If you're not on the L-Train, what are you waiting for?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
riverman said:
It was probably a guy with a PhD who read all the journals and papers and studied the stats from previous players that told Mugsy Bogues he was too short to play basketball.
Click to expand...

Nah, it was the other guy who said that height correlates to salary, and that, combined with the fact that only 2 players in history have been shorter than 5'6", he might want to have a backup plan.
 
I think brian's "not a dude on a message board" line was more saying hey, you don't have to just take it from me looking at stuff, referring to himself as the "some dude on a message board"
Click to expand...
This. You don't have to believe me, I'm just rehashing stuff I read from a PhD who's a coach, scout and director of analytics for a team.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
BeUMDqACUAAabEM.jpg
Click to expand...


Why was young Liev Schrieber at the game?
 
This is the thread that never ends... it just goes on and on my friend...
 
Strenuus said:
This is the thread that never ends... it just goes on and on my friend...
Click to expand...

Some people started posting stats, not knowing what they were, and they'll continue posting them forever just because....
 
BrianFromWA said:
Nah, it was the other guy who said that height correlates to salary, and that, combined with the fact that only 2 players in history have been shorter than 5'6", he might want to have a backup plan.
Click to expand...

Then Thabeet must be the best paid player on the planet now that Shawn Bradley has retired? I hope nobody takes my Mugsy Bogues comment seriously because it's not documented or substantiated by scholars at all. I basically pull these things out of a shot glass and throw them at the wall, but that's a sport all it's own. Whenever someone on a msg board says "seriously" I tend to go the opposite direction. Spud Webb maybe would have worked better?
 
I don't really know where you're going with this, but ok...
 
Ive been on the L train since the day he was drafted, hasn't everyone?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I said that your contention that he's playing the best in his career was wrong, and that he has done nothing appreciably different than he did on a 33-49 team other than take 2-3 more shots per game (at a lower efficiency) and get more defensive rebounds...
Click to expand...

If you use a more accurate measure of efficiency than eFG% then LA is slightly more efficient than last year:

We basically want points per possession used. The typical formula is

Points / (FGA + 0.44FTA)

But we need to include turnovers in that because a TO uses a possession. So...

Points / (FGA + 0.44FTA + TO)

By this measure LA is very slightly worse this year
Last Year .969
This Year .969

But even that measure lies a bit because
- A turnover uses a possession (other team gets the ball 100% of the time)
- A made shot uses a possession (other team gets the ball 100% of the time)
- But a missed shot does NOT always use a possession (we ORB 25% of the time)

So a better-yet measure is of scoring efficiency is

Points / (FGMade + 0.75FGMissed + 0.44FTA + TO)

By this measure LA is slighty better than last year

This year 1.084
Last year 1.082

But stats details aside... LA's usage is up significantly which means he gets more attention on defense and that creates openings for teammates. Example: Late in the Spurs game LA was quickly double teamed resulting in an open 3 for Wes. Statwise that played just risked a turnover for LA. But realitywise it helped win that game.
 
bobf said:
But stats details aside... LA's usage is up significantly which means he gets more attention on defense and that creates openings for teammates. Example: Late in the Spurs game LA was quickly double teamed resulting in an open 3 for Wes. Statwise that played just risked a turnover for LA. But realitywise it helped win that game.
Click to expand...

I'm of your opinion on this, but LMA's usage rate isn't impacted by the ball rotation to Lillard, then Nic, then Wesley, on that possession. That entire basket was based on a double-team to LMA, but it isn't reflected in the stats, as well as LMA's PER, advanced or otherwise. It's why questioning BrianfromWA has become a new pastime here at S2.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that he "creates space" or "draws defenders" or "creates openings". It's great to see him pass out of the double, which he's doing (at least to my eyes) better and more consistently this year. I don't even mind open J's. It's the contested 1v1 jumpers that I don't like. If you're going to take a contested shot, take it to the rim where you can get fouled, or shoot better than 42% on it. Especially when you can pass to a guy who's shooting 45% (Dame) or 43% (Wes) from 3.

He's getting the attention, but he's taking contested, low-percentage shots over the attention rather than kicking it out to someone whose defender has been drawn or who space has been created for, or driving to the hoop where he's elite.
 
PapaG said:
I'm of your opinion on this, but LMA's usage rate isn't impacted by the ball rotation to Lillard, then Nic, then Wesley, on that possession. That entire basket was based on a double-team to LMA, but it isn't reflected in the stats, advanced or otherwise. It's why questioning BrianfromWA has become a new pastime here at S2.
Click to expand...

