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

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Sorry you can't deal with logic and facts. Join the rest of the "ignore Sinobas" club.
I'm repping you for continuing to make basketball arguments to support your opinion even in the face of angry mob rule wanting to shout you down, stifle dissent, and in some cases burn you at the stake.

:cheers:
 
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!

No. It's not "him as the last resort". That lie needs to die a horrible death. Yes, many shots are contested, with the defense focused on him (then don't effing shoot!!!11!). But as long as he's shooting more shots than anyone in the entire league from the most inefficient place to do so, it will continue to be brought up, I imagine.
 
No. It's not "him as the last resort". That lie needs to die a horrible death. Yes, many shots are contested, with the defense focused on him (then don't effing shoot!!!11!). But as long as he's shooting more shots than anyone in the entire league from the most inefficient place to do so, it will continue to be brought up, I imagine.

Wrong... 55% of his shots are 15 seconds or less. Usually when everyone else has been covered..

http://www.82games.com/1415/14POR12.HTM

And has a eFG% at 55% as well...

Next....
 
That's weird.. So he has the 3rd highest PER of the highest usage in the league, has 7th most clutch points, 3rd highest 4th quarter points, most first quarter points in the entire league, but he's horrible.... M'kay
 
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.
You're right. Sometimes players chuck up a bad shot instead of passing to the open man. That's kind of what we're talking about here.

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.
Then, with all respect, you don't understand it. And I'm not insulting you--there are a great many people who have coached and played for years that don't understand it. Similar to how there are many people in baseball who think sacrificing a man forward is the right thing to do all the time. Just because you've always thought something doesn't make it so.

I would rather have a contested two point shot.. than a contested three point shot.
That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their preferences. But that has been shown to be not optimal for winning, in both real life and statistics.

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)
Uh, it's 22' in the corner to 23'9" at the top, but whatever...

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.)
Of course. But the NBA, knowing this, placed a thing called the "three-point line" in their real-life games to give a bonus point for making shots with that greater degree of difficulty. Which changes the calculus to say that if you're shooting 33% from 3 you're doing better than the guys shooting 49% from 2. It's a statistical thing...

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.
If one was to use statistics and the reams of data now available, one could find out that your premise here isn't correct.

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.
There's a skill piece involved. Dirk and Bosh and Gasol shoot way better on their shots than LMA does. Are they less contested than he is? If you "won't even shoot 40% on them"...why the hell are you taking them?

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.
Fortunately, just like in a video game, only 5 paid NBA players can be on a court for one team at a time. Therefore, if 2 are guarding you (even in real life), one person is wide-open. Studies have shown that passing the ball to the open man to shoot increases effectiveness and efficiency.

Aldridge is a damn good mid range jump shooter only a few better than him in the league.
Again, statistics would tell you this is not true. For instance, looking at shot charts and stats shows you that Player A has shot 234 10-23' jumpers and made only 95 of them (for a 40.6% percentage). Player B has shot 233 and made 94 of them (for a 40.3% percentage). Player B is LMA. Player A is someone I'd imagine you'd call a ball-hogging chucker...K*be Bryant. LMA is actually 60th in the league in FG% on his "bread and butter" shots, behind notables such as "dunk-only" Blake Griffin and Robert Sacre (?!?), 3% behind Melo, and 12% behind Dirk. For Big Guy types, he's behind Boozer, Horford, Smith, Bosh, both Morris twins, Humphries, Anderson, Kanter, Love, Sims, Davis, Kaman, Vucevic, Ibaka, Bass, Favors, Scola, both Gasols, Nene, Deng.

The mid range shot is a lost art that is a shot most teams give because it's "not efficient".
Correct. Because with the 3point line, only people who don't understand statistics think that it's ok to use some of your finite number of possessions to shoot contested shots from there. THEY would rather shoot more inside shots to get fouls called. THEY would rather shoot 3 point shots because they're more efficient. I'll put it another way, since you don't like stats or the "efficiency" word---you get more points doing what I'm talking about than what you're talking about, and therefore one will win more doing it my way than yours. There's a reason that even Coach Stotts says he wants teams to shoot mid-range J's against us. It because it's one of the worst ways you can end a possession that doesn't involve a turnover. Again, statistics show that this is the case not just for the Blazers, but every team in the NBA.

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.
I can't speak for anyone else, but first of all a) he's not shooting close to 50% on the year inside the line, b) he could shoot 27% from 3 and be as effective and efficient as the 40% he's shooting on jumpers that aren't worth three points and c) there are multiple arguments to base him not shooting contested J's without resorting to anything else. See any of my posts above.
 
