumper

My mistake, he took 6 shots, not 5.

 

[BrianFromWA]

When Davis and Aldridge came into the game, Portland was down 10. Davis (7 shots) took more shots than Aldridge (5), yet Aldridge led his team to come back from a 10 point deficit and win by 9. That's a +19 turn around the moment those two entered the game.

Davis didn't take 7 shots. I don't know where this is coming from. And it wasn't LMA taking "LMA shots" that got that +19. It was Blake setting up layups and wide-open 3's, it was LMA passing out for hockey assists to shooters, it was taking wide-open Js. Or, more appropriately, the stuff I've been saying works better than what LMA normally does.

 

[BrianFromWA]

1.) Anthony Davis makes 9-foot two point shot
2.) Anthony Davis misses running hook shot
3.) Anthony Davis makes two point shot
4.) Robin Lopez shooting foul (Anthony Davis draws the foul)
5.) Anthony Davis misses layup
6.) Anthony Davis misses three point jumper

My mistake, he took 6 shots, not 5.

#4 isn't a shot attempt. But whatever. He scored 6 points on 5 shot attempts (1.2pps). The rest of his team scored 8 on 22 (.36pps)

LMA scored 10 points on 5 shot attempts (2.0pps.) It was awesome. I wish he played every game like he did the 4th, where he took less than half of his shots on long J's and passed out of double-teams to open shooters. The rest of the team had 24 points on 12 shots (2.0pps). Wait a second, that's amazing! The team of shooters shooting and driving, making open shots and layups, was JUST AS EFFICIENT AS LMA PLAYING AWESOME?

 

[magnifier661]

#4 isn't a shot attempt. But whatever. He scored 6 points on 5 shot attempts (1.2pps). The rest of his team scored 8 on 22 (.36pps)

LMA scored 10 points on 5 shot attempts (2.0pps.) It was awesome. I wish he played every game like he did the 4th, where he took less than half of his shots on long J's and passed out of double-teams to open shooters. The rest of the team had 24 points on 12 shots (2.0pps). Wait a second, that's amazing! The team of shooters shooting and driving, making open shots and layups, was JUST AS EFFICIENT AS LMA PLAYING AWESOME?

As Mike Barrett pointed out in the game interview with Aldridge, sometimes Aldridge adjusts his game. I would much rather him score in the clutch, while his game adjusts, then be like Davis and do all his damage in the first 3 quarters.

In the end, I do agree that Aldridge should go inside more. But if he is doing most of that inside work in the 4th, I like that just the same. There is no question he has become our most "clutch player" in the 4th.

http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/clutch/?sort=PTS&dir=1

Aldridge is the 10th most clutch scorer in the entire NBA, but if you exclude Schroder, Maxiell, Henson because of lack of games (I left Durant in because we all know he's clutch); he is 7th most clutch in the entire NBA for points.

 

[H.C.]

no, I don't think you can, (in fact, I think it's much more similar to the triple-option), but let's run with your analogy.

If you say "I will run some running plays to set up the play-action", I get it. Understand, though, that even on those running plays you're placing the effort of the play to get the best possible outcome. You know that you will most likely not get a 50-yard TD (though it sometime can happen). But you still have everyone block really hard, you still have the best running back on the team taking the ball, and you set yourself up for the best possible outcome for the team as a result of that play. Which is why I think your analogy doesn't work here, and it's the triple-option one.

In a triple-option, you can go multiple ways. You can hand the ball off to the fullback for the dive, which will most likely not get a lot of yards but you can't cheat off of it or else he'll run right up the middle for a long gain. (In our offense, this is the "LMA setting up at 18' for an initial entry pass" or something. If you leave him open (or guard him with a sub-standard defender), he'll score easily, which is why you have to guard him). If that option is covered, the QB takes a pre-conceived pathway/direction to try to get the best play out of it--like running strong side or weak side along the line. (This might be our pre-conceived play, like Dame getting the ball back and running a pick-and-roll and attacking the hoop). If the defense guards both the FB dive and the QB option such that the QB decides that taking either of those options will be sub-optimal, he can pitch to the wingback following (this would be one of our shooters camped out at the 3pt line).

I have no problem with this progression. LMA has a lot of tools and can score efficiently in a lot of different ways, so there's no heartburn with trying to start the offense off through him (the FB dive play). But most of the time the opponent will try to take that away with putting a superior defender or double-team on him. The next option is usually to have Dame run a P&R with him, which again I have no problem with...best ballhandler and long-range shooter on the team working with the most skilled big-man in a play. Usually, though, the defense is trying to take away Dame's drives as well. Which ends up with either the ball in LMA's hands on a pretty open shot (great! efficient!) or at the 3point line with one of the shooters (great! efficient!) or Dame barreling down the lane into a wall of bodies (great if he gets the foul called or makes it, sucks if he doesn't).

the TL;dr version? Exploit the defense with stuff you do well. LMA shoots wide-open shots very well. LMA abuses smaller/poorer defenders down low very well. He does not shoot contested shots well, and he doesn't shoot fadeaways over double-teams well. Dame shoots open 3's well. Dame does not shoot contested 3's very well, but b/c they're worth 3 rather than 2 it's more efficient to take a contested 3 than a contested 2 (with the %'s the team shoots them). Nic and Wes (and Crabbe and Blake) shoot open 3's well. There should be no reason for LMA to shoot a contested shot when our shooters are open, just as there is no reason for Dame to drive against a double- or triple-team when LMA is open for the "pop" or the wings are open in the corners. Just as there is no reason to go 1-on-3 on a break instead of waiting for your teammates to show up.

