What's new

SI.com Top 100 Players......

1. Once again, his post-ups aren't inefficient. On initial halfcourt shots, league average is under 0.92 PPP. LMA's scoring at a 0.96 PPP clip on post-ups.

2. I get your point, and recognize that LMA isn't renowned as a passer. I posted some team stats that show how Portland did a poor job of turning their (relatively) efficient on-ball offense into off-ball looks to support said point.

3. So...you'd run PnR every time down the floor? How might the defense adjust to that? What happens to Lillard's efficiency when his offensive workload, as well as defensive focus/planning, goes up? Is CJ McCollum - the only other competent scorer out of PnR's on Portland's roster - ready to pick up that slack? How might opposing teams adjust their lineups when they know they have fewer LMA post-ups to defend?

4. Basketball is a dynamic game; you can't just change one set of possessions without that change affecting a bunch of other **** (not that you've said otherwise). That people frequently assert that you can just wave your hand and "get" easy buckets blows my mind. It's the same dynamism that makes measures like ts% and eFG% worthless without context (LMA v. Favors is a perfect example).


To get back to my initial point, LMA and Favs aren't in the same league offensively. Whether LMA demands post touches too frequently or his coaches have over-used him in the post is immaterial. Dude's a terrific scorer/offensive player regardless. He's not a great fit next to Tim Duncan IMO, so it'll be interesting to see how he's utilised this season, and whether Pops staggers their minutes as much as possible.

No, I didn't say I'd run PnR every time down the floor. There are plenty other actions and options available that don't include pnr(cuts, screening action off the ball, DHOs, high post action, etc.). My point was more to emphasize my preference of using PnR instead of post up with Aldridge to initiate the offense and create advantage in the half-court, not to say that 100% of my offense would be PnR. If you have 15-20 seconds on the clock(assuming no mismatches) dumping the ball in the post and relying on Aldridge to create better look for the rest of the team is not anywhere close to my first option. You dump the ball to Aldridge if you are content with what he gives you in the post vs what you can get while using other options in the rest of the shot clock, while knowing that this post up will probably be available to you anyways with 5-7 second to go as well. Chances are Aldridge will still get some good number of post-ups both as a result of the offense creating opportunities for him to establish good post-up position and in broken possessions, so opponents couldn't really rely on limiting LMA as a post-up threat enough to make any serious adjustments that won't get them punished.

I absolutely agree with you that LMA is much better offensive player than Favors, I just think his offensive talent either is being misused to an extent or he himself is making decisions that limit his efficiency... or maybe he's just not good enough off-the ball to get more high-efficiency shots - as the roll man in the pnr and on cuts specifically and instead relies on post-ups and isos and long-2 spot ups.

BTW I still think Favors has another gear and he will improve even more in the coming years. His post up is not great right now, but he can get better at it as he gets more opportunities to work in-game situations on it. His spot ups can improve as well(last year he made a great jump on his mid-range jumpers in the first year he specifically focused his work on it) and I think he can be one of the better pnr finishers in the league if he gets a competent PG anytime soon. He probably will never be as skillful as Aldridge is on-ball, but I think he can somewhat compensate for it by being better pnr finisher and all-around finisher around the rim.

edit: I have to fess up and say you've swayed my opinion on Aldridge a bit, GVC. I don't see him nearly as negatively as I did before that thread. I still don't think he uses his talents optimally, but still... you gave some nice perspective about his offensive use. You should post more. This board needs more quality posts like yours.
 
Last edited:
edit: I have to fess up and say you've swayed my opinion on Aldridge a bit, GVC. I don't see him nearly as negatively as I did before that thread. I still don't think he uses his talents optimally, but still... you gave some nice perspective about his offensive use. You should post more. This board needs more quality posts like yours.
I've never had a negative opinion on Aldridge, just thought he was a bit overrated.
Agree with your comments re: GVC. Quality poster with a LOT of knowledge. He should post more.
 
I've never had a negative opinion on Aldridge, just thought he was a bit overrated.
Agree with your comments re: GVC. Quality poster with a LOT of knowledge. He should post more.

