Game #72: Clippers @ BLAZERS Sunday 3/19 6PM

[esqtvd]

Read on Twitter

[MartinToVaught]

Notice how we had one of our only wire-to-wire wins all season with Lue not coaching.

[Scoundreldays]

I think he only has about 75% of the athleticism he had in his prime- he struggles to elevate high enough to get clean shots near the basket- so, I think he will continue to struggle in that area unfortunately

Good call. see thread

Read on Twitter

Westbrook never had great touch at te rim, I remember a poster being flamed for saying that Westbrook is a not a great finisher at the rim / in the paint around 5-7 years ago when he was still in his prime. I actually agreed with him and would still say he was right.

Westbrook used and uses his athleticism to allow him to finish at the rim, but when it came to soft touch, body control, etc, Westbrook was never particularly good at finishing in the paint or at the rim if he wasn't exploding to the rim for an athletic finish. Dunks, transition, open cuts (usually) he's still going to finish, but in the halfcourt and in traffic, if isn't not an athletic play / dunk, he's not actually that reliable as a rim finisher for his size, body and athletic ability as a guard.

I think it's just that now that he can't make the athletic plays as consistently to compensate for his mediocre touch, people are noticing. The good thing is that even declined athleticism Westbrook is still a top athlete in the league. He's still more athletic than some other similar era PG's to him were in their late 20's to early 30's. So for the most part he can still find athletic ways to finish and not have to rely on superior touch.

Yes it why I would rather have Mann close. He doesn't play make as well but is a better defender and shooter in addition to making free throws.

[og15]

I think plus minus in a single game is actually useless, way too much noise:signal. Steph Curry single-handedly carried the 3rd quarter for GSW in their last game against us, but I was -11 for the game and I think had a negative plus minus for even the 3rd quarter. Meaningless. It doesn't mean he played bad defense to counter his scoring, or anything like that.

But over a significant stretch of games plus/minus becomes very useful tool in comparing different lineups, combinations of players, etc. There is significant signal in the end that you can't explain away- if you filter out the noise.

For sure. Raw +/- is generally not considered to be a single player evaluation tool since it is directly tied to lineups. It can give you idea about lineups that works best (better) together than others, but that also would of course depend on sample size as opposing lineup strength is also a factor.

The reasoning of course is that playing mediocre, even below average basketball with a good or very good lineup will consistently yield good plus/minus for a player. Plus/minus does not have the ability to actually capture that players impact on the lineup in a single game.

A way to compare would be to have a large enough sample size of data of another player in the exact same role, but I can't compare the +/- of the 4th or 5th best starter who mostly plays with starters to the +/- of my 7th man who plays most of his minutes with bench players in one game and say he was better or more impactful. Even over large multiple game sample sizes, that's a tough conclusion to say he's better or more effective, it simply can't tell me that because of the very different roles and lineup strength.

Similarly, single game plus/minus can't capture the impact of a player who plays really well and has great impact while his team gets killed. A guy could be -9, but if he wasn't with a specific lineup or replaced by an average guy, the lineups would have been -22 in those same minutes vs -9. Guys can have great positive impact while the lineup they are with gets killed, plus/minus can't capture that.

Of course that's what all these RPM (Real Plus Minus) stats aim to do, adjust for different factors as much as possible. But we also have to remember that RPM is still only telling us the players effectiveness in a specific role.

If we look at RPM for Clippers:
George +5.06
Kawhi +4.59
Zubac +2.70
Morris +2.21
Mann +0.38
Covington -0.73
Batum -1.34
Reggie -1.45
Powell -3.04
Boston -3.39
Wall -3.60
Kennard -4.28
Coffey -5.71

Players who most of their data is from a different team:
Plumlee +1.86
Gordon 0.21
Hyland -2.40
Westbrook -3.02

RPM is not some perfect measure, it's just a tool in the toolbox of evaluation, but it's widely considered better than raw plus minus. Mann out of the non-star guards on the Clippers has had the best RPM, now if we take that along with other data and film, we could conclude that he's been the best non star guard on the team all season.

Westbrook was a bad fit on the Lakers, and most of his data is from there, so I wouldn't necessarily use that to determine his worth in this particular setting.

Gordon shows up pretty well for a guy who most played a poor team, so it can at least make us think, "okay, he was doing some things right".

Morris does well here, 4th on the team. Lineups still benefit him in RPM, but even with regression adjustments he's being said to be positive. It's mainly saying that he's positive on defense. RPM had both Zubac and Morris as very positive defensive players (+6.71 and +4.98 respectively).

