martin wrote:

holfresh wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:^^^I might have posted it. I remember it and that you didn't agree with it and attacked the writer. Not Lawerence's best work for sure. I like rant but I don't see it as that different from the article posted here written by that journalism student.

NY Times more credible??
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/sports/basketball/robin-lopez-and-knicks-are-close-to-a-deal.html?_r=0

The Knicks are paying a fairly steep price for Lopez, who is a solid defender and rebounder but a limited scorer. Lopez, 27, whose twin, Brook, plays for the Nets, averaged 10.5 points and 7.8 rebounds as the Portland Trail Blazers’ starting center the past two seasons.

Lopez earned about $6.1 million last season with Portland. The Knicks are more than doubling his salary, a reflection of their need to fill the vacancies in their frontcourt and a looming rise in the salary cap. The cap is expected to jump from about $67 million this summer to $88 million (or more) next summer, as the league collects revenue from a lucrative new television deal.

Fairly steep price and overpay are not the same thing though, right? So it doesn't really fit your narrative.

They are the same thing..Saying "fairly steep price" may seem to cover a wider variation but it's essentially saying we paid too much for him, just not in the bombastic fashion I may have initially presented..I also doubt the Times lends itself to tabloid type commentary..

holfresh wrote:

martin wrote:

holfresh wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:^^^I might have posted it. I remember it and that you didn't agree with it and attacked the writer. Not Lawerence's best work for sure. I like rant but I don't see it as that different from the article posted here written by that journalism student.

NY Times more credible??
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/sports/basketball/robin-lopez-and-knicks-are-close-to-a-deal.html?_r=0

The Knicks are paying a fairly steep price for Lopez, who is a solid defender and rebounder but a limited scorer. Lopez, 27, whose twin, Brook, plays for the Nets, averaged 10.5 points and 7.8 rebounds as the Portland Trail Blazers’ starting center the past two seasons.

Lopez earned about $6.1 million last season with Portland. The Knicks are more than doubling his salary, a reflection of their need to fill the vacancies in their frontcourt and a looming rise in the salary cap. The cap is expected to jump from about $67 million this summer to $88 million (or more) next summer, as the league collects revenue from a lucrative new television deal.

Fairly steep price and overpay are not the same thing though, right? So it doesn't really fit your narrative.

They are the same thing..Saying "fairly steep price" may seem to cover a wider variation but it's essentially saying we paid too much for him, just not in the bombastic fashion I may have initially presented..I also doubt the Times lends itself to tabloid type commentary..

Fairly steep doesn't equal paying too much. Wrong again. Fairly steep connotes skepticism not anything conclusive. You're dense.

Robin got a fair contract for his level.

Marcin Gortat's contract:

CONTRACT: 5 yr(s) / $60,000,000 - AVERAGE SALARY $12,000,000 - SIGNED USING: Bird

Robin Lopez's contract:

CONTRACT: 4 yr(s) / $54,015,500 - AVERAGE SALARY $13,503,875 - SIGNED USING: Cap Space

And now we can only hope that KP would make us forget Durant.

knickscity wrote:Not sure why Gortat is being mentioned other than to establish he is overpaid as well. The better big men should be the comparison, but of course that would establish how ridiculously overpaid Lopez is. Compare him to Noah.

Noah is on the last year of a contract he signed in 2011-12 when he was 26. He would be getting more money if he was signing a contract last year of this summer like Gortat and RoLo.

ESOMKnicks wrote:I thought Phil's best strategy for this off-season should have been to focus on the one FA signing that would have put us back into the elite - LMA - and was disappoited when that did not happen. But outside of that scenario, i quite liked the RoLo signing, as it closed a glaring need with a VERY decent player, a definite starter if not a star. The price was high, but not unreasonable. It was the blowing of the additional cap on more questionable assets, such as Afflalo or DWill, that upsets me, since it is virtually putting us out of the Durant sweepstakes for next year. A frontcourt of Melo, Durant and Rolo could have been really imposing and championship-worthy.

