|
Post by SugarHill on Mar 24, 2016 0:16:34 GMT
Raptors going to beat this green ass
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 1:40:12 GMT
Was worried the Bulls might have built up momentum and health for a run. Luckily they haven't
|
|
|
|
Post by BurningHammer on Mar 24, 2016 1:40:31 GMT
Thomas is getting hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by BurningHammer on Mar 24, 2016 1:45:19 GMT
Raps have been terrible at the line for some reasons. They probably are gonna lose because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BurningHammer on Mar 24, 2016 1:49:12 GMT
No Lowry, no offense, no victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by WayOfWad3 on Mar 24, 2016 2:33:59 GMT
Rockets blow an 18 point lead in spite of James Harden's 8 steals, the playoff race in the west just got tighter. Who would you guys like to see face GSW in the first round between the Blazers, Jazz, Rockets, and Mavericks?
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 24, 2016 2:55:47 GMT
Rockets blow an 18 point lead in spite of James Harden's 8 steals, the playoff race in the west just got tighter. Who would you guys like to see face GSW in the first round between the Blazers, Jazz, Rockets, and Mavericks? jazz or mavs would like to see spurs/blazers
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 4:19:40 GMT
Rockets blow an 18 point lead in spite of James Harden's 8 steals, the playoff race in the west just got tighter. Who would you guys like to see face GSW in the first round between the Blazers, Jazz, Rockets, and Mavericks? jazz or mavs would like to see spurs/blazers Oh wow I came to post this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hellfire Missile Pack on Mar 24, 2016 4:45:00 GMT
Rockets blow an 18 point lead in spite of James Harden's 8 steals, the playoff race in the west just got tighter. Who would you guys like to see face GSW in the first round between the Blazers, Jazz, Rockets, and Mavericks? jazz or mavs would like to see spurs/blazers Spurs Blazers? I think it would be more of a disappointment. I think Mavericks/Spurs will be a great matchup I prefer the Blazers play the Warriors.
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 24, 2016 5:04:31 GMT
jazz or mavs would like to see spurs/blazers Spurs Blazers? I think it would be more of a disappointment. I think Mavericks/Spurs will be a great matchup I prefer the Blazers play the Warriors. blazers can win a few games though in that series mavs would get swept and it would probably be boring
|
|
|
|
Post by Hellfire Missile Pack on Mar 24, 2016 5:05:59 GMT
Spurs Blazers? I think it would be more of a disappointment. I think Mavericks/Spurs will be a great matchup I prefer the Blazers play the Warriors. blazers can win a few games though in that series mavs would get swept and it would probably be boring Last time Blazers played the Spurs, they got fucked so badly. Blazers are worse without Aldridge while the Spurs got better, so I can't see this series getting better.
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 24, 2016 5:11:53 GMT
blazers can win a few games though in that series mavs would get swept and it would probably be boring Last time Blazers played the Spurs, they got fucked so badly. Blazers are worse without Aldridge while the Spurs got better, so I can't see this series getting better. blazers are worse overrall but lillard is better and they have mccollum. guards who can score in pick and roll kill the spurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by WayOfWad3 on Mar 24, 2016 7:08:40 GMT
blazers can win a few games though in that series mavs would get swept and it would probably be boring Last time Blazers played the Spurs, they got fucked so badly. Blazers are worse without Aldridge while the Spurs got better, so I can't see this series getting better. But you've got to think that Lillard is going to go ham against whoever he plays against. Any series involving the Blazers is going to fun to watch. The rockets just kind of disgust me, out of the 4 teams I really hope they miss out
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 24, 2016 7:21:56 GMT
Last time Blazers played the Spurs, they got fucked so badly. Blazers are worse without Aldridge while the Spurs got better, so I can't see this series getting better. But you've got to think that Lillard is going to go ham against whoever he plays against. Any series involving the Blazers is going to fun to watch. The rockets just kind of disgust me, out of the 4 teams I really hope they miss out agree on all of that the rockets don't even care, these other teams have less talent but play really hard
|
|
|
|
Post by dunksby on Mar 24, 2016 11:46:21 GMT
KD's 20 point streak is at 56 games right now, this time it's within the same season...
