next »

[Fafnir]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

  It's not really true that he's only shown the ability to hit corner threes and cut without the ball, he's shown himself to have a fairly solid mid-range jumper.

Oh, but it is. He's shooting in the low .400s over the last two seasons from 16-23 feet, and has no game whatosever inside 10 feet unless it's at the rim.

Some midrange game? Sure. Fairly solid? I wouldn't say so.

10-23 feet he shot 41% last year and 48% this year.

[kozlodoev]

10-23 feet he shot 41% last year and 48% this year.

41% is not good. That's Rondo-esque from the time when Rondo was getting bashed for his poor midrange game.

Also, this year's numbers are on what, 20 shots total?

[CelticG1]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

So he's an exceptional cutter, very good on the break and converting at the basket, and is a good corner 3 point shot.

This is from the guy who a year ago was hitting shots off the side of the backboard.

What does limited mean exactly? Id be willing to argue that there are a ton of guys on our team that are limited offensively.

To me limited basically implies being a liability. Every offensive player in the game is "limited" so what else would it mean?

[Fafnir]

10-23 feet he shot 41% last year and 48% this year.

41% is not good.

Also, this year's numbers are on what, 20 shots total?

41% is about average for shooting guards.

And yes this year its 21 shots and last year's sample was small too.

[j804]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

So he's an exceptional cutter, very good on the break and converting at the basket, and is a good corner 3 point shot.

This is from the guy who a year ago was hitting shots off the side of the backboard.

What does limited mean exactly? Id be willing to argue that there are a ton of guys on our team that are limited offensively.

To me limited basically implies being a liability. Every offensive player in the game is "limited" so what else would it mean?

Yeah unless you're Kobe, Pierce or Carmelo and can score from anywhere would this mean you're "limited offensively"?

[kozlodoev]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

So he's an exceptional cutter, very good on the break and converting at the basket, and is a good corner 3 point shot.

This is from the guy who a year ago was hitting shots off the side of the backboard.

What does limited mean exactly? Id be willing to argue that there are a ton of guys on our team that are limited offensively.

To me limited basically implies being a liability. Every offensive player in the game is "limited" so what else would it mean?

Limited implies exactly what it says. And yes, there are other guys on our roster that are limited. I don't understand  why people get bent out of shape about this -- are we all supposed to grovel about Bradley being the greatest thing since sliced cheese.

Having Bradley on the floor clearly limits what you can do offensively -- you can't run 1-2 high picks, can't run him off of screens, can't give him the ball and move out of the way. These things alter the playbook considerably.

Does Bradley bring other stuff to the table? Sure he does. But let's call a spade a spade here.

[Snakehead]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

So he's an exceptional cutter, very good on the break and converting at the basket, and is a good corner 3 point shot.

This is from the guy who a year ago was hitting shots off the side of the backboard.

What does limited mean exactly? Id be willing to argue that there are a ton of guys on our team that are limited offensively.

To me limited basically implies being a liability. Every offensive player in the game is "limited" so what else would it mean?

Yeah unless you're Kobe, Pierce or Carmelo and can score from anywhere would this mean you're "limited offensively"?

Yeah I agree with you guys here.

Bradley can improve as a scorer no question but because he is missing parts of an offensive game in his repertoire... well that makes him like almost every other player in the league.

There are very few complete offensive players.

[kozlodoev]

41% is about average for shooting guards.

Actually it seems to be slightly above league average for guards from last year (playing with min minutes played and PG vs. SG doesn't seem to alter the outcome). I'm surprised that the those guys only shoot ~39% from that range. I expected something closer to 44%.

[Fafnir]

41% is about average for shooting guards.

Actually it seems to be slightly above league average for guards from last year (playing with min minutes played and PG vs. SG doesn't seem to alter the outcome). I'm surprised that the those guys only shoot ~39% from that range. I expected something closer to 44%.

Rondo was 39%, 38%, 40%, and 40% the past four years.

A few percentage points matters a lot. Guys like Kobe Bryant/Paul Pierce/Korver/etc. will shoot 43-45% on those shots all the time.

