Cuz he is liberal and hates Trump. In essence he giving info on the Pels people don't want to hear because it is true.Originally Posted by Caleb462
It is called denial.
 |
| . |
|
Cuz he is liberal and hates Trump. In essence he giving info on the Pels people don't want to hear because it is true.
It is called denial.
Last edited by Champ; 01-18-2017 at 09:02 AM.
Don't worry, boo. You'll always hold the title of thinnest skinned, whiniest blogger in our hearts. Heck, you were the OG of this tactic!
In any case, I love Kumar. He's the best Pels fan on Reddit and brings some much needed data analysis to discussions. He's just overly sensitive to being challenged, much like a couple of other bloggers around here...
And like other quant reliant NBA fans, he relies WAY too heavily on certain narrow data sets and cannot speak in depth about basketball beyond the raw data that fits his narrative. He also refuses to acknowledge Gentry, despite all evidence to the contrary, is a terrible coach. Something that has me seriously considering his sanity. But he is definitely an asset to the fanbase.
Does Fisher ever post here? Sorry if these are obvious questions - I've been out of the pelicans internet community loop for a long time. In my day we called TBW- At the Hive
Contributor
David Fisher has an account here.
Fisher's response?
In room 316 for child number 2 and Steve Austin sounds like a great name all of the sudden... 😂
— David Fisher (@DavidFisherTBW) January 18, 2017
Y'all keep disagreeing with me but the Pelicans would be making a very smart move if they got Millsap. He fits the system!!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel like went pretty in depth on these without using any numbers. What do y'all think?
Don't worry, boo. You'll always hold the title of thinnest skinned, whiniest blogger in our hearts. Heck, you were the OG of this tactic!
In any case, I love Kumar. He's the best Pels fan on Reddit and brings some much needed data analysis to discussions. He's just overly sensitive to being challenged, much like a couple of other bloggers around here...
And like other quant reliant NBA fans, he relies WAY too heavily on certain narrow data sets and cannot speak in depth about basketball beyond the raw data that fits his narrative. He also refuses to acknowledge Gentry, despite all evidence to the contrary, is a terrible coach. Something that has me seriously considering his sanity. But he is definitely an asset to the fanbase.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comment...aturing_jimmy/
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comment...s_adjustments/
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comment...screen_setter/
https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comment...t_view_of_the/
Contributor
Kumar. You're a national treasure. I'm sure everyone knows it, even if some hate to admit it.
Why would someone post what room number at the hospital they are in?
Creepy and attention whorey
— David Fisher (@DavidFisherTBW) January 18, 2017
I mean, those are fine but not relevant to this discussion. Your DC narrative is still just very incomplete without tying in your points to the team offensive execution and Gentry's obvious failings as a tactician.
And don't worry, I'm not ducking your last reply post. Just don't have time to go through it all right now, these types of posts are so time consuming. I'll pick it up when I can.
Congrats to that guy. I have always enjoyed Fisher's writing. Good guy if you get to pm'ing him.
If you Jimmer it, they will come.
...
And like other quant reliant NBA fans, he relies WAY too heavily on certain narrow data sets and cannot speak in depth about basketball beyond the raw data that fits his narrative. He also refuses to acknowledge Gentry, despite all evidence to the contrary, is a terrible coach. Something that has me seriously considering his sanity.
Hmmm... And as for the last bit...."Lastly I want to address this notion you have that I'm a Gentry supporter. There's a giant difference between supporting someone and not inappropriately assigning blame. Our fans our too quick to assign blame without looking at the larger picture or investigating deeper. But let me spell it out for you clearly because I know you won't hear me. I don't think Gentry has been a good coach. But I also don't think he deserves the false criticisms found in your comments and around this board, especially with regards to Monty." It's was spelled out for you, mate.
That's the thing. I'm not pushing a narrative on DC - that's you! I'm laying out the object facts about him as a player, his role while playing with AD, and saying that those object facts don't support the narrative you're pushing. He's been a bad player his entire career with some qualities that are nice. That's not a narrative.Your DC narrative is still just very incomplete without tying in your points to the team offensive execution and Gentry's obvious failings as a tactician.
