jonas valanciunas looks amazing

[Mikistan]

Same old JV , different ball , this one doesn't stick .

hes lighter, attacking on the dribble and with control with theball in his hand at the high post, passing a bit too , noticibly slimmer

[vini_vidi_vici]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing here but obviously the interesting thing is not that JV had a good game but that it happened in the context of an intentional and major restructuring of our offense. Its about whether this new offense is better suited to JV not hooray he had one good game.

You dont think it was the 3s??

% of FGAs that were 3s the first game was 34.9 (10th).
% of FGAs that were 3s last season was 28.9 (22nd).

3PT% last game was 44.8% (5th)
3PT% last season was 36.3% (13th)

Given how we know 3PT volume/%s influence ORTGs that to me was the bigger takeaway, and less about the offense being tailored to suit JV (which I contend it didnt change much IMO, just a function of a great match up).

[lobosloboslobos]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing here but obviously the interesting thing is not that JV had a good game but that it happened in the context of an intentional and major restructuring of our offense. Its about whether this new offense is better suited to JV not hooray he had one good game.

You dont think it was the 3s??

% of FGAs that were 3s the first game was 34.9 (10th).
% of FGAs that were 3s last season was 28.9 (22nd).

3PT% last game was 44.8% (5th)
3PT% last season was 36.3% (13th)

Given how we know 3PT volume/%s influence ORTGs that to me was the bigger takeaway, and less about the offense being tailored to suit JV (which I contend it didnt change much IMO, just a function of a great match up).

not saying the offense was tailored to suit JV just that in an offense that is not dominated by DD, that is designed around ball movement, that sees him doing more than setting screens but being integrated into the flow of most plays instead of very few plays, that we may finally see him flourish to the benefit of the team. Of course there were lots of changes, and yes for sure most noticeably our focus on 3s but equally our focus on moving the ball. I'm sure you know we passed the ball less and had less assists last year than any team in the league. So yeah 3s are a big part of it but to me the ball movement and team-first offensive approach rather than the hell or high water approach is at least as important.

[VanWest82]

Here's a one game stat that no one will believe: JV lead the team Thursday in total number of passes made (53). Sadly those 53 passes only lead to 2 assists, but it's a dramatic increase from his average of 34 passes per game last year. This would seem to confirm what others in the thread have already said: we're involving him more in the offense, and he's looking to do more with the ball than just finish.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612761/passes-dash/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASS&dir=1

Edit: Also of note that as a team we made 315 passes in our first game whereas last year we typically ranged between 250-280

[vini_vidi_vici]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing here but obviously the interesting thing is not that JV had a good game but that it happened in the context of an intentional and major restructuring of our offense. Its about whether this new offense is better suited to JV not hooray he had one good game.

You dont think it was the 3s??

% of FGAs that were 3s the first game was 34.9 (10th).
% of FGAs that were 3s last season was 28.9 (22nd).

3PT% last game was 44.8% (5th)
3PT% last season was 36.3% (13th)

Given how we know 3PT volume/%s influence ORTGs that to me was the bigger takeaway, and less about the offense being tailored to suit JV (which I contend it didnt change much IMO, just a function of a great match up).

not saying the offense was tailored to suit JV just that in an offense that is not dominated by DD, that is designed around ball movement, that sees him doing more than setting screens but being integrated into the flow of most plays instead of very few plays, that we may finally see him flourish to the benefit of the team. Of course there were lots of changes, and yes for sure most noticeably our focus on 3s but equally our focus on moving the ball. I'm sure you know we passed the ball less and had less assists last year than any team in the league. So yeah 3s are a big part of it but to me the ball movement and team-first offensive approach rather than the hell or high water approach is at least as important.

The ISO/lack of ASTs wasnt just a virtue DC had, this was the approach of the management for quite some time (if you read Weltman/etc.. quotes to Ruckers tweets), im not sure why ppl keep implying this was DC centric or really any of the offensive principles. ASTs have less influence on ORTGs than most believe, its a myth anyways.

