He might do, or he might have just had that one good season... If he is sub 30% from 3 next season (which is likely), then the Clippers just traded one of their only guys who could shoot a bit for a highly paid non-shooter who plays the same position as their only real shooter.... Hrmmm
Sure - all trades of "upside" guys can work out or not, and that's the case here. If the good Stephenson shows up, then they are dramatically better. If not, they are still a 2nd tier team behind GS and OKC. They aiming to get better rather than spin their wheels. Due to their cap situation and limited depth, it's not like they can just go get a legit great player, so they have to take some chances and hope for the best.
Why is everyone so focused on Lance Stephenson's offensive abilities? The Clippers had a top offense in the NBA last year in total points per 100 possessions. Their need is an athletic wing defender that can neutralize guys like Durant, Lebron, or Kawhi without needing to use CP3 on them half the game. If Stephenson wants his 2016/17 option, he needs to perform this year so he does have incentive to listen to Doc. Rivers turned Deandre from an average center with a ton of athleticism to one of the elite rim protectors in the league. He must be at least somewhat confident that he can do the same trick with Stephenson since he pulled the trigger on this deal. Plus, he did unload some guaranteed salary in Hawes who he barely even played in the playoffs. To recap, the Clippers have plenty of offense, what they need is some athleticism on defense and Lance Stephenson is worth the risk there. I mean, look at how teams drooled all over for him last summer...what a difference a year makes.
He's actually the opposite of Jamal Crawford if you think about it. Speaking of Jamal Crawford, his days are likely numbered as a Clipper. Doc is going to bring in Paul Pierce as well as maybe Robin Lopez to round out the bench and Crawford's volume shooting and no defense is likely to have worn thin on Rivers. Plus, he wants more minutes for his baby boy.
Because 468. http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/12/sort/ORPM It's OK if a guy is just below average offensively, Lance Stephenson was exceptionally horrible. He was bad at pretty much every aspect of offense: Doesn't get to the rim, doesn't draw fouls, doesn't hit jump shots, doesn't hit FTs, turns the ball over frequently. The Clippers have a great offense because they have CP and Griffin drawing attention, Jordan to finish at the basket and shooters to space the floor and hit 3s. Lance Stephenson's shooting will need to undergo a dramatic improvement for him not to screw up their spacing.
If he (or any FA were smart) I'd go get on that Atlanta bandwagon. They have the system in place to really be something just not the quality of players.
Well, Matt Barnes who was pretty much a 30% three point shooter was upped to 35% while playing on the Clippers due to the fact that he got so many open shots. I doubt Stephenson will be starting depending on who else the Clippers bring in at SF (Pierce or Dunleavy maybe?), but when he's on the court with CP3, Griffin, Deandre and Redick (44% 3 point shooter), you can be sure that he will get a lot of wide open 3 pointers. These are shots that Lance Stephenson did not get in Charlotte or even Indiana. The thing with analytics in basketball is that it cannot be applied like in baseball. A players on base percentage in baseball does not depend as much on the players around him. Basketball is a very different animal and people like to place analytics around it like in baseball which does not always add up. Stephenson's athleticism on defense is why the trade was made and, honestly, if the Clippers just had one stud athletic wing defender this year, they would be holding the Larry O'Brien trophy right now. Doc's staff can teach him how to knock down wide open three point shots.
[Markazi] The Clippers are exploring trade options for Jamal Crawford. Exploring the possibility of trading Crawford and C.J. Wilcox, the team’s 2014 first round pick, to the Denver Nuggets for Wilson Chandler. (espn.go.com)
I like Wilson Chandler, and that seems like another "ok" trade for the Clips. If it happened, what about Pierce? It would be... Out: Barnes, Hawes, Crawford, CJ Wilcox In: Stephenson, Chandler
Denver is not going to accept that crap trade package for Wilson Chandler. Sorry Doc, you have traded away all of your assets.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Doc Rivers wants to remind you that it's never his fault: <a href="http://t.co/qsqNFRWFDa">http://t.co/qsqNFRWFDa</a></p>— Deadspin (@Deadspin) <a href="https://twitter.com/Deadspin/status/611567482898415616">June 18, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
What? First of all both Barnes and Hawes were horrible in the playoffs, Barnes made you think he was doing something but he's really not. Secondly Lance Stephenson can fill that exact same role Barnes did on the squad, be the enforcer and x factor, the only diff is Stephenson is younger and has a little bit of star potential. Considering the Clipps are capped out this is a good way for them to get talent IMHO, if Stephenson becomes a bust then he sits on the bench, really no difference from having Hawes and Barnes sit on the bench.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fg_7bXz8W9o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Partial list of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Clippers?src=hash">#Clippers</a> SF targets - Paul Pierce, Mike Dunleavy Jr., Al-Farouq Aminu, Wilson Chandler (via trade)</p>— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/613089433718521856">June 22, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