So at the LEAST, what we can say is that RPM suggests that as 4th/5th options, mainly in lineups with the teams stars, both Zubac and Morris have been very good in those roles, particularly on defense. We can at least say that. Does it necessarily mean that Batum or Covington couldn't do better in the role than Morris? Not necessarily, but he's had very good impact in the role according to RPM over a large sample that we can accept him in that role and not consider him to be detrimental to the teams success in his specific role.

[NickP]

Same says the Bleacher report article.

[esqtvd]

I think plus minus in a single game is actually useless, way too much noise:signal. Steph Curry single-handedly carried the 3rd quarter for GSW in their last game against us, but I was -11 for the game and I think had a negative plus minus for even the 3rd quarter. Meaningless. It doesn't mean he played bad defense to counter his scoring, or anything like that.

But over a significant stretch of games plus/minus becomes very useful tool in comparing different lineups, combinations of players, etc. There is significant signal in the end that you can't explain away- if you filter out the noise.

For sure. Raw +/- is generally not considered to be a single player evaluation tool since it is directly tied to lineups. It can give you idea about lineups that works best (better) together than others, but that also would of course depend on sample size as opposing lineup strength is also a factor.

The reasoning of course is that playing mediocre, even below average basketball with a good or very good lineup will consistently yield good plus/minus for a player. Plus/minus does not have the ability to actually capture that players impact on the lineup in a single game.

A way to compare would be to have a large enough sample size of data of another player in the exact same role, but I can't compare the +/- of the 4th or 5th best starter who mostly plays with starters to the +/- of my 7th man who plays most of his minutes with bench players in one game and say he was better or more impactful. Even over large multiple game sample sizes, that's a tough conclusion to say he's better or more effective, it simply can't tell me that because of the very different roles and lineup strength.

Similarly, single game plus/minus can't capture the impact of a player who plays really well and has great impact while his team gets killed. A guy could be -9, but if he wasn't with a specific lineup or replaced by an average guy, the lineups would have been -22 in those same minutes vs -9. Guys can have great positive impact while the lineup they are with gets killed, plus/minus can't capture that.

Of course that's what all these RPM (Real Plus Minus) stats aim to do, adjust for different factors as much as possible. But we also have to remember that RPM is still only telling us the players effectiveness in a specific role.

If we look at RPM for Clippers:
George +5.06
Kawhi +4.59
Zubac +2.70
Morris +2.21
Mann +0.38
Covington -0.73
Batum -1.34
Reggie -1.45
Powell -3.04
Boston -3.39
Wall -3.60
Kennard -4.28
Coffey -5.71

Players who most of their data is from a different team:
Plumlee +1.86
Gordon 0.21
Hyland -2.40
Westbrook -3.02

RPM is not some perfect measure, it's just a tool in the toolbox of evaluation, but it's widely considered better than raw plus minus. Mann out of the non-star guards on the Clippers has had the best RPM, now if we take that along with other data and film, we could conclude that he's been the best non star guard on the team all season.

Westbrook was a bad fit on the Lakers, and most of his data is from there, so I wouldn't necessarily use that to determine his worth in this particular setting.

Gordon shows up pretty well for a guy who most played a poor team, so it can at least make us think, "okay, he was doing some things right".

Morris does well here, 4th on the team. Lineups still benefit him in RPM, but even with regression adjustments he's being said to be positive. It's mainly saying that he's positive on defense. RPM had both Zubac and Morris as very positive defensive players (+6.71 and +4.98 respectively).

So at the LEAST, what we can say is that RPM suggests that as 4th/5th options, mainly in lineups with the teams stars, both Zubac and Morris have been very good in those roles, particularly on defense. We can at least say that. Does it necessarily mean that Batum or Covington couldn't do better in the role than Morris? Not necessarily, but he's had very good impact in the role according to RPM over a large sample that we can accept him in that role and not consider him to be detrimental to the teams success in his specific role.

Funny how the stats agree with Ty's eye tests and allocation of PT.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?Month=6&TeamID=1610612746&dir=A&sort=PLUS_MINUS

[madmaxmedia]

I think plus minus in a single game is actually useless, way too much noise:signal. Steph Curry single-handedly carried the 3rd quarter for GSW in their last game against us, but I was -11 for the game and I think had a negative plus minus for even the 3rd quarter. Meaningless. It doesn't mean he played bad defense to counter his scoring, or anything like that.

