Horford also plays in the East. How much would LA dominate the East?
SI.com Top 100 Players......
- Thread starter dipship31
- Start date
Horford also plays in the East. How much would LA dominate the East?
I don't know. How much is Kevin Love dominating the East? I don't think the difference for a full season on a player level would be as big as people assume. For example, the average defensive rating for the east is better than the average defensive rating for the west. Where the West kills the East is on offense. You might say part of it is because of them playing more against lesser competition, but I think on the whole the difference is not big enough to expect much better performance by individual players moving to the east.
edit: I just checked his stats vs East conference and vs West conference teams. Here's my findings for his career:
vs East: 35.6mpg, 19.7ppg, 8.7 rpg, 2.0 apg, TS% .543
vs West: 35.4mpg, 19.2ppg, 8.2 rpg, 1.9 apg, TS% .525
While playing in the West his career averages are: 35.5mpg, 19.4ppg, 8.4rpg, 1.9apg, TS% .532
If we assume he played in the east and extrapolated his stats(52games vs East, 30 games vs West) we'd get: 35.5mpg, 19.52ppg, 8.52rpg, 1.9apg, TS% 536
As you can see the difference is negligible.
Last edited:
Wait you think my post had something to do with his referenced arbitrary figure?
Please explain
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Seriously? How could I have possibly made it more obvious that is what I though. If your post has something to do with something else, why don't you just say what it is?
GVC
Well-Known Member
Yikes.
Aldridge and Favors aren't in the same league as scorers. Aldridge fills two high-value roles very efficiently: as a post-up option, providing good possessions when the defense is set, when the offense breaks down/in late shot clocks, and to provide rest and space for perimeter creators and shooters; and as a floor-spacer. To date, Favors is slightly above average finishing garbage buckets and pick-and-rolls, barely adequate spotting up, and a disaster on-ball. LMA's aggregate shooting statistics (TS%, eFG) are poor because of the role he fills (and the corresponding shot type distribution).
The Synergy Sports data bears this out:
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Shot Type[/TD]
[TD]Freq.[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Perc.[/TD]
[TD]Freq.[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Perc.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Transition[/TD]
[TD]4.6[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[TD]75.1[/TD]
[TD]4.9[/TD]
[TD]1.41[/TD]
[TD]95.0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Putback[/TD]
[TD]7.9[/TD]
[TD]1.37[/TD]
[TD]95.1[/TD]
[TD]10.7[/TD]
[TD]1.19[/TD]
[TD]72.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Cut[/TD]
[TD]4.0[/TD]
[TD]1.21[/TD]
[TD]56.4[/TD]
[TD]22.5[/TD]
[TD]1.23[/TD]
[TD]60.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Post-up[/TD]
[TD]36.5[/TD]
[TD]0.96[/TD]
[TD]82.8[/TD]
[TD]24.4[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]38.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iso[/TD]
[TD]6.9[/TD]
[TD]0.86[/TD]
[TD]63.0[/TD]
[TD]2.4[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]56.3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Spot-up[/TD]
[TD]18.6[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]62.9[/TD]
[TD]8.6[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]26.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]PnR Finisher[/TD]
[TD]15.5[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]19.5[/TD]
[TD]20.7[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]53.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I'll break this down into three categories:
- High efficiency garbage buckets: Transition, Putbacks, Cuts (it seems most cuts are just dump-offs in the data)
- Low efficiency on-ball attempts: Isos and Post-ups
- Medium efficiency specialist big attempts: PnR Roll man and Spot-ups
1. High Efficiency Garbage Buckets (transition, putback, cut)
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]PPP (other player's Dist'n)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]16.5[/TD]
[TD]1.29[/TD]
[TD]1.26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]38.1[/TD]
[TD]1.24[/TD]
[TD]1.26[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
These are by and large hard-to-create, opportunistic buckets. Largely because LMA is used as either an on-ball post-up scorer and true floor-spacer, he gets far fewer putback and cut (dump-off) opportunities (they're pretty close in transition opportunities), as evidenced by the large frequency discrepancy - 38.1% of Favors attempts come out of transition, putbacks and cuts; only 16.5% of LMA's attempts are accounted for. Still, LMA is more efficient than Favs on garbage bucket attempts (1.29 PPP v. 1.24 PPP), even after accounting for the different shot-type distributions (1.26 v. 1.24 or 1.29 v. 1.26). Due to the opportunistic nature of these shot types, there shouldn't be much of a volume-efficiency trade-off, as there is with on-ball, PnR and spot-up opportunities which induce defensive planning/focus.