Not so fast
I said look at the record not just the stats. It is what ultimately costs a coach or GM his job, not stats alone. The goal is to win the title. A bad record
does not allow to a team attain that goal.
The narrative was, and will forever be, that Gentry is a complete failure as the head coach of the New Orleans Pelicans. DC was simply an example of that, and nothing you have shown disputes it in any way. He is quite simply worse under Gentry than he was in the years prior. But again, DC being a good player was never the narrative. Follow along.
I do need to apologize. I simply don’t have to the time to go point by point over your last post, and for that I'm sorry. I appreciate the time you took to compile it, as much as I disagree with a good portion of it.
I’ll just quickly make a few points of disagreement:
- As I said and stand by, TS% is simply a part of the overall puzzle of a player’s impact. Your reliance on it makes it impossible to continue arguing you on these points. It’s the crutch of someone who cannot speak to the “how” and “why” of player usage. Aka, how is Gentry using him, and why does he use him this way. His usage rate, FTr and AST% suggest HOW he is being used, and when shown in conjunction to career lows in PER and other production indicators do not paint a pretty picture for his impact on offense. And that’s on Gentry. Look at the Orlando game last night. DC was attacking the rim and had one of his most productive offensive games of the season (with no 3's made). Our OFF RTG was 114 and we beat them easily. And AD's usage was below 30% where it should be. Anecdotal, but it was much of what I've been clamoring for.
- He is a starter and gets 25 mpg, and ranks #387 in PER. That is SHAMEFUL. Made only worse by the fact that Solo, another starter is right there with him at #398. They are literally the 2 least productive full time frontcourt starters in the league, and the one thing that truly binds them together is that they play in Gentry’s offense. Their production prior to joining this scheme was simply better. No need to continue to cherry pick shooting stats, as the variety of production indicators are plenty to go with. Again, the point being that Gentry is not using them to maximize their skillsets.
Dante’s average PER in MEM and MIN: 13.6
Where it would be in 16-17 Rank: 206
SF/PF Company: Ryan Anderson, DeMarre Carrol, Mo Harkless, Mirotic, Kidd-Gilchrest, Marvin Willams
DC’s Current PER: 7.8
16-17 Rank: 387
SF/PF Company: Corey Brewer, Luke Babbit, Dragan Bender
Boxscore aggregate? Sure. Imperfect stat compiling raw production? Yup. And? Its still a useful stat in showing overall production. No good offense can have 2 players starting with those numbers, except those numbers are a product of the system itself. This is DAMNING. Its actually disgusting if you actually watch the Pels, because its the statistical manifestation of what our eyes are telling us.
And gotcha on that ON/OFF thing, sorry. Decent deflection attempt but you can’t use these things only when it’s convenient for you and dismiss them otherwise. But nice try with the semantics angle in any case.
I did want to speak on this bit, because I think its closer to the heart of my original post on Gentry’s strategy decisions (which you continue to dodge by harping on narrow data sets with Dante and Solo). Comparing AD to Shaq is actually the perfect teaching moment, because it allows me to explain to you how leaning too much on certain basketball data can catch you in some tough quagmires when it is completely detached from the actual game being played and team results.
Shaq’s usage was DIRECTLY RELATED TO A WINNING STRATEGY. AD’s is not. Let’s look at 00-01 Shaq so you can see your arguments’ shortcomings.
The 00-01 Lakers: 56-26, NBA Champs
OFF RTG: 105.6 (2nd) – Would rank 14th this season
PACE: 94.33 (13th) – Would rank 29th this season
%FGA 3PT: 19.1 (9th) – Would rank 30th by a gigantic 4% this season
I mean, I could go on. This is was a VERY different game being played. Dumping the ball down to the most dominant low post player of an entire era made STRATEGIC SENSE in this era of slower pace and less 3 point shooting. He was #1 in Points Per Shot (among those with at least 5 FGA/G) and #1 in PER. And despite his anemic FT% he was a top 20 TS% (heyo!) player and essentially exactly where AD is (with AD shooting 80% from the line and shooting 3’s). He was easily the single greatest offensive weapon in the league and was being used exactly as he should be in Phil and Tex’s brilliant triangle.
