ImageImage

CJ for ???

Moderators: Moonbeam, The Sebastian Express, DeBlazerRiddem

zzaj
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,043
And1: 1,135
Joined: Jul 12, 2006

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#341 » by zzaj » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:44 am

DusterBuster wrote:
zzaj wrote:
DusterBuster wrote:
Denver.

We'll just agree to disagree on this point however. I think people here overrate the idea that CJ can't play PG in todays NBA, some like yourself think I overrate teams willingness to just throw out two guards and see what happens.


That's actually a good example! Of course there is an asterisk needed because they happen to have the best passing Center the NBA has seen in a while--one whom the plays run through, when everything is clicking correctly.

Can you name me a couple more?


Milwaukee with Bledsoe and Middleton. I don't see Bledsoe being any more of a PG than CJ.

Nets with Russel and Crabbe.

Also, my point about the Warriors was simply to show how massively they've disrupted the NBA into forcing the league into a more positionless style of play.

I'm not going to get into a massively deep discussion about this because.... why.... but my point is still made that I believe teams care less and less about positions in todays NBA and I think it's a bit silly to believe the Pacers wouldn't love to have a CJ/Dipo backcourt if they could. Bottom line is teams want talent. Don't over-complicate it. Worst case scenario is it doesn't work and you trade one.

Using the logic you're going with, there was no reason the Pelicans should have traded for Cousins. Cousins and Davis are pretty similar and don't really seem to complement each other on paper, but both are wildly talented. They still went for it, they had a lot of success and Boogie would still be with New Orleans had he not blown out his achilles.


I actually agree with you on this at every position except PG. C/PF/SF/SG have all seen shifts in roles...but IMO, the scoring PG has largely been a constant since Payton made it popular in '92 or so.
zzaj
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,043
And1: 1,135
Joined: Jul 12, 2006

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#342 » by zzaj » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:01 am

DusterBuster wrote:
zzaj wrote:
DusterBuster wrote:
Denver.

We'll just agree to disagree on this point however. I think people here overrate the idea that CJ can't play PG in todays NBA, some like yourself think I overrate teams willingness to just throw out two guards and see what happens.


That's actually a good example! Of course there is an asterisk needed because they happen to have the best passing Center the NBA has seen in a while--one whom the plays run through, when everything is clicking correctly.

Can you name me a couple more?


Milwaukee with Bledsoe and Middleton. I don't see Bledsoe being any more of a PG than CJ.

Nets with Russel and Crabbe.

.....

Using the logic you're going with, there was no reason the Pelicans should have traded for Cousins. Cousins and Davis are pretty similar and don't really seem to complement each other on paper, but both are wildly talented. They still went for it, they had a lot of success and Boogie would still be with New Orleans had he not blown out his achilles.


Bledsoe's assist to turnover ratio says otherwise. As far as I recall he has always been used as a PG in the NBA. With the Nets...there is a reason why Dinwiddie ended up playing big minutes in lineups along side a SG.

As for the Pelicans...that's not really my logic. Cousins and Davis look great on paper. Both can stretch the floor or score inside. Davis has enough length and quickness to guard the perimeter. Both are good defensively inside as well. There is no PF/C skill that those two players can't cover. With a tandem of CJ/Oladipo there are a couple of PG skills that neither can cover.

I don't mean to belabor all of this...it just so happens you touched on one of my pet peeves--overlooking the importance of what an actual PG does.
User avatar
DusterBuster
RealGM
Posts: 24,731
And1: 8,230
Joined: Jan 31, 2010
 

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#343 » by DusterBuster » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:08 am

zzaj wrote:
DusterBuster wrote:
zzaj wrote:
That's actually a good example! Of course there is an asterisk needed because they happen to have the best passing Center the NBA has seen in a while--one whom the plays run through, when everything is clicking correctly.

Can you name me a couple more?


Milwaukee with Bledsoe and Middleton. I don't see Bledsoe being any more of a PG than CJ.

Nets with Russel and Crabbe.

.....

Using the logic you're going with, there was no reason the Pelicans should have traded for Cousins. Cousins and Davis are pretty similar and don't really seem to complement each other on paper, but both are wildly talented. They still went for it, they had a lot of success and Boogie would still be with New Orleans had he not blown out his achilles.


