I was going to write up something thoughtful and well reasoned as a rebuttal to this crazy assertion and then it dawned on me how fruitless and pointless that all would be. Carry on with your circle jerk gentlemen. Via con dios.
I guess that speaks to your view on the purpose of posting in the forum: Is it to generate discussion and the exchange of ideas, or is it too convince people of the validity of your position? Your comment suggests that you are more interested in the latter than the former.
No. It probably speaks more to the fact that I've been working 65 hours a week for about 13 weeks straight and I stayed up way too late last night.
Just because we may score 102 a game doesn't mean that the opponent will score less. I think the defense will be the biggest concern. And it's not because our players aren't capable of being good defenders. It's more about timing and communication that veteran teams are really good at
Since I'm awake now after a refreshing 6 hours of sleep, I'll go ahead and postulate why 100 points per game might be a bridge too far. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/stats_per_game.html So in Stotts' three years as coach they broke the 100 points mark twice; which seems on the surface to suggest that he must be pushing the pace or something, but when you start to pull the numbers apart to see what made the offense so prolific the past two years it really only comes down to two things. A high volume of 3 points shots, shot at a good percentage. Everything else: 2 pt attempts, 2 pt %, offensive rebounds, steals, free throw attempts, FT%, etc., are all well within a standard deviation of each other (mostly). Now I know he'll try to adjust his system to account for new players with totally different strengths and weaknesses, but since he's already said that the team's defensive philosophy is unlikely to change, I'm not sure I would count on a huge uptick in points created off of turnovers or fast-break points. Compounding the problem is the fact that we have a real dearth of shooters/scorers on the team. Some have hypothesized that we'll hit teams with a steady diet of pick-and-roll with a more attack oriented roster - guys that like to get close to the hoop to score - but without the spacing provided by shooters who can catch and shoot from the corners consistently, it's easier said than done. Not to mention that this team is probably going to take awhile to gel and learn each other's sweet spots. So putting aside what the defense will look like, wins and losses, and overall points-differential for the moment. When you look at this team who are the bonafide scorers outside of Lillard and maybe McCollum? That probably sounds like a rhetorical question, but I'm serious. Do guys like Aminu, Henderson, Plumlee and Davis have the chops and I've just never noticed? Full disclosure, I've watched them play very little. I don't mind being wrong, but I haven't seen a compelling case yet for why this team will be any good at generating points on a consistent, night-to-night basis.
Adding up player point averages doesn't equate to team scoring average. If it worked that way our team scoring average last season would be 143.9, when it was actually 102.8. So if you're projecting our players scoring averages to total 102 that means we'll likely be averaging something closer to 73ppg. I think we'll average mid/high-90s, and that our point average will be slightly inflated due to garbage time. But I hope I'm wrong. I currently don't have any faith in Stotts' ability to coach a high-functioning offense, but I am very interested to see what he comes up with. I think the roster has the ability to score points (and defend), but it'll require a team-centric approach, rather than a player-centric approach. I think Jerry Sloan or Larry Brown could do wonders with this roster...if only we had a fountain of youth the rejuvenate those guys!
No, I believe we are talking about regular rotation points. I guess we could really break this down by position. PG: 28 PPG: Starter: 25 (Bench: 4) SG: 19 PPG: Starter: 12, (Bench: 7) SF: 13 PPG: Starter: 7, (Bench: 6) PF: 26 PPG: Starter: 13 (Bench: 13) C: 16 PPG: Starter: 8 (Bench: 8) That's 102 points. Very conservative numbers. Remember that our points will come with more efficiency when the top shooter isn't tossing 16 shots at 2 points for 40%.
Oh, you don't have to remind ME. I think I'm probably the happiest guy there is when it comes to the fact that LMA isn't on our team anymore!
I know!!!! LOL... Anyway, I think our offense will be much more efficient with roles clearly laid out. I feel this new team will be more dynamic, with many different scoring options. I just hope Stotts is aware of the diversity on offense he has. He has the opportunity to kill you from inside, mid range, slashing and outside. He just needs these players to buy into his offensive scheme. Dame needs to round up the troops and make them believe they are good because they really are.
I'm with you on the roster - I think there's a ton of potential there. But until I see Stotts make meaningful changes, and implement an offensive system that utilizes more than two players at a time, I don't have any faith in him. I'll give him about 20 games and if we don't see improvements in HOW the team plays (I'm not concerned with results at the moment) then I really hope he's fired. He just seems too simplistic and would rather let players free lance in his "flow offense", than put in the work to devise and teach a robust offense predicated on many moving parts with many different options.
I would reduce the backup PF scoring and increase the backup SG scoring by about 5 each. Otherwise--makes some sense.
This. Our team averaged 102.8 ppg last season and we are expecting a drop off this upcoming season. Points per game leaders for 2014-15 season.
Good post. I kind of assumed for my answer it was a breakdown of 9 or 10 players points scored in one game if they played every minute instead of 9 players average for a whole season. But yes you are right.
I think 100 to 102 is pretty good estimate where they will be but don't be surprise our defense will be better than people thinks.
