No, not necessarily. It's most buckets by zone not best shooters from each zone. It works for GS having two players on there because they are from the 3 point line and both shoot an extremely good percentage from those spots. For Aldridge it's more about volume not efficiency.
Never the less. There is a reason Steph occupies 8 of those positions. Lillard occupies 4 of them and pretty much every position is occupied by what all presume to be Good shooters in the league. Are you trying to suggest Aldridge is not a good shooter and that the four positions that he holds are different from the others? Efficiency stats are fine and all, But in the end it's about making buckets. Aldridge scores the ball. The original statement was about teams being able to guard the Blazers. If you put Lillard and Aldridge on the court with CJ and competent Center then add a SF that is at least a threat to hit an open shot the Blazers are a very tough team to defend. Even more so than that Aldridge's "Efficiency Numbers" go up because he is not the only option and i would venture a guess his assist numbers would increase as well. Not to mention Lillards Assist numbers. In the end it's all just speculation. But that is the way it seems to me.
The chart is simply who has made the most shots from each spot. It has nothing to do with being a good shooter. Obviously you have to be a good enough shooter for a coach to let you shoot enough to be on this chart but it just means Aldridge has played a lot and shoots from inefficient spots. According to Basketball Reference the Blazers were comfortably 3rd in both adjusted and unadjusted offensive rating last year. Adding someone like Aldridge who needs to get his shots to be happy doesn't just automatically equate to improving the offense.
And here comes the getting old stance. I have never bought into the "Too old to contribute" idea. Aldridge might be getting older but his knowledge of the game and experience far outweighs his age. Not only that you will not find many players that have been as durable as LaMarcus Aldridge.
Good point. Aldridge is good. Love is good. Griffin is good. BUTTTTTTTTTTTT, they are not necessarily good at all relative to their contracts. If we could get any of those on the cheap, great. I just don't see that happening.
Not gonna buy that either. LaMarcus might have had his issues when he was young. But he ain't that guy now. Older and wiser is a thing. Not just older as many like the post above would have you believe. Aldridge has even played with Gasol who everyone around here has immediately crowned the next players coach/mentor. Too much team here for Aldridge to demand touches.
Would you rather have a star or borderline star making 25-30M and lives up to 80% of the contract or a role player making 5m that lives up to 200% of the contract?
You seem to have forgotten that there is a salary cap. We can't just pay 12 players (or even 4) 25-30M a year, even if they "live up to 80% of their contract".
I didn't forget anything, I'm just asking. There was no opinion in the question. I think they're good arguments for both. With situation, "a", well stars or guys who can average 20+ / 10+ are way, way harder to find then role players who can outplay their contracts, and you simply cannot win without stars. On the other hand, 3 or 4 role players outplaying their contracts is a great place to be and helps for team building and depth.
My thoughts on this would be that the star playing to 80% of his contract wins you more games than the player making 5 mil unless that player is still on a rookie contract and he is breaking out. But to have the guy on a rookie contract means you needed to have been the team that drafted him for the most part. Guys that have been in the league for their second or third contract that is at 5 mil are not going to all the sudden be worth 10 mil a year unless something drastic has changed? Also 80% of 30 million means the star is playing at a level worth 24 million. Like i said. The Star player will win you more games at that level.
You are basically making it up that he has matured to support your argument. He couldn't even handle playing for Pop the first two years and Pop had to be the bigger person and give in to Aldridge. Neither of us have any idea whether his ego would allow him to fit back in here. How does playing with Gasol prove anything? Gasol is literally one of the most unselfish bigs of the last 15 years. Here's the situation. Aldridge left because he thought the grass was greener with the Spurs. Him wanting to come back tells me that he simply wishes he didn't leave after seeing the success the Blazers have had, which is just as much as the Spurs during the last 4 seasons.
Reminded me how much I miss having Matthews in the corner. It's funny--if you asked me where Dame is most lethal I would have instinctively said beyond the top of the key, and Curry was a little on either side. I've seen these two guys demoralize opponents so many times from those spots...
Well Hoops. You are taking this wrong. He ain't coming here first off. At least not this year. All i said is a line up with Dame and CJ with a solid SF shooting threat and a quality center that had Aldridge as their PF would be tough to guard. Pretty much unguardable. And it's true. That team would put some points on the board. I'll even elaborate. If that SF was also a solid defender with a good 3 point stroke and the Center was a decent rim protector that would hustle for rebounds that team would contend. Even more so if they had a couple dependable players off the bench as they might have right now. It would even be better if they had a center that could also run P n R well. Pretty much all i'm saying is this team right now with Aldridge would be a good team.
