Lillard's year 2 improvement: More impressive than Roy's?

[PtldPlatypus]

The similarities between Lillard's and Roy's career paths have been discussed plenty of times, but with us inching (seemingly) closer and closer to Lillard equaling yet another benchmark (all-star in 2nd year), it got me thinking: Is Lillard's ascendance to all-star status in year two more impressive than Roy's? The basic answer to that question, in my mind, lies in the composition of the team around each.

After Roy's rookie season, the keys to the team were indisputably handed over to him. Randolph was traded away to make room for Oden, but Oden never played, leaving Roy as the unquestioned alpha dog and team leader. Given that change, that increased responsibility, Roy increased his scoring, assists, PER, minutes and win shares.

After Lillard's rookie season, the team already had a two-time all-star in Aldridge, and made roster improvements seemingly focused on keeping him around long-term, including bringing in a new sixth man at Lillard's position. As the clear 1B to Aldridge's 1A, Lillard has increased his scoring, 3P%, FT%, PER, and win shares, while his minutes have decreased.

The value increases are interesting to me.

• Roy's scoring increased 2.3 ppg, Lillard's 2.5.
• Roy's PER went up 1.4 points, Lillard's by 3.7.
• Roy's WS/48 went up just .024, Lillard's by .099.
• And most importantly, team win% increased by .110 in Roy's 2nd year, but has increased by .367 in Lillard's.

So to sum up, I think the jump in performance we've seen from Lillard between years 1 and 2 is not only greater than Roy's, but also vastly more impressive seeing as he is doing it as a 2nd fiddle on his own team, as compared to Roy who was the featured player in his team's isolation-heavy offense.

Go Blazers.

 

[PapaG]

It's hard to say, because Roy didn't have a legitimate MVP candidate to take pressure off of him in his second year. Brandon, to me, was a true franchise player, and never really had a choice in becoming that player. Lillard, at times, is able to let LMA take the ball, or even have Mo Williams set up the offense. I look at the players around Roy in his second year, and how that team performed, and it's amazing to me.

In other words, it's hard to compare the two, because Lillard is, by consensus opinion, the second-fiddle on this team right now, while Roy literally was the only real option his second season. I can see where you think Lillard's is more impressive being #2, but that also means that defenses are more concerned with #1, and #2 gets more room to make mistakes and learn from them.

 

[PapaG]

I also think that Lillard embracing the #2 position has been crucial to the jump this team has taken. I'd still like to see him get in a real defensive stance once in a while, but if Mo Williams is around to defend the other PGs for stretches, it doesn't really matter, since Lillard is such an asset on the offensive end of the court.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It's hard to say, because Roy didn't have a legitimate MVP candidate to take pressure off of him in his second year. Brandon, to me, was a true franchise player, and never really had a choice in becoming that player. Lillard, at times, is able to let LMA take the ball, or even have Mo Williams set up the offense. I look at the players around Roy in his second year, and how that team performed, and it's amazing to me.

Wait, so you're saying it's easier for a player to make a major statistical improvement if he's not his team's featured player?

 

[PapaG]

Wait, so you're saying it's easier for a player to make a major statistical improvement if he's not his team's featured player?

James Harden had a huge jump from year one to year two, and even more so in Year 3. So did Russell Westbrook. How many players are asked to be the focal point for their team from their first game, and how many take that team to the playoffs in their 3rd year while still being the primary option on offense?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

James Harden had a huge jump from year one to year two, and even more so in Year 3. So did Russell Westbrook. How many players are asked to be the focal point for their team from their first game, and how many take that team to the playoffs in their 3rd year while still being the primary option on offense?

OK...I'm not sure how that answers my question. I wasn't attacking or asking you to defend a position--I just wanted to clarify your position. Is what I said in post 4 an accurate representation of your opinion?

 

[hhhoggg]

Well I think the question, IMO would be could Roy make those improvements as a second fiddle?

 

[PapaG]

OK...I'm not sure how that answers my question. I wasn't attacking or asking you to defend a position--I just wanted to clarify your position. Is what I said in post 4 an accurate representation of your opinion?

Your question isn't really answerable, is it? We'd have to look at franchise players as rookies, and their improvement, versus #2 players as rookies, and their improvement. The problem is that it appears at first glance that there are very few franchise players from Day One of their careers. Derrick Rose comes to mind, and looking at his stats compared to Roy, it appears that the big jump in PER, at least, came in year 3 as compared to year 2.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Your question isn't really answerable, is it?

My question ("So you're saying...?") was whether or not you were putting forth a particular opinion. That's not answerable?

If you don't have an opinion one way or the other, just say so.

