I also agree with this. I don't want to make proclamations based on one game, but most of what I have to say about Stotts applies to more than just the last game. Still, I'm really hoping that Stotts can change my opinion.
I personally like Stotts, but I can see what you are saying about his history. But, one shitty game in the playoffs is not the best Stat to look at.
Word. I'll definitely be paying attention to these stats as the series goes along. I think we can all agree though that game one was not the best that the Blazers can play.
We had an awesome stretch around the all star break when we saw a statistically significant uptick in steals, and the eye test kinda confirmed the change when you looked at deflections. That wasn't a gambling defense -- it was just more aggressive. One in which we dictated the pace, rather than constantly adjusting to the opponent. Why did we go back to our conservative approach to finish the season and in game 1? I'm sure fatigue had something to do with it. Perhaps it's scouting? I dunno. Not a good look that's for sure.
I wonder if Stott's has many different types of game plans he wants to try to see and figure out which will work best. Maybe he knew the point in the season you are referring to worked, but he still had other ideas and those ideas take time to try out as well in order to get a decent sample size. The key is how large of a sample does Stott's need before he tosses the towel in and moves on to the next idea?
Why would he go away from what worked? "Hey, I got your car running in tiptop shape, NOTHING wrong with it. But lets fix the transmission, just in case."
Because something else may work even better. When you have multiple choice. It's always good to review all options to see what is best rather than just say, A didn't work, B worked so I wont even look at C or D. That is not the best way to make sure you have the BEST game plan. Not just a game plan that worked. In the NBA, its actually best to have several game plans in my opinion, so you have one to fit most situations. Half court game, high scoring game, etc.
HaHA no I didnt. Your analogy didnt cover all the basis. You asked why fix what worked. Your anology really didnt have a basis for what im talking about. First, you said tip top shape. I dont think we hit that this year yet. So the car was never tuned up to its max. There's the flaw in your analogy. The analogy would be better served as follows. "We got your car tuned up and it passes emissions, but I want to see if we can do more work and get you better gas mileage. If not,.l I will hit the rest button to where it is now, to avoid long term loss of efficiency."
Ummm... That tip top shape was us having an unreal 2 months. We were, what, the 2nd best team in a 3 month span? And we lost our efficency BECAUSE we tinkered. That's not fixing the car, that's just leaving it in the shop longer. No one wants their car in the shop longer than it needs to... that just benefits the pocketbooks of the mechanics.
Just because we were the 2nd best team in a three month span, you think that span had all the long term answers? Something tells me your in an argumentative mood and aren't really looking at the big picture impartially. The end result is if you have more than one option that might provide success, You try them all before settling on the best. You don't stop with the first just because it had positive results. This is experiments 101. Pretty simple and black and white. You can try to twist it if you like, and I may be wrong on Stott's thoughts, but i'm not wrong on trying all options prior to settling on one.
It wasn't the first... it was about the 4th. So.... I'm not in argumentative mood, I just think it's wrong to think we need to tinker with something and then see it fail... I guess if you're wanting to develop, lets screw up the players' and have them try everything. It's like having 5 different bosses telling you 5 different things, and you know the 3rd one is following the book and the other 4 is just making shit up. The big picture is this team is still 2 years away. I have always been on board saying the 17-18 season could be special. But, we found out how the car can run this year, we'll have different players 2 years from now anyway, so why not try it then? Work with what works this year with THIS team. We found it, and now he's going away from it. That just seems weird.
Geez Stren. Your not getting me. Doesn't matter whether it was the first, the fourth, or the 15th. If you still have more ideas. You try them until you exhaust all your options, then you assess which worked best and go from there. And in my opinion it was his Second. And he didn't go from plan A back to plan B or Vonleh would be starting again... ONE MORE TIME.... I'm not defending or saying Stott's is right or wrong. I'm only saying , IF he has more ideas, it would be prudent to try them all first before settling on one. This is basic decision making 101. Experiments 101. How is this not common sense and if it is, then why are you arguing it?
It's not common sense. I don't get my car fixed, then fix it again right after it works just fine. If something is wrong with me, THEN I go get more than 1 doctors opinion. But if I'm fine, and my one doctor says I'm fine when I feel fine, then why keep going to multiple doctors the next day and the next day? What he had was working. We'll agree to disagree.
Definitely we will need to because your anaology doesnt make sense. Typically there is only one way to fix a car, replace or fix the part that is broken. But then cars have diagnostics that tell you what needs tgo be fixed. So in this case Stott's is the diagnostics specialist and he needs to run all the test to determine what is broken and what needs fixing. He needs to run ALL the tests to make sure he didn't miss anything wrong with the car. He fixed the transmission, but hadn't tested the head... is basically what i'm saying. So regardless of the transmission running fine now, He still needs to check out the engine and make sure everything else is good. This takes testing. There is more than one issue with the team. Your making it sound like there is only one and its a black and white fix and that's it, when you are so far off its kinda funny your trying to argue this. Being the 2nd best team or a month or two doesn't mean all the problems were solved...and its pretty crazy in my opinion to think they were.
My analogy was more for the "now" vs. the "long term" rather than the diagnostic, which I do agree with.
But...why fix something so it will jsut get you around town. Or just get you a couple months of good play? Why not try to fix for the long term and get miles out of it, intstead of a stop gap that wont work long term? Stott's didnt even know whether he had a corvette of a monster truck going into the season. He needs time to figure this out and this figuring requires testing on all levels.