Questioning is great. Listening to the answer helps, though.
 
PapaG said:
I'm of your opinion on this, but LMA's usage rate isn't impacted by the ball rotation to Lillard, then Nic, then Wesley, on that possession. That entire basket was based on a double-team to LMA, but it isn't reflected in the stats, advanced or otherwise. It's why questioning BrianfromWA has become a new pastime here at S2.
Click to expand...

And unless I'm totally misreading bobf's post, it's another in the line of stuff that proves that there's nothing significantly different about LMA (at least on the offensive end) from last year's 33-49 LMA to this year's 31-9 LMA. I mean, I get that you hate listening to be drone on, but when eblazer's posts show it, and bobf's posts show it... :dunno:
 
BrianFromWA said:
And unless I'm totally misreading bobf's post, it's another in the line of stuff that proves that there's nothing significantly different about LMA (at least on the offensive end) from last year's 33-49 LMA to this year's 31-9 LMA. I mean, I get that you hate listening to be drone on, but when eblazer's posts show it, and bobf's posts show it... :dunno:
Click to expand...

On the offensive end, this turnovers are way down and his assists are up. That he's shooting the same and just doing more of the style of shooting isn't really... I mean... Who the fuck cares? Does it mean he's soft? Does it mean he sucks? Does it mean he's not what you want him to be? And if so, who the fuck cares what we want? You or me posting about LaMarcus won't change him. Why the fuck do we torture ourselves? Enjoy the fucking game, fuck off, and go blazers.
 
BrianFromWA said:
And unless I'm totally misreading bobf's post, it's another in the line of stuff that proves that there's nothing significantly different about LMA (at least on the offensive end) from last year's 33-49 LMA to this year's 31-9 LMA. I mean, I get that you hate listening to be drone on, but when eblazer's posts show it, and bobf's posts show it... :dunno:
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm as lost as you are on your own use of stats anti-LMA/pro-Lillard. Difference is that nobody here is anti-Lillard at all, and understand that he's as much a key to this team as LMA, but w/out the ability to get Wes and Nic wide open 3-point shots.

I just don't understand your posts today in terms of consistency, and I'm not sure you do, either.
 
BlazerCaravan said:
On the offensive end, this turnovers are way down and his assists are up. That he's shooting the same and just doing more of the style of shooting isn't really... I mean... Who the fuck cares? Does it mean he's soft? Does it mean he sucks? Does it mean he's not what you want him to be? And if so, who the fuck cares what we want? You or me posting about LaMarcus won't change him. Why the fuck do we torture ourselves? Enjoy the fucking game, fuck off, and go blazers.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my point. Why dwell on an obvious statistic that even a n00b can understand? At some point, 31-9 does start to matter, as does leading the NBA in OFF EFF and PPG.
 
e_blazer said:
I think you're talking apples and oranges when you mix PPP from a given location vs. overall average PPP for a game. I think that this is my main objection to your basic argument, or at least what I understand your main argument to be. There certainly are more efficient places to score points than the 15-19' range, but I think that you have to have LMA setting that as a mainstay in the Blazers' offense in order to open up the opportunities for the more efficient shots. Threes are only more efficient if they're not closely guarded. Layups are only available if the defense has to give attention to other areas.

The 65% from in closer than 5' is certainly more efficient, but you certainly can't be saying that that can be a mainstay of LMA's offense. Those pesky defenders tend to try to dissuade you from getting looks from there. I'm more than happy to have LMA shoot nothing but dunks and layups if we can figure out a way to make the defense go along with that strategy. Jedi mind tricks maybe?
Click to expand...

Great post! This is exactly the problem with searching for shots that are only such and such percentage and saying the team should or shouldn't shoot those. The long two point shot is obviously worse than dunks, but Brian fails to understand in his arguments that the long two pointers are needed as a part of the offense to setup shots at the rim and open 3's.

Its like saying a team is better with 0 turnovers, because a possession with a turnover always produces 0 points. But smart teams know if you accept a few turnovers in a game the team can get vastly more efficient shots on 50 other attempts.
 
Draco said:
Great post! This is exactly the problem with searching for shots that are only such and such percentage and saying the team should or shouldn't shoot those. The long two point shot is obviously worse than dunks, but Brian fails to understand in his arguments that the long two pointers are needed as a part of the offense to setup shots at the rim and open 3's.