'Negative' is of course relative to the very top of the league we were discussing. I think before this current discussion I might have ranked him about no. 30 - 35. Now I'm more willing to consider him in the top 20.
 
They didn't even get out of the first round last year.
Yes, losing by 2 points in Game 7, IINM. And they won 55 games, yet were the 6th seed. Tough conference!

But the year before that, they won the championship and the previous year they went to the Finals. You can't win it every season.

So if they make the Finals, would LMA be the reason? Not sure. He could be. But simply better performances from Parker, Ginobli and Green might be the factors as well. They all had terrible numbers against the Clippers.
 
Yes, losing by 2 points in the deciding game, IINM. You could place the blame on Parker, Ginobli, Green and Splitter, all of whom had disappointing numbers.

Yet the year before that, they won the championship and the previous year they went to the Finals. You can't win it every season.

So if they make the Finals, would LMA be the reason? Not sure. He could be. But simply better performances from Parker, Ginobli and Green might be the factors as well.
Spurs are an old team, a year difference is pretty big. Sure, they won it all 2 years ago but there stars are getting older and older.
 
Spurs are an old team, a year difference is pretty big. Sure, they won it all 2 years ago but there stars are getting older and older.

Sure they are. But if they make the Finals it's not necessarily an automatic affirmation of Aldridge. That's the way I read your original post. That "old" team was 1 win away from tying for the 2nd seed. Two of their starters are in their prime: Green and Kawhi.
 
Sure they are. But if they make the Finals it's not necessarily an affirmation of Aldridge. That "old" team was 1 win away from tying for the 2nd seed. Two of their starters are in their prime: Green and Kawhi.
I think it would be an affirmation.
 
I think it would be an affirmation.
SA lost in 7 games last season. Portland lost in 5, with LMA posting a sparkling 33%/27% in his series.

Suppose LMA were to average 40%/30% and the Spurs get to the Finals on the backs of Kawhi and Duncan, with Parker, Ginobli and Green rebounding from their crappy numbers. Would that be an affirmation of LMA?

On the flip side, I could say that if they DON'T make the Finals, since they are favored to do so by oddsmakers, that is an affirmation LMA is not a great player. If you affirm LMA through SA's success, then you also have to do the same if SA underperforms.

But go ahead and argue. I'm used to anything I post being contested by you.
 
SA lost in 7 games last season. Portland lost in 5, with LMA posting a sparkling 33%/27% in his series.

Suppose LMA were to average 40%/30% and the Spurs get to the Finals on the backs of Kawhi and Duncan, with Parker, Ginobli and Green rebounding from their crappy numbers. Would that be an affirmation of LMA?

Losing is losing.

If LA helps SAS be a better team and get to the Finals it would be an affirmation, yes. You realize even if LA manages to have a terrible post-season, his presence will make things easier for everyone else because of the attention he gets on offense.
 
Losing is losing.

If LA helps SAS be a better team and get to the Finals it would be an affirmation, yes. You realize even if LA manages to have a terrible post-season, his presence will make things easier for everyone else because of the attention he gets on offense.
LOL!
 
If SAS loses in the first round, would people not use it to discredit what LA brings to a team? I think they would and it would be just.

By that same thought, it would be an affirmation of his ability to win to help SAS to the Finals.

Don't give me "Oh the Spurs made it to the finals 2 of the last 3 years". Sure, they did. Ginobili, Parker, and Duncan are the 3 main cogs of those teams and they are only getting older. They are moving into the Kahwi featured era and they havent proven they can make it to the finals with him as their leading playoff scorer like he was last year. Parker and Ginobili had a significant decline in last year's playoffs, even with all the rest they receive during the regular season. To say that LA shouldnt receive any credit and have it bolster his "career resume" is ridiculous.
 
And as far as LA's playoffs last year, don't forget he played the last half of the regular season and the playoffs with a broken thumb (or something in his hand/wrist) that required surgery.
 
Back
Top