Oklahoma City Thunder Regular Season Thread: Part IV

Pillendreher · Post #1501 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 1:52 pm

bondom34 wrote:The starters have a D rating of 140 in the fourth quarter, so something's up there.

They only played 13 minutes in losses in the 4th quarter tho. Overall, they have a DRtG of 98 or something like that in the 4th quarter.

Post #1502 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 1:56 pm

Pillendreher wrote:
bondom34 wrote:The starters have a D rating of 140 in the fourth quarter, so something's up there.

They only played 13 minutes in losses in the 4th quarter tho. Overall, they have a DRtG of 98 or something like that in the 4th quarter.

That's more a function of Dre not playing enough. They've played 23 minutes total, 88 in the 3rd quarter for comparison. The 23 minutes have a 140 rating.

Pillendreher · Post #1503 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 1:57 pm

Whoops wrong column. Yeah, you're right.

Pillendreher · Post #1504 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 2:13 pm

Interesting point posted on DT: This the first year since 2009 without a 2nd ballhandler out there in the 4th quarter. We always had another guy to handle the ball and help offensively. Harden, Fisher and Jackson, maybe Martin even a little bit. Waiters and Foye are nowhere near that level and it's been hurting us badly.

But OK Billy, let's NOT play Payne.

Post #1505 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 2:25 pm

Pillendreher wrote:Interesting point posted on DT: This the first year since 2009 without a 2nd ballhandler out there in the 4th quarter. We always had another guy to handle the ball and help offensively. Harden, Fisher and Jackson, maybe Martin even a little bit. Waiters and Foye are nowhere near that level and it's been hurting us badly.

But OK Billy, let's NOT play Payne.

I've never seen a coach have a hard time with lineups, find one that consistently worked for a long stretch of the season, then willingly go to ones that didn't work despite success and failure.

Pillendreher · Post #1506 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 2:38 pm

bondom34 wrote:
Pillendreher wrote:Interesting point posted on DT: This the first year since 2009 without a 2nd ballhandler out there in the 4th quarter. We always had another guy to handle the ball and help offensively. Harden, Fisher and Jackson, maybe Martin even a little bit. Waiters and Foye are nowhere near that level and it's been hurting us badly.

But OK Billy, let's NOT play Payne.

I've never seen a coach have a hard time with lineups, find one that consistently worked for a long stretch of the season, then willingly go to ones that didn't work despite success and failure.

Never count out Presti. This is his doing.

Post #1507 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 2:43 pm

Pillendreher wrote:
bondom34 wrote:
Pillendreher wrote:Interesting point posted on DT: This the first year since 2009 without a 2nd ballhandler out there in the 4th quarter. We always had another guy to handle the ball and help offensively. Harden, Fisher and Jackson, maybe Martin even a little bit. Waiters and Foye are nowhere near that level and it's been hurting us badly.

But OK Billy, let's NOT play Payne.

I've never seen a coach have a hard time with lineups, find one that consistently worked for a long stretch of the season, then willingly go to ones that didn't work despite success and failure.

Never count out Presti. This is his doing.

This is Donovan, he's just not good.

And really, this isn't even about yesterday as much as it stunk to lose to Houston. Yesterday was just an effort issue.

Pillendreher · Post #1508 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 2:50 pm

bondom34 wrote:
Pillendreher wrote:
bondom34 wrote:I've never seen a coach have a hard time with lineups, find one that consistently worked for a long stretch of the season, then willingly go to ones that didn't work despite success and failure.

Never count out Presti. This is his doing.

This is Donovan, he's just not good.

And really, this isn't even about yesterday as much as it stunk to lose to Houston. Yesterday was just an effort issue.

Of course that's on Donovan as well, but this 'playing bad/terrible players over better players' happened under Brooks as well. I don't believe that both Brooks and Donovan are both too stupid to recognize they're not playing their best guys. Presti traded for or signed Fisher, Butler, Foye and Waiters. They played, no matter what. And I'm fairly certain we're gonna the same thing happening to them in the upcoming playoffs like what happened to Thabo and Butler in 2014: With the season on the line, Donovan won't keep playing those fools, but by then it's gonna be too late.

Post #1509 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 2:54 pm

Pillendreher wrote:
bondom34 wrote:
Pillendreher wrote:
Never count out Presti. This is his doing.

This is Donovan, he's just not good.