And now we can only hope that KP would make us forget Durant.

you are assuming a great deal when you suggest two thirty year old players who have similar flaws would make the knicks elite, if by "elite" you mean a top 6 team in the entire nba.

i am glad the knicks didn't acquire aldridge, just as i am glad aldridge has found the best possible place in san antonio to learn how to tighten up his game-- it needed a lot of tightening up-- and keep that dynasty breathing.

he would have been subtraction by addition here with melo in the same front court-- both are overrated rebounders and defenders, and both have a hard time demonstrating good passing skills that create offensive cohesion.

as to durant, i hope he has a comeback career and his foot issues are behind him, but if it turns out his feet are in a degenerative state, then the knicks would not be interested in him anyway. that said, he would be an ideal player for the triangle, since he has in fact improved his passing game, and is far, far better than either aldridge or melo at playmaking.

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:I'm not sure what is meant was by true talent..I don't think Phil is looking at the best talent available and he said as much...He is looking at guys with good personalities..He says guys from good families..Also guys suited for the system which Phil and Mills have said..

Kind of amazing that you keep on throwing out this crap- as if you can't have good character, be a good teammate, come from a solid family background AND be a good player!

The character and family support stuff was something they looked at when drafting, along with the basketball aspect of a player...every team does this by the way, Jackson just pointed it out. Being a good player and a good person are not mutually exclusive. You do understand that scouts will first look at the talent on the floor, and then try to find out more about the player... how they mesh with other players, what kind of locker room presence to they have...how coachable are they...how much are they willing to do to be on a winning team? This is from the Rosen article:

"It's of vital importance to try to discover the ethics of a player," he says. "What's important to him? In what direction does he want his pro career to go? Is he a leader or a follower? Is he coachable? What's the size of the universe he lives in? In the case of Mudiay, he has a needy family so he needed the immediate money that he could get in China. That tells a lot about the young man's priorities."

I know you would not be whining over our picks if Mudiay had been selected...and lo and behold, Phil actually considered some of the non-BB aspects of Mudiay, including his relationship with his family, when looking at him. Could this possibly mean that he decided against taking Mudiay because of pure basketball reasons??!!

He drafted a guy you did not want, and you continue to look for reasons why it was the wrong pick, and you continue to put out your completely unsubstantiated assertion that Jackson was ONLY looking at character, and was not concerned with what a player can do on the court.

holfresh wrote:My problem is that the "culture" Phil is building isn't sustainable...You can't introduce the triangle if you are thinking about building the franchise for the long term...Not every coach or GM will want to run the triangle going forward..Why limit yourself to the small percentile that are willing to run it..It's why you get coaches like Fisher...Do we only hire Phil's disciples going forward??..How is that a good foundation going forward..It's a short sighted move...

Being able to play in the Triangle does not mean a player cannot play or be successful in other systems. There are players with serious limitations...such as JR Smith, who are not able to adapt, and you try to stay away from this kind of player, but a good player can play in different systems because they know the game.

Once again, you make up your own special rules to evaluate players...

Player A was acquired because Phil thinks he can play in the Triangle

Therefore Player A must not be able to succeed in any other offensive system.

If you actually read any of the Rosen interviews with Phil, Jackson actually addressed this issue in a way:

"Too many of these guys don't want to change the way they've always played ... running isos and screen/roles," he says. "We simply don't have enough talent to win playing that way. If we executed the triangle with a full commitment, and had the same attitude on defense, then we'd win our share of games. But that's too much work. Because they resist even trying these changes out, they're way too passive out there. We are robotic in our actions; I'm waiting for this team to start to play using this offense for the individual talents, but together.

"The entire mindset and culture around here has to be improved."

Sounds to me that he might have been able to live with some non-Triangle action, but also believes the T can accommodate the various talents a player does have. This comment hints at character issues with some players...and perhaps a lack of leadership amongst the payers on the court and in the locker room.

I also expect that guys who are intelligent enough to play in the Triangle are also good enough to play the kind of ball they have probably played in the past...hardly a stretch, I would think.

holfresh wrote:
Is it culture change if we don't win?
I'm just amazed how you allow yourselves to be brainwashed by all this mambo jumbo...MJ was taking 25/26 shots a game in season and 27/28 shots a game in the playoffs...Scottie was taking the rest...And when they were covered/doubled, Paxson/Hodges/Kerr hit the open three...Flip the script to Shaq and Kobe..I remember laughing when in an interview Phil said "25 shots a game, that's not basketball"...What triangle??..It's a simple game..Get the ball in the hands of the best players..

It all boils down to winning...Triangle isn't winning anything, In the NBA, good players put in the best position to succeed win games...

Winning is the culture change I want to see...