Rondo's kind of a special case I think in that he was shooting that percentage when he was often left uncontested and visibly hesitated to take them often.

Anyways the moral of the story is that mid range jump shots are the worst shot. (Unless you're KG)

[mctyson]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

First, the facts are that he shoots at a good percentage from 3pt range and from the floor in general.  That includes all of his shots, not just corner threes and backdoor layups.  What he gets from our offense is what he gets from our offense.  You can't say that he is limited when it may very well be that our offense is what limits him. 

Second, your definition of limited would probably apply to over half of the guards in the league, particularly those on good teams with All-Stars who dominate the ball like Pierce and Rondo do.  We can critique Avery's ability to create his own shot off the dribble, but how many times a game does he actually get a chance to dribble when he plays with Pierce and Rondo? 

Third - everyone who thought AB was going to produce this kind of a change in our team believed so because of his defense, but also I would point out that the stats from last year indicated we were a superior offensive team with AB on the floor as well.  Whether this is a function of the defensive improvement (something Doc and Rondo say often) or this is a function of AB's offensive contributions, or a little of both, no one really knows.  However, you cannot discount that the team is better both offensively and defensively with him on the floor, and he deserves credit for that.

[kozlodoev]

First, the facts are that he shoots at a good percentage from 3pt range and from the floor in general.  That includes all of his shots, not just corner threes and backdoor layups.

Right, and close to 57% of his shots last season were at the rim or from the three. Your point?

What he gets from our offense is what he gets from our offense.  You can't say that he is limited when it may very well be that our offense is what limits him.

This is ridiculous. Do I even need to address it?

[BballTim]

What's controversial about saying Avery isn't a great offensive player?

Might be because they're implying that he's not just not great but inept.

Yeah what's controversial is saying something like all he can do is cut to the basket and that anyone can do that

That whole discussion started from the statement that "Bradley is limited offensively". It's not controversial, it's factual. He has shown no consistent offensive game other than the short three pointer and cutting without the ball. That's limited.

I'm not saying that won't be a successful without ever developing more tools, but I don't see how something so self-evident can be controversial. Unless of course you think Bradley is the greatest thing since sliced bread, in which case discussion is pretty much pointless.

  It's not really true that he's only shown the ability to hit corner threes and cut without the ball, he's shown himself to have a fairly solid mid-range jumper.

Oh, but it is. He's shooting in the low .400s over the last two seasons from 16-23 feet, and has no game whatosever inside 15 feet unless it's at the rim.

Some midrange game? Sure. Fairly solid? I wouldn't say so.

  Being in the low 40s for fg% doesn't sound great, unless you compare it to the league average which is in the high 30s. Above average = fairly solid.

[kozlodoev]

41% is about average for shooting guards.

Rondo's kind of a special case I think in that he was shooting that percentage when he was often left uncontested and visibly hesitated to take them often.

Well, the metric doesn't really specify whether shots are contested or not. For all I know half of the shots taken may have been poorly contested.

[Chris]

Being in the low 40s for fg% doesn't sound great, unless you compare it to the league average which is in the high 30s. Above average = fairly solid.

Well I guess Rondo has had a "solid midrange game" for most of his career then...

He has actually.  His shooting percentages have always been decent from midrange.  The problem is, in the past, he would only take those shots when he had no other option, and was wide open, so it just wasn't as effective.  Now, he is better, because not only is he shooting well, but he is confident enough in his shooting take those shots to keep the defense honest.

[kozlodoev]

Being in the low 40s for fg% doesn't sound great, unless you compare it to the league average which is in the high 30s. Above average = fairly solid.

Well I guess Rondo has had a "solid midrange game" for most of his career then...

He has actually.  His shooting percentages have always been decent from midrange.  The problem is, in the past, he would only take those shots when he had no other option, and was wide open, so it just wasn't as effective.  Now, he is better, because not only is he shooting well, but he is confident enough in his shooting take those shots to keep the defense honest.

I'm confused, he was taking shots wide open, supposedly had decent midrange game, but wasn't as effective?

I'm more inclined to believe that the league, on average, doesn't have a decent midrange game