Im not sure we have seen him flourish in relation to team performance either. The biggest issue DD gets chastised (with some merit too, altho we have had strong benches for the last few yrs), is for being a negative relative to on/off splits, much like JV has (even though both were net positives which is what matters top me). Last night, JV was a net -48.2 and DD was a net -60.0, the bench carried this game. The offense was much better with him off, and same with the defense (as noted by VanWest). When you hit 3s at a high clip like that, youll get alot of ASTs, and ASTs are extremely random/subjective to the scorer, as evidenced with the one from JV to Norm.

Thats not to say JV hasnt improved in areas, he has, particularly the passing attempts and when he receives the ball at the FT line extended unguarded. I just think its not as pronounced as those make it seem.

[vini_vidi_vici]

Here's a one game stat that no one will believe: JV lead the team Thursday in total number of passes made (53). Sadly those 53 passes only lead to 2 assists, but it's a dramatic increase from his average of 34 passes per game last year. This would seem to confirm what others in the thread have already said: we're involving him more in the offense, and he's looking to do more with the ball than just finish.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612761/passes-dash/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASS&dir=1

Edit: Also of note that as a team we made 315 passes in our first game whereas last year we were typically between 250-280

The problem with the boxscore passes is they include inbounds. Be interesting how many were front court passes, and to see the touches #s individually. Good start though if they think its going to be more sustainable.

[lobosloboslobos]

The ISO/lack of ASTs wasnt just a virtue DC had, this was the approach of the management for quite some time (if you read Weltman/etc.. quotes to Ruckers tweets), im not sure why ppl keep implying this was DC centric or really any of the offensive principles. ASTs have less influence on ORTGs than most believe, its a myth anyways.

again, forest for the trees man. for sure it was supported by the organization but Dwayne Casey is the coach who in a playoff game 7 gave DD 32 FGA when he had shot beyond horribly throughout the series and had at that time an almost WOAT playoff FG%. It wasn't Weltman who did that. And please don't say "We won that game and DD scored 30 points" as if it somehow vindicates Casey. 30 points on 32 FGA is NOT a winning formula.

You can't tell me Casey has not been the engine driving our static offensive approach. Really. That is just silly.

[VanWest82]

Here's a one game stat that no one will believe: JV lead the team Thursday in total number of passes made (53). Sadly those 53 passes only lead to 2 assists, but it's a dramatic increase from his average of 34 passes per game last year. This would seem to confirm what others in the thread have already said: we're involving him more in the offense, and he's looking to do more with the ball than just finish.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612761/passes-dash/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASS&dir=1

Edit: Also of note that as a team we made 315 passes in our first game whereas last year we were typically between 250-280

The problem with the boxscore passes is they include inbounds. Be interesting how many were front court passes, and to see the touches #s individually. Good start though if they think its going to be more sustainable.

100% but his previous years numbers would have also been skewed by including passes from in bounds or off rebounds. He was still never close to leading the team. It's too bad nba.com doesn't do tracking for preseason. My impression is JV was touching and moving the ball at an increased rate in those games as well.

Think the ball movement revolution is here to stay, which means so is the uptick in volume of threes. Can't see this as being a bad thing tbh.

[vini_vidi_vici]

The ISO/lack of ASTs wasnt just a virtue DC had, this was the approach of the management for quite some time (if you read Weltman/etc.. quotes to Ruckers tweets), im not sure why ppl keep implying this was DC centric or really any of the offensive principles. ASTs have less influence on ORTGs than most believe, its a myth anyways.

again, forest for the trees man. for sure it was supported by the organization but Dwayne Casey is the coach who in a playoff game 7 gave DD 32 FGA when he had shot beyond horribly throughout the series and had at that time an almost WOAT playoff FG%. It wasn't Weltman who did that. And please don't say "We won that game and DD scored 30 points" as if it somehow vindicates Casey. 30 points on 32 FGA is NOT a winning formula.

You can't tell me Casey has not been the engine driving our static offensive approach. Really. That is just silly.

You can keep implying im missing something, but its an ad hominem.