The best teams get the ball into the hand of the person who has the best opportunity to score at a particular moment...and that can happen in a variety of ways.
The best offenses give the right players an opportunity to score.
The best teams have multiple players who can score when called upon, and don't pass up a shot they have a high chance of making.
The best teams have stars who can do more than just score. In their primes Jordan, Pippin, and Bryant averaged over 5APG.

The "culture change" also includes a commitment to defense,by the way...something you rarely mention. MJ, Kobe, and Pippin were first team All D numerous times, Shag also made it a few times.

holfresh wrote:Lopez is not over paid at 13.5 per??..Jordan Hill just got 4 mil from Indy...Seems like we outbid ourselves...Lopez was the 5/6 best player on Portland who was bumped in the first round of the playoffs...At that salary, he should be the 2/3 best on the team...And he is far from being that type of talent...

Yet you would have had no qualms about giving Aldridge- the #1/1A best player on Portland who was bumped in the first round of the playoffs a Max deal?! So which players should we scrutinize when looking at a team that "fails"...especially a team like Portland which did have some talent? Do you look at Lillard or Aldridge, who will both be making Max money...or do we blame the lesser players on the team?

I know that in another thread you said something about how no one can blame Anthony if we have a sub-par season because the players you thought we should pick up were not acquired to assist Carmelo. Does this now mean that if the season goes well Anthony should get no credit? Does Aldridge get any blame for Portland's early exit?

Were you critical of the Cavs for signing Shumpert for a $10Mx4 contract? Here's a guy who has seemingly remained the same player for 4 years...a combo guard who plays tough D, but who is wildly inconsistent and unreliable on offense, who was not even given the chance to bring the ball up from the backcourt when it counted at the end of the season, and a guy who was overshadowed by an Australian rugby player at times in the playoffs. Think anyone else was going to offer Shumpert that kind of money??

Plenty of guys got overpaid, and it should be worse next year, but the Lopez signing was pretty sound financially because you have complete control over him for the next 4 years, and won't have to worry about next year's salary bump. For all we know Jackson gave him a little more for Lopez not getting a player option his final year...something all players seem to get these days

Lets face it, though, your own boner for JR Smith is always showing, and you feel that much of the "character" talk comes out of the experiences the Knicks had with him. I know from my own experience as a coach that guys like JR can kill a team's morale, especially if you are attempting to establish that new culture you love to mock, and there is no clubhouse leadership to check him.

Smith clearly made no attempt to try to change here, or perhaps his BB IQ was simply too low to do so...who knows. Guy admitted to not being able to deal with the distractions in NY, and he has a long history of being unreliable on, and off, the court. James might have been able to straighten him up off the court, but even he could not anticipate the level of ineptitude JR would show in the finals, where his inability to contribute in a positive way once again showed why he is not a guy you can count on.

Think he got a ton of offers when he decided to opt out? Ever wonder why he probably didn't? Or do you buy the agent written Instagram statement put out by JR?

Deny whatever you want to deny, but all teams look at backgrounds and character when deciding to draft or trade for a player. You're paying them millions...why pay extra for someone who has the maturity of an Eddie Curry or the desire of a Jerome James? Why choose to rely on someone as unreliable as JR Smith?

And why can't a guy with character be a good player? Do you actually think that Jackson would take a guy based on character alone? Do you think Clarence Gaines is looking at background history but not what is happening on the court when he scouts a player?

You've criticized me for allegedly overanalyzing Phil's comments about Anthony...but how do you take Phil's character comments and reach the conclusion that he has no concern for the BB talent of a player, or that players he feels can play in the Triangle can't play any other system...how do you come up with this dreck?

I would like to think that you don't believe some of the foolishness you put out, and are just being provocative, but I'm not sure.

Take a cold shower and stop looking at those magnified shots of the tattoos JR has on his torso...you might be able to think more clearly.

knicks1248 wrote:I agree with this for the most part.

holfresh is not way off base with his thought process on other ways to make this team better in a much quicker way.

The one thing I have learned, is that you can't always look at a player who failed in one system and think he's just a failure. Skill set is very important, the MDA(knick) tenure is evidence of just how these things can play out. Jr played lights out under MDA and woodson, and played like trash under fisher.

WaltLongmire wrote:

holfresh wrote:I'm not sure what is meant was by true talent..I don't think Phil is looking at the best talent available and he said as much...He is looking at guys with good personalities..He says guys from good families..Also guys suited for the system which Phil and Mills have said..

