ImageImage

Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread

Moderators: BigSlam, JDR720, fatlever, yosemiteben, Diop

Chapelchilla
Senior
Posts: 679
And1: 334
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
         

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#361 » by Chapelchilla » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:19 pm

IDK JMAC, not sure that arguing with that guy is worth the effort you are putting into it.

I think Borrego is doing a good, not great job. We are still in the “learning what works” stage of the franchise and I like that he is open to trying different combos now when the stakes are lower.
If it was game 7 of series, I might feel differently.

But, I am pretty happy that yet again Kupchak nailed the draft and brought in likeable and skilled talent.
Also- Hayward has proved he is nothing at all like Batum after he got the $. He has been consistently playing good to great basketball and is a leader for the young guys. If he stays healthy getting him here was a smart move.
For the meantime, Borrego’s lineups have been working well enough that we have been able to win way more then anyone expected while stuck playing a 40 year old, brick handed journeyman at center (sorry Biz, just joking, I like his effort a lot, the talent, not so much). No Cody but Already have wins over Luka and Durant teams, crazy.
The Hornets have a good thing going right now all things considered and seem to have a much brighter future then many of their fans would have you believe.
I love watching this team play unselfish hoops and grow as players. The culture is hard working and the team gets along well, you can see it in their interactions (maybe not Monk, who might be a bad attitude hater type). And that’s a big improvement from last years doldrums...
DY_nasty
General Manager
Posts: 8,033
And1: 3,600
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#362 » by DY_nasty » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:33 pm

96 possessions isn't even worth mentioning. QCP knows it too.
JMAC3 wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:
graham doesn't get assisted buckets because he doesn't know how to get himself open. its why his FG% fell off a cliff this time last year and why the graham/rozier backcourt relationship has always been one-way in favor of graham.



Says who? This just seems to be totally based on your opinion and no stats or film to back it up.

Wouldn't it makes sense that someone on the team who is getting a lot of assists have a lower percentage of their shots assisted? The more the ball is in your hands the higher chance your shots will be unassisted. Ball and Graham are our leading assist getters. Ball has the lowest assisted percentage on his field goals on the team.. probably because he is assisting everyone else and has the ball in his hands the majority of time he is on floor. Same for Graham...

I am not going to do a billion hours of research to prove this point, but go look at Steve Nash's (first guy I thought of) percentage of his buckets assisted. It is very low as well probably because he had the ball so much. (this is my guess and I would need to do more research before I call it fact).

DY_nasty wrote:
you still need to explain why the team is overpassing to horrible success at what should be easy shots. that's a team offense problem and who runs it most of the time? individual fg% is wholly *not* what this is centered around. there is no excuse for a starting PG to stall out multiple times against the Atlanta hawks. if you've got something on that note - i'd love to hear it man.


The number of passes we make doesn't indicate that we are struggling to find easy shots, this is a huge assumption by you . It could be a system that we have in place to move the ball from one side of the court to the other. We run a lot of dribble hand off actions which is 2 passes every time that happens.

I commend you for trying to connect the stats, but it doesn't seem like you are painting a clear picture of what passes indicate for an offense, what high assisted percentage shots mean for an offense. I know you said something about the suns, but that is too small of a sample size.

Do you have something like the 10 least efficient teams all rank in the top half of total passes averaged per game? Or that teams that assist a high percentage of field goals are ranked in the bottom half of offense? It just seems like you are taking a very small sample of stats and not correlating it back to league averages to see if trends exists. You are reaching for straws and trying to create a narrative based on what you believe you are seeing on the court.

the first is a monstrous tangent from the initial point and you know it :roll:

the second point may as well be giving up altogether. which is fine its not something that can really be effectively argued in the first place

i painted the correlation immediately. you can't explain why we pass the ball so much (fist in the league in total passes, ast% and ast ratio) and get bad looks at the rim of all places with mediocre-bad looks everywhere else. it doesn't matter if the ball is going left right or to the moon if it doesn't end in an efficient offense. you want to make a statement against that specifically (and not what pg is doing or monk did last year or whatever else)? do it with your own numbers. that's how this works. hell, i like being wrong more than being right. ask anyone.

its on the lead pg and jb. you have to go mental gymnastics to say anything else. and once again circling around to why i'm on graham so much - he's shooting bad and running a crap offense while JB is letting him play 30 minutes a night.

i get to complain about it.
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#363 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:49 pm

DY_nasty wrote:the first is a monstrous tangent from the initial point and you know it :roll:

the second point may as well be giving up altogether.


Alright man, answer the questions you want to answer and avoid the ones you do not have answers to or don't know how to find the answer to.

