Portland's record when trailing at the half... 3-17. Who cares about scoring margin. Our positive scoring margin isn't resulting in wins. This isn't baseball or moneyball. We have the most wins by 20+ points this season, but look at the record.
Here is another statistic for you. Nate leads the league in total "hands on hip with blank, clueless facial expression."
What evidence can you provide to support this assertion. Actually, it seems more like an assumption than an assertion. There are many factors that contribute to a positive 2nd half scoring margin. Coaching adjustments is just one of many variables, but I see no evidence that it's the most significant source of the Blazers positive 2nd half margins. For example, this team has been wildly inconsistent, more so than any team I can remember. They lead the league in both blowout wins and blowout losses. BTW, this wild inconsistency, to me, is a sign of poor coaching. This team has the talent to beat any team in the league on any given night and to regularly blow teams out by 20 points. But, they have also lost to some of the worst teams in the league and regularly get blown out by 20+ points. And I think this wild inconsistency, that has resulted in a very significant number of games that are not close, contributes more to the Blazers second half margins than any half time adjustments by Nate. When the Blazers are down by 20 in the second half, Nate rarely throws in the towel and clears his bench. He continues to play his starters in hope of a comeback, long after the opposing coach has put in his 10th, 11th and 12th men. So, our starters against their third stringers results in a positive second half margin. Ditto for when the Blazers are up 20 in the second half. Most other coaches use that as an opportunity to pull their starters and let them get some rest while getting the deep bench some PT. Again our starters against their deep bench = positive second half margin. I also think the pride factor eventually kicks in. In spite of all the turmoil around the team, at the end of the day, these guys are still professionals and no one likes to get blown out on their home court. So, they play hard to try to cut the margin to something respectable. You could argue that Nate's half time speech motivated them to play harder and save face, but being a great motivational speaker is not the same thing as being a good coach that makes half time adjustments. Of course, this is just my personal explanation for the Blazers having a positive second half margin, in spite of being 3-17 when trailing at the half. It's also based on watching Nate's teams running the same tired 4th quarter offense that was effective when we had a healthy Brandon Roy, even though Roy's long gone and the team has an abysmal record in close games. Based on the lack of variety, it seems to me Nate is poor at making game-to-game adjustments (we've also seen this in the playoffs for three years running). If he can't even make effective game-to-game adjustments, I see no evidence that he's capable of making effective mid-game adjustments. The stats you provide show one thing, and one thing only: a positive second half scoring margin. They tell nothing about the cause(s) of that margin. BNM
Way to ignore the obvious truth. Tonight's embarrassing blowout loss to the Celtics was the latest example of EXACTLY what I was talking about. The Blazers second half margin tonight was +17. Does that mean Nate is a great coach and made fantastic second half adjustments. No, the first half margin was -35 and the ENTIRE second half was garbage time. So, woo hoo! We maintain that wonderful second half margin that you claim makes Nate a good coach, while losing by 18 and getting TOTALLY embarrassed on national TV. Sometimes you need to look at the reasons behind the numbers to understand what's really going on. Or, just bury your head in the sand and keep spouting ignorant nonsense because "the numbers don't lie". BNM
I think that PapaG is so entrenched in his position as a Nate apologist that he's searching deep and hard, grasping for any meaningless stat to prove his point. It's like when a person tells a lie so many times that they actually condition their brain to believe the lie. PapaG is known for his undying support of Nate and I think he enjoys the attention he receives from being the contrarian.
He has an inferiority complex that everyone's attacking him. He thinks we're jealous that he was a bigshot on his tiny previous board. Hope he doesn't read this.
I said it was time for Nate to go after the Minnesota game. I just don't think he's the major problem that everybody else seems to think he is. He had to bring in hand-picked coaches more than once, and the team has gotten progressively worse each year. So, if being a Nate 'apologist' means I think he should be fired, then I guess I'm an apologist.
I agree with you that Nate isn't the sole reason for the problems of this organization. However, for the on-court play, I think he is the major problem. Their is a non-existent offensive philosophy other than feed the ball to Aldridge and stand around and watch him go one-on-one. And for being a "defensive-minded" coach, we continually get exploited on pick and roll defense since the Houston playoff series to the Phoenix series to the Dallas series and Nate still hasn't figured out how to defend it. Team defense is essentially non-existent also. Most college teams rotate and play better team defense than the Blazers. Organization wise, the way they handled the Pritchard and Cho situations was horrible. Even the way they are keeping Buchanan in limbo is unprofessional. How can an professional sports organization go an entire season with a GM? The problems upstairs lie within Paul Allen and the Vulcans.
I'm sorry, who started this thread? And who spent 17 replies defending the obviously wrong original premise? Yes, obviously, it means a lot to someone. You even whined and moaned when no one took your flawed premise seriously: "My favorite thing about threads like these, which fly directly in the face of board CW, is how often they are ignored by those who criticize the coach." And then when someone does take the time to respond, and point out the flaws with your argument, you resort to personal insults. And you wonder why no one takes slypokerdog seriously and thinks he's nothing more than a mixum-like attention whore. BNM
As I said, it seems that this means a lot to you. I do understand why you get so upset about things, because I used to post in the same personal and passive-aggressive style as you. The numbers say the the Blazers perform well in the second half of games, which to me, is easy to view as meaning adjustments are made. You disagree, I get it. I still think Nate isn't as terrible at in-game adjustments as others, like you, think he is. I'm sure that you feel you're the victim, though. I know, because that used to be me as well. I'm sorry if it upsets you that my opinion differs from yours, but I offered some statistics to help support my opinion (17 posts, apparently ... thanks for counting the them).
I'm not upset. I just treat fools the way they deserve to be treated. You have the very annoying habit of resorting to personal insults when you can no longer discuss an issue based on the merits of your position. I find that very childish behavior and respond by treating you like an insolent child. BNM
