Tough choices. But I think if you have the opportunity to add Monroe and not have to give up Lillard or LMA you have to do it. He's immediately your third most valuable player. Its a talent upgrade even though it creates some unknowns in the lineup. Lillard - CJ - Wesley - LMA - Monroe or Lillard - Wesley - Wright- LMA - Monroe or Lillard - Wesley - Crabbe - LMA - Monroe
While I mostly agree, it's a tough pill to swallow considering offense hasn't necessarily been the Blazers problem.
The only way a Monroe acquisition makes sense to me is if it is part of another deal or probably tied to several other deals.
Oh really? I do not recall ever using advanced stats to support my opinion. I may sometimes include them in my analysis (though rarely) for people who think they know what they mean. But I can't think of ever using advanced stats to form or support my opinion. For years I've felt that FG% (or eFG%) is the best measure of offense, as it only measures the team's ability to put the ball through the hoop and weeds out free throws. Also, how does it remove the impact of offensive rebounding? I don't get that. It removes the impact of free throws and (if you go with raw FG% rather than eFG%) 3-pointers, and strictly measures makes vs misses. Again, it only measures how good a team or player is at putting the ball through the hoop. That, to me, is what offense is all about. If it's all about converting possessions into points for you, that's cool. But personally I hate Harden-style offense - sure, he converts possessions into points by duping refs into giving him free throws. But that's not good offense, IMO.
some of it depends on what the 2015 plan is, keep in mind that BOTH Wes and Lopez are FA's next summer and will get paid, especially Rolo, so that consideration does add another element
Because if you shoot, miss, rebound the ball and put it in, that's as good as not missing in the first place even though the field goal percentage is worse. And yes, it also removes the effects of free throws, three-pointers as well as turnovers. In other words, it misses a lot about effective offense. That's all that offense is, turning possessions into points. All defense is, is making sure opponent possessions don't result in points.
Thanks for explaining what you meant. I understand that a lot of people think these advanced stats are the end-all be-all - I do not. A missed shot is a missed shot. An offensive rebound and a made shot after the fact do not cancel out the fact that the shot was initially missed. I do NOT think that trying to draw a foul so you can get free throws indicates good offense. Making high percentage shots is good offense. Duping refs, or using tricks to draw fouls rather than just trying to make a shot, is a bastardization of the game. Relying on 3-pointers isn't a bastardization of the game, but I don't think it can be called a good offense - it's just playing the odds. Our Ortg is inflated because of 3-pointers. It's an estimate of points scored per 100 possessions. That's about 13 more possessions than we averaged per game. With 1/3 of our shots being 3-pointers that's adding four 3-pointers to the estimate, and with our better-than-average 3% it artificially inflates our Ortg. If Ortg was changed to be based on 200 possessions we'd skyrocket ahead of everybody based solely on 3-point shooting. Is it so weird to ask that a good offensive team have a good FG%? To me the two go together - you can't be a good offensive team without a good FG%. There's no way, IMO, that we're the 2nd best offensive team in the league when our FG% is league average. I suspect the truth of our offense lies somewhere in the middle, because certainly it's better than the Lakers. It just really irks me when people latch onto these ideas and treat them as gospel (remember when Nate was a defensive specialist?), despite evidence to the contrary. But the larger point was that Monroe would provide us with something on the offensive end that we don't really have. I agree that it shouldn't at the detriment to our defense, which is why I'd like to see Monroe come off the bench this season (and start the following season). But the idea that our offense is "great" so we don't need to do anything about it doesn't sit right with me.
FG% says a lot to me as it usually says a lot about what kind of looks you're getting on offense (contested vs uncontested). Generally the more uncontested shots you take the better the FG% will be. The better offenses shoot better and get better open looks, as well as scoring in the paint. The Blazers are a very good offense, but the fact that they're a perimeter oriented team scares me going forward. There's a lot of settling for jumpers with this group and not attacking the paint, and a lot of that has to do with Stotts' system. So overall I think the Blazers have a very good offense, but I don't consider it elite or great. They're great at shooting the 3pter but that's it. If you run them off the 3pt line (see SA) they really struggle to get open looks as Lillard is the only player that's great or above average with the ball in his hands. You have to watch the games to see this. Eye test still matters.
You can't be an elite offense imo when you're 26th in points in the paint You're just too one-dimensional
Have we already forgotten how pathetic our offense (as well as our defense) was against the Spurs in the playoffs? Chemistry is great and all, but talent in addition to chemistry, is what makes a championship team. Simply put, Monroe is a MASSIVE talent upgrade over Lopez. Also, the cap is going to skyrocket in two years anyway. So the amount we have to pay Monroe is less of a factor than people think.
Did you notice every other team looking like shit against them? There was no stopping that locomotive! And okc had arguably the best duo and Miami had the best player in the nba