Kind of amazing that you keep on throwing out this crap- as if you can't have good character, be a good teammate, come from a solid family background AND be a good player!

The character and family support stuff was something they looked at when drafting, along with the basketball aspect of a player...every team does this by the way, Jackson just pointed it out. Being a good player and a good person are not mutually exclusive. You do understand that scouts will first look at the talent on the floor, and then try to find out more about the player... how they mesh with other players, what kind of locker room presence to they have...how coachable are they...how much are they willing to do to be on a winning team? This is from the Rosen article:

"It's of vital importance to try to discover the ethics of a player," he says. "What's important to him? In what direction does he want his pro career to go? Is he a leader or a follower? Is he coachable? What's the size of the universe he lives in? In the case of Mudiay, he has a needy family so he needed the immediate money that he could get in China. That tells a lot about the young man's priorities."

I know you would not be whining over our picks if Mudiay had been selected...and lo and behold, Phil actually considered some of the non-BB aspects of Mudiay, including his relationship with his family, when looking at him. Could this possibly mean that he decided against taking Mudiay because of pure basketball reasons??!!

He drafted a guy you did not want, and you continue to look for reasons why it was the wrong pick, and you continue to put out your completely unsubstantiated assertion that Jackson was ONLY looking at character, and was not concerned with what a player can do on the court.

holfresh wrote:My problem is that the "culture" Phil is building isn't sustainable...You can't introduce the triangle if you are thinking about building the franchise for the long term...Not every coach or GM will want to run the triangle going forward..Why limit yourself to the small percentile that are willing to run it..It's why you get coaches like Fisher...Do we only hire Phil's disciples going forward??..How is that a good foundation going forward..It's a short sighted move...

Being able to play in the Triangle does not mean a player cannot play or be successful in other systems. There are players with serious limitations...such as JR Smith, who are not able to adapt, and you try to stay away from this kind of player, but a good player can play in different systems because they know the game.

Once again, you make up your own special rules to evaluate players...

Player A was acquired because Phil thinks he can play in the Triangle

Therefore Player A must not be able to succeed in any other offensive system.

If you actually read any of the Rosen interviews with Phil, Jackson actually addressed this issue in a way:

"Too many of these guys don't want to change the way they've always played ... running isos and screen/roles," he says. "We simply don't have enough talent to win playing that way. If we executed the triangle with a full commitment, and had the same attitude on defense, then we'd win our share of games. But that's too much work. Because they resist even trying these changes out, they're way too passive out there. We are robotic in our actions; I'm waiting for this team to start to play using this offense for the individual talents, but together.

"The entire mindset and culture around here has to be improved."

Sounds to me that he might have been able to live with some non-Triangle action, but also believes the T can accommodate the various talents a player does have. This comment hints at character issues with some players...and perhaps a lack of leadership amongst the payers on the court and in the locker room.

I also expect that guys who are intelligent enough to play in the Triangle are also good enough to play the kind of ball they have probably played in the past...hardly a stretch, I would think.

holfresh wrote:
Is it culture change if we don't win?
I'm just amazed how you allow yourselves to be brainwashed by all this mambo jumbo...MJ was taking 25/26 shots a game in season and 27/28 shots a game in the playoffs...Scottie was taking the rest...And when they were covered/doubled, Paxson/Hodges/Kerr hit the open three...Flip the script to Shaq and Kobe..I remember laughing when in an interview Phil said "25 shots a game, that's not basketball"...What triangle??..It's a simple game..Get the ball in the hands of the best players..

It all boils down to winning...Triangle isn't winning anything, In the NBA, good players put in the best position to succeed win games...

Winning is the culture change I want to see...

The best teams get the ball into the hand of the person who has the best opportunity to score at a particular moment...and that can happen in a variety of ways.
The best offenses give the right players an opportunity to score.
The best teams have multiple players who can score when called upon, and don't pass up a shot they have a high chance of making.
The best teams have stars who can do more than just score. In their primes Jordan, Pippin, and Bryant averaged over 5APG.

The "culture change" also includes a commitment to defense,by the way...something you rarely mention. MJ, Kobe, and Pippin were first team All D numerous times, Shag also made it a few times.

holfresh wrote:Lopez is not over paid at 13.5 per??..Jordan Hill just got 4 mil from Indy...Seems like we outbid ourselves...Lopez was the 5/6 best player on Portland who was bumped in the first round of the playoffs...At that salary, he should be the 2/3 best on the team...And he is far from being that type of talent...

