When healthy, we will have zero weaknesses.

It can be, but because offensive rebounds don't create another possession, but are part of the original possession, you can shoot a very middling field goal percentage but still post a high efficiency. If you want to see if a team is getting good high percentage shots, just look at team field goal percentage and points in the paint (which can come in transistion or on post ups). Right now (and even last year when they were so "efficient") they had a very mediocre field goal percentage and have always been close to dead last (or dead last) in points in the paint and transition buckets.

Part of this can probably be attributed to Nate, but the other part of the equation is that the players for the most part are not good ball handlers in traffic (aside from a couple of guards) and there are very few guys (aside from a couple of guards) who are adept at finishing at the rim or finishing through contact.

 

I am not buying this one bit. If you have good 3P shooters - giving them open 3P shots is an easy bucket. If you have players that are good in ISO situations, giving them the system where they can do that is getting good shots.

Just for an example, if we look at Portland's TS% - this year, with all the turmoil, we sit at a 54.5% - which is 12th in the league. If you look at our TS% from last year, and put it in the list for this year (I do not have TS% for the entire league from last year, so I calculated it for last year for the Blazers and put it in the list of this year's teams) - last year's Blazers TS% would put them 7th in the league.

Last year's team had 6 rotation players with TS% over 55% - which is fantastic (S-Bo also had more than 55%, but I eliminated him from the list). There is just no way so many rotation players had such high TS% if they did not get easy shots. These might not be easy shots in the "Shaq, 1ft from the basket with Frye guarding him" type - but if non contact drawing players like Blake, Rudy and Nic had over 55% TS% - they were getting easy shots.

If you look at our rotation players with over 1000 minutes last year, only one of them had a TS% of less than .500 (He is now a member of the Kings, for those who do not know it). For the record, LMA and Travis, which are the other 2 rotation players under 55% were not bad as well, with Travis at .541 and LMA at .529

Just as a comparison, the LAL, your NBA champions last year, had only 5 players over .55 in TS%, if you remove the 2 non rotation players (arbitrarily set as 1000 minutes) - they are down to 3.

This team gets enough easy shots. Sure, it would be nice to get some more back to the basket shots - but Greg's improvement helps in this regard, and JB's attack with no mercy attitude is another thing that will help this team.

Conclusion, the high efficiency offense was an indication that the team got enough easy shots. The problem is, and was, more on the defensive end of the court - and last year in the playoffs, their inexperience and a tough matchup exposed some of the obvious issues they had. But, they are clearly on the right track, health permitting, to be a contender - as far as the roster is concerned.

 

[video=youtube;sX161ulHrSA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX161ulHrSA[/video]

I think Im just gonna start posting this clip in every KS thread

 

This team is built for the regular season right now. That's all those stats tell me. Without an ability to generate points in the paint, living and dying by the jumper and the three pointer is going to continue to be an issue for this team when matched up against the good defensive teams in the league who are adept at taking away a team's strength and making them beat you some other way in a seven game series. I would have thought the Rockets series last spring would have taught us that much.

 

That team did not have Oden playing anywhere as well as he did before he went down, it did not have JB playing anywhere as well as he does now - and it had a bunch of inexperienced kids that ran into a bad matchup. I am willing to bet that Travis, LMA would look better when they have a chance to go at it for the 2nd time, same is probably true for Rudy. Add JB attacking and whatever we do with Miller (be it him or whoever he is traded for) instead of Sergio/Blake playing all those minutes - and this team does not look anywhere as bad as it did.

There is something to be said about drawing conclusions from small sample sizes. We have a tiny one about this team in the playoffs - and when you consider the matchup and the inexperience... I would not be ready to proclaim them dead in the water, at all.

 

To me it comes down to Bayless. If Bayless is our guy next to BROY then we are set (When/IF healthy) If he proves to be the guy, then that means he will have succeeded at attacking the basket. With Roy, Greg, and LMA that is enough guys getting "easy baskets".

Bayless being that guys also means that Batum, Webster and Rudy can man the three spot.

If Bayless is not the guy then I agree that we need either another PG that can do these things that we hope Bayless is capable of, or we need it from the SF spot.

Needless to say Bayless has this year to prove he is the guy. His teammate's future depend on him too.

 

If Bayless isn't the guy, Mills will be. Patty is averaging 38 ppg, 12 apg, & 1 tpg in the D-League. If he does half of that in the NBA, he's the answer.

 

I agree Nik. Our forwards can't handle the ball (even when at full strength with Batum, LA, Travis, Martell, & Dante) And they don't post up either. Basically, we have 2 guards guys who can attach the basket (B-Roy, JB) off the dribble.

Everybody seems to be calling for a "Motion Offense", but w/o wing ball handlers that's tough. What Motion Offense do we use? a 4 out 1 in? 3-2? Dribble/Drive? I would love to see it, but we need more versatile wings. That's where a guy like Hedo really could have helped.

 

I think Batum can handle the ball and I think he can finish at the rim. The premise of the thread was "When Healthy". If they are all on the floor, why would you need a SF who will be posting up. There is one ball. In this case you up you are wasting Greg and LMA's talents. But you are right, a motion offense would not fit this team. This year it would if you started Rudy when he is healthy.

 

Well, I've never missed a three pointer in the NBA...maybe I should get some burn, too.*

*equally irrelevant fact since that "average" is 1 game.

 

You're shooting 0% from the field in the NBA.

 

Learn math then post.

 

Perhaps. The natural follow-up question to that is: So what?

I mean, the reason to get "easy shots" is to create offensive efficiency. On the offensive side of the ball, the only goal is offensive efficiency. Scoring the most points you can with your given possessions. You're losing the plot if you say, "Sure, the team was offensively efficient, but didn't get easy baskets." Easy baskets are a means to an end, they aren't the end themselves.

 

0-0 is .000

 

No, no it isn't. Percentage is a ratio, you can't actually divide a number by zero and get a real number, so again. Learn math, then post.

 

Wrong. 0/0 is undefined, mathematically, because you can't divide by 0.

 

Yes, but in terms of basketball stats, when a player is listed 0 of 0, they are listed as .000.

 

Nope.

Example:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/odengr01.html

A player who has never attempted a 3 pointer in his career, look at his 3pt% box.