If you can't back up your opinions with stats then they really are just the opinions of one man.
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#364 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:55 pm

DY_nasty wrote:96 possessions isn't even worth mentioning. QCP knows it too.



Sure 96 possessions isn't a ton, but it seems to be enough for you to claim that lineup can't work, but yet it is working thus far. Also, 323 possessions of PJ at the 5 and we are playing winning basketball.

Just think numbers are more important than you tend to give credit to, we do not have to agree on everything though.

So cheers.
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
DY_nasty
General Manager
Posts: 8,033
And1: 3,600
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#365 » by DY_nasty » Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:56 pm

JMAC3 wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:the first is a monstrous tangent from the initial point and you know it :roll:

the second point may as well be giving up altogether.


Alright man, answer the questions you want to answer and avoid the ones you do not have answers to or don't know how to find the answer to.

If you can't back up your opinions with stats then they really are just the opinions of one man.

i literally started this with advanced stats v raw stats, provided context, a comparison, and qualifiers

and lets look at what you've replied with

baseball
monk/richards/vern
paul george
individual shooting %s
insults

this is a you problem. doesn't really bother me because i like to see how stuff goes when i'm killing time. but you don't have to be like this man. seriously.

gonna edit the last part to not come off patronizing, but seriously dude - chill out
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#366 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:08 pm

DY_nasty wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:the first is a monstrous tangent from the initial point and you know it :roll:

the second point may as well be giving up altogether.


Alright man, answer the questions you want to answer and avoid the ones you do not have answers to or don't know how to find the answer to.

If you can't back up your opinions with stats then they really are just the opinions of one man.

i literally started this with advanced stats v raw stats, provided context, a comparison, and qualifiers

and lets look at what you've replied with

baseball
monk/richards/vern
paul george
individual shooting %s
insults

this is a you problem. doesn't really bother me because i like to see how stuff goes when i'm killing time. but you don't have to be like this man. seriously.
JMAC3 wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:96 possessions isn't even worth mentioning. QCP knows it too.



Sure 96 possessions isn't a ton, but it seems to be enough for you to claim that lineup can't work, but yet it is working thus far. Also, 323 possessions of PJ at the 5 and we are playing winning basketball.

Just think numbers are more important than you tend to give credit to, we do not have to agree on everything though.

So cheers.

how many total possessions have we had?

this is what i mean. its okay to know what you're talking about before going out and trying to win every argument. there's a discussion to be had regarding that glimpse, but not like that man.


Because honestly you say a lot without saying anything. I brought up Monk because you are saying to play Graham less and were implying we need to play Monk. Like Monk is the answer and we have a great iso scorer on the bench (example PG) when we don't so Graham is still our best option.

When you say how many possessions we have played.. that is kind of counter intuitive by you. You complain about PJ playing the 5 whenever he does it, but over the course of all our possessions he is there we are a winning team.

If we have played 1000 possessions on the season 10 games with 100 possessions a game.

And 323 we have played with PJ at the 5 we are a winning basketball team

The 677 we have played without PJ at the 5 we are a losing team.

Which one should we want to see more of? You are campaigning to play the lineup without PJ at the 5 even though it is a bigger sample size and it is showing to be a losing combination. That does not make sense.
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
DY_nasty
General Manager
Posts: 8,033
And1: 3,600
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#367 » by DY_nasty » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:13 pm

where do i specifically imply or state monk needs graham's minutes?

again, this started when gatz and i were discussing rozier's focus on scoring v passing now that he's on the hornets. i don't even know why you're talking about PJ.
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#368 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:24 pm

I just think you make a whole of assumptions without much data to back it up. Here are a few that come to mind.

PJ playing at the 5 is a bad lineup.
Graham needs Rozier, Rozier doesn't need Graham.
Graham has a low assisted field goal percentage because he can't move without the ball.
The more passes in an offense means inefficiency.

When you dive into the actual data, almost all these are actually the opposite of your opinion or have no data correlations to back it up. Which is fine, but just think it is funny that you will fight endlessly even with the numbers being on the other side.
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
DY_nasty
General Manager
Posts: 8,033
And1: 3,600
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#369 » by DY_nasty » Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:43 pm

JMAC3 wrote:I just think you make a whole of assumptions without much data to back it up. Here are a few that come to mind.

PJ playing at the 5 is a bad lineup.
Graham needs Rozier, Rozier doesn't need Graham.
Graham has a low assisted field goal percentage because he can't move without the ball.
The more passes in an offense means inefficiency.

When you dive into the actual data, almost all these are actually the opposite of your opinion or have no data correlations to back it up. Which is fine, but just think it is funny that you will fight endlessly even with the numbers being on the other side.

?

PJ at the 5 fits right along with our poor finishing inside though. Graham *does* have issues moving without the ball and always has.