Yet you would have had no qualms about giving Aldridge- the #1/1A best player on Portland who was bumped in the first round of the playoffs a Max deal?! So which players should we scrutinize when looking at a team that "fails"...especially a team like Portland which did have some talent? Do you look at Lillard or Aldridge, who will both be making Max money...or do we blame the lesser players on the team?

I know that in another thread you said something about how no one can blame Anthony if we have a sub-par season because the players you thought we should pick up were not acquired to assist Carmelo. Does this now mean that if the season goes well Anthony should get no credit? Does Aldridge get any blame for Portland's early exit?

Were you critical of the Cavs for signing Shumpert for a $10Mx4 contract? Here's a guy who has seemingly remained the same player for 4 years...a combo guard who plays tough D, but who is wildly inconsistent and unreliable on offense, who was not even given the chance to bring the ball up from the backcourt when it counted at the end of the season, and a guy who was overshadowed by an Australian rugby player at times in the playoffs. Think anyone else was going to offer Shumpert that kind of money??

Plenty of guys got overpaid, and it should be worse next year, but the Lopez signing was pretty sound financially because you have complete control over him for the next 4 years, and won't have to worry about next year's salary bump. For all we know Jackson gave him a little more for Lopez not getting a player option his final year...something all players seem to get these days

Lets face it, though, your own boner for JR Smith is always showing, and you feel that much of the "character" talk comes out of the experiences the Knicks had with him. I know from my own experience as a coach that guys like JR can kill a team's morale, especially if you are attempting to establish that new culture you love to mock, and there is no clubhouse leadership to check him.

Smith clearly made no attempt to try to change here, or perhaps his BB IQ was simply too low to do so...who knows. Guy admitted to not being able to deal with the distractions in NY, and he has a long history of being unreliable on, and off, the court. James might have been able to straighten him up off the court, but even he could not anticipate the level of ineptitude JR would show in the finals, where his inability to contribute in a positive way once again showed why he is not a guy you can count on.

Think he got a ton of offers when he decided to opt out? Ever wonder why he probably didn't? Or do you buy the agent written Instagram statement put out by JR?

Deny whatever you want to deny, but all teams look at backgrounds and character when deciding to draft or trade for a player. You're paying them millions...why pay extra for someone who has the maturity of an Eddie Curry or the desire of a Jerome James? Why choose to rely on someone as unreliable as JR Smith?

And why can't a guy with character be a good player? Do you actually think that Jackson would take a guy based on character alone? Do you think Clarence Gaines is looking at background history but not what is happening on the court when he scouts a player?

You've criticized me for allegedly overanalyzing Phil's comments about Anthony...but how do you take Phil's character comments and reach the conclusion that he has no concern for the BB talent of a player, or that players he feels can play in the Triangle can't play any other system...how do you come up with this dreck?

I would like to think that you don't believe some of the foolishness you put out, and are just being provocative, but I'm not sure.

Take a cold shower and stop looking at those magnified shots of the tattoos JR has on his torso...you might be able to think more clearly.

There are many inaccuracies in your soliloquy which I intend to correct...What I try to do inherently is keep you to the whole truth because it seems to escape many of your posting...For example..If you are going to say how JR performed poorly in the playoffs for us, which was the case, also say his was playing on a blown out knee..You characterized it has having a boner to defend JR, no it's having a boner for the defending the truth...

You do understand that scouts will first look at the talent on the floor, and then try to find out more about the player..

He drafted a guy you did not want, and you continue to look for reasons why it was the wrong pick

Being able to play in the Triangle does not mean a player cannot play or be successful in other systems. There are players with serious limitations...such as JR Smith, who are not able to adapt, and you try to stay away from this kind of player, but a good player can play in different systems because they know the game.

Once again, you make up your own special rules to evaluate players...

Player A was acquired because Phil thinks he can play in the Triangle

Therefore Player A must not be able to succeed in any other offensive system.

If you actually read any of the Rosen interviews with Phil, Jackson actually addressed this issue in a way:

The best teams get the ball into the hand of the person who has the best opportunity to score at a particular moment...and that can happen in a variety of ways.
The best offenses give the right players an opportunity to score.
The best teams have multiple players who can score when called upon, and don't pass up a shot they have a high chance of making.
The best teams have stars who can do more than just score. In their primes Jordan, Pippin, and Bryant averaged over 5APG.