Bledsoe's assist to turnover ratio says otherwise. As far as I recall he has always been used as a PG in the NBA. With the Nets...there is a reason why Dinwiddie ended up playing big minutes in lineups along side a SG.

As for the Pelicans...that's not really my logic. Cousins and Davis look great on paper. Both can stretch the floor or score inside. Davis has enough length and quickness to guard the perimeter. Both are good defensively inside as well. There is no PF/C skill that those two players can't cover. With a tandem of CJ/Oladipo there are a couple of PG skills that neither can cover.

I don't mean to belabor all of this...it just so happens you touched on one of my pet peeves--overlooking the importance of what an actual PG does.


Bledsoe spent the majority of his Suns career at SG and was a combo guard for the Clips.

I'm not overlooking the importance of a PG, simply pointing out the fact that talent trumps fit every time. If the Pacers could get CJ to pair him with Dipo, I fully confident they would happily embark on that experiment.

I'm not here to debate whether that's a good idea or not, simply to again point out that all teams care about right now (and tbf, always have) is amassing as much talent on a team as possible.
Devilzsidewalk wrote:DB is like the ultimate Wolves troll
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 32,801
And1: 5,073
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#344 » by Wizenheimer » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:02 pm

DusterBuster wrote:
Bledsoe spent the majority of his Suns career at SG and was a combo guard for the Clips.


Bledsoe was a PG for the Suns. In his 1st two years there, they ran a two-PG starting lineup with he and Dragic, then it was Bledsoe and Booker.

Now, Bledsoe is a marginal PG, but he has averaged over 6 assists 3 times and over 5 two other times. CJ has averaged over 4 assists once and that number has fallen each of the last 2 seasons (and Oladipo have averaged over 4 three times). Bledsoe has a career assist rate of 27% and has been well over 25% each of the last 5 seasons. CJ's rate is 17% and he's topped 20% just once

but again, Bledsoe is only a marginal PG. He's way too turnover prone, but he does have some PG vision...something CJ lacks, or at least hasn't demonstrated with any consistency.

but you are overlooking that Bledsoe is a premier defender. That two way ability offsets some of his PG deficiencies and is an ability CJ lacks

I'm not overlooking the importance of a PG, simply pointing out the fact that talent trumps fit every time. If the Pacers could get CJ to pair him with Dipo, I fully confident they would happily embark on that experiment.

I'm not here to debate whether that's a good idea or not, simply to again point out that all teams care about right now (and tbf, always have) is amassing as much talent on a team as possible.


it's true, teams care about talent and want it. But it isn't their only concern. They also care about cost, and roster balance, and redundancy. CJ/Oladipo is more redundant then Dame/CJ because at least Dame has PG skills.

the trade idea I was replying to had Indiana trading Myles Turner, Darren Collison, & Bojan Bodganovic for CJ. That's 3 starters off of a team that won 1 less game than Portland. 40 points, 13 rebounds, and 9 assists a game from the starting C, PG, and SF...all that for a player that plays the same position as their best player, and who will be paid 27M/year over the next 3 seasons. That not only goes to redundancy, it also goes to cost and roster balance.

the NBA may have evolved toward more position-less basketball, but teams still need certain skills on the floor. And one of the most important is the skill of running the offense and getting teammates involved. Indiana doesn't have a Lebron or Greek Freak or Draymond, or even a Jokic, to carry the load of running an offense, affording the luxury of a two-SG back court

Individually, is CJ better then any of those 3 players? sure he is. But collectively?...not so much. And sometimes collective talent can trump individual talent. CJ may check the box for individual talent, but all the other boxes would probably be unchecked and that's why I questioned if Indiana would do that trade
User avatar
Effigy
General Manager
Posts: 9,403
And1: 4,711
Joined: Nov 27, 2001
     

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#345 » by Effigy » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:41 pm

Wizenheimer wrote:Individually, is CJ better then any of those 3 players? sure he is. But collectively?...not so much. And sometimes collective talent can trump individual talent. CJ may check the box for individual talent, but all the other boxes would probably be unchecked and that's why I questioned if Indiana would do that trade


I don't agree with you there. You can only play 5 guys at a time, so it's better to have one really good player than 3 good players. If we made that trade and wanted to play all 3, our lineup would look like

Dame
Collison
Bojan
Aminu/Zach
Miles

Is that better than

Dame
CJ
Harkless
Aminu/Zach
Nurk

?

