ok then....is that really true, whatever it means, and should the Blazers actually be doing either of those things? last season, assist/bad-pass ratio: Sabonis 7.7 Steven Adams 7.4 Vucevic' 7.0 Ayton 6.6 Adebayo 6.4 Jokic 6.1 AD 6.1 Gobert 5.9 Nurkic 4.5 Embiid 4.1 just the data at 82games on various bigs that came to mind. I sure don't see anything with that that says Nurkic should be passing more. Pretty big fall-off from most of those guys to Nurkic. I mean, when a guy like Gobert has a 31% better assist/bad-pass ratio that seems to indicate that running more facilitation thru Nurkic is a real bad idea so no, I don't think there's anything beside some 'theory-that-doesn't-match-reality' saying Nurkic should actually be utilized more as a passer *************** another thing about that: he can't park himself down in the restricted circle in order to facilitate & pass. He'd have to be positioned outside of the paint. probably in the 10'-20' range from the basket (low post-high post). So then, if he is, what are the two things he can do, with the ball, if the offense stalls. One is put the ball on the floor and dribble-drive to reset or attack the rim. Does anybody believe Nurkic has the handles to do that? It's almost a laughable prospect the other thing is he could turn and shoot. Well, for his career Nurkic has taken 7% of his shots from the 10'-23' range and his career FG% from that distance is 37%. So then, Nurkic is now the hub of the Blazer offense, like a Walton, or either Sabonis, or Jokic or Adebayo. He can't effectively put the ball on the floor and dribble drive. And he's only a 37% threat to hit a basket from that range. How will the defense react? will they view Nurkic as a threat or will they drop off of him a little, close off passing lanes, and invite him to shoot & drive? again, Nurkic as the hub of the offense is a theory that doesn't match his demonstrated skills ************************************************************* "run zero sets that are designed to get him a good look"....is that true? these are his career shooting percentages from various zones on the floor: pretty obviously, for Nurkic, "good looks" are those at the rim; at the very least shots close to the restricted circle. That's where he shoots the highest percentage and that's where he draws his fouls and FT's well then, Nurkic's career rate of 'shots-at-rim/all-shots' is 53%. This season, his rate is 71%. His career FG% at the rim is 60.3%; this season it's 68.6%. His career FT rate is 36.7%; this season it's 48.5%. All that says Portland is actually running offense for Nurkic in the one area of the floor that equal "good looks" for him now the one factor that might mitigate that conclusion is offensive rebounding and putbacks. Nurkic's career mark for offensive rebounding rate is 11.5%. This season, it's 11.6%. Last season, 13% of Nurk's offense was on putbacks. This season, it's 16%. So yeah, his putback rate has ticked up a little. But that could be because Portland is running offense that swings Nurk closer to the rim more frequently. That's supported by this: last season Nurk's average shot distance was 5.7'; this season, it's 4.8'. Now, that computes because of course, his shots at the rim have increased by 25%. ************************************ now Bones, I know you hate it when I post "paragraphs" of stats to support my position. But when you said what I quoted at the top of the page, there are actually numbers to support or disprove what you said. Are they 100% conclusive?....of course not. But they sure do match my eyeball test on Nurkic. And those numbers sure do dispute what you said Billups said a couple of things before the season about his intentions that I questioned big time. One was he wanted more off-the ball offense for Dame. I did not think Portland had a roster that would work in. The other was that he wanted Nurkic to be a bigger part of the offense. I did not think Nurkic had the skills for it. I haven't revised either of those opinions over the first 13 games
nurk shared on his instagram story part of the adele new song called "hold on", which adele says is about trying to move forward... nurk is her fan and this could be nothing more than just sharing her new song or sending a message perhaps Spoiler: song text is interesting Hold on I swear to go, I am such a mess The harder that I try, I regress I might burst, help me Right now I truly hate being me Everyday feels like the road I'm on Might just open up and swallow me whole Hold on Uh, I still try Let pain be gracious, just hold on (Hold on) Let time be patient (Uh) You are still strong (Are still strong) Let pain be gracious (Hold on) Oh, uh, oh Just hold on (You just hold on, you just hold on) Hold on (You just hold on, just hold on) Just hold (Hold on)
