going back a bit, youre right points per shot isnt the end all, but true shooting percentage treats FTA as fga so most of what i say still holds true. i use points per shot because its a good way to estimate TS% and its easier to look at than looking up TS% for every game when looking at a players performance.
also, ive already agreed that harden had a 'bad' series against the lakers, and yeah his game 1 was just as 'bad' (which in reality is simply average because the end result is still 17 points on ). my memory is a lot better than you think, seeing as how i remember watching him and seeing that he was pretty damn good in the playoffs LAST year. and if you wanna bring up his average play against the lakers, dont ignore his stellar play against the mavs. (and why would you talk **** on kobe's D after defending his defensive second team selection?)
i dont see how people can be so high on 23 year old westbrook because he has potential to develop and we see flashes of brilliance. why is everyone so reluctant to buy into the younger 22 year old harden despite his obvious skills in penetration, 3 point shooting, free throw shooting, passing, his great pick and roll game, rebounding, and relatively low turnover rate (given how much he handles the ball)? his worst games are pretty much average and his best games make him look like the best 2 in the nba. and most importantly, like every true superstar, he can get away with a travel every now and then. i feel like its because he doesnt
look as good or aesthetic as kobe or wade? who cares, the production is there.
free throws are certainly VERY valuable. obviously, you dont want some players getting to the line, but why wouldnt you want durant, westbrook, and harden getting to the line? its the best way to score! it gives tired players (durant) more time to rest. it gives the defense time to set itself on the other side. it can put players in foul trouble and take them out of a game. these are just the "intangible" benefits (though still legitimately important). the real benefits: they are the highest percentage shots those players can take. the probability they make both is higher than their shooting percentages. they are free points without wasting as much time, thus leaving your team more possessions with which to score more points. said another way, it provides your team a greater margin for error in maintaining a winning pace.
_______
westbrook is more effective at generating scoring opportunities than durant. durant cannot consistently get open. he's a souped-up ray allen.
it's the epitome of an unnuanced observation to look at westbrook's shot totals/efficiency and then at durant's, and blame westbrook for shooting too much. that's actually how the thunder offense is built, and it has to be built that way because durant is not a volume shooter.
im not blaming westbrook, its more on the game plan. so i guess i blame brooks. its coach's job to find a way to get his most efficient scorers the shot as often as possible.
i agree that durant isnt as good at creating, but clearly something needs to be done. (i think he's more like a souped up rashard lewis lol) i'd rather have westbrook using his penetration skills to break down the D and dish to durant or harden (who would
hopefully as a result would then have space to work or maybe shoot outside. i get that this is easier said than done.) than get westbrook to shoot for 2 points 24 times a game...
you mean like game 2?
westbrook: 27 points on 24 shots, 7 boards, 8 assists, 0 turnovers
sorry i meant durant and harden type scoring efficiency. 27 on 24 is not good enough to keep up with the spurs' three point shooting. it doesnt matter that he had a ~50% fg percentage. if he's taking 24 shots, he needs to be netting something like 1.4 points per shot (which would be 33 points on 24 shots. kind of like parker's game 2). anything less, and that kind of volume actually hurts against the spurs (and only the spurs).
but i just dont think its possible. i really think the spurs are too ridiculously balanced like shadrach pointed out:
the real focus should be on scott brooks, and by relation derek fisher and perkins. this is where the thunder really miss eric maynor. the spurs are so good because they get contributions from everyone in their rotation; they have 10 league-average NBA players. the thunder don't; perkins, sefolosha and fisher are well below-average. even worse, the best of that trio, sefolosha, is losing minutes to the worst, fisher.
the thunder's hope comes from the refs. the spurs got ALL THE CALLS the first two games. there's no doubt about that. and that's fine since that's the major advantage of home-court advantage.
truth.
and no im not actually comparing griffin to malone, thatd be a travesty
for now. im pretty sure malone was pretty raw when he started out too. i would love Sloan to coach LAC
cuz that works well for kobe amirite
it certainly used to back when he was actually the best player in the league, not the tired wrinkled shadow we see today. game 5 in the last series was vintage kobe. he looked fresh as hell
brooks should try harden at point guard and run him in the primary unit.
i actually like harden coming off the bench to give durant and WB rest while he's on the free throw line for days at a time. also, he's efficient enough offensively to hedge the loss they see in losing durant and WB to the bench reasonably well. i think WB coming off the bench as an energy guy could be awesome for his current skill, but probably terrible given his personality.