I say definitely not. by your logic we'd be taking 3 guys out of a starting lineup for 3 other guys from a different starting lineup that won one less game.
Renegade
Sophomore
Posts: 105
And1: 7
Joined: Jun 16, 2008
     

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#346 » by Renegade » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:13 pm

Effigy wrote:it's better to have one really good player than 3 good players


Generally speaking basketball is the one sport where one player can make a huge difference. Let's see what the Lakers accomplish next season.
Zers4Eva
Sophomore
Posts: 147
And1: 25
Joined: Aug 10, 2012

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#347 » by Zers4Eva » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:17 pm

I think if you're going to trade CJ, it has to be with a specific goal in mind. Like roster balance in this case. I like a deal to Phoenix for Josh Jackson, Chriss & filler. Maybe Bender?

Sent from my Pixel XL using RealGM mobile app
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 32,801
And1: 5,073
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#348 » by Wizenheimer » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:25 pm

Effigy wrote:
Wizenheimer wrote:Individually, is CJ better then any of those 3 players? sure he is. But collectively?...not so much. And sometimes collective talent can trump individual talent. CJ may check the box for individual talent, but all the other boxes would probably be unchecked and that's why I questioned if Indiana would do that trade


I don't agree with you there. You can only play 5 guys at a time, so it's better to have one really good player than 3 good players. If we made that trade and wanted to play all 3, our lineup would look like

Dame
Collison
Bojan
Aminu/Zach
Miles

Is that better than

Dame
CJ
Harkless
Aminu/Zach
Nurk

?

I say definitely not. by your logic we'd be taking 3 guys out of a starting lineup for 3 other guys from a different starting lineup that won one less game.


no, that's not my logic at all and you've got the details of the trade all wrong. Turner wasn't going to Portland...he was going to LAL. And even if he was coming to Portland he wouldn't be replacing Nurkic as the starter. Portland was getting Ingram, Bogdonovich, and Collison

so, if the NBA has become position-less, especially at the wings, then Portland's rotation could be:

Dame/Collison (PG with 4.4 assist/turnover who shot 46.8% on three's last season)
Ingram/Curry (20 year old 3&D type wing who shot 39% on three's...Curry = 43% career three's)
Bojan/Harkless or Harkless/Bojan (Bojan shot 40.2% on three's last year while Hark shot 41.5%)
Aminu/Collins
Nurkic/whoever

and yes, that would be better (IMO) then what Portland trotted out last season and offer a lot more upside for the future. It would give Portland the "floor-stretching'" power Olshey has been talking about while using it as an excuse to dump Davis, and shore up 3 different positions. I'd do that trade in a heartbeat but I don't believe Indiana or LAL would

but my argument wasn't from Portland's POV....I was trying to come up with what Indiana's POV would be and how unbalanced their roster would be after trading 3 starters for CJ...a PG, SF, & C...and then plugging CJ in at guard with Oladipo

I know CJ has some big fans in this forum but I don't believe he has the the value to fetch Ingram, Bojan, & Collison.
Goldbum
Starter
Posts: 2,273
And1: 193
Joined: Jul 12, 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#349 » by Goldbum » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:13 am

Zers4Eva wrote:I think if you're going to trade CJ, it has to be with a specific goal in mind. Like roster balance in this case. I like a deal to Phoenix for Josh Jackson, Chriss & filler. Maybe Bender?