 

[Haakzilla]

Well I think the question, IMO would be could Roy make those improvements as a second fiddle?

...ding, ding, ding! Roy had a poor attitude (despite the way he tried to fool the media), even the average fan could start to see it during his final couple of seasons. Lillard will always put the team first...he is light-years ahead of Roy for this very reason, he understands the concept of team basketball and how crucial that is for winning. As a side note, I think that they are both equally as clutch at the end of games. However, I envision Lillard reigning supreme here as well.

 

[BBert]

Wait, so you're saying it's easier for a player to make a major statistical improvement if he's not his team's featured player?

I think it could be argued that yes if the other team is focusing it's defense on someone else a superior player like Roy or Lillard might achieve a more significant jump in production.

Is it my imagination or were other teams primarily focused on stopping Lillard at the beginning of the season, often double teaming him, sometimes fairly successfully, and that LaMarcus has since forced teams with his play to make him the defensive focus most nights?

Don't want to derail your thread but wondering if you think this is an accurate perception as it pertains to the OP?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think it could be argued that yes if the other team is focusing it's defense on someone else a superior player like Roy or Lillard might achieve a more significant jump in production.

Is it my imagination or were other teams primarily focused on stopping Lillard at the beginning of the season, often double teaming him, sometimes fairly successfully, and that LaMarcus has since forced teams with his play to make him the defensive focus most nights?

Don't want to derail your thread but wondering if you think this is an accurate perception as it pertains to the OP?

I would say that when you're talking about peripheral players, then sure, the other player getting more attention makes things easier, but when you're talking about top players, I don't think that's necessarily the case. When Westbrook goes out, Durant's numbers go up. When Harden leaves the Thunder, his numbers went up. When Lebron joined the Heat, Wade's numbers went down. When Boston's big 3 got together, all their individual stats decreased a little. We've all heard "beware big numbers on a bad team"; why would that be the case if a second star made putting up big numbers easier? It seems obvious to me that in general, it's easier to develop and put up big numbers in a situation like Roy's than in one like Lillard's. That's why I'm more impressed with Lillard's year two jump.

Now if he can learn to finish at the rim this offseason, then maybe we'll get to compare his year 3 jump with Roy's.

 

[HailBlazers]

My question ("So you're saying...?") was whether or not you were putting forth a particular opinion. That's not answerable?

If you don't have an opinion one way or the other, just say so.

Roy was more impressive to me because he single handily carried the team on his back up and out of irrelevance. Right or wrong Dame's improvement has impressed me less because my expectations for him are sky high.

PS, Terry Stotts deserves some credit (mentioning) as well.

 

[hhhoggg]

I think it could be argued that yes if the other team is focusing it's defense on someone else a superior player like Roy or Lillard might achieve a more significant jump in production.

Is it my imagination or were other teams primarily focused on stopping Lillard at the beginning of the season, often double teaming him, sometimes fairly successfully, and that LaMarcus has since forced teams with his play to make him the defensive focus most nights?

Don't want to derail your thread but wondering if you think this is an accurate perception as it pertains to the OP?

Yes good point, but with Roy knowing the majority of plays are being run for him he had an advantage of pure volume of plays. Just my opinion, Roy was great at what he did for us but I don't think he would've thrived as a back seat driver and we probably have to wait awhile to see if Lillard could be an alpha for a season.

 

[PapaG]

My question ("So you're saying...?") was whether or not you were putting forth a particular opinion. That's not answerable?

If you don't have an opinion one way or the other, just say so.

I don't even know how to answer this. You're comparing a franchise player versus a #2 player as rookies. I offered Derrick Rose as a similar player to Roy? What were you looking for in this thread? To me, you aren't comparing similar players, at least in terms of the situations as a team they walked into.

 

[PapaG]

I would say that when you're talking about peripheral players, then sure, the other player getting more attention makes things easier, but when you're talking about top players, I don't think that's necessarily the case. When Westbrook goes out, Durant's numbers go up. When Harden leaves the Thunder, his numbers went up. When Lebron joined the Heat, Wade's numbers went down. When Boston's big 3 got together, all their individual stats decreased a little. We've all heard "beware big numbers on a bad team"; why would that be the case if a second star made putting up big numbers easier? It seems obvious to me that in general, it's easier to develop and put up big numbers in a situation like Roy's than in one like Lillard's. That's why I'm more impressed with Lillard's year two jump.

Now if he can learn to finish at the rim this offseason, then maybe we'll get to compare his year 3 jump with Roy's.

So you did have a bias when you created this thread. Thanks. Seemed obvious from the get-go that you had your opinion, and were seeking validation for it.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

For me it's hard to say.