|
|
|
|
Post by dunksby on Mar 24, 2016 12:21:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hellfire Missile Pack on Mar 24, 2016 15:12:15 GMT
Last time Blazers played the Spurs, they got fucked so badly. Blazers are worse without Aldridge while the Spurs got better, so I can't see this series getting better. But you've got to think that Lillard is going to go ham against whoever he plays against. Any series involving the Blazers is going to fun to watch. The rockets just kind of disgust me, out of the 4 teams I really hope they miss out Yeah, I believe Lillard definitely has the potential to have some good games, but Lillard and McCollum are the only two scoring options. I believe more in the Spurs finding a way to stop Lillard (Curry lite) and McCollum in more games than they both can get hot in the SAME game. Agreed. Rockets are just going to get swept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Last Stand on Mar 24, 2016 18:33:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hellfire Missile Pack on Mar 24, 2016 18:52:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Last Stand on Mar 24, 2016 18:59:01 GMT
I just found out after last night, Tim Duncan is the only player NBA history to accumulate over 100+ Offensive win shares and 100+ Defensive win shares in NBA history.
Are these Win Shares considered a great advanced metric on it's own ? I would say it's better as a testament to his longevity and two way play for all the years, although he has slowed down as an offensive player.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 20:15:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 24, 2016 20:57:22 GMT
at least they improved their offense? lol
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 24, 2016 20:58:17 GMT
what moves would u like the Bulls to make this summer rosie ?
|
|
|
|
Post by dunksby on Mar 24, 2016 21:00:36 GMT
34 more to break the all-time total TOV record, currently held by Artis Golmore
|
|
|
|
Post by fpliii on Mar 24, 2016 21:16:36 GMT
fpliii Eh, that's not really what Im talking about. It's a component of it. What you seem to be talking about is basically what skills a player has that don't require possessions to have an impact on a game, which leads the player to be able to fit anywhere. That's a part of it, but what I'm talking about is a more comprehensive theory of how players interact, and how even those skills have diminishing returns at a lesser volume. What I'm saying, is if you had enough data and used it in the right circumstances, you could predict within a reasonable amount what a whole team's individual stats would be when you add or subtract any given player (and thusly their impact on the teams record) To do this, you would have to record how quantifiable skills a player has interact with other players on the court at the time. Thanks for clarifying: My issue with this statement "you could predict within a reasonable amount what a whole team's individual stats would be when you add or subtract any given player (and thusly their impact on the teams record)" is that it seems to imply there is an inherent value to some individual counting stats coming from a box score (which is a notion that to which I do not personally subscribe). I'm not sure if this was the point you were making, but it sounds like the goal would be to see how different sets of teammates' points/rebounds/assists/etc. would look if you're placing the player in question in different environments. There has been some work on this, I refer you to the simulations Bob Chaikin of the Miami Heat did when the Big 3 formed in 2010 (check these articles out: 1 2). But in general, box score stats don't do a very good job of predicting team record. Measures with a basis in point differential (like RAPM, or before that's available on/off from plus/minus, or before that's available with/without you 'WOWY' SRS analysis). I think I have a better idea of what you're going for, but I am wary of separating out individual skills too much. There are too many moving parts, and the game is too dynamic I think to say, a guy's screening ability will have more/less impact on a given team, and will do this or that to other players on the team who do screen a lot. Something like cluster analysis might be useful. Identifying player prototypes (players won't fit neatly into individual buckets; you could treat this as a categorical variable, or maybe include probabilities/distributions, and assign to each guy a vector, saying he falls into one group x% and another with y%) might be useful. Regarding Curry/Harden, I have a couple of thoughts: 1) "Looking better" often comes back to a guy's box score line, but would he really have much more value? If a team sells out on every possession and doubles Curry, the warping affect of defenses that are afraid of his shooting will still be present, and he'll be creating opportunities (in general BTW the author of that article has done a ton of great work, check out some of his other research as well if you have time). 