Sent from my Pixel XL using RealGM mobile app



This would be great if it could happen. Jackson/Chriss and Dudley - 4- CJ/Swan and Layman works in the trade checker. Would balance this roster immensely.
I'm a stranger in a strange land.
If you ever see a 6'8" white dude running around SLC with a big Blazers tattoo on his right arm... Say whats up.
HoopsFanAZ
Senior
Posts: 611
And1: 67
Joined: Jun 16, 2008

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#350 » by HoopsFanAZ » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:20 am

Living down here, I like a CJ trade to Phoenix for both teams. Pairing Booker and CJ would be strong.
Josh Jackson will be a 2-way SG/SF. It will take a little time. Include Bender instead of Chriss. Not a fan of his early mood swings.
Dudley is the filler though the TP is not quite there on the $$$.
Skybox
Rookie
Posts: 1,085
And1: 657
Joined: Jan 21, 2017
 

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#351 » by Skybox » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:14 pm

Orl fan here...I've proposed a Gordon for CJ before and would certainly explore it. My concerns, from ORL side, are...
-How is AG going to coexist with Isaac and Bamba? Do they mesh beautifully in a world-beating versatile on both ends trio or not? I guess we can happily test this until January.
-I have no interest in CJ the off-the-ball spot up shooter. In that role, I'm happy with a cheaper Evan Fournier. I would like to see him as lead guard in ORL, like a Harden or Isaiah Thomas. He would score 25+ and pile up 8 assists, almost by accident, by hitting cutters, driving and kicking, and throwing lobs. Is he up to this role? I know he can't/shouldn't do that with Dame and I see him moving to ORL as a breakout opportunity for him (again like putting the ball in Harden's hands). I don't know him as well as you guys...
-AG could become a real superstar. I have questions about his bbiq, but he's young, incredible incredible athlete, hard worker, coachable, improves every year, etc (like I said, I am excited to see him play with Isaac and Bamba. If they can't coexist...we can talk about our teams' needs.)
dunlop212
Sophomore
Posts: 220
And1: 13
Joined: Jun 22, 2008

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#352 » by dunlop212 » Sun Jul 15, 2018 4:55 pm

CJ is an undersized SG with elite scoring skills. He does not get to the line, is not a plus defender, and does not create for others. With his contract, there is not much positive value for most teams. Fortunately, you only need one trading partner, so we can keep our fingers crossed.
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 32,801
And1: 5,073
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#353 » by Wizenheimer » Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:44 pm

dunlop212 wrote:CJ is an undersized SG with elite scoring skills. He does not get to the line, is not a plus defender, and does not create for others. With his contract, there is not much positive value for most teams. Fortunately, you only need one trading partner, so we can keep our fingers crossed.


his scoring skills are not elite, IMO. Of the 305 NBA players who played more then 820 minutes last season, CJ was 202nd in TS% and 195th in eFG%

now, those two numbers don't account for the 'value' of a player capable of creating his own offense. CJ finished 29th in points/possession. But players who did better included Jimmy Butler, Bradley Beal, Donovan Mitchell, Low Williams, Demar Derozan, Victor Oladipo & Devin Booker. So even when gauged for creating-own-offense, CJ was not elite. Dame finished 6th by the way, but then, Dame is actually elite

Skybox wrote:-I have no interest in CJ the off-the-ball spot up shooter. In that role, I'm happy with a cheaper Evan Fournier. I would like to see him as lead guard in ORL, like a Harden or Isaiah Thomas. He would score 25+ and pile up 8 assists, almost by accident, by hitting cutters, driving and kicking, and throwing lobs. Is he up to this role? I know he can't/shouldn't do that with Dame and I see him moving to ORL as a breakout opportunity for him (again like putting the ball in Harden's hands).


I suppose it could happen...stranger things have

but keep in mind, CJ has been playing alongside Lillard and Lillard always draws the main focus of opposing defenses. CJ has been able to draft off that focus on his teammate. In that capacity, CJ, last season, averaged 1.15 points/FGA. For him to average at least 25 points he'd have to average 22 FGA's a game. Last season, only two players, Westbrook (21 FGA) and Harden (20 FGA) averaged over 20. And that assumes CJ would maintain his efficiency when he'd be the primary focus of a defense, not some other teammate. Seems kind of unlikely

as for averaging 8+ assists....no way. He's not a PG and he's only averaged over 4 assists once and that was 3 seasons ago
Ripcity4life
Analyst
Posts: 3,050
And1: 214
Joined: Jul 09, 2006

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#354 » by Ripcity4life » Sun Jul 15, 2018 6:54 pm

Wiz i am not going to argue against your stats cause i am sure they are on point. However i will argue maybe if he was the dominate guard meaning offense ran through him the above statement COULD be more true.
Skybox
Rookie
Posts: 1,085
And1: 657
Joined: Jan 21, 2017
 

