Post game interview with Batum; Did Nate change the strategies before the game?

You don't think that erratic, confidence-crushing coaching moves just before tipoff -- after spending two weeks practicing a completely different gameplane -- has an effect on a team's play?

I'm not saying Batum is better than Outlaw, or that he (individually) would have played any better if he had started. I just think that making what seems like a huge panic move, as the coach, on the day of the season opener can mess with a team's mental state... especially a team full of young guys who need their confidence boosted.

To me, at least, it was just a move that exuded lack of confidence. I think that's contagious.

Obviously there's a strong case to be made that that game was so comprehensively disastrous that it's pretty pointless to try to single anyone out for particular blame; after all, who *wasn't* terrible in that game? But I do think Nate F'd up.

Here's to taking a mulligan on Friday.

SR

 

I think it's near baseless to claim his move was confidence crushing... seriously. How many practices have you attended that would give you any footing for such an over the top claim? How about team meetings when they talked about their first game? Did Nate only talk about one possibility scenario with the guys? Was Niko possibly giving Nate good reason to hold him back? Though I'm very high on the kid, I thought it was risky to his confidence to have him starting day 1. But to say that the starters have their comfort zone tied to a 19 year old rookie without much of an offensive game just seems silly... I'm waiting for everyone to let on that they're kidding

Travis has practiced and played with these same guys (sans Oden) for seasons now... he's the longest tenured vet on the club. They've ran dozens of different lineups this preseason. It seems much more reasonable that guys know and trust the team and their own individual abilities more then a particular lineup.

My best guess is that players came out too hyped up and laid an egg... and I'd put that more on them and their youth then Nate. I'd also give the Lakers a bit of credit. Call it a hunch, but Brandon is not going to be chunking 5 foot bunnies on a regular basis no matter who he is playing with.

STOMP

 

What caused us to lose was 2 things, good defense by the Lakers and a team that seemed totally out of sync... Now Batum says that Nate Changed the schemes after practice which means they didn't et to practice the new schemes.

It's not like he made an adjustment between a back to back, he had a whole week to prepare for this game. He flinched. Nate is to me building a reputation f being indecisive. Each year is an evaluation, he reverts to a slow plodding game that hasn't proven to be overly successful. He seems to micro manage.

 

Two things... Batum's meaning often gets lost in translation and I'd guess thats the case here. I hope he's not so stupid as to openly question the head coach at the start of his rookie season. Also, I hardly think they turned their whole basketball scheme world upside down having Travis in instead of NB... Travis has been running Nate's various plays for years now it's not brand new for him like it is for Batum.

Much to do about nuthin' but a bad loss.

STOMP

 

Maybe we just lost the game because we aren't as good as the Lakers yet.

 

So what exactly got lost in translation? This interview, especially the two questions about strategy for the Laker game, wasn't that hard to translate.

There's absolutely no reproach in the interview. Disappointment, obviously, but no "Nate should've played me", despite the questions setting him up for such a response. What exactly makes you think he's questioning Nate?

 

yup thats pretty much what happened and it took us out of our flow and once the flow ws dead so was the game before tip off.

 

Come on, you are really reaching on that one!

 

I don't speak french or know whats common in french BB lingo. I'm hoping I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and the interview just seems over the top in it's criticisms of NMc.

the interview as it appeared was very questioning of Nate. It also didn't seem to jibe with what I saw. For instance.... "He changed the plan of attack, all the strategies, and he took me out of the starting lineup."

It seemed to me that their initial strategy was to get the ball inside to Greg just as they'd said they'd do throughout preseason. Maybe NB was just talking defensive strategies??? To me he comes off as petty and not grasping the big picture that comments like these will only make matters more complicated for him and the guys dealing with our local gossip mongers. Regardless of what he feels, he'll fare better playing it closer to the vest in future interviews.

STOMP

 

If the entire offensive plan depended on Nicolas Batum being in the game, we as fans have no business even discussing play-offs this season.