The "culture change" also includes a commitment to defense,by the way...something you rarely mention. MJ, Kobe, and Pippin were first team All D numerous times, Shag also made it a few times.

Yet you would have had no qualms about giving Aldridge- the #1/1A best player on Portland who was bumped in the first round of the playoffs a Max deal?! So which players should we scrutinize when looking at a team that "fails"...especially a team like Portland which did have some talent? Do you look at Lillard or Aldridge, who will both be making Max money...or do we blame the lesser players on the team?

Were you critical of the Cavs for signing Shumpert for a $10Mx4 contract? Here's a guy who has seemingly remained the same player for 4 years

You've criticized me for allegedly overanalyzing Phil's comments about Anthony

nixluva wrote:

knickscity wrote:

nixluva wrote:What we paid RoLo isn't really the issue. To get stuck on that misses the point of what RoLo can give this team.
We know he's not the sexy pick but in terms of filling the role as the defensive anchor, screen setter, roll man and Triangle Post big he fits the needs the team had very well. He's not flashy but he's functional and effective.
He also is impactful without needing the ball.

RoLo also helps Melo and KP by doing the grunt work and physical things on the floor. Melo and KP can save their bodies for the scoring they can bring. At the same time RoLo does have the ability to hold his position in the post in the side Triangle and he's an Excellent Offensive Rebounder. This system will give him some additional touches and opportunities to expand his game.

Sorry, but you just described a totally different player. Robin Lopez has never been a "defensive anchor". How can you be if you dont average even 30 minutes per game. You dont need to pay 15 mil for a big that can roll to the basket and set screens. he is good on the offensive glass, but thats more indicative of a team that shoot and offensive rebounding is grossly overrated. The worth of a center will always be his defensive boards and Lopez is dismal on that end. He';ll be the biggest disappointment on the Knicks and the team is stuck with him for a full four years. Doubling his yearly salary was a gross overpay.

Sorry but you're wrong about RoLo. He is a defensive anchor and he has the ability to fill that role at a high level. He does need to be a bit more aggressive on the defensive boards but if he was perfect we'd have to have paid even more for him. I think he will help this team a lot as he did for the Blazers.

RoLo was excellent in 2013-14. He held opponents to just 42.8% at the rim.

                                                        Total   Opp FGM Opp FGA Opp FGP
Player	          Team	GP	MPG	STL 	BLK	BLK	at Rim 	at Rim 	at Rim
Serge Ibaka	  OKC	81	33.2	0.5	2.7	219	4.1	9.1	45.0%
Anthony Davis	  NOP	67	35.4	1.3	2.8	189	3.2	6.6	48.8%
DeAndre Jordan	  LAC	82	35.3	1.0	2.5	203	5.1	10.2	49.8%
Roy Hibbert	  IND	81	29.9	0.4	2.2	182	4.0	9.8	41.1%
Robin Lopez	  POR	82	31.9	0.3	1.7	139	4.4	10.2	42.8%
Tim Duncan	  SAS	74	29.3	0.6	1.9	139	4.4	9.1	47.6%
Dwight Howard	  HOU	71	34.0	0.8	1.8	128	4.2	8.7	48.1%
Andrew Bogut	  GSW	66	26.6	0.7	1.8	118	3.5	7.6	45.6%
Joakim Noah	  CHI	80	35.4	1.2	1.5	121	3.6	7.7	47.2%
Marcin Gortat	  WAS	80	32.9	0.5	1.5	120	4.7	9.3	49.9%

RoLo had an off year last year which was marred by a broken hand, but still he was a force for the Blazers even if not as good as the year before.

After two years of steady growth on the defensive end anchored by center Robin Lopez, the Trail Blazers head into the 2015-16 season relying on a new crop of big men to protect the basket.

Lopez was credited as the key factor in the Blazers' transformation into a top 10 defense over the past two seasons. In addition to Lopez, the Blazers will be tasked with replacing LaMarcus Aldridge's defensive prowess, the side of the court where his contributions were often overlooked.

