trex_8063 wrote:I'm glad you at least mentioned the bolded. I think that so often gets ignored when comparing players from an efficiency standpoint; and it does matter....
It's a contributing factor, for sure. Of course, when you shoot that many jumpers, there's far less risk of turnovers. For a guy in a different tier, but same concept, look at Jordan's TOV% in the second three-peat, right?
LMA was a useful overall player. My criticism of him is more relative to the role of focal guy. You have to be able to make shots, or your opponent has to be struggling really badly to score as well, and he just had issues making shots. But the possession control of how he played did factor in, especially during the RS. Less so during the playoffs, IMHO, but still. He also didn't OVERshoot, which was a big deal. It was only in his last 2 seasons with Portland that he got north of 18 FGA/g, and he only shot over 16.3 FGA/g for the Spurs in one season. It just wasn't his role, nor his style, in most years. And then honestly he was actually not bad for San Antonio. 2016-19, he averaged 56.2% TS, and he was at 57.0 (+1.4% rTS) and 57.6 (+1.6% rTS) the last two years, then at 57.1% on 18.9 ppg in 2020 (+0.6% rTS). Right in that "acceptable second option" kind of territory, and then as discussed, outlier-level ball protection. And then, like I said, he was a pretty good defender. So as a value to team kind of guy, it was there. He wasn't a good choice as a #1, and he wasn't an ideal choice as a volume scorer overall, but much more tolerable as a #2 and with his D. His inconsistency at drawing fouls was another contributing factor.
The real problem was that he and Demar DeRozan were paired together, and neither of them were stunningly-efficient, and both of them had one degree or another of issue in the playoffs. Their whole offense was built around guys who struggled to make shots, and TOV% low or otherwise, that's a big-time challenge in a playoff series.
He was also a fantastic offensive rebounding SF, fwiw.
That is true, I overlooked that because I was just focused on scoring, but he was a good offensive rebounder. Ultimately, I don't think it matters compared to the other things, but it's worth mentioning. He was a somewhat prototypical 80s SF.
Related to the last factor mentioned: I think the lower shot-load helped (it perhaps meant fewer "bad" shots). Though he was also trending upward slightly in efficiency beginning in '06 (with the changes to hand-check rules), though he would hit his highest FTAr in '08. He suddenly became a passably decent 3pt shooter in '08, too (almost the only full season this could be said for him); that helped as well.
Uncertain how much those things are related to the setting in Denver, and how much to him simply adapting [finally!] to a changing league.
Shooting less and having better offensive help around him, I'm sure that helped a fair amount. He was never a tier-1 guy the way his popularity wanted to believe, but he was better than the inefficient crap he showed on those dreadful Philly teams. Even the Finals team, that offensive lineup was brutal apart from the rebounding. So it isn't a HUGE surprise that he looked better when his volume came down, at least during the RS.
Also, his time in Denver was the highest proportion of passing support on his 3pt shooting (apart from the 15 games with Philly before the trade in 07). Coincidence? Perhaps, we're talking a difference of 4 or 5%, but it couldn't have hurt.
Nothing much to say wrt your other comments, other than I'd suggest you may be undercrediting Vince Carter on defense (although maybe I remember later career Vince more than early prime Vince [which were his best all-around years]). At any rate, he definitely cannot be lumped in with Nique and Melo in terms of his defense.
There were points where he played decent defense. He wasn't a matador on D after Toronto, but the point with him is that if you're going to be a weak scorer, you need to be offering other things if you're in a central role, and Vince mostly didn't. He did a little bit of a lot of things, and sometimes did them well, sometimes not. But consistency was a HUGE issue for Carter.
But yes, I agree: not in the same territory as Melo or Nique. None of these guys are identical. They do all sit together in the same general territory of weak scorers in focal roles, though. There is variation in what they did well around those traits, though, and in someone like Aldridge's case, defense isn't a deficiency. For the others, it was either outright poor, or otherwise unremarkable, and none of these guys were high-end playmakers. Vince wasn't sticky with the ball like Melo, though, and he moved it all right, he just wasn't good enough to really push his offensive utility over top of his bleh scoring (and weak PS performances).