AD is amazing. He is an offensive juggernaut. And he is not on this level (yet, I hope). But some of that is on Gentry. Shaq had an AST% of 18.8 to AD’s 12.2. ORB% of 11.3 to AD’s 6.7. FTr of .684 to AD’s .446. He just simply impacted the offensive production of a good offensive team in more positive way. And his passing is the real story with that. Shaq led all Centers in AST% that year. AD is around 25th (ugh). Having Shaq at a 30+% usage made complete sense FOR THE TEAM. Having AD over that rate is not having the same effect.
So, AD’s usage rate is HIGHER than Shaq’s absolute dominance by 2 points. But does not provide the passing or PPS of Shaq that year. TS% is negligible, but Shaq got to the line at an absurd rate which gave his teammates more FT’s as well. The Lakers that year took 28.5 FT per game (1st in the league) versus the Pels 22.3 (21st) this year. That's basically 3-4 extra points per game over us because of Shaq's usage.
And since you brought up teammates, let’s take a quick look. Kobe was literally the ONLY other above average offensive player on that team (and his TS% was a bit higher than E’Twaun Moore’s, so maybe don’t go there so much anymore). Now of course Kobe, even as a 22 year old in his 3rd year as a starter, made a huge difference. Hence an NBA championship. But is Kobe all this team is missing from duplicating that success? Looking at that Lakers roster its not that far off honestly, assuming AD is as good as Shaq on offense like you're insinuating. But none of this matters because Alvin Gentry would have no idea how to use Kobe anyway. His offense would relegate Kobe to a perimeter shooter.
The Lakers had an OFF RTG of 105.6 that year, but we don’t have ON/OFF data other than BBREF’s ON/OFF +/- which has Shaq at +15.6 (oh, AD at +7.2 btw). It stands to reason when looking at his trash teammates that the Lakers offense was much better than 105.6 with Shaq ON, and MUCH higher than AD’s current 102.7 (in an era with inflated OFF RTGs too). And again, his teammates outside of Kobe were NOT GOOD offensive players. They were mostly a collection of average to mediocre journeymen. Take a gander: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html But the system utilized them properly.
So to sum all of this history lesson up, using Shaq and his usage rate as a point was a disaster for you. He is actually the perfect example of HOW TO USE YOUR FRONT COURT STAR. Focus on what he is elite at, and build your strategy around it. Gentry does the opposite. He has his rigid, perimeter oriented strategy, and he forces players into it. This keeps AD further from the basket shooting a larger volume of long 2 pt jump shots (only 26% of his shots at the rim!?!). AD shoots over 50% of his shots from further than 10 feet. Some of that is his skill set, I will admit to that. But it should not be this much. In 14-15 he was at 35% at the rim, a much better number (and that sweet, sweet TS% bump for ya!).
Also, criticizing Gentry and his use of players has NOTHING to do with Monty Williams. Please stop invoking other fan’s criticism of Monty as some sort of evidence that fans are too emotional and Gentry is above reproach. It is conceivable, and frankly clear as day in the evidence, that both coaches are subpar with Gentry bordering on incompetent. What makes Gentry especially unpalatable is that he is a supposed offensive coach that is the architect of the 26th ranked offense in the league despite having a top 5 offensive player. That is shameful, and NOTHING you can produce will dispute that. There is simply no data to cover up for his ineptitude, and in fact it just further drives it home. That is my only narrative, and the fact that numerous players are playing below their previous levels offensively in an ineffective offense overall is just unavoidable. Sorry man.
