What if Don Nelson Embraced Tradition?

Thanks, Shape. I wonder what the Nelson supporters say now.

But I'm not just blaming Nelson, Mullin was the one who hired Don Nelson, so he has to take some of the blame, too, and the guy who hired Mullin, and so on up the chain until it reaches Chris Cohan. It's one vicious cycle of incompetence, despair and failure.

Here's one management theory to explain the problem.

The problem:


What is happening:


The solution (If someone can explain it. LOL.)



http://syque.com/articles/fad_failure/fad_failure_1.htm

 

I guess this is one of the example why stat-based prediction can go wrong. First, is there anybody who believes that our traditional line up will actually win at least 50 games? When we have no PG, no dominating player or defense stopper? The formular is flawed, because it did not count the factor that our 08-09 stats are significantly inflated. Number of key players were injured last season and other players had chances to be main options, causing stats to be inflated. Last year, we had 8 players averaging more than 10 points, and they alone averaged 127.4 pts, 180.2 pts total (Lakers with 127.2 pts total). Also in rebounding, our players averaged 68.2 rebounds per game, dominating Lakers' measy 53.7 rebounds. According to inflated stats, we should not have any problem scoring or rebounding. Of course, the reality isn't that sweet, and we still remained as one of the worst rebounding team in the league. Because the formular did not factor an inflated stats due to injury, it's no wonder why it predicted us to win at least 50 games.

Second, the formular they used are way too simple, reminding me one of the formular for a fantasy league.

Numbers are per 48 minutes

Points-per-shot = [PTS-FTM]/FGA

Adjusted Field Goal Percentage = PPS/2

Net Possessions = Rebounds + Steals - Turnovers

Win Score = PTS + REB + STL + ½*BLK + ½*AST – FGA – ½*FTA – TO – ½*PF

PAWS48 = Positions Adjusted Win Score per 48 minutes = Win Score per 48 minutes – Average Win Score per 48 minutes and position played

This formular heavily favors PF and C, who gets lots of rebounds and shoots high % FG, because a rebound is awared by full 1 points (which they can get 10 or more), while an assist counts only .5 pts. So, guards actually need to perform 10 assists and 5 steals to match forwards' 10 rebounds. Also, they deduct one point per one field goal attempt, and since PF and C usually shoots much higher % than guards, they are bounded to get higher points. In another hand, volume shooters with lower fg% will get punished by that formular, and since guards usually committ more TO than forwards (one full point deduction), it's hard for a guard to get higher win score. And, there is no incentive for 3 pts shooting or defense. Free throw system is broken as well, because they actually punish players who draws fouls by deducting .5 for free throw attempts. In another word, If Bosh scored 20 pts by shooting 8-12 fts, he will get a same win score as Murphy, who scored 14 pts with no free throw attempts. In today's NBA, guards are shooting as many fts as forwards, so it's no advantages for guards either. And, for Warriors, Maggette attempted 12.5 fts per 48 mins, Jackson with 7.3, Randolph with 6.0, and Wright with 5.9. Since, this formular highly favors forwards over guards, it's no wonder our "traditional" line up will score much better than Nelson's small line up. Really... I like Randolph and Wright, but do you really believe their last season performances are far better than Maggette and Jackson in pure stat wise? Randolph scored 13.3 pts, Wright scored 12.7 pts, Maggette scored 8.1 pts, and Jackson scored 7.0 pts. I do not know what Biedrins got, but I bet he received insane points as well.

It's debatable whether Nelson's small line up is working or actually harming the team. But, with that kind of formular, which belongs to fantasy league and heavily unbalanced one to boot, it really does not prove anything...

Edit: If you look at NBA mid-season analysis and see the result, it really does favor forwards/C, and kills guards who don't get lots of rebounds. After 12 games, Biedrins were projected to contribute 24 wins, followed by Morrow, who hardly had any chance to perform in first 12 games, with 6.8 wins, and Watson with 5.1 pts. Pacers were led by Murphy and his whooping 18.5 wins (which is far more than top PGs with around 10 wins contribution), while Granger only contributed with 4.3 wins. Gasol with 15.3 games, Kobe with 13.6 games, and Ariza with 11.3 games while Odom with measy 3.8 games and Artest with 4.8 games...

 

Well, I say the formular is deeply flawed. Did you take a minute to look at the formular btw?

 

No, Kwan, I did not take a look at the formulas because. like most people, I thought it was use of statistical metrics applied to basketball in order to derive a comparable value. Once we have a comparable value, then we could apply it to judge different player's performances. I did look over the values and could see that it fell in line with the thinking that a conventional lineup produces a better wins number than the thinking of a madman using a small ball lineup. I would say Nelson's lineups are more in tune with that of a madman, iconoclast and A-number one a-hole than a genius whose judicious use of non-conventional lineups produce wins.

I don't think you play much fantasy ball because that involves more traditional statistics, but using them in new ways. In fantasy ball, Nelson is one of the most hated coaches and deemed King Idiot because of his unconventional use of lineups based on personal whim more than well thought out scientific methods. Why do you think many non-Nelson apologists can figure out, without the use of statistics, that what Nelson is doing is idiotic as opposed to someone committed to winning in the long-run? The fat, dumb bastard just cares about the money statistic and really could give a hoot about winning except to add to his wins resume and get his fat, dumb ass into the basketball hall of fame. In order to accomplish that, he'll just leave a trail of injured players and fans who were physically, mentally or emotionally abused. I can't wait for Nelson to retire to Hawaii and we can enjoy some traditional lineups and traditional winning. As a winning coach, Nelson was not very efficient.

Oops sorry, I got a little carried away there. Obviously, we're not in agreement in regards to debate about small ball lineup hurting the team. It's not to say that your evaluation of the formulas wrong. I think some of the statistical metrics are ridiculous in how they are used sometimes. I glossed over what you had to say and I tend to agree with the points that you make about the formulas being flawed in favor of the big men over the small men and you're right about Mags and Jackson versus Randolph and Wright stats. However, if the Randolph and Wright were developed properly in their early years in a more traditional environment, then they may be doing better that Mags and Jackson in future years.

BTW I love Brandan Wright's stats. He could be a very good player, albeit fantasy wise, if he could get more PT.

 

First off, I love how anyone who doesn't think that Nelson should be fired, is somehow a Nelson Supporter. I've said it a hundred times now, Get me Jerry Sloan, Phil Jackson and I'll kick Nelly to the curb. Not many others would do better with this lineup. This team couldn't play a tradional set for 5 minutes without being laughed off the court.

As for the article, I love how they consider Randolph and Wright a traditional 4. They were projects coming into the league. If you thought that they could play an entire season in a tradional lineup at the 4, then you're watching the wrong game. When he first came into the league, they were getting pushed around by guards.

Either guy may break out this year at the 4 (if they can stay healthy). I think Randolph has a chance, being that he's put some meat on, but this is the NBA not summer league. If Wright plays well, it surely won't be in a traditional set. The guy is rail thin after 3 years. What game are these Nelly-haters watching? That's what confuses me the most.

 

You don't like Keith Smart?

You have a point about AR and BW at the 4 because they're not the traditional big and bulky power forwards. I think Smart would give them regular playing opportunities so that we could better judge what we have.

 

I think after the top tier of Coaches (I only really consider 2 that are that good these days), they're all pretty much the same. The agents pretty much drive who plays unless you're a veteran with clout.