2) Now "looking better" aside, are there situations in which Harden would be a superior option to Curry? I think it's possible. If you have a team devoid of proper playmakers, you're probably going to be better off with one guy dominating the ball and dictating the action. Kind of sounds like the 2015 Rockets. Not for certain, but they might be such an example. This isn't to say Harden was lucky/fortunate, but usually smart GMs will build teams around their franchise players' strengths. I think this statement "does it have more value because his teammates shoot well enough that they take attention away from him" comes down to baselines. Just having capable shooters on the floor coming from the big positions does crazy things (here's part 1 of that study). Lowe wrote an interesting piece on Blake Griffin earlier this year, it's a ridiculous phenomenon that very talented individual players might have less of an impact than role players, but there's a lot of truth to it. Just by possessing an unusual skillset (shooting, ball-handling, passing at the 5; just touching on screening, I think in any motion offense having screeners at most positions on the floor is essential, to get guys open), your offense opens up a ton. Curry was more of a traditional ball-handler last year, but Kerr spoke with several members of the team going into this year, and noted that in order to achieve their ceiling, it would be imperative to run more of the action through Green. To me, rather than viewing these as opportunities Green has been granted, I think he opens up a lot of opportunities for the Warriors with a diverse skill set. This is not a point I necessarily disagree with, but I will note that the league is much different now than it was in 01 (I don't think the triangle be an optimal offense in this era either, even with top-flight talent; Thorpesaurous and I talked about this awhile back, he proposed some changes to the triangle to fit into the present league 1 2). Shaq/Kobe would never be outclassed in terms of top-end talent, but in terms of coaching schemes, and the number of shooters every single team is putting on the floor, it's not a reasonable strategy. A team with peak Shaq might be the exception, since he's probably the one guy who, even in the post-illegal defense era in which you can front the post and double off-ball, would be worth investing in as your offensive anchor. I still think Green would have a lot of value though. Horry was an incredibly underrated player, who was able to both guard a variety of players and stretch defenses (I had just started watching when he came into the league, but I remember him being an athletic monster as well). Kobe is a guy who does like to isolate (even before he became the super dynamic post up threat on the wing he was towards the end of his prime), but has never needed to dominate the ball, so I don't think there would be an issue sharing it more with Green. On the topic of Horry BTW, another guy who reminds me a lot of Green is Odom. Incredibly underrated on those teams that went to the Finals three times, and the clear-cut second best player from 05-07 when my Lakers were terrible (and a big reason why we weren't much worse).
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Mar 24, 2016 21:30:31 GMT
I agree with some of what you said fpliii , but I do have some things to add. Especially in regards to the value of shooters today. I think teams are following trends they shouldnt necessarily be following because it worked for a few teams with a certain roster. Ill expand on it tonight or tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by fpliii on Mar 24, 2016 21:39:55 GMT
I agree with some of what you said fpliii , but I do have some things to add. Especially in regards to the value of shooters today. I think teams are following trends they shouldnt necessarily be following because it worked for a few teams with a certain roster. Ill expand on it tonight or tomorrow. No hurry, respond at your leisure. I think there are a lot of principles teams should follow (I don't think you can afford to have more than two non-three point shooters on the floor at once; I also don't think you can afford not to be mobile/versatile on defense; the line might also have been drawn in the sand in terms of requiring motion offense). That being said, I do think the Spurs are pushing the limit. They do have an adequate degree of three-point shooting (and maybe more importantly, they're very good at defending the three, particularly from the corner), but their two offensive anchors make their bread and butter from midrange (three, when Timmy is on the floor). The Spurs would still be an exception to the rule, but I think it would be really cool if they could challenge and perhaps beat Golden State in the WCF. When there are multiple models of success, the league is much more interesting and fun to watch.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 21:55:54 GMT
what moves would u like the Bulls to make this summer rosie ? - Fire Hoiberg (won't actually happen unless they miss the playoffs and even then it's dicey)
- Let Pau go/he decides to go somewhere else.
- decide what they're going to do with Rose and go from there. Are they going to try and extend him for a couple years, or let him go in free agency of the next summer? If so plan now. Move Jimmy to full time point guard, or sign a point guard to play alongside Jimmy. (wet dreams Mike Conley, realistically Clarkson or Lin) If jimmy moves to point, sign a 2 guard doesn't have to be a great one or anything. Somebody who can just fill in some minutes.
- They absolutely have to get a small forward. Move on Batum or Barnes since they fit Hoiberg's "offense" (this should be higher up on the list)
- Bring back Noah on a short deal.
- Bring in some young bigs, I'd be fine with Terrence Jones, Jared Sullinger types. Just someone who can shoot with range, rebound a bit, and tries defensively.
- Draft wisely.
|
|
|
|
Post by dm on Mar 24, 2016 22:43:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by althornton on Mar 25, 2016 1:29:12 GMT
|
|
|