Its like saying a team is better with 0 turnovers, because a possession with a turnover always produces 0 points. But smart teams know if you accept a few turnovers in a game the team can get vastly more efficient shots on 50 other attempts.
Click to expand...

I'm positive that Brian doesn't understand this obvious point, since I've asked him about Stotts' use of LMA, and why the Blazers are so efficient on offense.

The answer I've received is "they can be better."
 
PapaG said:
At this point, I'm as lost as you are on your own use of stats anti-LMA/pro-Lillard. Difference is that nobody here is anti-Lillard at all, and understand that he's as much a key to this team as LMA, but w/out the ability to get Wes and Nic wide open 3-point shots.
Click to expand...
Nobody's anti-LMA here, least of all me. If you can't/won't/don't want to listen to me saying he's not the main reason we're better this year, don't.

I just don't understand your posts today in terms of consistency, and I'm not sure you do, either.
Click to expand...
Prophet's never without honor, except on his own board. I'll say it again:

1) LMA is the best PF in the league not named LeBron.
2) When he is in the paint, LMA is elite.
3) When he is shooting J's, he is as efficient as Andrea Bargnani.
4) He does #3 3x as much as he does #2
5) The Blazers have gone from 33-49 to 31-9 due in large part to their jump from #16 to #1 in offensive efficiency (points per possession).
6) LMA's shooting and ORebounding have not been any better than they were in last year's #16-ranked, 33-49 offense (he takes 3 more shots per game)

I choose to think that Lillard (whose game HAS improved significantly across the board), Wes having a career year, Nic becoming a walking assault on a triple-double and Lopez-being-Lopez have all had a much greater effect on the team going from #16 to #1 and therefore to the top of the NBA. That doesn't mean LMA sucks. LMA's great, and having a guy who you can't leave alone for a J or let into the paint without a double team is awesome. But when he shoots contested 2pt-jumpers (which he's doing at a rate higher than every single person in the NBA) it's detrimental to the team.
 
BrianFromWA said:
But when he shoots contested 2pt-jumpers (which he's doing at a rate higher than every single person in the NBA) it's detrimental to the team.
Click to expand...
Can you show how man are contested versus wide open?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I choose to think that Lillard (whose game HAS improved significantly across the board), Wes having a career year, Nic becoming a walking assault on a triple-double and Lopez-being-Lopez have all had a much greater effect on the team going from #16 to #1 and therefore to the top of the NBA. That doesn't mean LMA sucks. LMA's great, and having a guy who you can't leave alone for a J or let into the paint without a double team is awesome. But when he shoots contested 2pt-jumpers (which he's doing at a rate higher than every single person in the NBA) it's detrimental to the team.
Click to expand...

How so? Others may say that the threat of those shots create opening for the excellent perimeter players who don't create their own shots. You don't have a stat to refute that, so post again about LMA's jump shooting.
 
Draco said:
Great post! This is exactly the problem with searching for shots that are only such and such percentage and saying the team should or shouldn't shoot those. The long two point shot is obviously worse than dunks, but Brian fails to understand in his arguments that the long two pointers are needed as a part of the offense to setup shots at the rim and open 3's.

Its like saying a team is better with 0 turnovers, because a possession with a turnover always produces 0 points. But smart teams know if you accept a few turnovers in a game the team can get vastly more efficient shots on 50 other attempts.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, because (again, as I"ve said multiple times here), when LMA accomplishes the spacing to set up shots at the rim and open 3's he doesn't need to shoot it then. His job has been done. There is someone who is being sagged off of or who is open if he's being doubled, or he can take just about anyone in the league off the dribble. There's literally no reason to shoot contested turnaround J's at a 38% clip, or to shoot contested 16-23 footers. If they're contested, you've already done what you're supposed to do. If they're wide-open, by all means, take the shot. If they're not, give the contested shot to a guy who's shooting better than you on a shot that makes an entire point more than you. That's simplistic, but I feel as if I'm not conveying information properly here, because it seems so cut-and-dried to me. :dunno:
 
RR7 said:
Can you show how man are contested versus wide open?
Click to expand...

I'd also like to see how many of LMA's "contested" jumpers come with the shot clock being a factor. Seems to me that at times, he's shooting contested jumpers to beat the shot clock when nothing else happens during those rare occasions.
 
PapaG said:
How so? Others may say that the threat of those shots create opening for the excellent perimeter players who don't create their own shots. You don't have a stat to refute that, so post again about LMA's jump shooting.
Click to expand...

So give it to those excellent perimeter players who don't create their own shots! You finally get me! YES!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top