Mags, this isn't saying what you think it's saying. Sorry. Let's just stay here for a sec, mm'k?

Whatever bro... I mean, you tried telling me that NOLA would have beaten the Blazers by 15 if they stuck with going to AD. Then you said they were up by 15 when both AD and Aldridge came in, saying that Aldridge's 10 points wasn't much of a switch from a 25 point swing (when they were actually only down 10), next thing you will probably say is Aldridge is not clutch and nbastats is lying...
 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/shooting/2015/

When the margin is < 5, Aldridge has shot 201 attempts, making 49.3% of them, eFG% of 53%. 53% of those shots were assisted, meaning almost half of his 201 attempts were shots he had to create for himself. Don't give me this shit about how he sucks, hurts the team or whatever... When the game is on the line, he scores and helps his ball club...

Now we all love Lillard, but here is something to really look at....

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lillada01/shooting/2015/

Games decided by <5 points, Lillard has shot 133 attempts, is shooting 43.6%, eFG% 50.8% and the same number assisted... What does that tell you?! Yep, we have 2 stars that are clutch and won the game for us. If you say Aldridge hurts our team, then Lillard hurts our team just as much...

This is why it is idiotic!
 
Aldridge is a damn good mid range jump shooter only a few better than him in the league.
And this is what I most take issue with, when it comes to LMA. Much like the myth of Nate McMillan being a good defensive coach it's a myth that LMA is one of the best mid-range shooters in the game. It gets repeated so often that people believe it's true, even though it's not even remotely close to being true.

Weeding out players who take <2 shots from LMA's "bread & butter" range, LMA ranks #44 in FG%. That's not "damn good", and 43 is quite a bit more than "a few".
http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/shooting/?sort=15-19 ft. FG PCT&dir=1&CF=15-19 ft. FGA*GE*2
 
And this is what I most take issue with, when it comes to LMA. Much like the myth of Nate McMillan being a good defensive coach it's a myth that LMA is one of the best mid-range shooters in the game. It gets repeated so often that people believe it's true, even though it's not even remotely close to being true.

Weeding out players who take <2 shots from LMA's "bread & butter" range, LMA ranks #44 in FG%. That's not "damn good", and 43 is quite a bit more than "a few".
http://stats.nba.com/league/player/#!/shooting/?sort=15-19 ft. FG PCT&dir=1&CF=15-19 ft. FGA*GE*2

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lillada01/shooting/2015/

Then damn! Dame must be even worse!!!

39.5% from 16 to < 3pt

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/shooting/2015/ <--- Aldridge

44.4% from 16 to < 3pt
 
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/aldrila01/shooting/2015/

When the margin is < 5, Aldridge has shot 201 attempts, making 49.3% of them, eFG% of 53%. 53% of those shots were assisted, meaning almost half of his 201 attempts were shots he had to create for himself. Don't give me this shit about how he sucks, hurts the team or whatever... When the game is on the line, he scores and helps his ball club...

Now we all love Lillard, but here is something to really look at....

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lillada01/shooting/2015/

Games decided by <5 points, Lillard has shot 133 attempts, is shooting 43.6%, eFG% 50.8% and the same number assisted... What does that tell you?! Yep, we have 2 stars that are clutch and won the game for us. If you say Aldridge hurts our team, then Lillard hurts our team just as much...

This is why it is idiotic!
Odd, I missed where people were arguing that Aldridge wasn't clutch. I thought the argument was that him shooting contested long 2-point jumpshots was bad for the team. :dunno:
 
Odd, I missed where people were arguing that Aldridge wasn't clutch. I thought the argument was that him shooting contested long 2-point jumpshots was bad for the team. :dunno:

Well the "Clutch" stat of him playing great, includes those contested 2-point shots, when the game is on the line.

:dunno:
 
That's stretching it, even for you.

Stretching what?!

The stat is total shots in a close game. All that tells me is when the game is on the line, Aldridge is called to carry the team. And Aldridge's game is mid range mostly... Therefor, that clutch stat means he's absolutely valuable, even shooting the mid range contested shot...
 
But it sure makes it odd that people are bitching about Aldridge while Dame is worse don't you think?

Dame shoots 45% from the area LMA shoots 40%.

And Mags. I assure you that with every fiber in my being, if Dame was shooting 12 shots/game from the most inefficient area of the floor, or shooting as many contested shots as LMA from the worst spot on the floor, I'd call him out, too.
 
Dame shoots 45% from the area LMA shoots 40%.

And Mags. I assure you that with every fiber in my being, if Dame was shooting 12 shots/game from the most inefficient area of the floor, or shooting as many contested shots as LMA from the worst spot on the floor, I'd call him out, too.


