Game 7: Portland vs Chicago 7:30pm SNW/NBATV

[JRoy]

Still early in the season but very disappointing so far.

Keys are Nurk reverting to the mean and improvement on the defensive end.

[Epicurus]

Still early in the season but very disappointing so far.

Keys are Nurk reverting to the mean and improvement on the defensive end.

True, but I am also concerned about the offense. Jones' shooting is poor, even in areas that in previous seasons he was excellent. I think thus far Lillard is down also and Nurk's 10ft and in shooting is awful for a big man.

Better shooting may produce better defense, for the psychological reasons and also for the assistance of the net for setting up the defense.

[JasonStern]

Stotts is making it really, really hard to defend him. At the very least, he needs some turnover on his staff. Bring in some more defensive-minded assistants like our old pal Nate McMillan.

[Epicurus]

Stotts is making it really, really hard to defend him. At the very least, he needs some turnover on his staff. Bring in some more defensive-minded assistants like our old pal Nate McMillan.

Not that hard, given the vacuity of many of the criticisms. But yes, coaches exist to criticize, whether accurately and logically, or not. Yes, also premature evaluation is found in many fields, most often in sports. What sins of commission and omission are you alleging here to coaching? Outcomes themselves are produced by other factors beyond coaching, I hope you agree. So what are the transactions between coaches and players which can be shown to produce negative outcomes? How would those transactions be more productive with different coaches, head or assistant?

[The Sebastian Express]

I guess unlike some others I just can't get mad or upset. Playing in front of no fans, weird travel and schedule, constantly being tested, playing a sport where if they do get the virus it could cause them risk down the line due to the potential for heart and lung damage, some of them who have had family members get sick or die.

This season, like the bubble, is completely unlike anything we've seen before and just like the rest of us, the guys on the team are human. It's just a game. If they win, they win. If they lose, oh well. I just want them to stay healthy - from the virus and from other injuries.

While some of this is true it should affect every other team equally, I also think the players can if they wish opt out of the season with a loss of pay. Now that is a tough pill to swallow for a player making say $20+ million a season, but that is well within their power.

I don't think putting it on the Blazers that we are facing this huge mountain of problems but say the Bulls and Warriors aren't.

I'm not saying the other teams aren't. I'm saying every team is and I cannot personally be bothered to be angry, upset or devastated at a loss. I cannot be bothered to insult the players and suggest they have a lack of effort. Or that they're shameful. Or that this is embarrassing. None of this is to me.

Yes, they can opt out - but much like us, and for many of them a much larger degree, they support others. Twenty million is a lot.. until you are running businesses that employ people, when you have staff you pay, when you have countless family members you're helping support.

And all in all, just because they have wealth, does not mean we should not empathize with the difficult circumstances they are under. Just as many of them empathize with us or we with each other.

[Roy The Natural]

Shot quality x efg% = much useful knowledge about both defenses and offenses, certainly more useful than one-time viewed impressions of armchair coaches, especially those with axes to grind.

Not really. Shot quality itself is a multivariable equation that needs to be solved for before gleaning nay useful information.

[Epicurus]

One must know what they are solving for. What was the shot quality? How did teams compare? Much useful info, no matter the imperfections, there. You are but obfuscating to deflect. Economists dare not use GDP since many variables go into its determination,see how ridiculous?

[Roy The Natural]

One must know what they are solving for. What was the shot quality? How did teams compare? Much useful info, no matter the imperfections, there. You are but obfuscating to deflect. Economists dare not use GDP since many variables go into its determination,see how ridiculous?

You're mistaking me. You're say shot quality=how open a shot was. I'm saying that you are misidentifying shot quality as a simpler equation than it really is. You're saying shot quality is a one variable equation, I'm saying it's not. You can't determine the actual shot quality if you aren't solving for it with the applicable variables.

[Epicurus]

You objected to my information regarding open shots. I rejoined it as a component of shot quality, an important factor in basketball success. If you wish to share info beyond open shots to fully measure shot quality ( such as, place on court, time in the clock shot is taken, etc.), please do. Good luck as it is not easily available, except pnpstats offer a measure of shot quality which doesn't appear to include openness of the shots. Unfortunately sports spectrum does not make their measures available to the public. The point remains--shot quality exists, it is important, and should be included whenever talking about shooting or the efficacy of an offense, which is more than efg%. Even available approximations are useful.

