Game Thread GAME# 14: SPURS @ BLAZERS - JANUARY 18, 2021 - MONDAY, 12:00, NBCSNW

I fully agree with you on both accounts.

 

Unlike someone like Phil Jackson though, we have seen Pop with some very mediocre teams.

Phil wouldn't coach a team unless they had 2+ HOFer caliber players on them lol

 

Well put... Phil knew how to land the right gig, very smart of him.

Would have loved to have seen him coach a small market team without a HOF player to put him to the test.

 

That article was written in 2014. Curious what the data says in recent years with the rise of the 3 point shot. That article cites a strong correlation between "drive and kicks" and winning - and that has probably gone up as teams are taking more threes. I don't know where I can find the number of drive and kicks per team in a public data set, but my intuition says the Blazers don't do enough of that. Only Dame does it on a consistent basis. CJ has been doing it more this year. But when one or both are out of the game we don't have anyone to initiate drive and kicks.

 

I think you raise a great point and I would like that question answered too!

I was unable to find a data set on drive & kicks, so I won't even try and guess where we would rank in comparison to the rest of the league.

 

So you still have 5 offenses that aren't in the bottom 10. So, we're just cherry-picking it seems. And, you have 4 of the worst seven offenses not ranked among the best. There's a lot of random cherry-picking here. Nobody is suggesting that getting the most assists is going to solve all your problems and make you the best but there seems to be a correlation that it helps.

Let's take a look at the top 10 teams in assists.

1 Charlotte 28.7 28.0 26.0 27.7 29.5 23.8
2 Washington 27.3 25.3 29.0 26.8 27.8 25.0
3 Denver 27.2 27.3 25.0 26.6 28.0 25.9
4 Memphis 26.8 30.7 27.0 25.3 29.0 27.0
5 Miami 26.7 26.7 25.0 27.0 26.4 25.7
6 Indiana 26.7 27.7 28.0 24.6 29.2 25.7
7 Milwaukee 26.2 26.0 22.0 26.3 26.2 25.7
8 Brooklyn 26.0 28.0 24.0 26.5 24.8 24.5
9 Phoenix 25.9 26.0 21.0 24.5 26.7 27.2
10 LA Lakers 25.7 27.7 31.0 25.7 25.7 25.4

Out of the top 10, more than half are championship contenders.

Not seeing what you're argument is here. Teams that are better in assists are certainly in better position to win.

Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know basketball.

 

Anybody still think I'm anywhere close to being in the upper half of NBA coaches?

 

That's my concern, that he is emulating dame rather than really learning how to run an offense. Dame has such great 3 point skills and ability to get to the basket and finish. These skills also enable Dame to run an effective pick and roll. I think Simons needs an entirely different kind of offense to be effective and I think the coaching staff is not providing that.

 

Some people don't have to think.

They've convinced themselves that an adequate coach doesn't matter to the success of an NBA team.

 

I do.

 

God dammit, Terry! I know you don't.

 

An open shot by anyone, from anywhere, is a great shot. Even if you don't have a single teammate anywhere near the rim to get on o-board.

Unless is the other team - then you want to leave anyone open from mid-range. And 3-point range. And there's no point in rotating to protect the paint.

 

Picking 10 teams, 15 games into a season, then saying half are "championship contenders" is:

1) A really small sample size
2) "Championship Contender" is subjective. You would need to use win/loss percentage as a non-bias measure.

The top 5 teams in assists on your list have a combined winning percentage of .419. Your claim is the teams with more assists win, but the data I provided says there is no correlation. The data you provided, would imply that if you are tops in the league in assists, you are likely to win less games than an average team.

Despite the data you provided, you came to a conclusion you wanted, then cite that anyone who doesn't agree, doesn't know basketball.

If your theory is as obvious as you imply it is, you should have no trouble finding data to refute the 3 sources I provided for you saying that there is no correlation.

 

So. How was the game? I had to work. Should i read the thread?

 

We didn't play bad for three quarters and then we fell apart in the 4th.

 

Here's a chart for assists and winning percentage for this season. A positive correlation would see the data points go from the bottom left to the top right. A negative correlation would see the data points go from the top left to the bottom right.

Absolute value of r Strength of relationship
r < 0.25 No relationship
0.25 < r < 0.5 Weak relationship
0.5 < r < 0.75 Moderate relationship
r > 0.75 Strong relationship

R value of this chart is 0.012087695

 

Here's a better look at the chart to remove a lot of the empty space. Assists per game on the left, winning percentage on the bottom. The early data this year would back up previous claims that there is no correlation.

 

Why did they beat by 20 points today that's probably the only thing that's matter at this moment.

 

They were the better team today, no doubt about it. We were better than the Lakers the day we played them as well, but I'm not ready to draw major conclusions from one game.

I don't think Pop became a way worse coach over the last 6 years, but I do think his talent level change. Maybe you think he's a bad coach now and he was great then?