 

But it wasn't a spur of the moment decision to start Batum or that Travis fits best on the 2nd unit. We've known since last season that Travis is best off the bench. The team plays better in stretches that way. Batum had been practicing for a week, and played, I think, three Preseason games with the first unit. The results were good, IMO.

Nate's move to try Batum with the starters is like any Training Camp or Pre-season move, a way to see what he's got. It doesn't directly affect the team in the regulars eason win-loss column.

 

I don't see it that way at all. If Travis plays solid then he's as valuable to the team as he was last year, as a reserve SF/PF with limited abilities (he is very good in iso sets though, which is why he's been so successful in 4th quarters). If Batum continues to improve, he only solidifies his place among the starters. That doesn't necessarily mean that a further improved Batum is going to be better than Webster. We won't know that until we've seen more from Webster. He looked better than ever in that one Preseason game.

 

We haven't been as good as the L*kers for the past few years, and they've never blown the doors off of us like they did Tuesday.

 

Maxie, wothout a doubt we were BAD, but as much as I dislike the lakers objectively I think they are on a mission and THE team to beat fot the title this yr, they are my pick if they stay reasonably healthy.

 

Do we really know what his trade value is? It's my belief that Travis isn't as highly valued league-wide as you think. Names such as Kyle Lowry were mentioned.

Again just IMO, but Webster's strengths make the starting unit much more successful. He moves well without the ball on offense, has a nose for rebounds, is a solid 3-point shooter, and plays decent defense. That package of skills IMO helps a lot more than Outlaw or Batum can.

 

Isn't it a near baseless claim either way. You don't know. I don't know. We don't know one way or the other. We just have our opinions. I know personally that if I was in either Batum's or Sergio's place, my confidence would be shaken. As one of their teammates, I would also be questioning these decisions and that would eat at me throughout the game. This is something I know about myself. It's a possibility that any of these players would feel the same way.

 

I'm not saying it was the entire offensive plan. Only that it was an integral part of the plan.

 

For me, the crucial difference is that he doesn't explicitly criticize Nate. Criticism is obviously implied, but he walked the fine line between responding honestly to the questions and openly saying: "Nate messed up, he should've played me more."

Your also ignoring another important quote, maybe harder to translate concretely, but means something like:
On peut imaginer votre déception a la fin de la rencontre...
Oui c'est vrai que je l'ai mal pris au début. Mais bon c'est comme ça.
One can imagine your disappointment at the end of the game...
Yes it's true that I took it badly at first. But oh well, it's like that

That shows that he's moved on. And for a player who at times is too passive, he put himself about in the few minutes he got.

Also, IMO, Nate deserves criticism. You don't tell a player (any player, I'm not just a Batum fanboy) that he's going to start only to change your mind the day before the game, and then not play him. It shows a lack of confidence in yourself and your players, and it obviously rubbed off on them. If Nate didn't have confidence in a shy 19 year old frenchie (and I wouldn't blame him for it at all) he never should've publically given him the start.
Coupled with Sergio's situation, it shows (of course, very early to draw playing time conclusions from only 1 disastrous game) that preseason competition is fairly meaningless.

 

That was my point and why I labeled my near baseless opinion as a guess. I'm certainly not going to get riled up over something I'm only speculating on.

Sergio and Batum essentially didn't play so their mental state didn't figure in the results unless they were openly moping & distracting their teammates. You really think their teammates were questioning their coach throughout the game? Once I start playing hoops any moral quandaries I might be experiencing in any part of my life go out the window as I just try to perform my best while living in the moment. As an observer I might sit and stew especially if the game isn't going how I'd prefer, but not as a sweating player.

All of these guys have been playing hoops for a while and they've all seen teammates of theirs get the short end of the stick a few times... probably they've personally suffered a disappointment or two in their pro careers as well. They may be young but I doubt they're as wet behind the ears as you seem to be inferring.


STOMP

 

sorry but thats only your wild speculation... there is nothing obvious about it

In the immortal words of Jim Mora... "You may think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

STOMP