Currently we're top 5 in contested 3s per game as well.

All these things line up. If you really want to make your argument worse, then talking up PJ while he's sitting at 20% usage rate despite taking big steps back offensively is how you get there.

More passes don't necessarily mean inefficiency, but more passes accompanied by a bottom of the league %? Yeah. That's actually a huge problem.

Edit: To match the lineup talk - you can go right back to a lot of these late game surges we've had to make games a bit closer than they have any right to be. That's a big reason why those shortened pulls aren't something to cling to heavily right now.
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#370 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:00 pm

DY_nasty wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:I just think you make a whole of assumptions without much data to back it up. Here are a few that come to mind.

PJ playing at the 5 is a bad lineup.
Graham needs Rozier, Rozier doesn't need Graham.
Graham has a low assisted field goal percentage because he can't move without the ball.
The more passes in an offense means inefficiency.

When you dive into the actual data, almost all these are actually the opposite of your opinion or have no data correlations to back it up. Which is fine, but just think it is funny that you will fight endlessly even with the numbers being on the other side.

?

PJ at the 5 fits right along with our poor finishing inside though. Graham *does* have issues moving without the ball and always has.

Currently we're top 5 in contested 3s per game as well.

All these things line up. If you really want to make your argument worse, then talking up PJ while he's sitting at 20% usage rate despite taking big steps back offensively is how you get there.

More passes don't necessarily mean inefficiency, but more passes accompanied by a bottom of the league %? Yeah. That's actually a huge problem.

Edit: To match the lineup talk - you can go right back to a lot of these late game surges we've had to make games a bit closer than they have any right to be. That's a big reason why those shortened pulls aren't something to cling to heavily right now.


Could you link to where you got the stat about contested threes? Thanks
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
DY_nasty
General Manager
Posts: 8,033
And1: 3,600
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#371 » by DY_nasty » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:11 pm

JMAC3 wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:I just think you make a whole of assumptions without much data to back it up. Here are a few that come to mind.

PJ playing at the 5 is a bad lineup.
Graham needs Rozier, Rozier doesn't need Graham.
Graham has a low assisted field goal percentage because he can't move without the ball.
The more passes in an offense means inefficiency.

When you dive into the actual data, almost all these are actually the opposite of your opinion or have no data correlations to back it up. Which is fine, but just think it is funny that you will fight endlessly even with the numbers being on the other side.

?

PJ at the 5 fits right along with our poor finishing inside though. Graham *does* have issues moving without the ball and always has.

Currently we're top 5 in contested 3s per game as well.

All these things line up. If you really want to make your argument worse, then talking up PJ while he's sitting at 20% usage rate despite taking big steps back offensively is how you get there.

More passes don't necessarily mean inefficiency, but more passes accompanied by a bottom of the league %? Yeah. That's actually a huge problem.

Edit: To match the lineup talk - you can go right back to a lot of these late game surges we've had to make games a bit closer than they have any right to be. That's a big reason why those shortened pulls aren't something to cling to heavily right now.


Could you link to where you got the stat about contested threes? Thanks

whoops pulled that from defense :lol: https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/hustle-leaders/ good catch
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#372 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:14 pm

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/passing/?sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=1

We rank second in passes made per game, lead the league in assists, lead lead in potential assists and secondary assists. We are also third in assist to pass% which is really good stat I believe. Not sure our passing is leading to inefficient offense.

For example Sixers lead the league in passes per game and you can make the argument they are playing better than anyone right now.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/touches/?sort=AVG_SEC_PER_TOUCH&dir=-1

Also we rank first in lowest seconds per touch, meaning we are moving the ball faster than any other team in the league.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/touches/?sort=PAINT_TOUCHES&dir=1

We also are 8th in paint touches, meaning we are getting the ball inside the paint a good amount of times per game. Problem is we are just not getting a lot of points per paint touch. Which sucks, but I would rather be getting there a lot and then work on becoming more efficient.

Overall, I think JB has the team playing a really good style of Basketball offensively.



Also, here is a link to some shooting numbers, that indicate how many shots we are taking when we are covered tight, very tight, open etc.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender/?sort=FG3A_FREQUENCY&dir=1&Season=2020-21&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CloseDefDistRange=4-6%20Feet%20-%20Open

According to these stats, we shoot open threes at the 10th highest rate in the league, which is not bad. On those attempts we shoot the 9th highest percentage on open three point looks.
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
User avatar
JMAC3
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,035
And1: 1,168
Joined: May 22, 2010
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#373 » by JMAC3 » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:15 pm

DY_nasty wrote:
JMAC3 wrote:
DY_nasty wrote:?

