DavidSterned wrote:Agenda42 wrote:
I'm not so sure. The comparable RAMBO Blazer team had, assuming we can't trust Oden (PER):
Roy 24.0,Miller 18.1,Batum 17.3,Camby 17.0,Rudy 15.5,Przybilla 15.4,Outlaw 15.1,Blake 14.4, Cunningham 14.3
The 1999 team had (PER):
Sabonis 20.4,Smith 17.3,Wells 17.3,Grant 16.7,Anthony 16.6,Pippen 16.4,Stoudamire 15.5,Schrempf 14.5,Augmon 13.0
Given that I have (Aldridge or Sheed), I think I want Miller/Roy/Batum/Camby more than I want Stoudamire/Smith/Pippen/Sabonis. The bench for the 1999 team is better, but Roy and Miller is just fantastic.
You're talking about 2010? Outlaw and Blake were traded for Camby midseason, and Roy was playing on half a leg by the time the playoffs rolled around in 2010. No Przybilla or Oden for most of that season either and Batum was still young and raw. Had they all stayed healthy and gained playoff experience together, I'm sure they could've eventually been better, but as it was there is no way that Aldridge's supporting cast in the 2010 or 2011 postseasons was anywhere near our 1999-2000 era teams. The 2000 team had some of the deepest all around veteran talent ever assembled in the NBA IMO.
TS% is the single best indicator of offensive efficiency we have. Aldridge has always been a slightly inefficient player. That's in the nature of his game. The problem is that he's a very different player in the playoffs. He goes from being similar to being similar to Allen Iverson. It's hard to find anyone with USG > 28% and TS% < 50% in the playoffs -- the list is three guys long (AI, Derrick Rose, and Aldridge). This is historic shooting inefficiency here.
http://bkref.com/tiny/CnOP1
If you instead search on Aldridge's regular season USG and TS%, you get dozens of matches, including guys with similar games like Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing.
http://bkref.com/tiny/Znzf6
To put it another way -- if Aldridge shot the same %s he did in the regular season, the Blazers probably win two more playoff series in his time in Portland.
I'm not sure what series Portland wins if Aldridge shoots slightly more efficiently. Memphis was going to win regardless, but Aldridge was certainly a negative overall with his horrific shooting, and then Phoenix/Dallas/San Antonio were simply better teams and Aldridge was the best player against each (so what does that say about his teammates?).The only place Aldridge doesn't fall off a cliff in the playoffs is in raw stats and usage.
Career TS% - Regular season .532, playoffs .494
Career WS48 - RS .145, playoffs .069
Career USG% - RS .258, playoffs .280
Career BPM - RS +1.2, playoffs -1.5
What kind of star player has a negative BPM (box plus/minus)? For reference, Rasheed's playoff BPM for Portland was +3.2, which is up in Kobe territory.
BPM has never looked favorably upon Aldridge, which totally contradicts actually watching the games and seeing that he has abilities and impact that most players don't have. His BPM in the 2014-15 regular season was 6th place on the team, behind Wright even. Was he Portland's 6th best player last year?
In other words, it's a pretty lame advanced stat. Raw box score statistics clearly have more relevance than something that says that Dorell Wright is more effective than LaMarcus Aldridge.I don't see it that way. The 2000 Lakers were a historically good team. Arguably the best of the post-Jordan era. The 2014 Rockets were a pretty good basketball team, but wouldn't be a title contender in any modern NBA season.
Even in the 2014 Rockets series, where Aldridge played quite well, it's not difficult to argue that Lillard was the best Blazer. Lillard had a crazy ridiculous 135 ORtg, was the guy the Blazers counted on in the fourth quarter, and made the most important play of the series. Aldridge scored 17% more points while using 43% more possessions. Now obviously, Lillard's a sieve defensively, but it's not like Aldridge was a defensive stalwart in that series either. I think many people would give series MVP to Lillard.
If you go look at the 2000 WCF, there's absolutely no question that Wallace is the best Blazer. Not only is it not close, he continued to play great basketball even as the rest of his team imploded around him. By most measures, Sheed had more impact in that series than Kobe.
Aldridge played better against a worse team, but he still played better. It's pretty pointless to argue how good he was in that series, he played like a superstar. Sheed never really rose to that level. He was indeed very good in the 2000 WCF (aside from Game 1 where he needlessly got ejected), but he wasn't playing at a higher level than Aldridge played at. And yeah, he was probably better than Kobe in that series but Kobe didn't really become a superstar level guy until the following season.
Overall, I think their playoff resumes are very comparable. It's too simplistic to look at Sheed's playoff series wins and conclude that that means he was a way better playoff performer. Especially as first options, they had similar levels of success and performance and neither guy was really good enough to consistently lead his team to playoff wins.
I appreciate that Aldridge is someone who is often underestimated by many advanced stats, and that his shooting efficiency looking lackluster is partly by design of the offense. In addition to this, Aldridge is absolutely elite at not turning the ball over, so his efficiency is better than his TS% suggests.
That said, the same thing holds true for Wallace. He jumps out as having superior impact not just through advanced stats like WS and BPM, but also in completely independent +/- stats like RAPM (by pretty significant margins, as well).
There is no playoff version available, and the sample sizes are tiny, but here is the raw +/- per 100 possessions:
Wallace: +4.2 (and this only counts 2001-2003)
Aldridge: -4.1
I think Aldridge by and large has been a mediocre playoff performer, and such performances while taking large primacy has not helped Portland, IMO. It's fair to point out that Sheed may have preferred a complementary role, but that isn't a knock, IMO. I have Terry Porter ahead of both as I think he played the secondary role so well. Even focusing on Sheed's 2001-03 postseasons alone, I think I'd take that level of performance over Aldridge's average level.
Vote: Rasheed Wallace
I'd participate if you started one!