[Roy The Natural]

You objected to my information regarding open shots. I rejoined it as a component of shot quality, an important factor in basketball success. If you wish to share info beyond open shots to fully measure shot quality ( such as, place on court, time in the clock shot is taken, etc.), please do. Good luck as it is not easily available, except pnpstats offer a measure of shot quality which doesn't appear to include openness of the shots. Unfortunately sports spectrum does not make their measures available to the public. The point remains--shot quality exists, it is important, and should be included whenever talking about shooting or the efficacy of an offense, which is more than efg%. Even available approximations are useful.

I only responded to your description of shot openness as shot quality itself. Whether the other data points are easily available or not is utterly irrelevant. Shot openness is not shot quality, it is but a small coefficient in the overall determination of the quality of a specific shot. I personally believe you're misusing shot openness to imply a notion that the Blazers are suffering from bad luck, which I disagree with, but that's not a hill I'm going to die on, and you're welcome to dispute it.

Whether all the data is easily available in isolation or combination, or not, is completely irrelevant. Important factors such as, who is taking the shot, where they are taking the shot from, whether it's catch and shoot or off the dribble are just as important to the quality of a look as the relative openness of shots.

I just don't think the data is more than negligibly useful without further context or variable solution. I don't think that generating the same amount of lightly contested looks from the arc as the opponent signals that you're getting the same shot quality as they are. So either we're using this information in a manner that IMO it shouldn't be used in... or it's just a sort of mostly useless information that's been regularly floating around here for no real reason.

[Moonbeam]

It's still early... Lots of teams that should be good are taking bad losses (Dallas got smoked by the same team a couple nights earlier), I mean the Nets sans KD beat down the Jazz by 34! I think the next month or two is simply going to be weird

This is a great point and an important one to note. There have been a ton of blowouts this year, many of which have been surprising. I think there is a lot more variance in the results right now than usual, and it's hard to read too much into anything. Obviously we'd all like Portland to be playing better, but looking around the league, there are lots of teams, even good teams, that have had head-scratching variance in their results.

I'll note that while teams are facing similar circumstances due to the pandemic and COVID protocols, etc., they are not identical. Some arenas allow small numbers of fans, and the amount of rest between seasons was wildly different for teams due to the 22-team bubble and the relatively short break between the finals and the start of the season.

[Epicurus]

Nothing in my original post went beyond openness of the respective shots, shot quality was not even mentioned then. You attempted to diminish the findings of that post as not useful. Then we strolled into the issue of shot quality. Openness of shots is often a criticism of offenses and defenses. You just are trying to obfsuscate here to diminish anything what challenges your simple impressionism. This conversation is simply inane.

[Roy The Natural]

Nothing in my original post went beyond openness of the respective shots, shot quality was not even mentioned then. You attempted to diminish the findings of that post as not useful. Then we strolled into the issue of shot quality. Openness of shots is often a criticism of offenses and defenses. You just are trying to obfsuscate here to diminish anything what challenges your simple impressionism. This conversation is simply inane.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that were never said. I simply stated that not all open 3s are equal, and analysis revolving around such reductionist terms is of negligible value. I stand by that. You're trying to ascribe ulterior motivations to the conversation. They don't exist. My dislike for Stotts has not waned, however, this is not a conversation/debate about Stotts, he is irrelevant to the conversation.

I don't believe that data you are presenting is proof of well.... anything all that impactful. I simply wanted to push back against any notion that the evidence you presented signals that the Blazers are getting the same quality of looks as opponents. The Blazers may be getting good looks, but this doesn't come close to proving that.

For what it's worth, I believe that if you were to fully analyze shot by shot you'd find that the Blazers are giving up open catch and shoot 3s to the corners and sides at a higher rate than they are generating them. I think a lot of the Blazers "open" 3s are deep off the dribble 3s by Lillard and CJ with a decent smattering of open corner 3s by DJJ. I'd wager with everything accounted for the Blazers shot quality would drop more than their opponents. However, I don't really care for the conversation to go in this direction.

