When you're shooting 39%, you can be much better. With experience, hopefully he'll learn to be more efficient, which will greatly help him and his teammates. But that comes with experience. Right now, he's jacking up way too many unnecessary jumpshots.
Wes Matthews has been great on both sides of the both. Averaging 17 pts on 57% shooting, 52.5% from 3. Plus he's clutch..
Question: Strictly as an offensive player, is LaMarcus Aldridge significantly better than Andrea Bargnani? Their career eFG% and TS% are basically identical, both are low-assist/low-turnover players (Aldridge is a slightly better passer but not to a significant degree), both have basically the same career point/36min average with almost identical usage rates. Obviously Aldridge is an okay defender and an okay rebounder, while Bargs is barely acceptable in either category, but I don't think I'd feel great about my team if its best offensive player was LMA.
If LMA is a team's best offensive player, they can get off to hot starts and contend for the 8th seed. If Bargs is your best offensive player, your goal is to beat the 9-73 Sixers from 1972/73.
If he wants to be great, he will change. He's still young. Hopefully the winning and motivation to be great will change that. Him and LMA are arguably 2 of the most inefficient stars in the league.
Didn't watch any of it, but the Nets were outscored 34-15 in the 3rd quarter at home by the Pistons. I guess because they can't fall that far behind the 8th seed in the East is why Kidd remains coach. They've lost 5 straight and could lose 10 more and remain only 5-6 games out of a playoff spot. No hurry.
That's really not the point (and your statement's not even true, as bad as the 2010-11 Raptors were, they did win 22 games and Bargnani was their best offensive player). The point I'm making is LMA, whose value is mostly derived from his offense (specifically his scoring), isn't really a 'great' scorer. He's good-to-sometimes-very-good. Defensively he's okay, rebounding the ball he's okay, his passing is okay, but none of those qualities are what make him a 'star'. I just think it's kind of silly that there are people who put him in the same category as Blake or Kevin Love.
He's not as good as Kevin Love, but when you are trying to close a game, he's as good as Blake (or better). Bargs doesn't belong in a conversation regarding LMA. I was exaggerating for effect on Bargs being the best offensive player. The point was the team would be pathetic/non-competitive/hopeless.
Exactly, LMA has a signature move that is damn near indefensible (when he is hot). My problem with Portland has been that their supporting stars have always tried for an uptempo style of play when LMA would thrive in a system like the Grizz. Think about it, their team has had so many ball dominant guards: Wesley Matthews, Brandon Roy, Damian Lillard, Jamal Crawford (highest USG% of his career), Felton, Andre Miller, Jerryd Bayless, etc. Contrast this with Memphis system which thrives when Gasol and ZBo touch the ball on every possession and through the awesome PG play of Mike Conley. It looks like this is the key to their recent success: through 14 games, LMA is averaging his career highest USG% (29.6 vs 24.8), FGA (19.6 vs. 15.6) and REB (9.3 vs. 7.9) with the same number of MPG. While the supporting staff has learned to contribute without demanding the ball: Batum USG% 17.3 (dropped from 18 last yr and 20 the year prior), Matthews USG% 17.2 (dropped from ~19 the past 2 yrs), and Lillard has maintained his USG% while decreasing TOV% and increasing DRB%, PER, FTA and 3P%. Add Batum playing the best ball of his career and you get a dangerous mix that is one or two players away from a top 5 seed.
If we get LMA, he won't be our best offensive player. Harden will still be that guy, or they will be "co-best." That's a big difference. LMA can't carry you to contention. But he is a fantastic option 2 or option 1b. For now, it is pretty impossible that Portland will trade him due to their good start. And we may be watching Terrence Jones grow into a good PF and we might not really need the upgrade.