Ogden answers with a left hook. We now patiently wait for Kumar's response
You originally stated that Dante was having his worst year efficiency wise which is false, and that Gentry's use of him was hurting the team which is also false. The rest has been a constant flip flopping moving goal post on your part.
do need to apologize. I simply don’t have to the time to go point by point over your last post, and for that I'm sorry. I appreciate the time you took to compile it, as much as I disagree with a good portion of it.
Translation: "My argument doesn't have a leg to stand on so I'm going to choose to focus on irrelevant things like a history lesson no none needed" But we'll get to the Shaq bit later.
You can't argue it because that would be like arguing 2+2 isn't 4. TS% is an objective measure of a player's efficiency that doesn't care for yours or my opinion. You stated that Dante was having a his least efficient year which is false. That is the end of that discussion. The second part of the discussion is where you argue his usage is having a disastrous effect on the team.- As I said and stand by, TS% is simply a part of the overall puzzle of a player’s impact. Your reliance on it makes it impossible to continue arguing you on these points. It’s the crutch of someone who cannot speak to the “how” and “why” of player usage.
Nope, no they don't at all. You are doubling down on things that not only aren't having an impact on team performance, but aren't significantly different to any point in his career. You'd understand that if you understood any of the stats you keep referencing.His usage rate, FTr and AST% suggest HOW he is being used, and when shown in conjunction to career lows in PER and other production indicators do not paint a pretty picture for his impact on offense
You know why his FTr doesn't matter? Because he has never averaged more than 1.5 free throws made in his career. He averages less than 1 shooting foul drawn per game his entire career. Not to mention his FTr last year (under Gentry) was at his highest since Memphis. You know why his AST% doesn't matter? Because a guy that averages only 1.2 apg for his career isn't creating shots for anyone. That is one of his passes per game that happen to turn into a bucket. Out of the last 3 years, Dante has averaged 22, 20.6, 21.5 passes per game. His assist rate was at it's highest in the year he had the fewest passes per game (under Gentry). He is literally passing the same number of times and his assist rate is moving by less than 2% each year. His role has nothing do it with. Coaching has nothing to do with it. The players he is passing to have everything to do with it.
The best part is you keep talking the why and how, and none of those numbers describe a why or a how. Usage% doesn't tell you what a player is doing on the floor. But hey, lets ignore the fact Dante has been the same exact player for 3 years down to how much he dribbles the ball, how much he passes it, how long he holds it. The fact that those things remain constant but his individual numbers don't is further support to the notion that coaching, his "role", and how AD is used have little to no impact on Dante.
You know how we can measure team performance, especially on the offensive end? By looking at the fact that the team is 2pts/100 better on offense when Dante plays. Dante has a team high net rating of +3.0. His on/off is at +7.3 now. These are all things that describe how the team is playing while Dante is or isn't on the floor. It's an objective fact that the team plays better on both ends of the floor when Dante plays.
So did Gentry suddenly decide to use Dante and AD differently vs Orlando? Or was the team (including Dante) playing better as a whole and an injured AD didn't have to try to go super man to save the team. Even still AD notched a usage 29.3. Like none of what you said supports any of your argument.And that’s on Gentry. Look at the Orlando game last night. DC was attacking the rim and had one of his most productive offensive games of the season (with no 3's made). Our OFF RTG was 114 and we beat them easily. And AD's usage was below 30% where it should be. Anecdotal, but it was much of what I've been clamoring for.
You know what else binds them together? They have been poor players their entire career and have shown nothing to support the notion they need an increase in responsibility on the offensive end.They are literally the 2 least productive full time frontcourt starters in the league, and the one thing that truly binds them together is that they play in Gentry’s offense.
The argument has never been that their individual production is lower. The argument has been does their individual production impact the team -and a mountain of evidence suggests it doesn't. Can't you see the massive hypocrisy on your end?Their production prior to joining this scheme was simply better. No need to continue to cherry pick shooting stats, as the variety of production indicators are plenty to go with.