Lopez fit perfectly in the Blazers' conservative defensive approach. He walled off the paint and protected the basket, contesting 50.3 percent of shots at the rim when he was on the court, according to Seth Partnow of Nylon Calculus. Aldridge limited opponents to 45.1 percent shooting at the rim, but didn't contest nearly as many attempts as Lopez. Opponents shot 48 percent at the rim when Lopez challenged their attempts last season. His activity around the basket helped save an estimated 1.47 points a game compared to an average center, the tenth best mark in the league according to Nylon Calculus.

2014-15 Hollinger NBA Player Statistics - Centers
Season:
League: NBA | East | West
Position: All | PG | SG | SF | PF | C | Rookies | International
Qualified* | All Players
    Team Statistics »
Hollinger Stats - Player Efficiency Rating - Qualified Centers
RK	PLAYER	                GP	MPG	TS%	AST	TO	USG	ORR	DRR	REBR	PER	VA	EWA
1	Hassan Whiteside, MIA	48	23.8	.619	1.2	11.2	18.7	15.6	34.7	25.4	26.26	266.9	8.9
2	DeMarcus Cousins, SAC	59	34.1	.545	11.9	14.4	31.8	10.8	30.6	21.1	25.29	441.2	14.7
3	Brook Lopez, BKN	72	29.2	.558	4.0	8.2	23.7	11.5	17.1	14.3	22.76	381.2	12.7
4	Marc Gasol, MEM	81	33.2	.558	17.6	10.1	23.5	4.9	21.8	13.4	21.73	446.4	14.9
5	Nikola Vucevic, ORL	74	34.2	.548	9.2	9.3	23.8	10.4	26.0	18.1	21.62	416.0	13.9
6	Rudy Gobert, UTAH	82	26.3	.627	14.2	14.5	13.4	14.3	27.2	20.7	21.60	354.2	11.8
7	Andre Drummond, DET	82	30.5	.504	4.2	9.3	20.4	18.3	30.1	24.0	21.50	406.9	13.6
8	Al Horford, ATL	76	30.5	.563	17.8	7.3	20.9	6.7	19.8	13.4	21.43	374.8	12.5
9	Greg Monroe, DET	69	31.0	.549	11.0	11.5	22.7	11.2	25.1	17.9	21.26	311.4	10.4
10	DeAndre Jordan, LAC	82	34.4	.638	6.7	12.0	12.3	16.2	32.4	24.5	21.05	440.0	14.7
RK	PLAYER	GP	MPG	TS%	AST	TO	USG	ORR	DRR	REBR	PER	VA	EWA
11	Jonas Valanciunas, TOR	80	26.2	.623	4.2	11.8	17.3	11.8	26.3	19.1	20.60	312.9	10.4
12	Enes Kanter, OKC/UTAH	75	28.5	.564	4.5	11.8	22.2	14.7	20.5	17.6	20.36	310.9	10.4
13	Tyson Chandler, DAL	75	30.5	.697	11.3	14.1	11.9	14.1	27.4	20.7	20.12	324.7	10.8
14	Alexis Ajinca, NO	68	14.1	.595	9.6	14.1	19.6	12.4	25.0	18.7	20.01	134.4	4.5
15	Chris Bosh, MIA	44	35.4	.548	9.2	9.2	25.9	3.6	20.0	12.0	19.87	215.2	7.2
16	Al Jefferson, CHA	65	30.6	.500	8.9	5.4	24.1	5.3	25.5	15.1	19.75	272.1	9.1
17	Marreese Speights, GS	76	15.9	.546	8.2	9.3	26.3	10.1	18.7	14.5	19.58	161.8	5.4
18	Dwight Howard, HOU	41	29.8	.596	7.1	16.3	21.4	10.0	28.9	19.5	19.31	159.0	5.3
19	Tyler Zeller, BOS	82	21.1	.594	12.7	8.5	18.4	9.1	20.5	14.7	19.01	217.2	7.2
20	Marcin Gortat, WSH	82	29.9	.587	9.2	9.5	16.1	8.5	24.1	16.5	18.28	281.1	9.4
