PC Board OT thread

[Texas Chuck]

They just need Barnes back imo. it's really that simple. His numbers are modest but he's a very important cog.

[Dr Spaceman]

They just need Barnes back imo. it's really that simple. His numbers are modest but he's a very important cog.

Barnes will help a lot, no doubt they need him.

That said, I'm not sure he fixes the specific problem I'm talking about. Last night for the first half of the fourth quarter the Dubs were running an all-bench unit against a Cavs lineup featuring Kyrie who was quickly joined by Love. The Cavs can stagger minutes such that the floor of any given lineup is relatively high because they can most of the time keep 2 of the 3 stars on the floor and worse case scenario it's LeBron & shooters by himself. Kyrie was bad yesterday, but in a playoff game it's not hard to see that 5 point lead suddenly turn into a 5 point deficit with those lineups.

The Warriors can bank on their starting 5 murdering teams to the extent they don't have to worry about this, but matched up against the Cavs and especially the Spurs, whose bench unit is like a +20 point differential, there's not a lot of breathing room.

[Texas Chuck]

IDK, I feel like the Warriors have a very solid top 8 with Ezeli, Livingston, and Iggy behind the starters. Add in some spot minutes for Barbosa and they should be fine with more time off between games and longer TV timeouts in the PS. Right now Rush and Clark are having to play because of some of the injuries they have dealt with.

I'd not be opposed to them signing one of the vets who will get cut after the deadline but I think they are fine. Spurs have to be deeper because of the age of some of their key players. Cavs aren't really that deep either--and I'm not sold on Kyrie/Love being that scary minus Lebron.

[euliss]

Yeah Kyrie/Love haven't really done much to prove themselves, last year when Lebron took his break they played a pretty bad stretch of games, not even coming close to .500

Once Kerr comes back and the rotations tighten up things will get better, Walton loves playing some really questionable lineups that really kill their defense (mostly Speights)

[Dr Spaceman]

Kerr coming back will definitely help things, I agree. Truthfully I don't see the Cavs as much of a title threat.

But the Spurs? I mean yeah they have to be deep because they're old, but their style of "depth" is a different thing entirely. Ginobili comes into the game and it's a 10+ point swing at times before other teams even know what hits them. Again Curry unfortunately has to go to the bench at times, and it's tough for me to see them being able to generate enough offense with him off the floor to be able to go toe to toe with San Antonio. Their bench defense is definitely great, but with the "big 3" (Manu,Diaw, Mills) on the floor the Spurs are legitimately unguardable (+22 net rating last I checked) and I don't think Livingston post ups and Klay curls are enough to outlast them even with the defense they play. And quite honestly with Gino playing at this level, the Spurs from 2-8 are far more formidable than the Dubs. They have the best player, but it's not always enough.

I'm not trying to say the ship is sinking or anything but a week ago I would've been ready to crown the Warriors and yet now I see a slightly open window.

[Dr Spaceman]

Just to clarify, the Warriors may well have a better starting lineup than the Spurs and yet still be at a disadvantage. If the Spurs can win the bench minutes by a significant margin, all the starters have to do is draw about even with the Warriors and we're talking about a win. I mean that's freaking scary.

[Slava]

Has there ever been a top head coach ranking project like the top 100 players project?

[NyCeEvO]

Has there ever been a top head coach ranking project like the top 100 players project?

Excellent idea!

You should do it. We can do the entire league, not just top 10.

This is one of aspect of the game that we rarely talk about as a group and yet many people have widely varying opinions on the value of a NBA coach. We'd all benefit from such a discussion.

[The-Power]

Has there ever been a top head coach ranking project like the top 100 players project?

Excellent idea!

Discussing the value of coaches would be interesting. However, the idea to rank coaches doesn't appeal to me personally because it's so tough to properly rate the work of coaches. At least with players we have enough data to have a fruitful discussion albeit opinions still differ significantly in many cases. I would imagine that discussions regarding the ranking of coaches are pointless most of the time because subjectivity and narratives are the gravediggers of any informative discussion - especially on a message board about something like basketball - and there will be plenty of it.

[NyCeEvO]

Has there ever been a top head coach ranking project like the top 100 players project?

Excellent idea!

Discussing the value of coaches would be interesting. However, the idea to rank coaches doesn't appeal to me personally because it's so tough to properly rate the work of coaches. At least with players we have enough data to have a fruitful discussion albeit opinions still differ significantly in many cases. I would imagine that discussions regarding the ranking of coaches are pointless most of the time because subjectivity and narratives are the gravediggers of any informative discussion - especially on a message board about something like basketball - and there will be plenty of it.

