You don't need a Hall of Famer, but you usually need somebody who demands at least some accountability on defense.
Yep. He could never get over the hump with the Pistons and then had to make due with the disfunctional Pacer roster. I think keeping Stotts was the correct call. We have to get better on defense though. That could happen via an assistant or dedicating all resources to that side of the ball. Development of younger/bench players is also an area of concern. We made a huge jump this year, so I am approaching next year with slight optimism.
We did go from 26th to 16th for defensive rating from last season to this one. We have been middle of the pack or worse for a long time.
Yeah 16th isn't too shabby. If we can add a defender to the roster and make some other system tweeks top10 is possible. Combine that with one of the league's most efficient offenses and you have a contender.
We were 14th in AFG%: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/offense-per-game/sort/shootingEfficiency/seasontype/2
Really, the worst part about our defense was not causing turnovers. We were 6th in the league in holding opponents to a low eFG%, our Defensive Rebound Rate was slightly above average, and we were 7th in fewest fouls per FG attempt. All point to some pretty decent team defense. However, we were 30th in the league in forcing turnovers, and it wasn't even close. Our opponent TO rate was 11%. The next worst was 12.1%, with 7 teams between 12.1% and 12.9%. We were exceptionally bad at causing turnovers. Focus on that, improve it, and the defense improves five-fold.
I thought the problem with creating turnovers was due to not having a true center when we had Hickson and no bench. We got Lopez, so it should not have been as big of problem for our backcourt to take some chances. If they got into foul trouble, we had people that were not D League worthy to play minutes. However, we still did not improve this stat. This will be what I will be looking for next preseason.
I think it comes down to stubby arms on our starting guards. Matthews is a physical defender, not a lengthy one. Damian is disinterested, but also isn't long.
Absolutely. Stotts plus two hall of famers in their primes and a good supporting cast can win a title. It worked for Phil Jackson, it can work for Terry.
Except for Detroit, every team needs two hall of famers to win the championship. But that's like the logic of the rain dance, because if you win the championship, you're way more likely to be a hall of famer than if you don't. If LA and Dame win rings, they will probably go to the HOF. Then you'll say the Stotts had two hall of famers when he won his rings for Portland.
Exactly. Kind of like statistics that show people who exercise more are healthier. Or is it that people who are healthier exercise more? I get confused. All I know is the neighbor's chicken crowed at 5:00 a.m. and the sun came up AGAIN! Weird.
Field goal percentage, adjusted to account for the additional point scored off of 3-pointers. It seems that many people prefer AFG%, rather than raw FG%, as a measure. Personally, I prefer FG% because that tells you how effective a team is at making shots. That, to me, is the purest stat to measure how good a team is at offense. It doesn't take into account foul shots that can either be (a) given to us purposely at the end of close games or (b) come from a blown foul call, or (c) come from bad Harden-like "offense". ORtg is, IMO, an inferior measure of offense. It measures points scored per 100 possessions, and takes into account bad fouls calls, bad offense, and fouls at the end of games that drive the score up. It also extrapolates out, similar to per36 numbers, and therefore is more of an estimate than a true measure. In our case our ORtg is so high because we take so many 3-pointers. That doesn't necessarily mean we're a good offensive team - just that we play the odds on the 3-point shot. But when it comes to "putting the ball in the basket" we're average. We just make up for having an average offense by getting 50% more points (3 points vs 2 points) on 25% of our shots. If you look at the standings for ORtg and compare to FG% I think you'll see that FG% is a better measure. POR, MIN, and TOR don't belong as "top offensive teams", and MIA/SAN are way too low. ORtg: #1 - LAC #2 - POR #3 - DAL #4 - HOU #5 - MIA #6 - SAN #7 - OKC #8 - PHX #9 - MIN #10 - TOR FG% #1 - MIA #2 - SAN #3 - LAC #4 - DAL #5 - HOU #6 - OKC #7 - MEM #8 - PHX #9 - GSW #10 - WAS
That seems like an odd stance to take on a stat, when taken with your constant complaint about Aldridge's inefficiency. FG% by itself tells us strictly what he shoots from the field. So his 46% is just as good as say, Kevin Love's 46%, even though Love got to the line way more often, and poured in more points by his ability to take a step or two back, and make 3s instead of long 2s. Just seems like an inconsistent stance, maybe not.
No one stat can be used in isolation and give you the full picture. However, I've always felt that FG% is the best single measure of a team's offense for the reasons described above. I also think it's a good measure for individuals, but it's not quite as strong at measuring individuals as it is at measuring teams. As you pointed out, it doesn't take into account FTA - which I do feel is important to factor in, especially for PFs/Cs. So in the case of measuring an individual player's offense I first go to FG% or EffFG%, and would augment it with FG% and FGA by distance from the hoop, and FTA. But when I'm looking at team offense I want to know how successful the team is at putting the ball through the hoop - that, to me, is what offense is all about. I don't like Kevin McHale's "flop your way to the free-throw line" offense - that's bullshit, but it'll get you a good ORtg (and also help with your FG% because a shot on a foul doesn't count as a miss).
Dave Joerger's future uncertain? Blazers need to be ready to pounce if he is let go. Great defensive mind. Would be great on bench.
No wonder Stotts didn't have much luck at his previous stops. He was being savatoged! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzcSzpRFxaQ [video=youtube;UzcSzpRFxaQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzcSzpRFxaQ[/video]