define analytics is rebounding rate an analytic? they show Nurkic is a great rebounder this year, but fuck that right....he isn't? here is what Ive seen, over and over: people love analytics when they confirm their bias; the same people will hate analytics when they dispute their bias. Analytics are simply stats. Some are better than others. And many are better than raw stats. So when people say fuck analytics, they are basically saying fuck stats...all that matters is my subjective eyeball
analytics have a place in sports but they are not infallible and they definitely ignore intangibles such as how the ball bounces..luck...etc...if I shoot a ball off my teammates hand and it goes in it doesn't mean I'm an accurate shooter...I got lucky.....it's not a two sided issue...there are random events that skew analytics often..not saying they are not a useful tool to use, just that they are not the only way to look at the sport. Everybody has a measure of bias when they offer an opinion...but in my view that doesn't mean an eye test fan is saying fuck analytics...although some may...I think that improvised action in a sport and random events are one of the fun parts of sports...otherwise super teams would never lose a game. If analytics were infallible...professional gamblers also would never lose in sports betting
well, we have fans who our saying nurk shouldnt get more shots cause hes not efficient, but i say he should get more shots and i dont give a damn about his efficiency, just like any other player, sometimes he will make the shot, sometimes he will miss if you have a good shooting game, keep shooting, if youre having bad shooting game, stop shooting... either chauncey billups gave up on his idea how the team should play on offense or the players simply rebuffed him continuity is the key, patience...
I question whether any one advanced stat is infallible. If multiple stats tell you the same thing - maybe you should listen.
I think sometimes with Nurk, we almost run in to a chicken or egg situation, in a sense. He makes a mistake, he gets pulled, and fans can point to the mistake, or mistake stats to show why he was pulled, but then Nurk begins to press, knowing he has a short leash, and makes him more prone to mistakes, and hurts his confidence. Whereas, potentially with a longer leash, he eases up a little, and then the mistakes start to minimize.
has anybody ever said stats were "infallible"? people seem to think that analytics are based upon some complex formulas. A few are; most aren't. For instance, FT rate is simply FTA/FGA. But I've seen people question that analytic. TS% is more complicated but most people accept that it does a good job of gauging efficiency of a player's shot attempts. why is there a discussion in this thread? it's about Nurk's alleged dissatisfaction with his role. How do we gauge his role to determine if Nurkic has an argument? Well, Mr. Robot is a big Nurkic fan so since two analytics, usage rate and FGA/100-possessions say his role has been reduced this year, I'm willing to bet those are two analytics he doesn't dismiss. But maybe I'm wrong about that
same thing could be said about any given player, but some just do it better than the others weve seen how good nurk can be and he must be given chance to get back to that level that wont work if he averages 8 fga
You just crudely defined efficiency, so yeah, you care about it. You'd have to be irrational not to care about efficiency and want someone scoring at, say, a 10% field goal rate to keep taking the team's possessions to shoot.
Ironic that he lambastes Simmons for sulking when he's 10x more engaged and productive when on the court and not involved in the current trade drama.
All the scenarios you describe are handled by large sample sizes, basically statistics always have a margin of error and the bigger the sample size, the smaller the margin of error. We have a large enough sample size to know he is who the numbers tell us. Also the statement that the statistics would tell us who wins every game makes no sense since a game is a small sample size, there will be variances between games, but the players, without health and age issues are going to be who they are in the long run when we have a large enough sample size.
Was it Van Gundy doing the game last week and pointedly stated the Blazers were running the offense through Nurkic too much, which had to thrill the other team, and no way were the Blazers going to win the game doing that? He was not wrong.
In the case of Nurk he's coming off two seasons of rehab so I think we're talking about a very small sample size..his return last season was hampered by another injury....now the coaching staff has been blown up and he's had a training camp and 13 games....I don't think we know who Nurk is yet...my 2 cents....we know what he was before his leg fell off but now...it's a new chapter in his career.
