Atlanta Hawks model

[Slava]

Ok, I think I found what you are after. Still not sure how you separated that before and after line up change, like you say but that line up plays 13 mins a game and scores 99.7 points per 100 possessions, still 7 more points per 100 possessions than Philly's team this season. So not sure how its the worst in NBA history.

http://stats.nba.com/team/#!/1610612747 ... /advanced/
http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2015.html

I need to kill myself after this.

Well you were the one who first asked for it! Took me a while! I must admit that doing advanced stats has come slow for me too and it's a big headache.

Anyways, there's this gear button on the right where you can put the dates in and filters like games played or minutes played.

I guess maybe the Sixers have played better since December? Or maybe they have too many lineup changes so there isn't one lineup that has played long enough. OTOH, they at 93 is still better than the Lakers new starting lineup at 91 in the first quarter. They're doing an open tank tho, and got some serious backlash, so Scott is doing a good job of balancing.

Not sure what you are looking at, its still 100 when I filtered by date.



and there's like 111 teams in NBA history with lesser offensive rating than that.

http://bkref.com/tiny/Vtaiz

[ChokeFasncists]

I guess maybe the Sixers have played better since December? Or maybe they have too many lineup changes so there isn't one lineup that has played long enough. OTOH, they at 93 is still better than the Lakers new starting lineup at 91 in the first quarter. They're doing an open tank tho, and got some serious backlash, so Scott is doing a good job of balancing.

Not sure what you are looking at, its still 100 when I filtered by date.



and there's like 111 teams in NBA history with lesser offensive rating than that.

http://bkref.com/tiny/Vtaiz

In the first quarter! OMG!! That IS the worst ever! Your link totally confirms the eye-test!!! (and prediction)

I don't know why they play better as the game goes on (probably cuz the opponents are relaxed) but for the beginning of games, they have been THE WORST ever!!! The worst team had 92.2! The slugfest we have endured at the start of games is absolutely the worst possible!

So, I dunno if it's Scott is really that bad of a coach or he's stealth tanking. My guess is the latter.

[Slava]

I guess maybe the Sixers have played better since December? Or maybe they have too many lineup changes so there isn't one lineup that has played long enough. OTOH, they at 93 is still better than the Lakers new starting lineup at 91 in the first quarter. They're doing an open tank tho, and got some serious backlash, so Scott is doing a good job of balancing.

Not sure what you are looking at, its still 100 when I filtered by date.



and there's like 111 teams in NBA history with lesser offensive rating than that.

http://bkref.com/tiny/Vtaiz

In the first quarter! OMG!! That IS the worst ever! Your link totally confirms the eye-test!!! (and prediction)

I don't know why they play better as the game goes on (probably cuz the opponents are relaxed) but for the beginning of games, they have been THE WORST ever!!! The worst team had 92.2! The slugfest we have endured at the start of games is absolutely the worst possible!

So, I dunno if it's Scott is really that bad of a coach or he's stealth tanking. My guess is the latter.

That line up plays 13 mins per game, so you are essentially looking at like 6 mins worth of offensive ratings if you are zeroing in on the first quarter when the subs come on and comparing historically. I'm not sure you understand the absurdity of your comparison and the further leap you are making to criticize Scott. I might lose a few brain cells if I continue this discussion.

[Slava]

FYI here's the offensive rating by quarter for that line up

Q1 13 games 85 mins 91.1
Q2 12 games 55 mins 100.1
Q3 13 games 85 mins 110.1
Q4 10 games 46 mins 104.2

So if you take the 3rd quarter with same minutes as the first that's good enough for 5th best in the league

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ml#misc::8

Is Scott a great 3rd quarter coach then? See how stupid that logic sounds?

[jackwindham]

An underrated aspect of the Hawks' rise is the fact that their top player, Horford, was more than willing to buy into the team first concept that the coach brought over. Bryant will forever be remembered as one of the greatest, but I'm not sure he has it in him to buy in like Horford did.

[TyCobb]

An underrated aspect of the Hawks' rise is the fact that their top player, Horford, was more than willing to buy into the team first concept that the coach brought over. Bryant will forever be remembered as one of the greatest, but I'm not sure he has it in him to buy in like Horford did.

Errrr hit the brakes. Kobe bought in for 5 championships. The Hawks haven't won squat.

It's not that Kobe won't 'buy in' anymore, it's the simple fact that he's 36-years-old.

[ChokeFasncists]

That line up plays 13 mins per game, so you are essentially looking at like 6 mins worth of offensive ratings if you are zeroing in on the first quarter when the subs come on and comparing historically. I'm not sure you understand the absurdity of your comparison and the further leap you are making to criticize Scott.

First of all, I'm not trying to criticize Scott, I've been saying he's doing a very good job, it's a tough balancing act. OTOH are you gonna say he's doing a good job coaching winning basketball? You really don't care about the pick?

FYI here's the offensive rating by quarter for that line up

Q1 13 games 85 mins 91.1
Q2 12 games 55 mins 100.1
Q3 13 games 85 mins 110.1
Q4 10 games 46 mins 104.2

So if you take the 3rd quarter with same minutes as the first that's good enough for 5th best in the league

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ml#misc::8

Is Scott a great 3rd quarter coach then? See how stupid that logic sounds?

Sometimes, things aren't just logical. This is one of those cases. If you are playing 100 games a year, your opponents' starting lineup score 6 points in 8 minutes, how are you gonna play D in the third quarter? Or if you're up by 30 in the third quarter, how hard you gonna play D?

The beginning of games are true indications of how a starting lineup does. There are other factors afterwards, like the subs giving it a boost, the opponents don't try as hard, etc.

If the team manages to win big despite bad starts, then it's a totally different story. But that's not the case here.