I definitely agree. The value would be in just getting a comprehensive discussion about NBA coaches. The actual ranking itself would/should be taken with a significant grain of salt.

With that said, if we had a general thread about coaching, I don't think it'd gain much traction. Ranking would at least get people talking.

[Doctor MJ]

Has there ever been a top head coach ranking project like the top 100 players project?

penbeast0 did one a while back:

viewtopic.php?t=913830

I'm not sure if any has been done since. Could be a good time to do it again.

[Slava]

Has there ever been a top head coach ranking project like the top 100 players project?

Excellent idea!

Discussing the value of coaches would be interesting. However, the idea to rank coaches doesn't appeal to me personally because it's so tough to properly rate the work of coaches. At least with players we have enough data to have a fruitful discussion albeit opinions still differ significantly in many cases. I would imagine that discussions regarding the ranking of coaches are pointless most of the time because subjectivity and narratives are the gravediggers of any informative discussion - especially on a message board about something like basketball - and there will be plenty of it.

Yeah this is why I'm not sure how practical it is, other than SRS, team ratings and point differentials there are precious few things to understand coaches before our time and I've only been alive for Popovich, Phil, Riley with the Knicks and Heat, Larry Brown, Spo and Rudy T in terms of multiple championship winners.

[Doctor MJ]

Excellent idea!

Discussing the value of coaches would be interesting. However, the idea to rank coaches doesn't appeal to me personally because it's so tough to properly rate the work of coaches. At least with players we have enough data to have a fruitful discussion albeit opinions still differ significantly in many cases. I would imagine that discussions regarding the ranking of coaches are pointless most of the time because subjectivity and narratives are the gravediggers of any informative discussion - especially on a message board about something like basketball - and there will be plenty of it.

Yeah this is why I'm not sure how practical it is, other than SRS, team ratings and point differentials there are precious few things to understand coaches before our time and I've only been alive for Popovich, Phil, Riley with the Knicks and Heat, Larry Brown, Spo and Rudy T in terms of multiple championship winners.

Our limitations mean it's quite right to expect the project to burn out quicker than a player project, but they also mean we might be able to learn more.

You haven't lived until you've seen me drunk-type my man-crush on Alex Hannum.

[GSP]

HOLY CRAPPPP!!!!!!!

Did u guys just see that shootout to end the 2nd between Omri Casspi and Curry? Jesus that was one of the greatest regular season moments ive seen in a long time. Omri was in that zone u get running ball with ur boys and u take every possession because of how hot u are Stupid Kings players didnt get him the ball every possession and getting into a shootout with Golden State is about as dumb a move as u can make and it got Steph back in the game who was like 0-6 but man was that entertaining to watch. Omri and Steph scored like 30+ pts in 3 minutes lol

[Clyde Frazier]

HOLY CRAPPPP!!!!!!!

Did u guys just see that shootout to end the 2nd between Omri Casspi and Curry? Jesus that was one of the greatest regular season moments ive seen in a long time. Omri was in that zone u get running ball with ur boys and u take every possession because of how hot u are Stupid Kings players didnt get him the ball every possession and getting into a shootout with Golden State is about as dumb a move as u can make and it got Steph back in the game who was like 0-6 but man was that entertaining to watch. Omri and Steph scored like 30+ pts in 3 minutes lol

I was lucky to have been watching it live. So entertaining. And yeah couldn't believe they didn't continue to go to Casspi. He's also having a career year with them. That team is a mess.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/casspom01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/casspom01/on-off/2016/

[Texas Chuck]

Mavs video department is the best:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POVYrMtDDDM&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

[NyCeEvO]

Discussing the value of coaches would be interesting. However, the idea to rank coaches doesn't appeal to me personally because it's so tough to properly rate the work of coaches. At least with players we have enough data to have a fruitful discussion albeit opinions still differ significantly in many cases. I would imagine that discussions regarding the ranking of coaches are pointless most of the time because subjectivity and narratives are the gravediggers of any informative discussion - especially on a message board about something like basketball - and there will be plenty of it.

Yeah this is why I'm not sure how practical it is, other than SRS, team ratings and point differentials there are precious few things to understand coaches before our time and I've only been alive for Popovich, Phil, Riley with the Knicks and Heat, Larry Brown, Spo and Rudy T in terms of multiple championship winners.

Our limitations mean it's quite right to expect the project to burn out quicker than a player project, but they also mean we might be able to learn more.

