Hollywood Baron on TNT: Nets [18-23] @ GSW [25-18]. THU 7:30

[Twinkie defense]

Overcoming the rebound differential has more to do with turnover differential, and the good shots that come for the Warriors on the opposite end, I think. But of course Baron and Monta are a big part of that.

[GSWhoopfan]

The good news is the Warriors can play bad basketbal for 3 quarters and still beat a bad team.

The bad news is that Sac crushed the Nets....In fact most teams had been doing so.

So winning by a couple of points...at home...after losing the exact same way against the Wolves....is not a great win IMO. Nets only had to make one three and we lose last night.

Harrington made some shots late. But let's not forget how pathetic he was...the whole fricken team was...in defending a very bad shooting team.

Watching skinny 6'9" guys set up on the offensive boards and feast is disgusting when we've all been watching that for three years.

PROOF that the Warriors have the BEST backcourt in the league is that they win DESPITE being crushed every night in rebounds.

good teams win despite playing bad. the Spurs played terribly against the Lakers the other night, but they still pulled off a win. the way this game was played, the warriors had no right to win this game, but we did.

Hack-a-Boone worked in our favor. He was killing us, but he didnt play much in the 4th quarter.

CJ Watsons minutes? The way Monta performed. Monta didnt need a rest. His jumper is looking sweeter by the day.

[bballguy50]

But as has been discussed, most playoff teams don't fall for our (Nellie's) tactics. Laker, Jazz, Spurs. They don't give in to us and they just play their game. They're so fundamental and systematic that they can beat us, gimmicks and all.

That's what we have to solve. I do like our style of play as a fan and a basketball observer. While its the best for us, its not the best around, obviously. We have to modify it and become more consistent so that we can play with those teams and possibly win. I also agree that it has created a sort of chemistry and resiliency here.

[Thugleavy34]

In my opinion this style can work as long as Baron and Jack lay off the 3 OFF THE DRIBBLE. These are the type of "chucks" that kill the rhythm of an offense. I have no problem with a whole lot of threes if all of them are kick outs and swings to an open man. I like Nellie's rule that if a teammate creates a shot for you you have to take it. The problem is every now and then are guys will throw up a shot that they try to create for themselves. It's an interesting style and one that I think can be maximized a bit further with a few corrections.

[Sleepy51]

We shoot a lot of 3's. Some of them seem pretty stupid. The nice thing about 3's is when you make them, you get 3 points instead of 2. That is a pretty big modifier. I've been meaning to do this math anyway; let's see how it works out.

It looks like as of right now, the Warriors are shooting... wow. 49.9% on 2's. That's higher than I might have guessed, but I expect it reflects all our fast break points and so on. They always quote how well the Warriors are ranked on points in the paint, and that is despite our spending so much time shooting 3's. I guess when we take a 2, it is a good one. We're shooting 37.3% on 3's. So even though we are shooting quite well on 2's, it turns out that for every 2 we shoot we can expect .998 points, and for every 3 we shoot we can expect 1.119 points. So even with our seemingly reckless 3's and scoring well on 2's, we're actually being more efficient shooting 3's.

My hunch has always been that if you did this math for most teams, it would probably work out this way, however. Even if your team shoots a miserable 30% on 3's, if you replace all those shots with 2's, you need to make at least 45% of those to break even. So why don't more teams just huck 3's like crazy? A few reasons come to mind.
- You're not likely to get to the free throw line for "bonus points" if all you do is shoot 3's. Earlier in the year when we were so crappy at our free throws, this was probably less important. Now it is probably an interesting factor.
- My guess says you are less likely to get offensive rebounds. This again is not a strong suit of ours anyway.
- You might or might not tire out faster. More work taking the shot, but less banging and not running as far. No idea how this factors into things.

My hunch, bottom line, is that while it isn't right for every team, there are probably other teams that could benefit from playing the way we do, but they don't do it because you aren't supposed to.

Math is the devil

If those numbers are true, the Purists are going to burn you at the stake like a heretic.

And the call you a Nerd

[floppymoose]

What we really need is some serious per possession charting. Divide them into transition possessions and half court possessions. Then for each type calculate the points-per-possession for that type, broken out into two groups:
1) shot a three as the first shot
2) didn't shoot a three as the first shot
*Then*, track the points per possession of the following possession for the other team. Take the difference for each possession type/shot type pair. That will come a lot closer to revealing the correct strategy to follow than anything else discussed here.

