Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
1 by a mile. I'd rather have Rondo taking a wide open 15-18 foot jumper than Kobe/Melo/LeBron taking a contested shot from the same spot.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Cliff Clavin
- Start date
Maik Jeaunz
Footballguy
so Mike Brown coached the Cavs when they were good with Lebron. he gets canned, and the Cavs hire Byron Scott to coach. Lebron decides to take his talents to south beach, and Byron is stuck coaching one of the worst teams in the league. then Phil Jackson retires, the Laker coaching job becomes available, but the Cavs won't let Byron out of his contract. so he has to watch Mike Brown get hired as the Lakers coach, which is the dream job that Byron always wanted.
poor Byron. :(
poor Byron. :(
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I agree with Groovus and Clavin.Pretty sure the reason coaches and players don't do this is risk aversion and avoiding media and fan criticism. Nobody ever says anything if the star shoots and misses, but if you miss an open look with ten seconds left and the other team wins in regulation, you never hear the end of it even though it's probably the right play as far as giving your team the best chance to win.Same reason they punt on 4th and 4 from the 40, or bring in defensive substitutions in a one-run game in the top of the 9th. It's not about winning, it's about keeping your job.
So why does it never happen? I have trouble believing the Heat couldn't have gotten Bosh an open look from the FT line, or the Bulls couldn't have drawn up a play to get Deng an excellent look to end the game. I think the coaches need to tell their stars that it's time to sacrifice the SC highlight to get a better shot for a teammate. The end of regulation last night was painful.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
See the last sentence of my previous post.I think in the NBA there's probably also some ego involved for the stars.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Egos. 'Safe Plays'. Tobias was spot on with the NFL coach scenario. Just uncreative coaching. Here is a great example of a last second play:
. Now, the basket didn't count but the idea was right. No one in the building expected the smallest guy on the floor to catch a lob at the rim.
Last edited by a moderator:
derek245583
Footballguy
All Time
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
There's something to be said for risk aversion, but nothing averts risk more than winning.
Mr. PadresLakers
Footballguy
Whom would you rather them hire?
Last edited by a moderator:
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
It'll be FAAAAANtastic. I would have voted for Brown or Avery Johnson.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
It never happens b/c it's not realistic. Do you really think a bunch of FFA message board nerds know more about last second NBA X's and O's than ALL of the coaches in the NBA over the past 50 years? People are completely discounting the advantages that defenses have in last second situations. The reason great players get the rock 95% of the time isn't "OMG SPORTSCENTER HIGHLIGHT TIME", it's b/c if and when the play breaks down, the elite scorers in general can get separation and still get a good look. The average player can barely even get a shot off in these situations.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
Someone with a clue as to how to run an offense for starters. I'd like to see what Shaw can do, maybe he can't instill an offense, but at least he hasn't proven to be totally clueless in that area as of yet.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The Celtics made a lot of teams offenses look poor a few years ago, including ours. Hanging Brown for his failures against Boston is going to far, IMO.ETA: I like Shaw and wouldn't have objected to him getting the job, but hiring a newbie carries a lot of risk, especially when the Lakers are built to win now
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. PadresLakers
Footballguy
He hasn't proven anything. The last two Cavs offenses were ranked 4th and 6th. The last two Lakers offenses were ranked 11th and 6th. I don't understand how Brian Shaw is an offensive mastermind for those results from the Lakers but Mike Brown doesn't know anything about offense for getting his results from a lesser talented team.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
You have yet to state "the advantages a defense has in last second situations." Death ray? Giant anvil falling from the rafters? And the play can't break down when there's no play called. You run a play to get the D out of position, you get an open look, the average player can probably knock that down. As a coach you should have some plays like that in your arsenal, particularly if there's more than like 5 seconds to work with.This is one of the negative impacts Jordan has had on the league. Jackson had great success running isos for Jordan, because, well he was Jordan. Instead of everyone realizing it worked because it was Jordan, not because it was an iso, they just looked at that success and tried to replicate it with their "best guy." Doesn't work - nobody has been as good as Jordan at that, and it's not even close (sorry LeBron). But you can't go wrong buying IBM and you can't go wrong copying Phil, right? Bad offense.
Cliff Clavin
Footballguy
Just figuring this out now?
Gr00vus
Footballguy
You should listen to L.A. sports talk radio some time. Makes mrpadreslakers look like the love child of Red Auerbach, John Wooden and Pete Newell.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Hey. I resemble that remark.
