Actually ten, but outside of Afflalo the bench didn't play much. Blake didn't even play 10 minutes, Dorell played 7 min and Meyers clocked in at just under two minutes.
I think it's how you can use the distance curve. If you use the specs of 5 ft and below, he's a 67% shooter. But if you use 3-10 ft, he's a 43%. But when you combine them, he's 56%. I guess the same would apply from 15 to under 3 point (which is the least efficient shot).
I really like Terry. I think he's a good coach. I'm honestly not sure how much difference a coach can make in the NBA without the right players. How good would the Spurs be without Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu? Would Pop be considered a great coach if he hadn't been gifted Tim Duncan?
Yeah, his high-percentage shots inside - when combined with the shots further away - will pull up the overall percentage for the distance you're measuring. But no matter how you slice it, the numbers are there and they say that outside of 5' LMA is a ~40% shooter. I don't know what the league average is, but I suspect he's worse than average.
I often wonder how good Parker would be if he hadn't played for Pops. I tend to think that Pops made Parker the player he is today, and that Parker would be another journeyman PG if he had been drafted by any other team. Possibly the same with Manu. I think coaches make all the difference in the world. Unfortunately I think there are very few truly good coaches in the NBA today - the "good" ones largely get by on the talent of their rosters (Doc, Stotts, Brooks, Spoelstra). I'm hopeful that Hornacek, Budenholzer, Joerger, and a few other newer guys might inject some talent into the tepid water that is the NBA coaching pool.
I wouldn't put Stotts in the same boat as Doc Rivers, Brooks, or Spoelstra. As good as Aldridge and Lillard are, they aren't LeBron James or Kevin Durant. If you're talking about Doc, he was fortunate enough to get KG, Pierce, and Allen all at the end of their prime. I really don't think he's a very good coach at all. He might be on the most overhyped coaches in league history.
I agree. I don't think highly of Doc at all, but around the league he's thought of as one of the good coaches...and it's because of his rosters. Much like Stotts is only thought to be good because of our roster. With that said, until the final 2ish minutes last night Doc was far superior to Stotts.
You missed the entire first qtr? We dominated the first qtr..that's another 12 minutes where we were superior. Doc was not superior last night. Small sample size. Coaching is like chess, you lose more pieces than your opponent but it comes down to the end game. We won the end game.
He took over a team that was stacked with talent. All he has done is continually make moves, fuck with chemistry, and lose in the playoffs. He has arguably the best pure point guard in the league, one of the best power forwards, one of the best centers, a great bench scorer, and a very serviceable shooting guard. The guy can't seem to win. He lucked out of the first round against GSW last year and then got smashed by the Thunder. He couldn't do shit with Boston after his stars aged beyond their peak. About the only skill that he can claim to be the best is whining. Nobody can touch him.
Doc is a good coach. Check out the Orlando roster he got to .500 Darrell Armstrong was their best player. Doc the GM is horrible. I blame an owner for giving a coach that much power they are two very difficult demanding jobs.
Did you forget he had a young Ben Wallace on that team? Do you think he would have done that in the western conference with that team? He did it in the east. It's really not that impressive.
I think Stotts is good but we have a very difficult March and last year the Blazers were far too fatigued at the start of the playoffs. With such a huge lead on the division we will have at least a 4 seed so I want to see the team fresh when the playoffs start even if it costs us some wins. Stotts had some good moves last night but I put most of the clippers offensive struggles on their lack of options and fatigue. They were missing their 2nd and 3rd options in Griffin, Crawford. CP3 was magnificent but he was fatigued at the end and their bench was horrible. Clippers are a tough opponent for anyone and they have the worst wing rotation in the league. Their GM is awful.
Really? You fail to see how the Clippers last year with CP3, Blake Griffin, and one of the best benches in basketball is different from Terry Stotts and his band of merry men? How did our bench last year compare at all to the Clippers?
Terry was the difference between the Nic we saw com out of halftime for the first 21 mins and the Nic we saw in the final 3 in the fourth and then OT. When Nic turned the corner on the one drive and didn't take it strong to the hoop, he got after him. You see the difference in this team when Nic is aggressive and when he's not. Unfortunately more times than not he needs to be told to be aggressive. That's not good news.
Best PG (CP3) = Best* PF (LMA) One of best PF (Blake) = One of best PG (Lillard) Center (Jordan) = Center (Lopez) Bench Scorer (Crawford) > Bench Scorer (Mo) Serviceable SG (Reddick) < Serviceable SG (Wes) Lucked out of the first round (GSW) = Lucked out of the first round (HOU) Bounced = Bounced Like I said, not dramatically different. Are there differences? Of course, but there's also a tremendous amount of similarities. But basically it all boils down to the fact that neither Doc nor Stotts are all that great. *Some people think LMA is the best PF in the game.
But it's also 57% when he shoots from 10ft and in. Guess you are a half empty guy. I like being half full!
Yes, because his 63% shooting from within 5' brings up his 40% shooting from 5-9' to 57% when they're combined. That doesn't change the fact that when he's further than 5' from the hoop he shoots 40%. It has nothing to do with the glass being half-full/empty.
