Unfortunately you can't draw much from whether the non-big men more or less efficient since LaMarCooch flew the coop, since except for Dame we don't really have the same cast of characters.
You didn't compare the production with LMA vs. Dame/CJ's increase this. Having to play 4 guys 60 minutes to get similar production means you don't get LMA's points AND points from those players for the ~24 minutes of playing time at PF/C combined. 3 guys with 7 PER don't add up to one guy with 21. Taking way fewer but better shots scores less points. And scoring more than the opponent is what wins games
True. But don't they track how many shots are open/contested now? Would bet anything that we had more open shots w/him than w/o.
When you make a statement like this: You absolutely did NOT "show" that missing LMA's offense isn't contributing to us to being worse this year. You showed that 4 players, combined, have been able to shoot a better eFG% with approximately the same scoring output as a single player. You're confusing correlation with causation.
Team scoring stats (PPG, FG%, and AFG%) are essentially unchanged from last season to this season. Ditto for SAS (except for a 5-point drop in PPG).
Sure I did. He's gone, and we're still a top-10 offense. "Missing his offense" is not the reason we're 8-12. Now the stats and analysis was just an update from a hypothesis I had over the summer that seems to have been borne out, and potentially shows why we have been able to recover from his offense being gone. In that, everyone we brought in to replace him is averse to shooting the 10-23 foot jumper, even though they shoot it better than he does/did. They shoot more in the paint, and more from 3, and draw more FTs per shot. You seem to be confusing what I did the analysis on vs. what I responded to honkicracker about. But that's ok. It's kind of par for the course for us, isn't it?
No. You. Didn't. Not close. You showed the following: One particular way of calculating a "top-10 offense" still puts us as a "top-10 offense" even with LMA leaving. That is a long, long way from being able to claim that missing LMA's offense has nothing to do with us being 8-12. Perhaps your metrics are the wrong metrics. You're starting from a possibly false premise and running with it as if it's an accepted fact. Yes. You continually confuse correlation and causation, and I continually notice.
I said that it would of be much more difficult to score. Points are going to come, just depends if it's in the flow of the offense. Sent from my Baller-Ass 5.5" iPhone 6+......... FAMS
see no... you've stated it was aldridge. not frontcourt. so doing frontcourt v frontcourt is biased. it should be aldridge vs nards & vonleh. Davis and Plumlee spend the majority of the time at center... Which Aldridge did not play. So until you do that... these stats are moot. Even though with the majority of the time Nards spends shooting the 3 I still expect him to beat aldridge in efficiency. Shame that doesn't translate into more W's... especially at the end of games.
I'll state this again because I seem to be masochistic and, while I know you don't back off of points once ingrained, I also don't think that you're using your mental powers for good. Point 1: I didn't "calculate us" as a top-10 offense. We are in efficiency, SRS and points per game. We have a higher-ranked offense than last year. Now, if there are other metrics you think I should use to state that our offense is just as good, if not better, than last year, I'm happy to hear them. No calculation, data mining, filtering or rigid analysis was done to refute honkicracker's off-the-cuff "8-12" response. I just stated facts. I put in just about as much effort as he did in writing it. (now, on to the point of the post) Point 2 (broken down into small chunks): stats show that losing LMA and replacing him with Leonard/Davis/Plumlee/Vonleh has increased offensive efficiency among the bigs This is what was postulated in July and the point of the analysis at the 25% mark, and as I stated before, if you have stats you'd like to use in your own analysis I'm happy to hear them. The offensive efficiency among the bigs is much higher. Every time one of the 4 hoists a shot they score with the efficiency of Cousins (1.32 points per shot), compared to last year (1.11 for all of the rotation bigs, 1.09 for LMA). Or, basically, what I predicted in July. And the breakdown of just how efficient they are (or, better said, "how much more efficient than LMA was last year") used shot data than many might not have taken the time to look up on their own, but from the 20+ likes I've received, at least a couple folks are happy to read it. and kept the Blazers as a top-10 offense (currently #8), See Point #1. No analysis (by me, anyway) needed. Just pulling from whatever flavor of offensive effectiveness you want: SRS, OEff, PPG....reported by whoever you want: basketball-reference, ESPN, hoopshype, ...? even with a poor shooting start to the season from Dame/CJ/Aminu, Also didn't think this needed to be articulated, but if you disagree that there was a poor start to the season in the shooting efficiency it can relatively easily be shown, one way or another. most probably because the distribution of the shots away from mid-range to more paint-and-3's. No support offered or intended. Likely wouldn't take much effort, and you're welcome to show that it's not that, but some other cause like fewer turnovers, higher pace, better bench, whatever...if that's your intent. You're correct in that, for point two I'm starting from a hypothesis (which, I guess, by definition is a "possibly false premise" but also is a possibly true premise and thus, the reason for the analysis)--vice the statistical ranking of the Blazers, which is not disputed (at least, I hope you're not). You keep trying to fit this cliche into arguments as if many of us here haven't taken a couple of stats courses. Won't work. Talk about what's wrong in point 1. Or talk about what's wrong with point 2. Don't confuse the two in order to make it seem as if you pulled a "gotcha", especially if unsupported.