Mr. PadresLakers
Footballguy
You are welcome to articulate and expand on your preference for Brian Shaw at any time. What is it exactly about him that makes him a good candidate? I imagine since you feel so strongly about this you have something other "lets just give the unproven guy a chance". He's not Tom Thibodeau. He doesn't have 20 years of coaching experience and a brilliant defensive scheme on his resume.
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
You can't be serious. The league average FG% year in and year out is ~ 45%-46%, and that includes all the transition layups/dunks. Remove those buckets, and the percentage certainly drops significantly, let's say down to 40%. That means defenses win 60% of the time over the course of a game in half court sets. Now ramp up the intensity of the players, give defensive coaches a timeout to change lineups, set up a specific defense, etc., and the % drops even further. Defenses are going to win that possession 70-80% of the time.
drummer
Footballguy
For thinking that this is a good NBA thread, yeah, you may have a point. I'm just here for the comedy.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
So your argument is, when you anticipate it being tougher than usual to score, the right thing to do is to not put any pressure on the defense and run a predictable "play" that every other team in the league runs in that situation that involves a single player far away from the basket. Brilliant.Also, let's seem some links to the numbers you're throwing around re the defense winning 70-80% of the time in that situation. Then show me how that proves the point that the iso is the right way to go there - seems like if the success rate is less than average, and everyone is running the iso in that situation (your contention) that would prove running the iso is a bad idea.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That's not really my argument at all. Essentially, my argument is the following:1) Even in non late game determining possessions, defenses have an advantage.2) That advantage is significantly larger in end of game situations.3) Running the regular offense will often result in the ball ending up in a players hand and that player is forced to create his own shot.4) A significant # of NBA players are not able to get their own shots in these situations.5) Putting the ball in the hands of your elite scorer virtually assures that you at least get a shot off.The notion that simply "running the offense" will automatically result in an open look for another player is flat out wrong.So your argument is, when you anticipate it being tougher than usual to score, the right thing to do is to not put any pressure on the defense and run a predictable "play" that every other team in the league runs in that situation that involves a single player far away from the basket. Brilliant.Also, let's seem some links to the numbers you're throwing around re the defense winning 70-80% of the time in that situation. Then show me how that proves the point that the iso is the right way to go there - seems like if the success rate is less than average, and everyone is running the iso in that situation (your contention) that would prove running the iso is a bad idea.
Byron (and his agent) played this poorly. It was pretty widely believed that Phil Jackson was retiring within the next year, so why take that job if he really wanted the Laker job?Besides, Byron Scott, while a great Laker, shouldn't have been the next Laker coach. He was run out of every job he's had (save the Cavs job) and his players tuned him out.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
If your offense doesn't result in players getting decent looks at the basket at least 50% of the time, your offense and/or your players suck. You may as well run isos 100% of the time then. Otherwise, you've got a better shot at a better look by running some play other than have a guy stand at mid court, dribble until the clock gets to 3 seconds and then hoist a desperation jumper. You give all the initiative to the defense == lose.But please do produce the stats to back up your assertion, you were so quick to make them up until I asked you to show your work.That's not really my argument at all. Essentially, my argument is the following:1) Even in non late game determining possessions, defenses have an advantage.2) That advantage is significantly larger in end of game situations.3) Running the regular offense will often result in the ball ending up in a players hand and that player is forced to create his own shot.4) A significant # of NBA players are not able to get their own shots in these situations.5) Putting the ball in the hands of your elite scorer virtually assures that you at least get a shot off.The notion that simply "running the offense" will automatically result in an open look for another player is flat out wrong.So your argument is, when you anticipate it being tougher than usual to score, the right thing to do is to not put any pressure on the defense and run a predictable "play" that every other team in the league runs in that situation that involves a single player far away from the basket. Brilliant.Also, let's seem some links to the numbers you're throwing around re the defense winning 70-80% of the time in that situation. Then show me how that proves the point that the iso is the right way to go there - seems like if the success rate is less than average, and everyone is running the iso in that situation (your contention) that would prove running the iso is a bad idea.
No. 16
Footballguy
It would be awesome if there was a website that showed the different FG% of various locations on the court. Such a website would be so awesome it would tell me that the league average for at rim shots is 64.1%, 3-9 feet is 39.1%, 10-11 feet is 39.4%, and 16-23 feet is 39.5%!
Now ramp up the intensity of the players, give defensive coaches a timeout to change lineups, set up a specific defense, etc., and the % drops even further.
Defenses are going to win that possession 70-80% of the time.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
It would be awesome if there was a website that showed the different FG% of various locations on the court. Such a website would be so awesome it would tell me that the league average for at rim shots is 64.1%, 3-9 feet is 39.1%, 10-11 feet is 39.4%, and 16-23 feet is 39.5%!