RK	PLAYER	GP	MPG	TS%	AST	TO	USG	ORR	DRR	REBR	PER	VA	EWA
21	Cole Aldrich, NY	61	16.0	.513	16.2	12.7	17.4	11.6	28.9	20.0	18.16	110.1	3.7
22	John Henson, MIL	67	18.3	.578	10.7	15.8	16.7	11.7	17.4	14.5	18.08	137.0	4.6
23	Anderson Varejao, CLE	26	24.5	.580	12.1	12.1	17.0	10.4	20.1	15.3	17.74	67.7	2.3
24	Chris Kaman, POR	74	18.9	.537	8.5	14.1	20.7	11.7	25.2	18.5	17.38	141.4	4.7
25	Gorgui Dieng, MIN	73	30.0	.573	16.4	14.1	14.4	11.3	20.8	15.9	17.26	218.1	7.3
26	Andrea Bargnani, NY	29	27.1	.527	9.3	8.5	24.4	4.6	14.4	9.3	16.71	71.6	2.4
27	Nikola Pekovic, MIN	31	26.3	.502	6.0	9.3	21.2	12.1	21.0	16.4	16.69	74.0	2.5
28	Timofey Mozgov, CLE/DEN	81	25.3	.594	6.6	13.9	16.7	11.0	21.4	16.1	16.59	182.9	6.1
29	Robin Lopez, POR	59	27.8	.574	8.9	11.8	14.2	12.7	13.1	12.9	16.26	138.4	4.6
30	Jordan Hill, LAL	70	26.8	.494	9.7	10.0	21.2	9.9	23.4	16.4	16.21	156.8	5.2
RK	PLAYER	GP	MPG	TS%	AST	TO	USG	ORR	DRR	REBR	PER	VA	EWA
	Festus Ezeli, GS	46	11.0	.580	4.2	14.9	15.8	13.3	19.7	16.6	16.21	42.2	1.4
32	Kelly Olynyk, BOS	64	22.3	.558	13.7	12.3	19.9	7.0	16.5	11.7	15.93	113.2	3.8
33	Andrew Bogut, GS	67	23.6	.565	27.3	16.1	13.0	9.9	26.5	18.5	15.82	123.2	4.1
34	Zaza Pachulia, MIL	73	23.7	.506	19.6	14.6	18.3	13.1	19.9	16.5	15.68	131.2	4.4
	Tristan Thompson, CLE	82	26.8	.580	5.4	11.5	12.8	14.5	19.7	17.2	15.68	166.2	5.5
36	Omer Asik, NO	76	26.1	.545	10.6	14.0	13.1	14.0	28.8	21.4	15.49	144.6	4.8
37	Roy Hibbert, IND	76	25.3	.501	8.5	10.8	19.6	9.0	21.9	15.5	15.47	140.0	4.7
38	Joakim Noah, CHI	67	30.6	.482	33.2	13.1	14.4	11.9	22.1	17.1	15.35	145.2	4.8
39	Larry Sanders, MIL	27	21.7	.507	9.4	11.5	15.6	13.2	19.2	16.2	15.25	0.0	0.0
40	Nerlens Noel, PHI	75	30.8	.493	12.4	14.2	16.0	8.3	21.0	14.3	15.03	152.8	5.1
RK	PLAYER	GP	MPG	TS%	AST	TO	USG	ORR	DRR	REBR	PER	VA	EWA
41	Meyers Leonard, POR	55	15.4	.631	9.7	11.8	14.6	5.9	25.3	15.8	14.85	53.7	1.8
42	Jusuf Nurkic, DEN	62	17.8	.483	8.7	14.9	19.2	11.8	26.1	18.7	14.84	69.8	2.3
43	Tarik Black, HOU/LAL	63	19.0	.583	10.1	11.6	11.6	12.8	21.4	17.0	14.76	58.1	1.9
44	Justin Hamilton, MIA/MIN	41	17.4	.551	13.8	10.0	11.4	9.2	12.7	11.0	14.67	43.2	1.4
45	Henry Sims, PHI	73	19.2	.521	10.7	13.4	19.3	8.9	19.4	13.9	14.52	81.9	2.7
46	Kosta Koufos, MEM	81	16.6	.530	7.4	13.8	14.5	10.3	25.8	18.1	14.21	72.6	2.4
47	Steven Adams, OKC	70	25.3	.549	10.1	15.1	13.5	12.2	19.3	15.8	14.14	93.5	3.1
48	Alex Len, PHX	69	22.0	.542	6.3	14.7	12.4	10.2	22.7	16.4	13.54	66.6	2.2
49	Miles Plumlee, MIL/PHX	73	16.4	.536	9.5	14.2	15.0	10.3	19.4	14.8	13.44	50.6	1.7
50	Dewayne Dedmon, ORL	59	14.3	.568	3.6	20.4	11.6	15.5	24.1	19.7	13.31	34.2	1.1