[Yyzlin]

Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
I think you are confused. Pace and efficiency are two different things.

And you are wrong in your bizarre assertion that BAD offensive teams offer more scoring opportunities than good offensive teams and that it is much harder to post 20ppg on a really good offensive team. Maybe you are confusing the depth of good players on some of the better teams.

Why not? If you are a good offensive player on a bad offensive team, you are obviously going to receive more touches and opportunities to score than a good offensive player on a good offensive team that has more scoring options.

Regardless, I didn't use the Pace adjustments as I don't have them for this season. I only know where to find Pace adjustment numbers for past seasons. Instead I used each player's impact on the team as a percentage in order to remove the Pace bias from consideration. Using percentages does that easily and takes the deceptiveness of PPG & RPG numbers out of it.

What do you consider pace to be? I consider pace to be possessions per game. Using percentages is inaccurate as it entirely ignores the context of your teammates.

Pace is not possessions, it is (Field goal attempts + (Free throw attempts * 0.4) + Turnovers - Offensive Rebounds), computed for all teams and compared.

I think you are the one that is confused. The formula you gave determines number of possessions.

[mook]

Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!

Obviously, Stoudamire and Van Exel haven't been very successful this year, but based on their career records, they should get better. None of them are consistent mid-range shooters, but to call Portland entirely devoid of players capable of hitting jumpshots is inaccurate. I mean, the Jazz have Harpring, a career .351 3P% shooter, and Giricek, a career .361% shooter. It's not much better, if at all, than what Portland has three point wise.

I won't argue at all that Nick and Damon and DA have had great careers shooting jumpshots. that really isn't the point though, is it? we are talking about how they've played SINCE ZACH HAS PLAYED A STARRING ROLE.

the point is that Randolph isn't benefitting much from any kind of decent guard play.

let's try this from a different perspective. you actually seem to like the DA/Damon/Nick combo. please name for me 10 NBA starting guard tandems you think are worse than Portland's.

myself, I can (off the top of my head) cite the Nets, Atlanta and Houston.

btw, nobody has yet to really refute my initial post about the caliber of player Zach is. people are arguing about pereferal players, but nobody is claiming Boozer actually wants the ball in end-of-game situations, or that Boozer is rebounding even close to Zach's rate, or that Boozer could do just as well (if not better) in Portland.

[Yyzlin]

Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!

I won't argue at all that Nick and Damon and DA have had great careers shooting jumpshots. that really isn't the point though, is it? we are talking about how they've played SINCE ZACH HAS PLAYED A STARRING ROLE.

the point is that Randolph isn't benefitting much from any kind of decent guard play.

Yes, right now, but based on their careers, I would expect them to improve this year. It's not like any of them are seriously aging. Van Exel is the oldest at 33. Shooting is the skill that tends to decrease the least with age.

let's try this from a different perspective. you actually seem to like the DA/Damon/Nick combo. please name for me 10 NBA starting guard tandems you think are worse than Portland's.

myself, I can (off the top of my head) cite the Nets, Atlanta and Houston.

As a starting guard tandem, Portland's is definately in the bottom 10 in the league. However, my point was, three point-wise, the trio is very comparable to Utah's. After all, the original argument was that Boozer had "much" better supporting teammates from long range.

btw, nobody has yet to really refute my initial post about the caliber of player Zach is. people are arguing about pereferal players, but nobody is claiming Boozer actually wants the ball in end-of-game situations, or that Boozer is rebounding even close to Zach's rate, or that Boozer could do just as well (if not better) in Portland.

In regards to wanting the ball in end of game situations, it seems both of them do really well. Boozer averages 36 PPG on .500 eFG% per 48 minutes in clutch time this year, while averaging 25 PPG on a .564 eFG% per 48 minutes in clutch time last year. Randolph is doing 34 PPG on .500 eFG% this year, while doing 24 PPG on .487 eFG% last year. This year's numbers are inflated because of the small sample sizes, but last years numbers are a larger sample size.

Rebounding-wise, there really is not much of a difference between the two. I don't see how you could say Boozer isn't rebounding close to Randolph this year. Boozer is averaging 13.2 RPG/48 while Randolph is averaging 14.2 RPG/48. If you look at actual rebounding percentages, they are almost indentical with Boozer having a cumulative(adding offensive rebounding rate to defensive rebounding rate) rebounding rate of 29.7 while Randolph has a reboundd rate of 29.8. Boozer is doing a little better on the offensive boards this year (10.4% to 9.8%), while Randolph is doing a little better on the defensive boards (20% to 19.3%).

I don't why you would want to argue how Boozer would do in Portland or how Randolph would do in Utah. First, it's just speculation. Second, it's just opinionated speculation. I think Boozer would still be producing better than Randolph if they switched positions. You obviously think otherwise. Not much to argue.