But over a significant stretch of games plus/minus becomes very useful tool in comparing different lineups, combinations of players, etc. There is significant signal in the end that you can't explain away- if you filter out the noise.

For sure. Raw +/- is generally not considered to be a single player evaluation tool since it is directly tied to lineups. It can give you idea about lineups that works best (better) together than others, but that also would of course depend on sample size as opposing lineup strength is also a factor.

The reasoning of course is that playing mediocre, even below average basketball with a good or very good lineup will consistently yield good plus/minus for a player. Plus/minus does not have the ability to actually capture that players impact on the lineup in a single game.

A way to compare would be to have a large enough sample size of data of another player in the exact same role, but I can't compare the +/- of the 4th or 5th best starter who mostly plays with starters to the +/- of my 7th man who plays most of his minutes with bench players in one game and say he was better or more impactful. Even over large multiple game sample sizes, that's a tough conclusion to say he's better or more effective, it simply can't tell me that because of the very different roles and lineup strength.

Similarly, single game plus/minus can't capture the impact of a player who plays really well and has great impact while his team gets killed. A guy could be -9, but if he wasn't with a specific lineup or replaced by an average guy, the lineups would have been -22 in those same minutes vs -9. Guys can have great positive impact while the lineup they are with gets killed, plus/minus can't capture that.

Of course that's what all these RPM (Real Plus Minus) stats aim to do, adjust for different factors as much as possible. But we also have to remember that RPM is still only telling us the players effectiveness in a specific role.

If we look at RPM for Clippers:
George +5.06
Kawhi +4.59
Zubac +2.70
Morris +2.21
Mann +0.38
Covington -0.73
Batum -1.34
Reggie -1.45
Powell -3.04
Boston -3.39
Wall -3.60
Kennard -4.28
Coffey -5.71

Players who most of their data is from a different team:
Plumlee +1.86
Gordon 0.21
Hyland -2.40
Westbrook -3.02

RPM is not some perfect measure, it's just a tool in the toolbox of evaluation, but it's widely considered better than raw plus minus. Mann out of the non-star guards on the Clippers has had the best RPM, now if we take that along with other data and film, we could conclude that he's been the best non star guard on the team all season.

Westbrook was a bad fit on the Lakers, and most of his data is from there, so I wouldn't necessarily use that to determine his worth in this particular setting.

Gordon shows up pretty well for a guy who most played a poor team, so it can at least make us think, "okay, he was doing some things right".

Morris does well here, 4th on the team. Lineups still benefit him in RPM, but even with regression adjustments he's being said to be positive. It's mainly saying that he's positive on defense. RPM had both Zubac and Morris as very positive defensive players (+6.71 and +4.98 respectively).

So at the LEAST, what we can say is that RPM suggests that as 4th/5th options, mainly in lineups with the teams stars, both Zubac and Morris have been very good in those roles, particularly on defense. We can at least say that. Does it necessarily mean that Batum or Covington couldn't do better in the role than Morris? Not necessarily, but he's had very good impact in the role according to RPM over a large sample that we can accept him in that role and not consider him to be detrimental to the teams success in his specific role.

Funny how the stats agree with Ty's eye tests and allocation of PT.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?Month=6&TeamID=1610612746&dir=A&sort=PLUS_MINUS

Like many here I don't agree with all of Ty's decisions and rotations, but I do believe there's a method to his madness and he's not just pulling stuff out of his ass. Either way there will be no margin for error in the playoffs starting in the 1st round, whether it's Suns, Grizzlies, or some play-in opponent.

Stick any of on the coach's bench and we'd all botch things worse, just in different ways. But MMQB'ing is part of the fun of being a sports fan.

[og15]

For sure. Raw +/- is generally not considered to be a single player evaluation tool since it is directly tied to lineups. It can give you idea about lineups that works best (better) together than others, but that also would of course depend on sample size as opposing lineup strength is also a factor.

The reasoning of course is that playing mediocre, even below average basketball with a good or very good lineup will consistently yield good plus/minus for a player. Plus/minus does not have the ability to actually capture that players impact on the lineup in a single game.

A way to compare would be to have a large enough sample size of data of another player in the exact same role, but I can't compare the +/- of the 4th or 5th best starter who mostly plays with starters to the +/- of my 7th man who plays most of his minutes with bench players in one game and say he was better or more impactful. Even over large multiple game sample sizes, that's a tough conclusion to say he's better or more effective, it simply can't tell me that because of the very different roles and lineup strength.