The reasoning: you want to track your whole possession in order to pick up the effects of grabbing offensive rebounds, and getting foul shots, etc. And you want to track the next possession of the other team so that you track whether there is a defensive disadvantage to shooting threes, and if so, how much is it.

This still leaves out longer term effects, like does shooting threes wear out your arms, or keep you from getting into the bonus, or stuff like that. But I bet it gets you pretty close to whatever the real answer is.

[Sleepy51]

What we really need is some serious per possession charting. Divide them into transition possessions and half court poss . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah . . . arms, or keep you from getting into the bonus, or stuff like that. But I bet it gets you pretty close to whatever the real answer is.

Floppy and CPH are exchanging Nerd mating calls.

[floppymoose]

For some reason your comment made the "Liberal Call" cartoon pop into my head. And now for a trip back to the 80's:

http://www.caracarn.com/bc/000421.gif

[Sleepy51]

For some reason your comment made the "Liberal Call" cartoon pop into my head. And now for a trip back to the 80's:

http://www.caracarn.com/bc/000421.gif

Lol . . . I LOVED bloom county.

Steve Dallas rocked!

[FNQ]

But as has been discussed, most playoff teams don't fall for our (Nellie's) tactics. Laker, Jazz, Spurs. They don't give in to us and they just play their game. They're so fundamental and systematic that they can beat us, gimmicks and all.

That's what we have to solve. I do like our style of play as a fan and a basketball observer. While its the best for us, its not the best around, obviously. We have to modify it and become more consistent so that we can play with those teams and possibly win. I also agree that it has created a sort of chemistry and resiliency here.

There's no way to -solve- it... fundamental basketball wins games...

These tactics Nellie is trying (on big stages, mind you) is just complete buffoonery... smart coaches stick to their good players, hell Phil Jackson blurted it out once... Just do what you do and you'll win, and his teams have a great track record against us.

As do pretty much all fundamentally sound teams... and as our fools gold team scrapes to 50 wins some seasons, 40 wins some... the teams with their great players and fundamentals will wane, they will fall down and the new fundamentally sound teams (POR, for one) will take their place... but the W's will still have their 40 wins and their adorable small ball...

There's too much natural talent and gifts on the bench to just piss them away... but that's the cons of our small ball, and approved by most who are scared of falling back into a playoff drought like the past 12 years and the last time Nellie left... it's a mess.

[FNQ]

[quote="Chris Porter's Hair"][/quote]

Far from a blind study The problem with looking at it in a completely analytical way is that it takes away the human element of the game... which has far too important of an effect to overlook.

The advantages for a 2 over a 3 are too numerous to list... here's a couple though

- tires out the defense more, leads to less offense

The defense is forced to move more on easier buckets. For example, if someone got the ball w/no one between them and the basket, 10 feet away, up to 4, but usually 2 or 3 collapse. Obviously, that opens up many more options in shooting or passing (ironically enough, taking a 3 is pretty common)... only 1 person collapses at a 3pt shooter, and if he is successful, no passing lanes have been opened and you've wasted a % of the SC to get nowhere.

In addition, since 3s are mostly chucked by our guards (Jax, Baron, Buke) and then secondarily by forwards (Barnes, Harrington) it leaves their C in the paint, just earning position for an easy rebound. Not only that, with such easy position, he barely has to use any strength or energy to corral a rebound, especially if a F is taking the shot. Also, most teams use more than 1 C per game


- no need to run the score

When you look at the good teams, the reason they don't shoot the 3 late in the game is not needing it. If you have a 10 point lead going into the 4th quarter, you have no need to come out chucking 3s. Since we're shooting at almost 50% from inside the arc, I'd much rather take the 50% chance at scoring than the 37% chance to score. Each score not only increases the other team's urgency to score (lowering their %), but your own momentum as well.

- 2 pt shooting is not as volatile

Teams can get crazy hot from deep, and in the same token, insanely cold. The constant up/down pace of the W's keeps games interesting but it's clearly not effective basketball - if for example, the Warriors could generate 2 pt shots when they go cold, instead of just fighting through w/3s, couldn't they even ease back into the outside of the arc by scoring inside a bit? That seems to be what always happens in the 4th... Baron / Tay drive a bit, other team begins to collapse more, then Jax and Harrington have the arc to themselves. If we can get better 2 pt looks, we can better 3 pt looks - and wouldn't be subjected too the long droughts of poor shooting every game where our team just gets lazy.

