I'm not quite sure what your point was, then. Why shouldn't we expect the bench to contribute to the scoring load? They don't shoot as much as other benches because they are bad shooters. We don't need statistics of any kind to come to this conclusion, and I'm sure the coaching staff didn't either. Of course, this is probably going to be the cliche gripe of the year, so I suppose we might as well get used to Bench Hate threads.
Sorry but I do not agree with your logic. Because a NBA player does not shoot he is therefore a bad shooter? Did Will Barton look like a bad shooter tonight? Leonard is shooting over 50% for the season. Is he a bad shooter? Pavlovic has had seasons where he shot over 40% for a season from 3pt range. Is he really a bad shooter? How about Price? Babbitt does not even play, but I know he can shoot. You are right I don't need stats to tell me that. But my point is that bench scoring is not the biggest problem this team has. Sure we can always use a better bench, but is that really why they lost the last two games?
I can't believe this is even an argument. Tell me this -- why does our bench "not shoot as much as most benches"? Are they being held down by the coaches who don't realize how to use their array of talents effectively? Are we squandering the shooting touch of Sasha Pavlovic, who even in his best of seasons rarely took more than 1-2 threes per game? Are we foolishly hiding Babbit and his career .379 FG%, or Will Barton and his 0.190 FG%? Do we need to see more Ronnie Price and his 1.75 AST/TO ratio? Or is it possible that we don't give shots and PT to our bench players because the majority of them simply can't effectively convert those shots and minutes into actual points? They don't play much because, as a whole, they aren't much good. If the stats aren't telling you that, you are doing it wrong.
One person's thinking about players who don't shoot in the short run; the other person, in the long run.
If I am understanding your post correctly, then I agree with you completely. Up until now the bench has not scored a lot because they have often differed to the starters who are also in the game at the same time. (Which is not a bad thing) Their numbers will increase in the long run. But to say they can't shoot simply because they haven't shot, is not necessarily true.
Are you really going to use Barton's 0.190 FG % as part of your argument? Get the guy some minutes and I guarantee that number will go up. Yes he will be inconsistent for a while, but in the long run it will pay off. We knew this team would struggle early.
It's as valid (or more so) than using a single 5-8 night as evidence that he is a great shooter. I want Barton to do well. I want ALL of the bench to do well. I'm sure that, by the end of the year, we'll see positive development in some of the younger players. But the fact remains that right now, as a group, they are painful to watch and I don't blame the coaching staff for carefully rationing their minutes. There's a fine line between allowing your young players opportunities to make mistakes, and forcing your fans to turn off the game in disgust.
What was painful was watching the starters last night in the first quarter dribbling the ball around the perimeter for 20 seconds before jacking up a horrible shot. I did not turn off the game in disgust, but I was getting close. Is the bench a concern? Sure. Is it at the top of my list ? No
Soooo what we needed was more Ronnie Price, and less of that Lillard bum "dribbling the ball around"? Anyway, we're going in circles. We clearly both want an improved bench for Christmas, but you see other priorities above that. Fine. I think our starters -- off-games and all -- are among the better groups in the league, but they won't succeed consistently without a more well-rounded rotation. Could improvements be made to the starting lineup? Of course. But A) it's much harder to find available players clearly superior to our starters and B) it won't matter how good the starters are if we have Ronnie or Nolan managing the offense for significant stretches of the game.
It's not the players I dislike from the starting unit. It is the fact that they have only played 14 games together with a new system. It takes time. (See the Lakers) And right now they are very inconsistent. . I also think because the new coaching staff is tinkering with the bench (And rightly so) that there is no flow when they are in the game either. Consequently because there are a lot of new players, some of the newer ones have not been as aggressive taking their shot. There looks to be a lack of confidence. (Both with themselves, and each other) Remember their is 5 rookies on this team plus 3 new vets. That doe not count JJ Hickson who has been here for half a season. So my point is not to replace the starters (Although I still think JJ needs to come of the bench to add a spark) but simply pointing out that they are struggling as well with a new system and coach. It is not all on the bench.
Well the bench is looking much better the last 3 games. Leanord, Babbitt and Freeland are heading the charge. If they keep this up, then their value goes up. We may have tradeable assets come mid season or summer to grab a couple players that can complete our 8 man rotation.
What's worrisome, is that Hickson has been playing poorly of late. Meyers is likely our long term solution, and we'll want ot trade hickson if we can. But at least if his value drops off, we cna always let him expire.
Well most in this forum agree that Hickson may not be the "long term" plan of this team. I think we are hoping for Leanord to develop enough to start. If that's the case, then Aldridge is the guarantee starter at PF. Personally, I would rather have Aldridge at C, because it tends to make him work harder on the boards and scoring near the basket. Can Leanord play PF?
Leonard can play with Aldridge, that's the important thing. His skill set and knowledge is progressing. He was struggling along with hickson though when Freeland was succeeding. I guess that's good that they fill in the gaps the other leaves.
His value to another team is very low this year. First he has to approve any trade. Second both he and the other team lose his Bird Rights if he is dealt. I don't expect him to be moved this year. I think his value to us is greater than to another team.
Personally, I think his value to us isn't that high. We have almost zero chance of having him on the roster next year. As far as his Bird Rights go, he is in all likelihood getting his cap hold renounced anyway in July (I can't see the Blazers tying up 7.6M of their precious cap space for the right to sign him afterwards) and at JJ's level, the difference b/w 4.5% raises and 7.5% raises is about 250k a year. I think the no-trade is a card he and his agent have to not get shipped somewhere they don't want to go to, but I don't think he's going to have Bird Rights in July anyway.
I think if he goes to a playoff (or cusp of playoff) team, then it shouldn't be a huge issue. I don't, for instance, think we can toss him to SAC or MIL or something. Like I said, if he signed a 4/30M contract next summer, the difference between Bird Rights and not is less than 1M. That's less than the state tax difference b/w DC and CA
Nonsense. I just checked efficiency per minute for the couple of weeks, and in more than half the games, Hickson was the top Blazer. 1) Nonsense. Many posters come to Hickson's defense. 2) Aldridge is the world's softest center. He refuses to rebound. 3) Nonsense.