Now ramp up the intensity of the players, give defensive coaches a timeout to change lineups, set up a specific defense, etc., and the % drops even further.
Defenses are going to win that possession 70-80% of the time.
as to the point? Is the insinuation that coaches are so dumb they bypass plays that automatically result in "rim shots" while calling for plays to result in 16-23 ft shots?
simmonjm
Footballguy
I take option #2 because at worst your going to overtime, in option 1 your dont take into account what happens if you miss or turn the ball over and the other team gains possession with time left and chance to win. If a coach actually let this happen and lost he would always be remembered for his mistake.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
The only stat I quoted was that the NBA average FG% is ~ 45-46%. Everything else was logically walking back from that number, and I was careful with my language not to insinuate that I was quoting specific analysis. I bolded the parts of my original post above that should have made it clear that I was walking through my thought process as opposed to quoting specific data.If your offense doesn't result in players getting decent looks at the basket at least 50% of the time, your offense and/or your players suck. You may as well run isos 100% of the time then. Otherwise, you've got a better shot at a better look by running some play other than have a guy stand at mid court, dribble until the clock gets to 3 seconds and then hoist a desperation jumper. You give all the initiative to the defense == lose.But please do produce the stats to back up your assertion, you were so quick to make them up until I asked you to show your work.That's not really my argument at all. Essentially, my argument is the following:1) Even in non late game determining possessions, defenses have an advantage.So your argument is, when you anticipate it being tougher than usual to score, the right thing to do is to not put any pressure on the defense and run a predictable "play" that every other team in the league runs in that situation that involves a single player far away from the basket. Brilliant.Also, let's seem some links to the numbers you're throwing around re the defense winning 70-80% of the time in that situation. Then show me how that proves the point that the iso is the right way to go there - seems like if the success rate is less than average, and everyone is running the iso in that situation (your contention) that would prove running the iso is a bad idea.
Now ramp up the intensity of the players, give defensive coaches a timeout to change lineups, set up a specific defense, etc., and the % drops even further.
Defenses are going to win that possession 70-80% of the time.
2) That advantage is significantly larger in end of game situations.
3) Running the regular offense will often result in the ball ending up in a players hand and that player is forced to create his own shot.
4) A significant # of NBA players are not able to get their own shots in these situations.
5) Putting the ball in the hands of your elite scorer virtually assures that you at least get a shot off.
The notion that simply "running the offense" will automatically result in an open look for another player is flat out wrong.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
So you were making up a bunch of stuff. Got it. Just wanted to clarify.
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
Jalen Rose pleads guilty to a DUI from a few months ago. I hope ESPN doesnt boot him for this, because he is hands down their most entertaining NBA analyst
eakfootball
Footballguy
I like the WCF better this year, because there are no Falling Skies or Franklin and Bash commercials.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
This is a terrible career move for Mike Brown. Either he'll get blamed for the decline of the Lakers if he doesn't win a title or he'll be treated like Barry Switzer if he does.
Passing the ball is not realistic at the end of a game?
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
I hate when a guard gets an offensive rebound, dribbles out, and then jacks up a shot, instead of resetting the offense.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
I know when we refer to the Thunder we are typing "OKC" but do the announcers really have to call them "OKC"?? It just sounds stupid.
Mr. PadresLakers
Footballguy
You don't score points for passing. NBA players don't run regular offensive sets at the end of the game because they don't have a regular shot clock to work with. If the score is tied they want to ensure the last shot that is taken is theirs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Britney Spears
guest speaker
Please just get back.
Jeff Van Gundy
Jeff Van Gundy
Britney Spears
guest speaker
Kidd is awesome.
bentley
Footballguy
That's what the home fans chant from the stands. I think the announcers get a pass.
timschochet
Footballguy
Westbrook, OMG
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Peens is from Oklahoma, right?
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
total flop by Terry...Westbrook was basically throwing the ball out of bounds and Terry jumped in front
Kenny Powers
Footballguy
To what, announcing?! JVG is 1 of the best commentators going, in any sport
Kev4029
Footballguy
I'm not sure if this is sarcastic or not, but he is my least favaorite announcer since Pat Summerall retired. With all of the dumb #### he says and the clear lack of talent evaluation, I'm amazed that hes a half decent coach.
JMon348
Footballguy
Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. JVG is one of, if not the best color guy in the NBA. Very insightful, predicting a lot of things before they happen. Him and Mark Jackson's exchanges are hilarious too, his dry sense of humor is great.You have some opinions that are waaaaaay different from norm.
Moe.
Footballguy
That was a quote.
Similar threads