Similarly, single game plus/minus can't capture the impact of a player who plays really well and has great impact while his team gets killed. A guy could be -9, but if he wasn't with a specific lineup or replaced by an average guy, the lineups would have been -22 in those same minutes vs -9. Guys can have great positive impact while the lineup they are with gets killed, plus/minus can't capture that.

Of course that's what all these RPM (Real Plus Minus) stats aim to do, adjust for different factors as much as possible. But we also have to remember that RPM is still only telling us the players effectiveness in a specific role.

If we look at RPM for Clippers:
George +5.06
Kawhi +4.59
Zubac +2.70
Morris +2.21
Mann +0.38
Covington -0.73
Batum -1.34
Reggie -1.45
Powell -3.04
Boston -3.39
Wall -3.60
Kennard -4.28
Coffey -5.71

Players who most of their data is from a different team:
Plumlee +1.86
Gordon 0.21
Hyland -2.40
Westbrook -3.02

RPM is not some perfect measure, it's just a tool in the toolbox of evaluation, but it's widely considered better than raw plus minus. Mann out of the non-star guards on the Clippers has had the best RPM, now if we take that along with other data and film, we could conclude that he's been the best non star guard on the team all season.

Westbrook was a bad fit on the Lakers, and most of his data is from there, so I wouldn't necessarily use that to determine his worth in this particular setting.

Gordon shows up pretty well for a guy who most played a poor team, so it can at least make us think, "okay, he was doing some things right".

Morris does well here, 4th on the team. Lineups still benefit him in RPM, but even with regression adjustments he's being said to be positive. It's mainly saying that he's positive on defense. RPM had both Zubac and Morris as very positive defensive players (+6.71 and +4.98 respectively).

So at the LEAST, what we can say is that RPM suggests that as 4th/5th options, mainly in lineups with the teams stars, both Zubac and Morris have been very good in those roles, particularly on defense. We can at least say that. Does it necessarily mean that Batum or Covington couldn't do better in the role than Morris? Not necessarily, but he's had very good impact in the role according to RPM over a large sample that we can accept him in that role and not consider him to be detrimental to the teams success in his specific role.

Funny how the stats agree with Ty's eye tests and allocation of PT.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?Month=6&TeamID=1610612746&dir=A&sort=PLUS_MINUS

Like many here I don't agree with all of Ty's decisions and rotations, but I do believe there's a method to his madness and he's not just pulling stuff out of his ass. Either way there will be no margin for error in the playoffs starting in the 1st round, whether it's Suns, Grizzlies, or some play-in opponent.

Stick any of on the coach's bench and we'd all botch things worse, just in different ways. But MMQB'ing is part of the fun of being a sports fan.

Ty mentioned not too long ago that he bases minutes on feel and doesn't have a minutes card like many coaches do. Said he got that from Doc.

Collectively as sports fans we like to believe we can coach better than the actual coaches. That's not to say that coaches are never wrong and fans never make correct general judgements, but on a large scale, of course the job is always easier said than done.

[esqtvd]

Funny how the stats agree with Ty's eye tests and allocation of PT.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?Month=6&TeamID=1610612746&dir=A&sort=PLUS_MINUS

Like many here I don't agree with all of Ty's decisions and rotations, but I do believe there's a method to his madness and he's not just pulling stuff out of his ass. Either way there will be no margin for error in the playoffs starting in the 1st round, whether it's Suns, Grizzlies, or some play-in opponent.

Stick any of on the coach's bench and we'd all botch things worse, just in different ways. But MMQB'ing is part of the fun of being a sports fan.

Ty mentioned not too long ago that he bases minutes on feel and doesn't have a minutes card like many coaches do. Said he got that from Doc.

Collectively as sports fans we like to believe we can coach better than the actual coaches. That's not to say that coaches are never wrong and fans never make correct general judgements, but on a large scale, of course the job is always easier said than done.

Ty has referred to the plus/minus numbers in postgame interviews, but any coach who can't tell you approximately what they are without looking at them is not worth a damn.

Often a guy has a garbage first half then lights up in the second. And vice-versa. Sometimes a guy is slumping and you let him work his way out of it. You can't just plug in the numbers and call it coaching. For instance, Batum's and Mann's plus/minus are in the hole at the moment, but you stick with them because you need them to do well in the playoffs.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?Month=6&TeamID=1610612746&dir=A&sort=PLUS_MINUS