Is it the same level? Bazemore made 96 threes last year, ET made 11. (Harkless made 33) Big difference for Portland' s type of offense. I am not expecting huge shooting numbers from Baze, just a better 3pt shooter when left open then we have had.
What is Portland's type of offense? Part of me wonders if our poor shooting is a function of the team or the offense. We were 12th in 3 point percentage last year, which is okay, but actually 20th in 3 point attempt rate. The only playoff teams that attempted less 3 pointers than us were the Spurs, Clippers and Pacers. Our 3 point attempt rate has hovered around 30-33% since the Aldridge days. The league average attempt rate was 26% in 2013-14, Portland was 29% that season. Last season it was 36% league average, and Portland was 34%. So the difference is the league is shooting more, and we're shooting about the same amount. With that said, 3 point shooting is only a function of the offense. We had the 3rd most efficient offense last year even without shooting so many threes, but maybe Stotts's offense just isn't actually good at generating three pointers. Maybe having more shooters will allow Stotts to revamp the offense, but if they run the same offense I wonder how much better we will actually be.
cute, but you know what I meant here's the thing, none of Dame-CJ-Curry were SF's. Sometimes Portland played without a C; and sometimes they played without a SF. They, in a few instances, ran with all of those 3 on the floor and when they did they had a 3 guard lineup the main thing was that bbref's assignment of positional minutes doesn't make a lot of sense at all for some players for instance, according to bbref, Dame-CJ-Curry played a total of 52 minutes together. Yet, they show CJ having played 713 minutes at SF and Curry playing 223 minutes at SF according to bbref: A. Aminu | D. Lillard | C. McCollum | J. Nurkić | E. Turner was the 3rd most used 5 man unit, and Z. Collins | S. Curry | M. Leonard | D. Lillard | E. Turner was the 6th most used unit, yet they also show that Turner didn't play a single minute at SF. It's nonsense in just about every practical way except for bbref's apparent need to apportion 48 minutes a game to each position
OK. We'll agree to disagree. Average 3-point shooting does not make up for shit overall shooting. I will not be impressed if he shoots worse overall than Al Farouq Aminu. And there is a chance he's he'll be the worst percentage scorer on the team with a $19 million salary, just like ET was.
My impression of Stotts's offense is that it does not try very hard to get the shots they really want, it works to get good shots. It's not hard to get the "good" shots especially when both your small guards can dribble. CJ McCollum is great at "breaking ankles" in the 2-point area, but to me I'd rather expend that energy setting someone up for an open 3-pointer. When I see teams like Golden State passing working much more to get the shots they want, I wonder what the Trail Blazers could do with a little more focus on the shot they really want. Or maybe the mid range ankle breaker really is the shot Stotts wants.
You can spew as many negative stats as you want from last year, but the Blazers ended up being a 3 seed in the very tough west and made it to the WCF. That's the only stats that really matter.
Well, the whole point of offense is to score as many points as possible. In that sense I don’t think it matters where you get your shots as long as it’s efficient. It’s worth noting that the Blazers, Spurs and the Clippers all had top 10 offenses despite shooting less threes. The Blazers were third and the Spurs were 4th. Why shoot threes if you can’t? The reason I asked is because over Stotts 7 year career we’ve always hovered around the 30-34% range. That’s why I was questioning whether it was more a function of the roster or the offense. This season should test that theory. I think there is benefit of increasing the spacing on the floor though, because the game is played differently in the playoffs. Good teams employed the same strategy against is to pretty good success because we haven’t had good enough shooters.
If you are referring to Offensive Rating as defined by NBA.com, that is how many points are scored per possession, so it is not a shooting efficiency stat. You could miss 2 shots and get 2 offensive rebounds and make the 3rd shot. That would be good for Offensive Rating but you'd have a shooting percentage of 33% which is inefficient. (if you're meaning a different statistic what does it describe?) edit: Am I correct on the definition of a possession in this stat? If you get a new possession on an offensive rebound or not... For effective field goal percentage the Trail Blazers were 13th in the NBA. For True Shooting Percentage, which includes free-throw shooting, the Trail Blazers were 9th in the NBA. https://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=EFG_PCT&dir=-1
I understand what everyone is talking about with the "better fit". I just don't think we'll see the improvement that everyone is hoping for. Of course I hope I'm wrong.
Bazemore doesn’t need to be JJ Reddick, he needs to just hit open shots with some consistency. Given what we’ve seen in his career so far he can do that so that’s good enough for me.
Reddick may be a better shooter, but Bazemore has more versatility and can help in more ways, It will be interesting and fun to see how he fits in.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...om&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=referral did not see this posted anywhere
I thought the process was every starter gets assigned a position, then every sub after that is assigned to the position of who they checked in for. I thought BBRef just used those numbers.