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#355 » by Skybox » Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:23 pm

I don't see him as often as you guys but I listen to his podcast sometimes...he seems articulate, hungry, intelligent/analytical...he can obviously shoot. Seemed like in today's NBA, assuming he has a handle and is a threat to get to the rim, he could possibly adapt. I would never trade AG just to upgrade our SG position, but if our FO was convinced CJ had the makings of a breakout role at lead guard, I'd love it.
User avatar
d-train
RealGM
Posts: 16,534
And1: 365
Joined: Mar 26, 2001
   

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#356 » by d-train » Sun Jul 15, 2018 8:00 pm

Skybox wrote:I don't see him as often as you guys but I listen to his podcast sometimes...he seems articulate, hungry, intelligent/analytical...he can obviously shoot. Seemed like in today's NBA, assuming he has a handle and is a threat to get to the rim, he could possibly adapt. I would never trade AG just to upgrade our SG position, but if our FO was convinced CJ had the makings of a breakout role at lead guard, I'd love it.

CBA aside, Blazers wouldn't trade CJ for Gordon and your 2 next best players. The CJ trade talk around here are about as credible as Blazers giving Lakers Lillard.
Image
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 32,801
And1: 5,073
Joined: May 28, 2007

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#357 » by Wizenheimer » Mon Jul 16, 2018 3:46 pm

Skybox wrote:I don't see him as often as you guys but I listen to his podcast sometimes...he seems articulate, hungry, intelligent/analytical...he can obviously shoot. Seemed like in today's NBA, assuming he has a handle and is a threat to get to the rim, he could possibly adapt. I would never trade AG just to upgrade our SG position, but if our FO was convinced CJ had the makings of a breakout role at lead guard, I'd love it.


CJ is very articulate and an extremely likable interview. He seems to be a quality individual, much like Dame. If that is a part of the criteria a franchise uses to value players, he'd score at the top in that scale. And I'm assuming a lot of teams would value that quality, but it wouldn't be valued higher than talent or fit, IMO

Ripcity4life wrote:Wiz i am not going to argue against your stats cause i am sure they are on point. However i will argue maybe if he was the dominate guard meaning offense ran through him the above statement COULD be more true.


sure...that's why I said skybox's notions of what CJ's scoring and assist levels could be possible (although I still think there's no way CJ averages over 8 assists in any circumstance)

in April, as the season was almost over, a blogger at Blazers Edge posted some Synergy numbers for CJ this last season. One was him as part of the list for the 20 most frequent shooters in the NBA:

Image[/quote]

the most revealing part of that is that CJ led that list in time-of-possession/touch, seconds/touch, and dribbles/touch; and in most cases, he was more than doubling everybody else.

if that didn't change, then as a lead guard, he'd be one of the most ball dominant players in the NBA and maybe the most ball-dominant. I'm thinking that would not be a good thing for an offense; and we saw plenty of times this last season how Portland's offensive motion stalled when CJ had the ball and was doing his shake-n-bake routine. Teammates tended to stand around, likely because they didn't know where he was going but were inclined to think they wouldn't be getting the ball themselves. CJ was too selfish last season

and another Synergy stat that was posted was CJ's efficiency/production numbers for types of shots:

Image


I think those present a good indication of just where CJ ranked in the NBA in terms of efficiency for his one-on-one-create-his-own-offense. Essentially, he was below the 80th percentile. 20% of NBA players were better in isolation and off pick-n-roll; and CJ was horrible operating off screens...all the way down to the 46th percentile

and the first set of stats buttress those numbers because while CJ was #1 by a large gap in time of possession, and dribbles/touch, he was only 14th in points/touch

on the other hand, look at his spot-up number of 1.4 points/possession, that was in the 98th percentile. He should be getting a lot more of those shots and a lot less isolation and p-n-r. He should be catching-and-shooting more and catching-and-dribbling less. He's being used wrong, IMO

