When we already have a negative point differential, putting up 7 less points against a good defense is pretty substantial.
To follow up PTS/G: 115.0 (7th of 30) Opp PTS/G: 115.2 (27th of 30) So if we average 108 on offense against good defensive teams, and we average 115.2 points on defense, we are squarely averaging a loss when we play opponents that can counter Dame.
Sacramento is doing their best to prevent us from grabbing the 30th spot in defensive rating. They gave up 154 points to the Jazz tonight without Mitchell and Conley!
In the left-side box, you can choose which group of opponent teams you want. http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketbal...zers/players/damian-lillard/profile/21/25/410
Almost exactly the reverse now - we're 3-7 but thanks to the two blowouts, we've got better stats than the opponents:
I dont even understand this. Bunch of really good players on this graphic. Towns, Russell and Edwards are here, I would take any of them
It is saying that there are 166 3-man groupings that have a very good offensive rating (118 or higher). Of that set, there are 3 groupings that are SO terrible at defense - that they STILL have a negative net rating. These guys give up more points to the opponent than they score. Portland (Dame, Kanter, Little) Dallas & Minny
So how often do you see a combination of Dame, Kanter and Little on the court together when the Blazers are healthy?
I will say, though, there seems to be an awful lot of "noise" in that stat. I'm going off of BBRef, and their #s and NBA.com seem to differ slightly in net rating stuff, but regardless, Little, Lillard, Kanter is a net negative 3 man lineup, but Little, Kanter, Anthony is a net positive. By a larger margin. Which seems...unexpected. 3 man samples maybe not a great view. Stretching it to 4 man samples, Lillard, Little, Kanter, Anthony has a net positive rating, but Little, Lillard, Kanter, Trent was negative.
I'm looking at bbref and I don't see Little in any of the three man lineup, but all I see is the top-20. Is there a way to expand that? and yeah, I think there's some noise in there. Pretty small sample size and too many varaiables