GAME THREAD: BLAZERS @ PISTONS - DECEMBER 9, 2014 - TUESDAY, 4:30 PM (PST), CSN

No. It's not "him as the last resort". That lie needs to die a horrible death. Yes, many shots are contested, with the defense focused on him (then don't effing shoot!!!11!). But as long as he's shooting more shots than anyone in the entire league from the most inefficient place to do so, it will continue to be brought up, I imagine.

 

You're right. Sometimes players chuck up a bad shot instead of passing to the open man. That's kind of what we're talking about here.

Then, with all respect, you don't understand it. And I'm not insulting you--there are a great many people who have coached and played for years that don't understand it. Similar to how there are many people in baseball who think sacrificing a man forward is the right thing to do all the time. Just because you've always thought something doesn't make it so.

That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their preferences. But that has been shown to be not optimal for winning, in both real life and statistics.

Uh, it's 22' in the corner to 23'9" at the top, but whatever...

Of course. But the NBA, knowing this, placed a thing called the "three-point line" in their real-life games to give a bonus point for making shots with that greater degree of difficulty. Which changes the calculus to say that if you're shooting 33% from 3 you're doing better than the guys shooting 49% from 2. It's a statistical thing...

If one was to use statistics and the reams of data now available, one could find out that your premise here isn't correct.

There's a skill piece involved. Dirk and Bosh and Gasol shoot way better on their shots than LMA does. Are they less contested than he is? If you "won't even shoot 40% on them"...why the hell are you taking them?

Fortunately, just like in a video game, only 5 paid NBA players can be on a court for one team at a time. Therefore, if 2 are guarding you (even in real life), one person is wide-open. Studies have shown that passing the ball to the open man to shoot increases effectiveness and efficiency.

Again, statistics would tell you this is not true. For instance, looking at shot charts and stats shows you that Player A has shot 234 10-23' jumpers and made only 95 of them (for a 40.6% percentage). Player B has shot 233 and made 94 of them (for a 40.3% percentage). Player B is LMA. Player A is someone I'd imagine you'd call a ball-hogging chucker...K*be Bryant. LMA is actually 60th in the league in FG% on his "bread and butter" shots, behind notables such as "dunk-only" Blake Griffin and Robert Sacre (?!?), 3% behind Melo, and 12% behind Dirk. For Big Guy types, he's behind Boozer, Horford, Smith, Bosh, both Morris twins, Humphries, Anderson, Kanter, Love, Sims, Davis, Kaman, Vucevic, Ibaka, Bass, Favors, Scola, both Gasols, Nene, Deng.

Correct. Because with the 3point line, only people who don't understand statistics think that it's ok to use some of your finite number of possessions to shoot contested shots from there. THEY would rather shoot more inside shots to get fouls called. THEY would rather shoot 3 point shots because they're more efficient. I'll put it another way, since you don't like stats or the "efficiency" word---you get more points doing what I'm talking about than what you're talking about, and therefore one will win more doing it my way than yours. There's a reason that even Coach Stotts says he wants teams to shoot mid-range J's against us. It because it's one of the worst ways you can end a possession that doesn't involve a turnover. Again, statistics show that this is the case not just for the Blazers, but every team in the NBA.

I can't speak for anyone else, but first of all a) he's not shooting close to 50% on the year inside the line, b) he could shoot 27% from 3 and be as effective and efficient as the 40% he's shooting on jumpers that aren't worth three points and c) there are multiple arguments to base him not shooting contested J's without resorting to anything else. See any of my posts above.

 

Mags, this isn't saying what you think it's saying. Sorry. Let's just stay here for a sec, mm'k?

 

Odd, I missed where people were arguing that Aldridge wasn't clutch. I thought the argument was that him shooting contested long 2-point jumpshots was bad for the team.

 

That's stretching it, even for you.

 

Dame shoots 45% from the area LMA shoots 40%.

And Mags. I assure you that with every fiber in my being, if Dame was shooting 12 shots/game from the most inefficient area of the floor, or shooting as many contested shots as LMA from the worst spot on the floor, I'd call him out, too.

 

Yeah, so? Nobody said he's not valuable. All anyone has said is that the high number of contested long 2-point jumpers make him less efficient than he should be, and that the team as a whole would benefit if he were to pass out of those situations more often. The fact that he can score in the clutch doesn't negate that claim.

http://stats.nba.com/player/#!/200746/tracking/shots/

There's a lot of good info here. The longer Aldridge has the ball, the less efficient he gets (touch time range). His FG% on jump shots drops precipitously if a defender is within 6 ft of him (closest defender, shot > 10 ft). His eFG on pull up (ie, not catch-and-shoot) jumpers is lower than any other type of shot (General range).

By anyone looking objectively at the stats, it is inarguable that when Aldridge has the ball, defended unassisted jump shots are the lowest efficiency result possible. That's all anyone has been saying. Nothing you have said or linked refutes that claim.