in one way, I compare CJ to Martell Webster. Martell had one of the best shooting strokes ever. It was beautiful and the only other Blazer who was comparable in shooting motion was Kiki Vandeweigh. Blazer fans overrated Martell's talent simply because they were impressed by that shooting style. But in terms of results, Martell was only a little above average as a shooter. He was just a career 38% shooter from three and less then 42% on FG's; his shooting motion was a lot better than his shooting results. That's like CJ in that when CJ is doing his crossover dribbles and herky-jerk-fake-out dribbling, he's a top-5 player in terms of dribbling style. It wows you watching it, and that colors the perception of his abilities. But the results don't come close to matching the style. And I think CJ has become overrated as an iso player much the same way Webster became overrated as a shooter. Kind of a style over substance conflict, and in this case, substance = results

but like I said, maybe CJ would react and perform differently in a different system for a different team. It would be a substantial risk to take because CJ has a substantial salary. But as more and more of these super-contracts are signed, the level of CJ's salary drops in relation to top players, so the salary concern will fade a bit
DeBlazerRiddem
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 11,334
And1: 2,486
Joined: Mar 11, 2010

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#358 » by DeBlazerRiddem » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:41 pm

CJ is pretty good at getting his shot off against pressure from the defense, these are typically less efficient but still necessary shots, so he still has pretty elite offensive skills it just doesn't show up in TS%. Its like Aldridge's main shot was a less efficient shot but it was a necessary outlet and always available in case the offense couldn't produce a better shot. Stats can capture a lot but they have trouble capturing that dynamic aspect of basketball. Basically you cant always shoot your preferred shot or the defense will adjust to take it away, you have to be able to attack from multiple angles. That is where strategy and stats diverge a bit.



I would be curious to see a comparison to Harden before/after he left OKC, because I would venture to guess that Harden got a lot better at being the lead guard once he was actually in the role. I think if CJ was put in the position as lead guard he would adapt and improve his PG skills a bit, not to a Harden level obviously (and Harden was always elite at drawing fouls). He wouldn't be enough playmaking on his own but I think he does have improvements he can make in that regard.
tester551
Starter
Posts: 2,346
And1: 141
Joined: Jan 10, 2005
Location: Missing the Coast & Trees

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#359 » by tester551 » Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:49 pm

DeBlazerRiddem wrote:CJ is pretty good at getting his shot off against pressure from the defense, these are typically less efficient but still necessary shots, so he still has pretty elite offensive skills it just doesn't show up in TS%. Its like Aldridge's main shot was a less efficient shot but it was a necessary outlet and always available in case the offense couldn't produce a better shot. Stats can capture a lot but they have trouble capturing that dynamic aspect of basketball. Basically you cant always shoot your preferred shot or the defense will adjust to take it away, you have to be able to attack from multiple angles. That is where strategy and stats diverge a bit.

Yes, they are necessary shots. But there's a big difference between looking/hunting for those shots (which both LMA & CJ do) versus taking those shots as a last resort.
DeBlazerRiddem
Forum Mod - Blazers
Forum Mod - Blazers
Posts: 11,334
And1: 2,486
Joined: Mar 11, 2010

Re: CJ for ??? 

Post#360 » by DeBlazerRiddem » Mon Jul 16, 2018 6:00 pm

tester551 wrote:
DeBlazerRiddem wrote:CJ is pretty good at getting his shot off against pressure from the defense, these are typically less efficient but still necessary shots, so he still has pretty elite offensive skills it just doesn't show up in TS%. Its like Aldridge's main shot was a less efficient shot but it was a necessary outlet and always available in case the offense couldn't produce a better shot. Stats can capture a lot but they have trouble capturing that dynamic aspect of basketball. Basically you cant always shoot your preferred shot or the defense will adjust to take it away, you have to be able to attack from multiple angles. That is where strategy and stats diverge a bit.

Yes, they are necessary shots. But there's a big difference between looking/hunting for those shots (which both LMA & CJ do) versus taking those shots as a last resort.


Basketball is a dynamic sport. If you only do it as a last resort, teams wont respect it. If teams don't respect it, it means they may setup the defense to take away 3 point shots (or something) meaning the less efficient shot is now less well defended, making it a more attractive option until the defense adjusts again.

I'm not saying we should look for inefficient shots, but because basketball is a dynamic sport its a bit more complicated.

Return to Portland Trail Blazers