Take a look at net production/On-court Off-court/Simple Rating http://www.82games.com/1213/1213POR.HTM Let's trade LMA and build around Hickson and Lillard, though.
Hickson give up almost a 20 PER to whoever he defends during a game, and the team is more productive with him off the court versus on the court. A role player, and it would be foolish to throw big money at him. The MLE would be awesome, though, and anybody who pays over it will regret it, IMO. For jlprk, if you read this, look at LMA's "off court" number. It shows why having a solid PER guy who can play a lot of minutes is important to any team, especially when his replacement is garbage, as is the case for the forwards off of the Blazer bench.
Hickson sits either 1) to give Leonard time or 2) because Leonard is better. Your chart says that Hickson is +1.1 and Leonard is -6.1, a 7.2 difference. Why, I do believe the answer is 1).
I should add theory number 3) because of frequent foul trouble. But the opposite is true. Hickson's never in foul trouble.
The chart does confirm what we already know, that Aldridge (matched against a smaller opponent) is more efficient than Hickson (guarding and guarded by a larger opponent). If they traded positions, the difference between the two would decrease.
Did someone say "let's trade Aldridge so we can build around Hickson and Lillard"? Cause I'm pretty sure everyone who wants to trade LaMarcus wants something in return. Trade is the key word here.
Wait wait wait... so your saying LA playing his natural position means he is guarding people smaller then him? Also hickson is guarded by the worst of the two bigs by the other team while there best big man defender guards LA not hickson. Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
Did you forget to mention that LA plays 9 mpg more than Hickson? He also attempts 9 FGA more per game. If you're going to give an argument, then you should look at all aspects.
If we trade Aldridge, we'll build around a superstar giveaway debacle, à la Dwight Howard or Chris Paul. It should be a trade up, not down.
defensive switches/rotations among Bigs happen on most every possession, often multiple times. If these switches didn't happen constantly, you'd have a point. JJ just isn't that good on or off the ball on D and he certainly isn't a shotblocker who intimidates slashers into pulling up from midrange That said, I'm glad he's on the team as he's much better then whats behind him. Ideally he'd be coming off the bench as part of a Bigs rotation STOMP
This I absolutely agree with. Hickson strikes me as the kind of player who would be at his best as a sixth-seventh man type, who can come off the bench and expend a ton of energy at either front-court spots and help turn a contest in your favor. Players like him (hustle types who are slightly undersized) tend to reach a point of diminishing marginal utility as they go past about the 20-25 minutes mark in a game.
I, for one, am happy that J.J. Hickson is a Blazer. He is one of the main reasons they are where they are right now. He helps make this team fun to watch and easy to root for. If you demand more, then I feel sorry for you.
And then there's theory number 4) that management limits his time to hold down his stats to limit other teams' offers next summer.
Agree that hes a prototype 3rd big on a good team. He can play at PF or C alongside the starting PF or C, hes energetic and physical, limited on defense and undersized. As a starter you hate his defense and lack of floor game. Off the bench you value the raw rebounding, scoring and energy.