I think Dame was a more NBA ready player in his first year than Roy. Therefore his "improvement" from rookie season to his second is is more intangible ways than Roy's. So in that sense they are about equal.

 

[PapaG]

For me it's hard to say.

I think Dame was a more NBA ready player in his first year than Roy. Therefore his "improvement" from rookie season to his second is is more intangible ways than Roy's. So in that sense they are about equal.

Could be. I think Roy did more than he's given credit for, though, and he didn't have a LMA, or even the current Batum.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So you did have a bias when you created this thread. Thanks. Seemed obvious from the get-go that you had your opinion, and were seeking validation for it.

I wasn't seeking validation. Just discussion. Perhaps you didn't read the entire OP. If you had, you might have noticed that I stated my opinion very clearly therein. But in case you missed it:

So to sum up, I think the jump in performance we've seen from Lillard between years 1 and 2 is not only greater than Roy's, but also vastly more impressive seeing as he is doing it as a 2nd fiddle on his own team, as compared to Roy who was the featured player in his team's isolation-heavy offense.

Go Blazers.

Reading. It's fundamental.

 

[PapaG]

I wasn't seeking validation. Just discussion. Perhaps you didn't read the entire OP. If you had, you might have noticed that I stated my opinion very clearly therein. But in case you missed it:



Reading. It's fundamental.

So you think that Lillard's jump as a #2 is more impressive than Roy's as a #1. Great. What do we do with this opinion?

 

[RR7]

So you think that Lillard's jump as a #2 is more impressive than Roy's as a #1. Great. What do we do with this opinion?

I suppose two options are you can discuss it or you can just be an ass.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I suppose two options are you can discuss it or you can just be an ass.

I've been picking for number two all night, PapaG... It hasn't worked... Just FYI.

 

[PapaG]

I suppose two options are you can discuss it or you can just be an ass.

OK. I'm not sure how to compare the two, though, since one has a two-time AS PF with him, and the other had a bunch of NBA scrubs. I'm not sure how asking this makes me an ass, RR7.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

OK. I'm not sure how to compare the two, though, since one has a two-time AS PF with him, and the other had a bunch of NBA scrubs. I'm not sure how asking this makes me an ass, RR7.

To be fair, Roy had LA and Batum.

 

[PapaG]

To be fair, Roy had LA and Batum.

He didn't have this LMA and Batum, though. LMA wasn't close to an AS at that point, and Nic, while I did appreciate his game, didn't fit in well with that offense.

 

[RR7]

OK. I'm not sure how to compare the two, though, since one has a two-time AS PF with him, and the other had a bunch of NBA scrubs. I'm not sure how asking this makes me an ass, RR7.

Then there's your discussion. I think you started off the thread just fine, and made a solid post thinking that the different circumstances of the two means that a simple stat comparison doesn't fit. You're on a message board getting mad at people putting up items for discussion. "What do we do with this opinion?" Again, it's a Blazers message board. I don't get being annoyed at people for having a differing opinion, or presenting a topic for discussion.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

He didn't have this LMA and Batum, though. LMA wasn't close to an AS at that point, and Nic, while I did appreciate his game, didn't fit in well with that offense.

Agreed. But you could make the case that Lillard is still being scouted like he's The Man, getting hounded a lot by defenders. Lillard has definitely put in the hours. Maybe the biggest advantage is that Lillard has an offensive scheme, which makes doubling any player for long impossible. That and his near infinite range make him at great to go off at any moment.

 

[PapaG]

Then there's your discussion. I think you started off the thread just fine, and made a solid post thinking that the different circumstances of the two means that a simple stat comparison doesn't fit. You're on a message board getting mad at people putting up items for discussion. "What do we do with this opinion?" Again, it's a Blazers message board. I don't get being annoyed at people for having a differing opinion, or presenting a topic for discussion.

I didn't get mad at anyone. I offered up stats as a #1 versus a #2, and asked the OP to consider that POV. I think you're using your own bias against me, and not actually reading what I posted.

 

[RR7]

I don't even know how to answer this. ... What were you looking for in this thread?

So you did have a bias when you created this thread. Thanks. Seemed obvious from the get-go that you had your opinion, and were seeking validation for it.

So you think that Lillard's jump as a #2 is more impressive than Roy's as a #1. Great. What do we do with this opinion?

I am reading what you're posting. Read what I said. You had fine posts with your POV on the topic. I just don't get the need for the quoted posts.

 

[PapaG]

I am reading what you're posting. Read what I said. You had fine posts with your POV on the topic. I just don't get the need for the quoted posts.

I'll accept the constructive criticism. We can all improve for the betterment of S2, and I do see how my posts could be misinterpreted.