And really, this isn't even about yesterday as much as it stunk to lose to Houston. Yesterday was just an effort issue.

Of course that's on Donovan as well, but this 'playing bad/terrible players over better players' happened under Brooks as well. I don't believe that both Brooks and Donovan are both too stupid to recognize they're not playing their best guys. Presti traded for or signed Fisher, Butler, Foye and Waiters. They played, no matter what. And I'm fairly certain we're gonna the same thing happening to them in the upcoming playoffs like what happened to Thabo and Butler in 2014: With the season on the line, Donovan won't keep playing those fools, but by then it's gonna be too late.

The problem being Fisher (and to a lesser extent Caron) performed somewhat. Waiters and Foye have not. Fisher actually played reasonably well for a stretch and wasa solid backup PG. Butler played pretty well for a while too. Comparing them to Dion and Foye isn't fair to them in the least.

Pillendreher · Post #1510 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 3:07 pm

They may have been a little bit better, but in no way should they've gotten that kind of minutes.

Post #1511 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 3:28 pm

Pillendreher wrote:They may have been a little bit better, but in no way should they've gotten that kind of minutes.

I'd say look at the numbers that season and compare them.

Pillendreher · Post #1512 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 3:39 pm

http://bkref.com/tiny/2aAhk

I don't see that big a differnece.

Post #1513 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 3:54 pm

Pillendreher wrote:http://bkref.com/tiny/2aAhk

I don't see that big a differnece.

Look at Caron's numbers only in OKC. Also, Fisher is pretty clearly best of the 4.

Caron had a .548 TS and the only positive BPM of the 4, 13/4/2 per 36 and .340 3 point shooting in OKC. His Bucks numbers stunk.

Bergmaniac · Post #1514 » by **Bergmaniac** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 4:38 pm

Caron was also a total joke on defense IIRC. Pretty much all he was good for at this stage of his career was shooting open 3s.

Post #1515 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 4:57 pm

Bergmaniac wrote:Caron was also a total joke on defense IIRC. Pretty much all he was good for at this stage of his career was shooting open 3s.

I mean honestly you can't even say that about Dion or Foye most of the time.

Pillendreher · Post #1516 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 5:24 pm

I think we can all agree that neither one of those guys should have been out there for that kind of minutes.

Post #1517 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 5:28 pm

Pillendreher wrote:I think we can all agree that neither one of those guys should have been out there for that kind of minutes.

Fisher you could make an argument for, Caron not as much. Neither Dion or Foye should be.

Pillendreher · Post #1518 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 5:44 pm

Fish at least was a proven winner and made big plays.

Post #1519 » by **bondom34** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 6:18 pm

Pillendreher wrote:Fish at least was a proven winner and made big plays.

Yeah I could live with him, even if the point was "proven vet on the court". Foye is just older without the pedigree, and he's not even as good as 40 year old D Fish.

Pillendreher · Post #1520 » by **Pillendreher** » Mon Apr 4, 2016 8:33 pm

OK, so I did a little more thinking on the 4th quarter troubles. Our NetRtG in 4th quarters in losses is -25.7. There's only one team in the last 20 seasons (!!!!) that had a worse NetRtG in the 4th quarter in losses: The 2008-2009 Atlanta Hawks with -26.2. That's it.
Their overall NetRtG in losses? -9.8.

Like I've shown above, we have the best NetRtG in losses at -8.0. Over the last 20 seasons, there hasn't been one team that had a better NetRtG in the first half of losses than us at +0.9 this season (2nd best Heat with -6.1); the only other team with a neutral or positive NetRtG in the first half of losses: The 09-10 Celtics at 0.0.
Meanwhile, our NetRtG in the 2nd half of losses is the worst at -16.9. That's not historically bad over the last 20 years, but still very terrible.

Let's have a look at our lineup usage in those situations: Our best 4-man-unit is Westbrook-Roberson-Durant-Adams at +17.5 in 846 minutes. In losses, that unit has played 226 minutes with a NetRtG of +1.0. That's 117 minutes in the first half at a NetRtG of -0.8 and 109 minutes at a NetRtG of +2.2. So the minutes are quite evenly split. I thought maybe we didn't play our starters, but that's not the case apparantly.

How come we're historically great in the first half of losses and historically bad in the 4th quarter of losses? What could be the reason for that kind of discrepancy? It can't be because we've been blown out that often, hence the very good NetRtG.