Where you getting that info?


Aldridge is pretty damn clutch this season though eh? Glad we have em...
Or maybe we should trade him for Greg Monroe, Stucky and a late first rounder?
 
Stretching what?!

The stat is total shots in a close game. All that tells me is when the game is on the line, Aldridge is called to carry the team. And Aldridge's game is mid range mostly... Therefor, that clutch stat means he's absolutely valuable, even shooting the mid range contested shot...
Yeah, so? Nobody said he's not valuable. All anyone has said is that the high number of contested long 2-point jumpers make him less efficient than he should be, and that the team as a whole would benefit if he were to pass out of those situations more often. The fact that he can score in the clutch doesn't negate that claim.

http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/200746/tracking/shots/

There's a lot of good info here. The longer Aldridge has the ball, the less efficient he gets (touch time range). His FG% on jump shots drops precipitously if a defender is within 6 ft of him (closest defender, shot > 10 ft). His eFG on pull up (ie, not catch-and-shoot) jumpers is lower than any other type of shot (General range).

By anyone looking objectively at the stats, it is inarguable that when Aldridge has the ball, defended unassisted jump shots are the lowest efficiency result possible. That's all anyone has been saying. Nothing you have said or linked refutes that claim.
 
Yeah, so? Nobody said he's not valuable. All anyone has said is that the high number of contested long 2-point jumpers make him less efficient than he should be, and that the team as a whole would benefit if he were to pass out of those situations more often. The fact that he can score in the clutch doesn't negate that claim.

http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/200746/tracking/shots/

There's a lot of good info here. The longer Aldridge has the ball, the less efficient he gets (touch time range). His FG% on jump shots drops precipitously if a defender is within 6 ft of him (closest defender, shot > 10 ft). His eFG on pull up (ie, not catch-and-shoot) jumpers is lower than any other type of shot (General range).

By anyone looking objectively at the stats, it is inarguable that when Aldridge has the ball, defended unassisted jump shots are the lowest efficiency result possible. That's all anyone has been saying. Nothing you have said or linked refutes that claim.

And so right back at you... If you were paying attention, that statement about his efficiency was remarked as hurting the team. My clutch efficiency response absolutely refutes that claim...

As posters say that 70% of his shots are contested jumpers. Well those clutch games of 201 shots, 70% of them are those jumpers, the games we won, when Aldridge carries us when 70% are contested...

So I don't care if you want to claim I am not refuting... It seems I must have rubbed you wrong a few days ago. You claimed I'm argumentative with you when I'm not, then decided to argue with me... Interesting...
 
And so right back at you... If you were paying attention, that statement about his efficiency was remarked as hurting the team. My clutch efficiency response absolutely refutes that claim...

As posters say that 70% of his shots are contested jumpers. Well those clutch games of 201 shots, 70% of them are those jumpers, the games we won, when Aldridge carries us when 70% are contested...

So I don't care if you want to claim I am not refuting... It seems I must have rubbed you wrong a few days ago. You claimed I'm argumentative with you when I'm not, then decided to argue with me... Interesting...

Mags, I love you brother. I just hate the way you debate. You have difficulty staying in one place, and it's really hard to hit a moving target. Honestly, you remind me of my older brother.

I don't think anyone has said that 70% of his shots were contested jumpers. If they did, one look at the stats page I linked to would refute that claim. What has been said, and what I will say again in order to avoid the moving target thing, is that defended, unassisted jump shots are inefficient, and he shoots a large number of them. Reduce/eliminate them from his game, and his stats improve, and the team's efficiency improves. Pretty simple.
 
BTW, you should know that if 70% of his total shots are long jumpers, that doesn't necessarily mean that 70% of his clutch shots are long jumpers. That's the kind of argument that severely undercuts your credibility in a debate.
 
But it sure makes it odd that people are bitching about Aldridge while Dame is worse don't you think?

No, because Dame takes that shot 1.3 times a game rather than 5.8 times a game (and, actually, shoots it at 50% now that I'm looking)!
 
Mags, I love you brother. I just hate the way you debate. You have difficulty staying in one place, and it's really hard to hit a moving target. Honestly, you remind me of my older brother.

I don't think anyone has said that 70% of his shots were contested jumpers. If they did, one look at the stats page I linked to would refute that claim. What has been said, and what I will say again in order to avoid the moving target thing, is that defended, unassisted jump shots are inefficient, and he shoots a large number of them. Reduce/eliminate them from his game, and his stats improve, and the team's efficiency improves. Pretty simple.