PJ at the 5 fits right along with our poor finishing inside though. Graham *does* have issues moving without the ball and always has.

Currently we're top 5 in contested 3s per game as well.

All these things line up. If you really want to make your argument worse, then talking up PJ while he's sitting at 20% usage rate despite taking big steps back offensively is how you get there.

More passes don't necessarily mean inefficiency, but more passes accompanied by a bottom of the league %? Yeah. That's actually a huge problem.

Edit: To match the lineup talk - you can go right back to a lot of these late game surges we've had to make games a bit closer than they have any right to be. That's a big reason why those shortened pulls aren't something to cling to heavily right now.


Could you link to where you got the stat about contested threes? Thanks

whoops pulled that from defense :lol: https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/hustle-leaders/ good catch


Looks like from this link, thank you for that. We are actually doing a decent job defensively on contesting shots on defense.

Check out some of the links I just posted on passing and shooting, it was better than I was expecting.
Big Board
1. Vontae Mack no matter what!!
DY_nasty
General Manager
Posts: 8,033
And1: 3,600
Joined: Apr 14, 2010

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#374 » by DY_nasty » Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:24 pm

yeah its not actually bad, just..... 'weird'

gonna double back to the atlanta games (and not focus too much on the fact that trae young actively boycotting playing any real offense has thrown their entire team through a loop)

http://popcornmachine.net/gf?date=20210109&game=ATLCHA

http://popcornmachine.net/gf?date=20210106&game=CHAATL

these kinds of series-types of performances against a closely matched team can kinda lay out how/when/why our advantageous lineups occur. also you can scroll over each of the times, click, and go down the list for all measured stats in that run.

devonte isn't even bad in short stints or closing - that's why its so weird that he's left out there for ages doing nothing
User avatar
SWedd523
General Manager
Posts: 9,160
And1: 1,655
Joined: Jul 07, 2009
   

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#375 » by SWedd523 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:22 am

Devonte could keep up his current play for the entire season and I would STILL rather see him run point than Rozier or give his minutes to Monk

Rozier needs to focus on what he's good at:. Putting the ball in the bucket

Monk needs to focus on what he's go..... Just kidding, the dude is booty.

I get being down on Devonte right now. I really, really do. But for Monk? Bruh...
Image
User avatar
yosemiteben
Forum Mod - Hornets
Forum Mod - Hornets
Posts: 16,828
And1: 9,943
Joined: Mar 20, 2013
   

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#376 » by yosemiteben » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:44 am

Yeah there's some serious TLDR going on for me
Chapelchilla
Senior
Posts: 679
And1: 334
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
         

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#377 » by Chapelchilla » Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:38 am

Here is another interesting stat - from NBA.COM

Schedule Strength through Week 3

Toughest: 1. Memphis, 2. Charlotte, 3. Detroit

So, the Hornets have played the 2nd hardest schedule in the league so far.......
I knew coming into the year it was tough early but dang, second hardest overall!

Plus - we were supposed to be bad this year going in (or even terrible according to many of our own "fans"), in the first game we lost our starting center, we are playing several second rounders in the rotation while breaking in a rookie PG and added a supposedly broken down 4th option at best, soon to be a lazy Batum- like scrub, who is on the worst contract in whole league!

Yet somehow we have a winning record with actual quality victories over full strength teams and as a big bonus they are playing very exciting modern NBA basketball.
I think Borrego is doing a nice job as coach and Kupchak has done a good job building the roster.

Most importantly- the team is entertaining AND relevant again.
yasuhara2241
Freshman
Posts: 92
And1: 37
Joined: Jul 04, 2015
     

Re: Not Van Damme: The James Borrego Thread 

Post#378 » by yasuhara2241 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:10 pm

I don't have stats just watch the game and go by what I see. It could be wrong but that's why we go to a forum to discuss everything.

1. No shock but Graham has struggled. He has mostly been down. Yes, his assists are high but he does need to have the ball in his hands a lot. He's been ok spotting up but after making 1, he chucks a difficult one a few plays later.

2. A few games ago, I wanted Ball and Miles to start because our starters kept hurting us and we were getting behind early. Hayward and PJ have really stepped it up. Rozier has been consistent all year and has been playing well. Biz and Graham are still behind.

3. Our zone defense works....when a team isn't shooting well from 3 or there isn't a dominant big.

4. Ball is a walking triple double this early is crazy. I don't care if he starts if he's getting 30 min a game. Our offense is faster and seems to run better with him at the point.

5. If we go to the 3 guard lineup, let's not keep Ball in the corner. Let him run the point and have Graham in the corner.

6. I might have jumped the gun on Caleb. He has been playing well. But Cody Martin is hard to watch on offense.

Return to Charlotte Hornets