You haven't lived until you've seen me drunk-type my man-crush on Alex Hannum.

Yeah, we wouldn't be using many stats to determine rankings but I'd love to have a thread of info on coaches that I don't have the time to pay attention to on a nightly basis.

I have my top and bottom 5 coaches but outside of that I can't really make any arguments for or against who is 6th through 25th.

[MyUniBroDavis]

So, I got into a "heated" debate with a guy from youtube, who was propping up a video he would use to destroy everything I said. This is that video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTkKeFT5qo4

I saw the arguement and it was essentially taking everything possible out of context (In reality

Actually wat

The basketball videos i uploaded about you proved why you were wrong because when LeBron had help he still failed. He beat a Thunder team that had 3 star players, but could not beat a Mavs team that only had Dirk as their star player which proves LeBron did not really earn a ring against the Thunder.

wat

And let me be quite honest, I know this might not be the place to put this (and it might seem like me complaining/being a baby)

but just to show how ridiculous this is.

this was what I said (I added that MJ had a great defender, and player overall, obviously, in pippen, and a GOAT level rebounder, and obviously a versatile defender, in rodman)

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11778477&postcount=24 (I got the synergy stats from a hoopsnation post)

[Quotatious]

Loose observation about KG - how impressive is the fact that Garnett's Wolves had a better record than the Lakers with still-prime Shaq and arguably peak Kobe, in '03 (KG and Kobe both played all 82 games, Shaq played 67), coached by arguably the GOAT coach, despite the fact that KG didn't have another all-star on his team (let alone superstar)? Plus, his best teammate, Wally Szczerbiak, missed 30 games in the regular season.

The knock on prime KG is that he was great statistically but lacked team success - well, in '03 and '04, he had tremendous team success (in '04, Wolves had a better record than the Lakers, for the second straight year), relative to the talent level of his teams.

I know the Lakers beat them in the playoffs, but even then, Garnett was still arguably the best player in that series. KG averaged 27 points, 15.7 rebounds, 5.2 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.7 blocks on 53.9% TS (would've been higher if he didn't shoot his free throws 15-20% worse than usual), but he shot basically the same percentages as Shaq (Garnett 51.4% FG and 60.7% FT, O'Neal 51.6% FG and 61.1% FT), while also being able to play Shaq basically to a standstill in terms of all-around contributions.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Loose observation about KG - how impressive is the fact that Garnett's Wolves had a better record than the Lakers with still-prime Shaq and arguably peak Kobe, in '03 (KG and Kobe both played all 82 games, Shaq played 67), coached by arguably the GOAT coach, despite the fact that KG didn't have another all-star on his team (let alone superstar)? Plus, his best teammate, Wally Szczerbiak, missed 30 games in the regular season.

The knock on prime KG is that he was great statistically but lacked team success - well, in '03 and '04, he had tremendous team success (in '04, Wolves had a better record than the Lakers, for the second straight year), relative to the talent level of his teams.

I know the Lakers beat them in the playoffs, but even then, Garnett was still arguably the best player in that series. KG averaged 27 points, 15.7 rebounds, 5.2 assists, 1.7 steals, 1.7 blocks on 53.9% TS (would've been higher if he didn't shoot his free throws 15-20% worse than usual), but he shot basically the same percentages as Shaq (Garnett 51.4% FG and 60.7% FT, O'Neal 51.6% FG and 61.1% FT), while also being able to play Shaq basically to a standstill in terms of all-around contributions

I mean, even taking into account shaq drawing fouls/obvious gravity effect, I think that considering that kg was probably slightly better on offense, averaged only about 0.7 more turnovers despite being an obviously better playmaker, and Garnett definitely being better on defensewould have him having a better series.

I mean, shaq averages 5 off rebounds vs just 2 for Garnett, so I would say that shaq was a better rebounder despite the stat totals (in terms of impact, since obviously 1 offensive rebound>1 defensive rebound)

And shaq from The past 30 had averaged about 29 on 59%
30 on 60% after February so he had momentum.
I'd say that Garnett had a hand in this for sure,

Shaq was very good after mid February on offense actually. He had 25 on 56% against the 3rd. Best defense in the Spurs afterward (in 38 minutes) so I think that Garnett had a good effect on his efficiency for sure

Granted, shaq was more consistent over the series. He had 1 game shooting below 50% and 4 games shooting above that (3 above 55%) while Garnett had 4 games below 50%, one game above that and one game above 70% so I would say that I think shaq was better on a game by game basis, though defense could definitely sway me one way or another.