DC didnt give him those. Our offense is a read/react offense, we rarely call plays much like the Spurs for instance, as its motion based. DD didnt pass, im sure DC would want him to pass more (this is arguing conjecture) but hes also not going to come out in the media and attack his players after a game 7 win either. Im not sure your point.

Yet they won, much like your representation of JVs USG equating to Ws. This is your narrative not mine. I dont believe there is one way of representing wins and losses through one individual. Theres alot of minutiae/context youre missing by taking this approach. What was DDs gravity scores? Perhaps he had a much larger impact than is quantified with only FGAs (again your example).

FWIW, ISOs have usually been our only improvement in terms of OPPP from the RS to POs the last few yrs.

[CoachJReturns]

Here's a one game stat that no one will believe: JV lead the team Thursday in total number of passes made (53). Sadly those 53 passes only lead to 2 assists, but it's a dramatic increase from his average of 34 passes per game last year. This would seem to confirm what others in the thread have already said: we're involving him more in the offense, and he's looking to do more with the ball than just finish.

https://stats.nba.com/team/1610612761/passes-dash/?Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASS&dir=1

Edit: Also of note that as a team we made 315 passes in our first game whereas last year we were typically between 250-280

The problem with the boxscore passes is they include inbounds. Be interesting how many were front court passes, and to see the touches #s individually. Good start though if they think its going to be more sustainable.

100% but his previous years numbers would have also been skewed by including passes from in bounds or off rebounds. He was still never close to leading the team. It's too bad nba.com doesn't do tracking for preseason. My impression is JV was touching and moving the ball at an increased rate in those games as well.

Think the ball movement revolution is here to stay, which means so is the uptick in volume of threes. Can't see this as being a bad thing tbh.

I think that under pressure, or even after a dozen games we may see the starters who have played the same way for years revert to their old habits sometimes, but I'm trying to remain optimistic that they'll give ball movement a chance in general.

[VanWest82]

A little somethin somethin for the JV fans...

[VanWest82]

[VanWest82]

[Rapcity_11]

Thanks for those graphs VanWest. Any reason you aren't using Ortg instead of net rating?

[Courtside]

I've been calling him NetZero for a couple of years, and this more or less proves it - and that's his best ever season by far.

[Rapcity_11]

I've been calling him NetZero for a couple of years, and this more or less proves it - and that's his best ever season by far.

So that makes Lowry a net negative?

[Courtside]

I've been calling him NetZero for a couple of years, and this more or less proves it - and that's his best ever season by far.

Thanks for those graphs VanWest. Any reason you aren't using Ortg instead of net rating?

Probably in response to VVV who used the poor NetRtg in a post a little further up the page.

First it was on/off, then it was +/-, now it's NetRtg. The goalposts keep moving.

[Rapcity_11]

Probably in response to VVV who used the poor NetRtg in a post a little further up the page.

First it was on/off, then it was +/-, now it's NetRtg. The goalposts keep moving.

That's not a compelling reason to use it here. And no idea what goalposts you're talking about.

[VanWest82]

Edit: graphs are fixed to show all games JV, DD, Lowry played last year. I'll do Ortg in a bit.

Also, for anyone clamouring for t stat or p values or whatever, t stat was over 2 for JV so think we can say we're significant @ 95%. Lowry and DD were below but it's pretty clear there isn't much correlation if any when it comes to their usage and on court Nrtg.

[VanWest82]

Thanks for those graphs VanWest. Any reason you aren't using Ortg instead of net rating?

That would probably yield a more reliable result - less noise, for sure - though I do think there are trickle down effects when the offense keys in on one guy over another that can impact the whole floor game, not just the offense. So I still think it's a worthwhile exercise.

To answer your question, I wanted something that addressed the "JV touches = winning" narrative directly, just to see if we could outright dismiss it. This by no means does that either way with any degree of certainty. Clearly our path to wins is a millions times more complicated than giving JV the damn ball, but it is evidence that perhaps there's some merit to the argument, and worthy of further quantitative analysis.