Enough for now... but I'll tell ya, the sabermetrics and statheads from every sport, none of those teams are the champs... Billy Beane / DePodesta is a tragic tale in #s without humanity

[Sid the Squid]

A couple excellent posts 510..Wow ...

Thanks.

[bballguy50]

A couple excellent posts 510..Wow ...

Thanks.

*Head explodes from awesomeness of 510's posts here*

[Mylie10]

If you move the ball well and then shoot a 3 it can cause the D to run at multiple players trying to catch up.

I'll take a wide open 3 over a run the shot clock down and force up a 2 any day.

We are lucky in that when we shoot our 2's we have some players that can break down a defender and get into the lane.

If we had a team with no penetrators and still fired up just as mant 3's, then we'd be in big time trouble.

The pre Baron/Monta years were filled with guys who couldn't penetrate. JRich was not a guy who'd get to the line much and he was taking the majority of the shots back then.

Nellie has publically stated that he gives Jack the freedom to chuck, because Jack uses that shot to set up players for something later. if he hits a couple, then he can drive the guy on a later posession.

We lead the league in shot attempts and points in the paint. That's the main reason we win. We shoot more than you will, and we'll get ourselves dunks and layups more than most teams in the league.

Don't pigeon hole Nellie to badly. Imagine this roster with a marion, Amare, Odom, Brand, KG, or anything close to it. You put any one of those guys with our current roster and nellie would not only play him, but we'd be carried into the next level.

We need to get lucky and find a player who gets close to one of them.

[FNQ]

[quote="Mylie10"][/quote]

Very Nick Naylor-esque

Of course you'd take an open 3 over a late shot clock contested two... thats best case scenario for 3s v. worst case scenario for twos...

The point is, Nellie does ass backwards, it has repeatedly brought in the same result, and he still gets applauded for it. Why is it that most other teams in the league will try and get a series of shots that would be in the 50% range to open up wide open shots for 3, in the 37% range? We're the only team in the league that would ever do that... and definitely the only team that would admit it.

We can't imagine Nellie with a franchise PF... one would have to be here beforehand because he sure as hell isn't going to develop one. It'll be nearly impossible to trade for one as our young PF/Cs lose value the instant Nellie touches them, and thats usually the barometer for a top tier PF/C...

The Warriors are just a dog chasing its own tail... some of us are sick and some are enjoying the ride.

[Mylie10]

Why would he develope one, he's gone next year or the year after.

In Nellie's mind he doesn't have the time or patience to develope now.

[Sid the Squid]

Nellie = the wrong coach for a roster with 3 talented young *bigs*...He's fantastic for Monta though...

[FNQ]

Why would he develope one, he's gone next year or the year after.

In Nellie's mind he doesn't have the time or patience to develope now.

Exactly the problem.. in Nellie's mind...

in Nellie's mind, Hack-a-Boone was a good idea... in Nellie's mind, Matt Barnes can play PF and C...

And most importantly, in Nellie's mind, it is more beneficial to the team to get CJ Watson on the court instead of Beli, Wright, and POB. In Nellie's mind, POB is a complete waste of a roster spot... in that same drunken senile mind, Hudson, Croshere and Mbenga were offseason targets...

If Nellie has another year in him... IF... what's our move next season? Pray really hard that a franchise big man falls into our laps? What makes our team any different than the bubble teams/basement of the past decade? That we can accrue enough talented Gs to irritate people in the regular season?

The only legitimate playoff team(s) in the West that the Warriors have had consistent success against is the other one Nellie constructed. If you want to count the Rockets as well, feel free...

[Sid the Squid]

I think we would take out Denver..They're a lot like us but with less heart...We'd be lakers road kill ...They'd beat us in 4 or 5...Same with SA...

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Far from a blind study The problem with looking at it in a completely analytical way is that it takes away the human element of the game... which has far too important of an effect to overlook.

Interesting discussion. I didn't look at it in a completely analytical way; statistics in a vacuum are a dangerous thing, which is why I tried to open the discussion of, "So why isn't it as simple as doing the math?" But I think we have a very interesting team on our hands, and it is worth digging a bit in both directions. I'm not willing to just say, "They shoot lots of 3's, therefore they are stupid.", but I'm also not willing to just say, "The math says we are more efficient from 3, so we should stop shooting 2's." So to consider some of your points...