The problem with this whole argument is the NBA is a real life situation..
One can't always get a perfect wide open shot vs real life NBA players... Or even a shot that isn't contested..
One can always get wide open shots in a video game because well.. It's just that a video game.
But in real life... things don't always work out how it's drawn up.
I understand fully that statistics say a contested 3 pointer is the more efficient shot when compared to a contested two point shot.
But being around basketball as long as I have.. I have to disagree.

I would rather have a contested two point shot.. than a contested three point shot.
Due to the two point shot not being from 24.9 feet away like the minimum range a three has to be shot.(in the NBA)
Can be a contested layup, a contested jump hook, a 10-20ft jumper whatever. I'd rather have those contested than a three point shot that has less chance of going in due to it being further away.
(and that goes for any player... at any age... in any league.)
Due to the simple fact that on a contested three ball one isn't going to shoot 40% or even 35%. Unless they're God they're going to shoot much... much lower.
Same goes for a contested midrange jumper. Not going to shoot 50% on them. Probably won't even shoot 40% on them. But the closer you get.. The higher the % go up.
Is a contested mid range jumper the best shot? sometimes. Would I prefer a wide open layup/two/three? yes but doesn't always work that way. Guys on the other team get paid too... Not a video game.


Aldridge is a damn good mid range jump shooter only a few better than him in the league.
The mid range shot is a lost art that is a shot most teams give because it's "not efficient".
Yet the Blazers are off to a 16-4 start with their best player shooting it most of the time.



However I'm pretty sure most of the people arguing that Aldridge takes a less-than-efficient shot... are not only talking about his fadeaway go-to-move he's had ever since he came into the league... But they're also talking about all two pointers he shoots.. Wide open or not. They'd rather see him shoot the three... And with him shooting 50% on the year it adds fuel to that argument if that's the only thing they're biasing it off of.. In fact I could find posts easily on this board to back that previous statement up.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Any of you still want Josh Smith and his salary? This guy was so over rated by some of you. At some point in his career he may be an effective player for a playoff team. But only as a role player. It will take a really good coach to convince him of that.

 

[magnifier661]

The problem with this whole argument is the NBA is a real life situation..
One can't always get a perfect wide open shot vs real life NBA players... Or even a shot that isn't contested..
One can always get wide open shots in a video game because well.. It's just that a video game.
But in real life... things don't always work out how it's drawn up.
I understand fully that statistics say a contested 3 pointer is the more efficient shot when compared to a contested two point shot.
But being around basketball as long as I have.. I have to disagree.

I would rather have a contested two point shot.. than a contested three point shot.
Due to the two point shot not being from 24.9 feet away like the minimum range a three has to be shot.(in the NBA)
Can be a contested layup, a contested jump hook, a 10-20ft jumper whatever. I'd rather have those contested than a three point shot that has less chance of going in due to it being further away.
(and that goes for any player... at any age... in any league.)
Due to the simple fact that on a contested three ball one isn't going to shoot 40% or even 35%. Unless they're God they're going to shoot much... much lower.
Same goes for a contested midrange jumper. Not going to shoot 50% on them. Probably won't even shoot 40% on them. But the closer you get.. The higher the % go up.
Is a contested mid range jumper the best shot? sometimes. Would I prefer a wide open layup/two/three? yes but doesn't always work that way. Guys on the other team get paid too... Not a video game.


Aldridge is a damn good mid range jump shooter only a few better than him in the league.
The mid range shot is a lost art that is a shot most teams give because it's "not efficient".
Yet the Blazers are off to a 16-4 start with their best player shooting it most of the time.



However I'm pretty sure most of the people arguing that Aldridge takes a less-than-efficient shot... are not only talking about his fadeaway go-to-move he's had ever since he came into the league... But they're also talking about all two pointers he shoots.. Wide open or not. They'd rather see him shoot the three... And with him shooting 50% on the year it adds fuel to that argument if that's the only thing they're biasing it off of.. In fact I could find posts easily on this board to back that previous statement up.

Well said! Repped!

 

[MarAzul]

Well said! Repped!

Now if we had Rudy (or anybody) running that Oop, Lamarcus roll to hoop, he could
be shooting near %60. But we don't, not even part time. Dang I miss that!

 

[Jayps15]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting::16
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01.html#shooting::none

Lamarcus Aldridge is shooting 39.1% from mid range (10ft - 3pt line) on the season, the average for the entire NBA combined this season is ~40% from that range. Career wise Aldridge shoots just ~41.5% combined on these mid range shots.

People need to quit saying he's great at that range, he's barely above average. The only remarkable thing about LMA from that range is the sheer volume of attempts he takes.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2015.html#shooting::16
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01.html#shooting::none

Lamarcus Aldridge is shooting 39.1% from mid range (10ft - 3pt line) on the season, the average for the entire NBA combined this season is ~40% from that range. Career wise Aldridge shoots just ~41.5% combined on these mid range shots.

People need to quit saying he's great at that range, he's barely above average. The only remarkable thing about LMA from that range is the sheer volume of attempts he takes.

He is great at shooting the mid range!

You need to factor that most of those shots are contested, with the defense focused on him and with him as the last resort.

People need to quit comparing his mid range to that of a spot up shooter!