DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good...It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
And nobody knows worn out spin better than you.
Great call on the Finals BTW.
Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good...It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good...It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good…It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
Nivek wrote:In my experience with the front office (which is well finished except for sporadic emails/calls), Dat's point was right on target. Perhaps they've learned and are doing a better job, but I found their approach to data to be superficial and misguided. They were pleased with how much data they had available, but in my view they were looking for info to confirm what they already believed, they narrow-sliced data to the point of absurdity, they tended to ignore data that contradicted what they thought, and they tended to oversimplify their use of data in the decision-making process.
Maybe they're making better use of data now. (Though I'm dubious.)
DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good...It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
montestewart wrote:DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good…It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
For some, each Wizards tidbit is answered by a Cioran aphorism. Pessimism is only the realism of observation and experience. It's not good news. It only "appears" to be good. Sustainable success, that would be good news.
fishercob wrote:That this guy's statement would morph into a referendum on long two's, Eric Maynor, etc. is abjectly stupid and a demonstration of this forum performing way, way below its potential. We know next to nothing about the subject at hand -- and that's okay. It's okay to not have the answers all the time. It's okay to just pose questions and wonder. Uninformed certitude is the worst.
fishercob wrote:Summary of this thread so far:
The SportsVU guys says he's impressed with how the Wizards have used the data.
People respond by saying "the Wizards management sucks, so......no."
Nuh uh, Yuh huh ensues.
I know I risk angering Ruz with this comment, but what a stupid discussion. The reason it's stupid is because no one here knows what we're actually arguing about -- including my friend Nivek who himself said he has very little contact with the front office any more.
Here's what we don't know:
(1) What data the Wiz are mining from SportsVu
(2) How they're using it. Specifically, we don't know who is analyzing the data, the conclusions they're drawing from it, and how they're communicating it to the decision makers in the front office and on the coaching staff -- nor do we know if and how these decision makers are using it.
What we actually know is that this guy said he's impressed by what the Wizards are doing. That's pretty much it.
That this guy's statement would morph into a referendum on long two's, Eric Maynor, etc. is abjectly stupid and a demonstration of this forum performing way, way below its potential. We know next to nothing about the subject at hand -- and that's okay. It's okay to not have the answers all the time. It's okay to just pose questions and wonder. Uninformed certitude is the worst.
miller31time wrote:fishercob wrote:That this guy's statement would morph into a referendum on long two's, Eric Maynor, etc. is abjectly stupid and a demonstration of this forum performing way, way below its potential. We know next to nothing about the subject at hand -- and that's okay. It's okay to not have the answers all the time. It's okay to just pose questions and wonder. Uninformed certitude is the worst.
There's a correlation between the long-2 discussion and analytics. It's relevant to the topic at hand, even if it doesn't prove/disprove the SportsVU's assertion. I made no statement referring to the data gathered nor who interprets it. Is it possible or even probable that good, helpful advanced information is being collected and disseminated throughout the organization? Sure, as you accurately pointed out - we don't know. But one of the main causes of inefficiency for this team is the long-2 and one would think that would be captured by any team of analysts, especially paid analysts. So speculatively (and keep in mind, it's okay to speculate as long as you're not asserting fact, which I didn't), it would appear something is fishy in the analytics department, whether it's from those who compile the data or those who distribute it or those who make the choice to use or not use it.
My apologies if it bothered you, man.
Zonkerbl wrote:I think "If the Wizards are so damn good at analytics, why do they take so many long twos and shoot such a poor percentage on them?" is a legit question.
It's sad we can't answer it, but it's a legit question nevertheless.
fishercob wrote:Summary of this thread so far:
The SportsVU guys says he's impressed with how the Wizards have used the data.
People respond by saying "the Wizards management sucks, so......no."
Nuh uh, Yuh huh ensues.
I know I risk angering Ruz with this comment, but what a stupid discussion. The reason it's stupid is because no one here knows what we're actually arguing about -- including my friend Nivek who himself said he has very little contact with the front office any more.
Here's what we don't know:
(1) What data the Wiz are mining from SportsVu
(2) How they're using it. Specifically, we don't know who is analyzing the data, the conclusions they're drawing from it, and how they're communicating it to the decision makers in the front office and on the coaching staff -- nor do we know if and how these decision makers are using it.
What we actually know is that this guy said he's impressed by what the Wizards are doing. That's pretty much it.
That this guy's statement would morph into a referendum on long two's, Eric Maynor, etc. is abjectly stupid and a demonstration of this forum performing way, way below its potential. We know next to nothing about the subject at hand -- and that's okay. It's okay to not have the answers all the time. It's okay to just pose questions and wonder. Uninformed certitude is the worst.
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
FAH1223 wrote:The Wall/Nene pick and roll was horrible this season.
Don't know what they're talking about
there’s a big difference between a Wall-Gortat pick-and-roll and a Wall-Nene pick-and-roll, which has produced just 0.85 points per 100 possessions. That’s one reason why Washington ranks 29th in pick-and-roll efficiency (better than only the Milwaukee Bucks).
DCZards wrote:Even when the news about the Zards appears to be good...It doesn't take long for a bunch of Negative Nancys to show up and put their worn out spin on it.
fishercob wrote:Summary of this thread so far:
The SportsVU guys says he's impressed with how the Wizards have used the data.
People respond by saying "the Wizards management sucks, so......no."
....
Here's what we don't know:
(1) What data the Wiz are mining from SportsVu
(2) How they're using it. Specifically, we don't know who is analyzing the data, the conclusions they're drawing from it, and how they're communicating it to the decision makers in the front office and on the coaching staff -- nor do we know if and how these decision makers are using it.
What we actually know is that this guy said he's impressed by what the Wizards are doing. That's pretty much it.
That this guy's statement would morph into a referendum on long two's, Eric Maynor, etc. is abjectly stupid and a demonstration of this forum performing way, way below its potential. We know next to nothing about the subject at hand -- and that's okay. It's okay to not have the answers all the time. It's okay to just pose questions and wonder. Uninformed certitude is the worst.
It helped that the Wizards added a new wrinkle to their offense. They've found a lot of success on 1-3 pick and rolls with Trevor Ariza this postseason, but they took it a step further and added a roll man to the equation, turning it into a double screen.
---
Washington used this set a number of times in Game 5, and Indiana just couldn't crack it. Ariza and Gortat would often set their screens in succession (this is known as a staggered screen), or they would do it all at once
---
But the beauty of this set lies in all of the options Wall has at his disposal.