The advantages for a 2 over a 3 are too numerous to list... here's a couple though

- tires out the defense more, leads to less offense

The defense is forced to move more on easier buckets. For example, if someone got the ball w/no one between them and the basket, 10 feet away, up to 4, but usually 2 or 3 collapse. Obviously, that opens up many more options in shooting or passing (ironically enough, taking a 3 is pretty common)... only 1 person collapses at a 3pt shooter, and if he is successful, no passing lanes have been opened and you've wasted a % of the SC to get nowhere.

I think there is something to this, but to play Devil's Advocate, you could also argue that shooting 3's instead of pounding it inside tires us out less, leaving more energy for defense. The degree to which we hound for turnovers and run the break would seem to indicate that we don't expend our energy (or the other team's energy) in the traditional manner.

In addition, since 3s are mostly chucked by our guards (Jax, Baron, Buke) and then secondarily by forwards (Barnes, Harrington) it leaves their C in the paint, just earning position for an easy rebound. Not only that, with such easy position, he barely has to use any strength or energy to corral a rebound, especially if a F is taking the shot. Also, most teams use more than 1 C per game

I pointed this out as a weakness, but made the point that it may hit us less than it would most teams if we admit that our offensive rebounding sucks anyway. And the fact that our "power" forwards tend to lurk at the 3 point line is a counterpoint to this, because while we don't pull all of their big men out of the paint, we probably pull one out. Or get open 3's from Al/Barnes.

- no need to run the score

When you look at the good teams, the reason they don't shoot the 3 late in the game is not needing it. If you have a 10 point lead going into the 4th quarter, you have no need to come out chucking 3s. Since we're shooting at almost 50% from inside the arc, I'd much rather take the 50% chance at scoring than the 37% chance to score. Each score not only increases the other team's urgency to score (lowering their %), but your own momentum as well.

I'm not sure what to make of this. I know what we do now is a problem; when we want to run clock, we switch to a standard half court offense and look completely lost. That can't be good. One alternative which seems terrifying is that we should just admit what we are and keep playing the same way, shooting 3's slightly more efficiently than our 2's. You point out later that when we get our 2's well, it opens up 3's. Perhaps the middle ground is just to consciously shift towards endeavoring to get the 2's that make us shoot 49%. Rather than pounding the ball, doing Harry High School (as Muss used to call it), or otherwise running clock but scoring 0 points.

- 2 pt shooting is not as volatile

Teams can get crazy hot from deep, and in the same token, insanely cold. The constant up/down pace of the W's keeps games interesting but it's clearly not effective basketball - if for example, the Warriors could generate 2 pt shots when they go cold, instead of just fighting through w/3s, couldn't they even ease back into the outside of the arc by scoring inside a bit? That seems to be what always happens in the 4th... Baron / Tay drive a bit, other team begins to collapse more, then Jax and Harrington have the arc to themselves. If we can get better 2 pt looks, we can better 3 pt looks - and wouldn't be subjected too the long droughts of poor shooting every game where our team just gets lazy.

I think it is tough to make the case that it is "clearly not effective basketball"; we're winning a lot of games. I think expecting a team to play at a 55 win pace is a lot to ask, and I honestly don't think that it is necessarily realistic with the players we have no matter how they play.

It does keep games interesting as you say. It makes me scream with rage sometimes, but at times like that it is easy to forget all the times it works like a charm. I think you have hit on the middle ground, though. If we just bomb 3's, that doesn't work. If we try to run a half court game we don't have, that doesn't work. I almost think the way this bunch of guys needs to handle these situations is to say, "All we have to do to win is keep scoring periodically. So run run run. Force it down their throats. Get the guards in the paint." With our free throw shooting shaping up, this makes even more sense.

Enough for now... but I'll tell ya, the sabermetrics and statheads from every sport, none of those teams are the champs... Billy Beane / DePodesta is a tragic tale in #s without humanity

That's hardly fair to Mr. Beane, as it ignores one very real axis in the math he's doing. I'm not sure he would do things the way he does if he could spend at will. He's trying to work with what he's got by being creative/contrarian. I think that isn't that different than what Nellie does. I think sometimes Nellie outthinks himself, but I don't think he's just a complete idiot. The one thing people consistently say about Nellie is he makes the most of what he's got. I really don't see anything in this team to convince me otherwise. We may not win a title with him running this team, probably won't, but I have trouble believing we'd be doing better if we brought in a more conventional coach.

Good discussion, though. I'll freely admit that after the drought I'm happy to see the team winning games and making playoffs. But I'm at least as happy that they are actually interesting to watch.