The merits of my position are that the Blazers are 1st in the NBA in second-half margin. You can post whatever you want to counter that, but that statistic is reality. What it means in terms of Nate's in-game coaching is up for debate, but you referencing this thread, and taking a shot at me, in another thread doesn't exactly smack of maturity. It's rather childish, isn't it? Also, if your idea of treating insolent children is to mock them, call them names, taking shots at them in discussions that have nothing to do with them, and composing long diatribes toward them, I suggest you take a few parenting classes. Seems like you're being childish too, doesn't it?
I never disputed the reality of that statistic. What I dispute is: "Actually, second-half scoring margin is a pretty good measurement for assessing if a coach makes adjustments during a game." I asked you to provide some evidence to support that claim. You didn't. When I offered evidence that second hand margin is not necessarily a function of coaching adjustments, you started in with your childish name calling and personal attacks. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want people to call you on your stupid shit, stop posting stupid shit. Gee, thanks for the heartfelt advice. Why is it so many threads you participate in become personal? Your standard mode of operation seems to be to post something you know will be contentious, stir the the pot until someone disagrees with you, and then, as soon as you are no longer able to argue the merits of your position, start with the insults and personal attacks and then finally play the victim card. It gets old. BNM
This thread wasn't personal until you arrived and made it personal. You even offered a long, loonnngg post that you admitted was comprised of you "personal" observation. Calling me an "insolent child" and a "fool" makes it personal. Using a passive-aggressive post in another thread to slam me makes it "personal". As for second-half margins and scoring, I also illustrated how 13 out of the top 14 team in second-half margin are currently in the playoffs. The Blazers, as bad as they are, are sitting right outside of the playoffs. Typically, the playoff teams are seen to have better coaching than the bad teams, and Nate's made the playoffs 3-straight seasons. His second-half margins, and being in the top half of the rankings, is consistent during his career. You can't convince me that second-half margin isn't a measurement for making adjustments. To me, it is, and you can't handle it, so you call it "stupid". The question is, what data is out there that says Nate it terrible at second-half adjustments? If you're going on this season, did he suddenly forget how to make adjustments, or were his teams outscoring others, and winning games, in spite of him?
I don't find second-half adjustments and W/L to be at all connected, and I think Nate's long-term record of winning games says that he can make coaching adjustments. I feel he's lost the team, though, or perhaps the team has left him, so it's clearly time for a change for everybody involved, including the fans. I find the "stupid" position to be that Nate is a terrible coach, though. He's well-respected in the coaching communtity, is a coach for the Olympic team, and I think USA Basketball, and those who run it, know a lot more about basketball than the same 12 people who have been bitching about Nate for years.
And take that Scotty Brooks. You may have got to coach the all-star team, but Nate should have been allowed to coach the second half of that game! BNM
Nates rotations, play-calling, offensive/defensive schemes, and player handling are all suspect. It's been pretty much the same year to year. The only reason we did good with B.Roy, is because he is one helluva a player that even Nate couldn't fuck up 100%. I firmly believe if we had a different coach, this season would have been WAY more productive in terms of winning.
And yet his team wins games... Nate's team leads the league in second half margin, yet his team has a losing record. When you're down 35 at the half, a second half margin of +17 is pretty meaningless. Maybe if Nate had his team prepared to play they wouldn't be down 35 at the half. BNM
Nate's team has won games as well over the past 4 years. Did he suddenly forget how to coach? Or did he just forget how to coach this year? I'm confused. Some may also say that Brooks having Westbrook and Durant helps Brooks quite a bit in terms of winning games. It would be interesting to see how OKC did if they lost Westbrook to a career-ending injury (Durant too, if we want to play the Roy and Oden game).
Yes, you are confused. I've pointed this out several times in the past two years, but you can't seem to understand. Nate's simplistic, unimaginative, easily defended 4th quarter offense was only effective when he had a healthy Brandon Roy performing at his peak. Two years ago, teams began to figure it out and it became less effective. When Roy was injured, he tried to run the same offense with Jerryd Bayless filling in for Roy. He even tried running the Roy ISO for Andre Miller a couple times in the 4th quarter of close games. Miller is a decent player, but he's no Brandon Roy, especially when it comes to ISOs. Needless to say, these attempts to run the Roy ISO, without Roy, failed miserably. I pointed it out at the time. I recall you blaming Andre Miller for Roy's declining performance, completely ignoring Roy's own failing knees and Nate's simplistic offense. Last year, Nate continued to run the same offense with a less than 100% Brandon Roy and the results were predictable. This season, with Roy retired, we now have Jamal Crawford starring in the Brandon Roy offense. Again, in the right role, Crawford is a decent player, but he's no Brandon Roy. So, Nate has had over two years to come up with a better, or at least different, 4th quarter offense. Hell, two years ago my then 14-year old daughter pointed out the Blazers were running ISOs in the 4th quarter against a zone defense (Phoenix) and failing to score every time. Even her 8th grade girls coach knew better than to run ISO after ISO against a zone (nothing like playing 1 on 5). Nate knew he wasn't going to have Brandon Roy heading into this season. Rather than come up with a better offense, he just thought he'd plug Jamal Crawford into Roy's role and hope for the best. Well, that hasn't panned out, has it. What's our record in close games? His personnel has changed, but Nate hasn't. The NBA game is one of constant adjustments. The good coaches are always one step ahead of their counterparts. Nate has a horrible track record of making in-game, game-to-game (especially in the playoffs) and now season-to-season adjustments. He got lucky. He found one very unique player who was able to make his simplistic offense look good, for about two seasons. That player is long gone. Given how he has failed to adjust, Nate should be gone, too. The sooner the better. BNM
I provided stats in another thread that show LMA among the top 10 in the NBA in the last five minutes of close games for getting his FGA. http://www.82games.com/1112/CSORT5.HTM http://sportstwo.com/threads/208872-NBA-Clutch-Stats He's the highest placed post player in the list. I suppose this state means nothing as well, though. I do appreciate the passion you put behind your opinions, but in the end, they're just opinions. Also, who was Nate's ISO player in Seattle? Luke Ridnour? Ray Allen? Rashard Lewis? Who was it?
Go back to even last year, and with a hobbled Roy, the Blazers are still Top 10 in "close games". I'll say it again, but which team that excels in "close games" doesn't have a closer, or a player that can control the ball in ISOs? Winning teams have great players. Nate's been in the Top 10 in "close games" the past 4 season, and yes that was with Roy. Guess what? Great players aren't great players because they don't win games.
Sounds like a bit of a strawman to me. I never said I expect this team to win close games at the same rate as they did with Roy. I don't expect them to be top 10 in close games, but I do expect them to be better than they are (what is it now 2-11?). This team doesn't have a superstar closer any more. Why does our coach continue to coach like we do? BNM
Nice second-half adjustments tonight by Nate. Only up 3 at the half, and coaches the team to a +8 to win a must-needed road game.
I've been avoiding this thread, until now. I knew nothing good could come from it. But hey, I'm bored. This argument simply reminds me of back in the good ole Brandon Roy days, when "Nate" had a really great rate of scoring out of time outs. He was a coaching genius, he was, at drawing up plays out of time outs. Or should I say play: "Give the ball to Brandon and get out of the way." The scoring out of time outs stat didn't make Nate a great coach, either.