The one plus for Favors is his apparent ability to get into position for cuts (again, I'm fairly certain these are mostly dump-offs). He was second in the league in total field goal attempts off cuts (after Marcin Gortat), and ranked a decent 35th in PPP of the 93 players with 57+ field goal attempts out of cuts. I've always thought Favors had good positional awareness, and this provides some support for that conclusion. Favors is very good at being in the right place at the right time.
2. Low Efficiency On-Ball Attempts (post-up, iso)
A quick note before the stats: NBA defenses are good. When they successfully stop transition opportunities and offensive rebounds, they focus their energy on taking away open 3s and layups/dunks. A couple years ago I looked at the league-wide team SynergySports data, and this was confirmed rather emphatically. Despite league-wide efficiency of 0.8 PPP, about 43% of NBA halfcourt attempts (taking out transition and putback attempts) came out of post-ups, isos and from the pick-and-roll ball handler. Off-ball attempts, which accounted for about 57% of halfcourt attempts, were worth about 1.0 points per possession. Without belaboring the point, effective offenses require good on-ball scorers to bend defenses to create high efficiency off-ball looks and to get decent shots when the defense is set, the offense breaks down and/or the shot clock is running out.
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]PPP (other player's Dist'n)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]43.4[/TD]
[TD]0.94[/TD]
[TD]0.95[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]26.8[/TD]
[TD]0.78[/TD]
[TD]0.79[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
This is one of two areas where Aldridge shines. He took the second most field goal attempts out of post-ups this season, and was still 14th in PPP among the 90 players with 55+ post-up field goal attempts. If you've got nothing going, you can give LMA the ball, and let him go to work. Favors was 72nd in PPP of 90 players with 55+ post-up field goal attempts. Both players did alright out of isos on limited attempts, many of which were likely opportunistic (only 2.4% of Favors attempts came out of isos). As is clear from the stats, Aldridge is one of the very best on-ball bigs, while Favs is solidly below average.
3. Medium Efficiency Specialist Big Attempts (PnR roll man, Spot-up)
These two shot types are listed together only because they represent the two main offensive off-ball specialist roles filled by NBA bigs. Combining the two into aggregate efficiency makes very little sense, although doing so would still favor LMA.
Pick-and-Roll Roll Man
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Percentile[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]15.5[/TD]
[TD]0.83[/TD]
[TD]19.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]20.7[/TD]
[TD]0.98[/TD]
[TD]53.8[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Spot-Up
[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Player[/TD]
[TD]Frequency[/TD]
[TD]PPP[/TD]
[TD]Percentile[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LMA[/TD]
[TD]18.6[/TD]
[TD]1.00[/TD]
[TD]62.9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Favs[/TD]
[TD]8.6[/TD]
[TD]0.80[/TD]
[TD]26.7[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
LMA is a very good spot-up shooter for a big, scoring 1.0 PPP on his attempts. Favors, on the other hand, is still a work-in-progress spotting up. LMA was terrible in pick-and-rolls this past season, while Favs was just a touch above average, ranking 38th in PPP of 90 players with 60+ PnR roll man field goal attempts. LMA has shown more as a shooting specialist than Favors has shown as a pick-and-roll big to date. With that said, Utah has had poor pick-and-roll ball handlers and Favors may improve as the perimeter players grow (although Favors sets poor screens IMO).
As scorers, Favors and Aldridge aren't comparable. LMA competently fills two high-value roles (floor-spacer, on-ball scorer), Favors is really just a garbage man and average-ish PnR finisher.