I quite simply don't think contest level of 3s is overly useful in determining whether Portland is generating what they need currently to be a well rounded offense.

[Epicurus]

This is pointless. I will continue after games to introduce facts that are relevant. If you wish to augment them with relevant factual qualifications, feel free. Or don't read my comment. And if you wish to build a factually based case regarding your preferred offensive, please do, if possible. Otherwise, save your views about what can be relayed about a game or a season.

[Epicurus]

Oh, and open looks are better than contested looks. I can't believe you wish to argue against that point.

[JasonStern]

Stotts is making it really, really hard to defend him. At the very least, he needs some turnover on his staff. Bring in some more defensive-minded assistants like our old pal Nate McMillan.

Not that hard, given the vacuity of many of the criticisms. But yes, coaches exist to criticize, whether accurately and logically, or not. Yes, also premature evaluation is found in many fields, most often in sports. What sins of commission and omission are you alleging here to coaching? Outcomes themselves are produced by other factors beyond coaching, I hope you agree. So what are the transactions between coaches and players which can be shown to produce negative outcomes? How would those transactions be more productive with different coaches, head or assistant?

All of that effort to sound smart negated by the simple fact that Melo is playing ten more minutes a game than Trent.

[Wizenheimer]

Stotts is making it really, really hard to defend him. At the very least, he needs some turnover on his staff. Bring in some more defensive-minded assistants like our old pal Nate McMillan.

Not that hard, given the vacuity of many of the criticisms. But yes, coaches exist to criticize, whether accurately and logically, or not. Yes, also premature evaluation is found in many fields, most often in sports. What sins of commission and omission are you alleging here to coaching? Outcomes themselves are produced by other factors beyond coaching, I hope you agree. So what are the transactions between coaches and players which can be shown to produce negative outcomes? How would those transactions be more productive with different coaches, head or assistant?

All of that effort to sound smart negated by the simple fact that Melo is playing ten more minutes a game than Trent.

[Epicurus]

Stotts is making it really, really hard to defend him. At the very least, he needs some turnover on his staff. Bring in some more defensive-minded assistants like our old pal Nate McMillan.

Not that hard, given the vacuity of many of the criticisms. But yes, coaches exist to criticize, whether accurately and logically, or not. Yes, also premature evaluation is found in many fields, most often in sports. What sins of commission and omission are you alleging here to coaching? Outcomes themselves are produced by other factors beyond coaching, I hope you agree. So what are the transactions between coaches and players which can be shown to produce negative outcomes? How would those transactions be more productive with different coaches, head or assistant?

All of that effort to sound smart negated by the simple fact that Melo is playing ten more minutes a game than Trent.

Sorry, but I have trouble with your shifting sands. As far as language, I accept your complaint. Me think you simple. Better?

[Epicurus]

Not that hard, given the vacuity of many of the criticisms. But yes, coaches exist to criticize, whether accurately and logically, or not. Yes, also premature evaluation is found in many fields, most often in sports. What sins of commission and omission are you alleging here to coaching? Outcomes themselves are produced by other factors beyond coaching, I hope you agree. So what are the transactions between coaches and players which can be shown to produce negative outcomes? How would those transactions be more productive with different coaches, head or assistant?

All of that effort to sound smart negated by the simple fact that Melo is playing ten more minutes a game than Trent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mister_Know-It-All_Episode_1_title_card.png#/media/File:Mister_Know-It-All_Episode_1_title_card.png

[Roy The Natural]

Oh, and open looks are better than contested looks. I can't believe you wish to argue against that point.

I don't want to descend into ad hominem here. However, I'm getting tired of you pretending I'm saying things I'm not. It needs to stop. For your constant whining about the vacuity of others, you display the same trait in droves. I responded because you presented data that i didn't think was very useful. I said it, and I stand by it. If you disagree fine, but stop putting words in my mouth and taking swipes at everyone who disagrees with you... It's annoying.

I simply pointed out that all open 3s aren't necessarily created equal. Giving up open 3s to Nurkic at the top of the arc is not the same as giving up corner 3s to Otto Porter. Without these contexts and distinctions the data borders on useless. Just farting a bunch of numbers onto a page doesn't make the numbers useful. That's not how data analysis works.