[Slava]

Lakers play well, opponents did not try hard.
Lakers don't play well, fire Scott.

That's logical.

[GeorgeDillion]

This season has been one of the most frustrating ever and it has little to do with our record.

[jackwindham]

Errrr hit the brakes. Kobe bought in for 5 championships. The Hawks haven't won squat. It's not that Kobe won't 'buy in' anymore, it's the simple fact that he's 36-years-old.

Those championships that Bryant won had more to do with his out of this world talent than him buying in. It wasn't where he sacrificed a ton of touches or became a pass first guard. He just flat out dominated the league. Not the same thing as what I'm talking about. I simply cannot see Bryant changing away from his aggressive mentality. It just wouldn't be natural for him.

[Marionettetc]

Errrr hit the brakes. Kobe bought in for 5 championships. The Hawks haven't won squat. It's not that Kobe won't 'buy in' anymore, it's the simple fact that he's 36-years-old.

Those championships that Bryant won had more to do with his out of this world talent than him buying in. It wasn't where he sacrificed a ton of touches or became a pass first guard. He just flat out dominated the league. Not the same thing as what I'm talking about. I simply cannot see Bryant changing away from his aggressive mentality. It just wouldn't be natural for him.

You sure about that? Kobe was the first non ex-bull on all of those championship teams to memorize the triangle to the point where he could help teach/run it on the court without Phil or Tex.

Given what we saw from Kobe when it was just him +LO and loose pocket change on the court for like three years post Shaq/pre Pau, it's quite obvious that his usage could have been much higher.

He also lead the league in assists from his position for most of his career discounting his low minute early years.

I don't think it had as much to do with his talent as you think. Kobe used to run down every fast break, guard the best opposing player every night, full court press, make the extra pass to stonehanded teammates, play like 38+ minutes a game, through injuries, lead the team in scoring, draw double/triple teams every night.

If that's not "buying in" then I'm not sure I understand what is. Like Ty said, he simply cannot do all of those things every night now, and like you said (I agree with half of your post), it's been very hard for him to come to terms with his new physical capabilities and shake off career long habits, the very ones that made him as successful as he is.

[ChokeFasncists]

Lakers play well, opponents did not try hard.
Lakers don't play well, fire Scott.

That's logical.

Hey now you're putting words into my mouth. I never said Scott should be fired. It's just not a normal situation. The west is brutal and there's that Nash trade situation. Randle's out. What is he supposed to do? Magic already came out and said it.

The key is the second year, is it gonna be like NJ/NO? Or Cleveland?

You have watched a fair amount of first quarter droughts? Just look at the Portland games, they were dogging it until the final minutes of the game. Stats' stats, interpretation is art and science.

[Jakay]

I feel like this team is more in the Lakers 2002 model.

Fisher - Price

It's child's play really.

Spoiler:

I'm posting this for my own amusement, no one else's.

[cw3k]

Lakers play well, opponents did not try hard.
Lakers don't play well, fire Scott.

That's logical.

Lakers play well, credit Scott

Lakers don't play well, blame the players, especially the role players.

If you have watch post game interviews on Pop, he took blame and credit his players, especially his bench. He makes the bench feel special and needed. He also make everyone accountable. Just not seeing Scott has any good coach quality.

[crazyeights]

First of all, I'm not trying to criticize Scott, I've been saying he's doing a very good job....

Do you really believe that?

Sometimes, things aren't just logical.

One of the best things I've ever read on this board.

[Michael Lucky]

I think Scott is a terrible coach for today's NBA game but i'm hardly going to blame the Lakers record on him. The lack of talent on the team is glaring. Besides there's no point in having players like Lin who aren't going to be part of the team's future in getting heavy minutes when the lakers need to see what they have in those players that might be here next year.

[crazyeights]

Lakers play well, opponents did not try hard.
Lakers don't play well, fire Scott.

That's logical.

Lakers play well, credit Scott

Lakers don't play well, blame the players, especially the role players.

If you have watch post game interviews on Pop, he took blame and credit his players, especially his bench. He makes the bench feel special and needed. He also make everyone accountable. Just not seeing Scott has any good coach quality.

Go back to this summer and look at the coaching search thread. Most of the board was totally unenthused about Scott. He was the most boring, obvious choice, simply because he's a former Laker and the brass was feeling the heat from idiotic fans who were so up in arms about MDA they'd have hired a literal can of Pringles.

The truth is we weren't in a position to attract a top coach, especially being that there weren't any great options available (especially if we were looking for someone with "previous HC experience.") So the board was resigned to the fact that Jimmy has no taste and hired a figurehead.

Having said that, this team right now does not matter. They are essentially walking corpses, traipsing about in between Laker Girls dances, running up the ping pong balls. We're in rebuild mode, and not even Robo Phil could save this team from their own mediocrity.

You bring up guys blaming role players, which I think we all know what you're doing there. What's funny is anyone blaming anything at all. The fact that people are upset about these losses is more their problem accepting that we suck.

[ChokeFasncists]

First of all, I'm not trying to criticize Scott, I've been saying he's doing a very good job....

Do you really believe that?

After several games at the beginning, I was like, WTF? Hill and Boozer can't be the bigs tandem. He didn't change, um......something strange. Next he changed the lineup and he did a wholesale change, defensive and offensive. That can't be normal? Stealth tank. That's what I believe. He gave the Nets RJ and Collins, two of their starters in the finals teams; he gave NO CP3 and earned COTY soon after; he gave the Cavs Kyrie. I don't think it's a coincidence and if he has been really trying to win I'd be pretty shocked.

Sometimes, things aren't just logical.

One of the best things I've ever read on this board.

~lol~ Or one could say there are deeper levels of logic when different species that are seemingly unrelated are put together!