Last edited:
Great breakdown, but I didn't say they are similar players. They are very different in the things they do well and the things they don't do well. In my hypothetical scenario when Favors gets 20 possessions a game, of course you would give Favors more of the type of possessions he's good at and less of the type he's not... That of course would rely heavily on us having a good pnr PG and aggressive ballhandlers that would secure more dump offs(cuts). Aldridge is more skillful against set defense, but again - I keep stressing - he's good in the worst type of possessions in the league and average in everything else. The question is if you can get Favors to 20 possessions while not giving him too many of the type of possessions he's not great at. It might prove impossible, but then again... I still might prefer his better defense + adequate and efficient offense vs worse defense and more expansive but less efficient offense of Aldridge.
In general if you rely on Aldridge to get you points with the volume and the way he does with the efficiency he has, you are not doing great job at both constructing your offense and assigning scoring responsibilities. Why would him using a ton of scoring opportunities in horrible type of possessions be a good thing? 43% of his possessions are on low-efficiency shots. Either their offense is constructed horribly or he personally ball-hogs and stops the ball in order to iso or post up.
I guess we will see this year, whether or not his shot distribution was because of the offensive scheme in Portland or simply because he cannot get more efficient shots and resorts to the least efficient ones to pile up points.
Last edited:
GVC
Well-Known Member
1. It would prove impossible.
2. LMA was still more efficient than Favs on non-post-ups, so a similar argument could be applied to LMA and the Spurs. Why wouldn't the Spurs just get LMA more high efficiency opportunities, where he's proven to be better than Favors?
I wouldn't say a player is better when his use of those types of possessions is much lower. For example Favors might bang with 2 defenders for a rebound and tip in, which makes his tip much harder to score, while LMA might do tip ins primarily on uncontested rebounds(much easier to score the put back), which would signal higher %, but wouldn't mean he's better at it, it would mean he gets to the easiest ones and goes nowhere near the additional 30% or so that Favors gets to through contact. Same goes for cuts, pnr, etc. Lower use of those types of possessions(especially cuts 4% vs 20%+!!!) might signify that one of the players is better moving without the ball for example and so on and so forth.
If Portland knew he's great at high efficiency shots, why didn't they give him more of them, but rather relied on postups and isos and long 2 spot ups? I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. We will see how the Spurs will utilize him. I might be completely wrong and will gladly eat crow if he proves me wrong, but for the time being color me unimpressed with Aldridge.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Isn't Quin's offense built on PnR's from multiple spots on the floor? Looks like Favors is good on the P&R and likely would be a lot better if we had an NBA-quality PG that knew how to run it.
Simplify this a bit by noting LMA takes almost 7 more shots per game than Favors. Since Derrick's overall FG% is 53%, you'd expect him to score 7 more points off those shots, which would up his scoring average to 23.0. Now, I do acknowledge that LMA has more range. However, this was the first year he shot a significant volume of 3's (105). But 1+ per game...is that enough to really consider him a threat from deep or for other teams to fear that from him? His overall FG% was 47%; Favors was 53%. Different types of players, but Derrick is actually just as efficient. It's only number of attempts which separate their scoring averages. And Favors is WAY better on defense.
Simplify this a bit by noting LMA takes almost 7 more shots per game than Favors. Since Derrick's overall FG% is 53%, you'd expect him to score 7 more points off those shots, which would up his scoring average to 23.0. Now, I do acknowledge that LMA has more range. However, this was the first year he shot a significant volume of 3's (105). But 1+ per game...is that enough to really consider him a threat from deep or for other teams to fear that from him? His overall FG% was 47%; Favors was 53%. Different types of players, but Derrick is actually just as efficient. It's only number of attempts which separate their scoring averages. And Favors is WAY better on defense.
The point GVC is making and I would gladly concede it is that it might be really hard for Favors to get those 7 more attempts if he's not the primary option in end of clock situations or against set defense. We might try to get him more in the PnR, but it's almost impossible to get him 7 more possessions there. He would have to get probably 4-5 of them on lower efficiency shots and that might lower his FG%.