Okay so let me get this straight.. No one is saying Aldridge hurts this team?

And if that's true, then we are just asking him to stop taking the inconsistent jumper, but he is still carrying this team and winning clutch games?

So we are just nitpicking?

Okay gotcha!

Btw, love us too...
 
You're right. Sometimes players chuck up a bad shot instead of passing to the open man. That's kind of what we're talking about here.

Then, with all respect, you don't understand it. And I'm not insulting you--there are a great many people who have coached and played for years that don't understand it. Similar to how there are many people in baseball who think sacrificing a man forward is the right thing to do all the time. Just because you've always thought something doesn't make it so.

That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their preferences. But that has been shown to be not optimal for winning, in both real life and statistics.

Uh, it's 22' in the corner to 23'9" at the top, but whatever...

Of course. But the NBA, knowing this, placed a thing called the "three-point line" in their real-life games to give a bonus point for making shots with that greater degree of difficulty. Which changes the calculus to say that if you're shooting 33% from 3 you're doing better than the guys shooting 49% from 2. It's a statistical thing...

If one was to use statistics and the reams of data now available, one could find out that your premise here isn't correct.

There's a skill piece involved. Dirk and Bosh and Gasol shoot way better on their shots than LMA does. Are they less contested than he is? If you "won't even shoot 40% on them"...why the hell are you taking them?

Fortunately, just like in a video game, only 5 paid NBA players can be on a court for one team at a time. Therefore, if 2 are guarding you (even in real life), one person is wide-open. Studies have shown that passing the ball to the open man to shoot increases effectiveness and efficiency.

Again, statistics would tell you this is not true. For instance, looking at shot charts and stats shows you that Player A has shot 234 10-23' jumpers and made only 95 of them (for a 40.6% percentage). Player B has shot 233 and made 94 of them (for a 40.3% percentage). Player B is LMA. Player A is someone I'd imagine you'd call a ball-hogging chucker...K*be Bryant. LMA is actually 60th in the league in FG% on his "bread and butter" shots, behind notables such as "dunk-only" Blake Griffin and Robert Sacre (?!?), 3% behind Melo, and 12% behind Dirk. For Big Guy types, he's behind Boozer, Horford, Smith, Bosh, both Morris twins, Humphries, Anderson, Kanter, Love, Sims, Davis, Kaman, Vucevic, Ibaka, Bass, Favors, Scola, both Gasols, Nene, Deng.

Correct. Because with the 3point line, only people who don't understand statistics think that it's ok to use some of your finite number of possessions to shoot contested shots from there. THEY would rather shoot more inside shots to get fouls called. THEY would rather shoot 3 point shots because they're more efficient. I'll put it another way, since you don't like stats or the "efficiency" word---you get more points doing what I'm talking about than what you're talking about, and therefore one will win more doing it my way than yours. There's a reason that even Coach Stotts says he wants teams to shoot mid-range J's against us. It because it's one of the worst ways you can end a possession that doesn't involve a turnover. Again, statistics show that this is the case not just for the Blazers, but every team in the NBA.

I can't speak for anyone else, but first of all a) he's not shooting close to 50% on the year inside the line, b) he could shoot 27% from 3 and be as effective and efficient as the 40% he's shooting on jumpers that aren't worth three points and c) there are multiple arguments to base him not shooting contested J's without resorting to anything else. See any of my posts above.

Not talking about this here. Will pm.
 
BTW, you should know that if 70% of his total shots are long jumpers, that doesn't necessarily mean that 70% of his clutch shots are long jumpers. That's the kind of argument that severely undercuts your credibility in a debate.

No I get it... This is a nitpick fest... I should of just ignored it then... Was a waste of time
 
No, because Dame takes that shot 1.3 times a game rather than 5.8 times a game (and, actually, shoots it at 50% now that I'm looking)!

From 10-23' Dame is 27-60. That's 45% and an average of just under 3 of his 14.3 shots per game.
From 10-23' LMA is 94-234. That's 40.3% and an average of 11.7 (61%) of his 19.3 shots per game.
 
Okay so let me get this straight.. No one is saying Aldridge hurts this team?

And if that's true, then we are just asking him to stop taking the inconsistent jumper, but he is still carrying this team and winning clutch games?

So we are just nitpicking?

Okay gotcha!

Btw, love us too...

No. People are saying that a certain aspect of his game is detrimental to the team. But that does not equate to saying that his presence as a whole is a detriment.

And yes, I guess you could say that critiquing a 17-4 team qualifies as "nitpicking". Personally, I prefer to think of it as objective analysis from fans who want to see every conceivable roadblock to a championship addressed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top