It wasn't obvious before tonight's game that Hakim Warrick's offense would be the key to the outcome, but a big part of coaching is making in game adjustments. Once you see that Warrick is scoring at will, who do you call on to stop him? A. Trenton Hassell B. Richard Jefferson C. Vince Carter D. Uh, maybe a big man??? By using a four guard lineup, is Frank intentionally tanking? There's a reason why lineups with one point guard, one shooting guard, one small forward, one power forward and one center are the rule and not the exception.
For every time I see someone mention that the Nets are tanking I'm putting a bullet into my keyboard, goddamnit
<span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">ATTENTION CUSTOMERS: WE ARE NOT TANKING, WE JUST SUCK!</span>
The worst was we had Josh Boone on Rudy Gay. I laughed and Boone was most likely wondering the same thing.
We don't have to tank, because Frank is so stupid he can't adjust. Pinetar is right though, only an idiot with no knowledge of the game could fail to adjust to the way Warrick was abusing the Nets. They needed to put Sean, or Stro on him and he didn't. The guy isn't tanking, he just blows as a coach. He rewarded Marcus for a strong 1st half, but Marcus went cold and settled for too many jumpers. End game.
I regret putting the word "tanking" in there. My point is that the coach is going against Coaching 101 basics and exposing his players unnecessarily. Hassell is a usable player if you understand his strengths and weaknesses. He can guard wing players, but don't ask him to finish on the break and definitely don't ask him to guard an athletic PF.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Mar 5 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%">ATTENTION CUSTOMERS: WE ARE NOT TANKING, WE JUST SUCK!</span></div> Haha
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pinetar @ Mar 5 2008, 11:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It wasn't obvious before tonight's game that Hakim Warrick's offense would be the key to the outcome, but a big part of coaching is making in game adjustments. Once you see that Warrick is scoring at will, who do you call on to stop him? A. Trenton Hassell B. Richard Jefferson C. Vince Carter D. Uh, maybe a big man??? By using a four guard lineup, is Frank intentionally tanking? <span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:100%">There's a reason why lineups with one point guard, one shooting guard, one small forward, one power forward and one center are the rule and not the exception</span>. </div> Thank You! I've been saying this forever...Frank doesn't follow simples rules of basketball...for instance in are starting lineup we feature two Centers: Nenad and Josh, offensively and defensively they just seem like they don't work well together.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Mar 5 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>wait, he didnt have a big man on warrick? (didnt catch the game)</div> In the fourth, Krstic played most of the quarter, Diop was in for Krstic for about two minutes, Boone was in with Krstic for about two minutes and I don't think Williams or Swift played at all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pinetar @ Mar 5 2008, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ Mar 5 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>wait, he didnt have a big man on warrick? (didnt catch the game)</div> In the fourth, Krstic played most of the quarter, Diop was in for Krstic for about two minutes, Boone was in with Krstic for about two minutes and I don't think Williams or Swift played at all. </div> Nice! Probably the 2 players most capable of stopping Warrick (or at least blocking his shot over halfcourt) weren't in the game. Ha! I told you guys Hak' would go off on us. Although, I was 5 points off...
acutally he would have had nachbar on him but he wasnt available. Sean should have been on him but frank yanks him too soon every game. Anyone think that Marcus would have come further along last year if Frank would have actually played him? Same thing this year when Kidd was here. Frank would have marcus sitting on the bench.
Interestingly, the only Nets who were a (+) in the box score last night were Stro and Sean. Coincidence??? I think not!! And of course, thanks to the little redheaded step child, they did not get hardly any run in the 2nd half when it was all falling apart...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (footswalker @ Mar 6 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly, the only Nets who were a (+) in the box score last night were Stro and Sean. Coincidence??? I think not!! And of course, thanks to the little redheaded step child, they did not get hardly any run in the 2nd half when it was all falling apart...</div> I wouldn't put a lot of stock in +/- It's an individual-specific statistic that is based on the performance of 10 people. Way too many extraneous variables, way too much confounding, and definitely a number that cannot draw conclusions about general ability or performance. It's a way of making the NBA accessible to reductionistic-oriented people who like to stare at numbers instead of comprehend the game of basketball, or the league.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Mar 6 2008, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (footswalker @ Mar 6 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly, the only Nets who were a (+) in the box score last night were Stro and Sean. Coincidence??? I think not!! And of course, thanks to the little redheaded step child, they did not get hardly any run in the 2nd half when it was all falling apart...</div> I wouldn't put a lot of stock in +/- It's an individual-specific statistic that is based on the performance of 10 people. Way too many extraneous variables, way too much confounding, and definitely a number that cannot draw conclusions about general ability or performance. It's a way of making the NBA accessible to reductionistic-oriented people who like to stare at numbers instead of comprehend the game of basketball, or the league. </div> Hey now. +/- has its place. It's a good way of telling whether a team is better off with a certain player on the floor or not. It's not great for inter-team comparisons, but it's a nice way of pointing out that the team plays better when, say, Jason Collins is on the floor, or worse when Jeff McInnis is on the floor.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ Mar 6 2008, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GMJigga @ Mar 6 2008, 04:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (footswalker @ Mar 6 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Interestingly, the only Nets who were a (+) in the box score last night were Stro and Sean. Coincidence??? I think not!! And of course, thanks to the little redheaded step child, they did not get hardly any run in the 2nd half when it was all falling apart...</div> I wouldn't put a lot of stock in +/- It's an individual-specific statistic that is based on the performance of 10 people. Way too many extraneous variables, way too much confounding, and definitely a number that cannot draw conclusions about general ability or performance. It's a way of making the NBA accessible to reductionistic-oriented people who like to stare at numbers instead of comprehend the game of basketball, or the league. </div> Hey now. +/- has its place. It's a good way of telling whether a team is better off with a certain player on the floor or not. It's not great for inter-team comparisons, but it's a nice way of pointing out that the team plays better when, say, Jason Collins is on the floor, or worse when Jeff McInnis is on the floor. </div> I agree it has it's place, but it has it's place over a 48 minute sample split between that many players? That's a really small sample. -Petey