You accuse me of getting lost AD's counting stats and binge production while that doesn't impact the team, yet you are using the same such stats to argue Dante an Hill have been a detriment to the team. It doesn't work like that, because like in AD's case, those stats have 0 indicator on team's success.
Again individual production (greater or higher) is not a measure of team success or success of a system. You're so caught up in trying to pin blame on Gentry in any way possible you've never stopped to consider instead of the system impacting the players, that maaaaybe, just maaaaybe players who have been below average players their entire lives are the ones that are contributing to the win loss total. It's a minor miracle that Gentry has created situations on the team in which the Pelicans are better with those players on the floor (they out score their opponents) than when those player sit.Boxscore aggregate? Sure. Imperfect stat compiling raw production? Yup. And? Its still a useful stat in showing overall production. No good offense can have 2 players starting with those numbers, except those numbers are a product of the system itself. This is DAMNING. Its actually disgusting if you actually watch the Pels, because its the statistical manifestation of what our eyes are telling us.
Perhaps the best indicator of the woeful state of talent this team is in how they have performed with and without Jrue. 2-13 record without him, 15-13 with him. Let's take a look at the numbers across the team since Jrue's return shall we?
Crazy, is Jrue secretly one of the best players in the game making scrubs like Dante that much better? Or is Dante actually being used effectively and his role make much more sense when there is any semblance of talent on the roster?
Crazy! His usage, ast ratio, reb rate remain the same but the team is drastically better? Almost as if those things have no bearing on team success.
The numbers get even sillier when Tyreke returns.
But his "how and why" remain the same...
And AD keeps trucking along with his 33% usage too. It's absolutely mind numbing that when you finally add two above average offensive players (Jrue and Tyreke) the team starts doing drastically better despite their roles not changing at all.
Who woulda thunk that a coach and his system is dependent on his players and that talent matters? Surely not the coach who swept Pop and the Spurs in the playoffs when he actually had talent - a feat that has only been done one other time, the 2001 Lakers. Which brings us to your "history lesson". But first
Lol there's no deflection. No using things when convenient. No semantics. I'm sorry you don't understand how to apply that stat. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between predictive and descriptive. But don't try to use your lack of knowledge as an excuse to sweep facts under the rug. Which is something that's on display throughout this thread.And gotcha on that ON/OFF thing, sorry. Decent deflection attempt but you can’t use these things only when it’s convenient for you and dismiss them otherwise. But nice try with the semantics angle in any case.
I did want to speak on this bit, because I think its closer to the heart of my original post on Gentry’s strategy decisions (which you continue to dodge by harping on narrow data sets with Dante and Solo). Comparing AD to Shaq is actually the perfect teaching moment, because it allows me to explain to you how leaning too much on certain basketball data can catch you in some tough quagmires when it is completely detached from the actual game being played and team results.
Shaq’s usage was DIRECTLY RELATED TO A WINNING STRATEGY. AD’s is not. Let’s look at 00-01 Shaq so you can see your arguments’ shortcomings.
The 00-01 Lakers: 56-26, NBA Champs
OFF RTG: 105.6 (2nd) – Would rank 14th this season
PACE: 94.33 (13th) – Would rank 29th this season
%FGA 3PT: 19.1 (9th) – Would rank 30th by a gigantic 4% this season
I mean, I could go on. This is was a VERY different game being played. Dumping the ball down to the most dominant low post player of an entire era made STRATEGIC SENSE in this era of slower pace and less 3 point shooting. He was #1 in Points Per Shot (among those with at least 5 FGA/G) and #1 in PER. And despite his anemic FT% he was a top 20 TS% (heyo!) player and essentially exactly where AD is (with AD shooting 80% from the line and shooting 3’s). He was easily the single greatest offensive weapon in the league and was being used exactly as he should be in Phil and Tex’s brilliant triangle.
AD is amazing. He is an offensive juggernaut. And he is not on this level (yet, I hope). But some of that is on Gentry. Shaq had an AST% of 18.8 to AD’s 12.2. ORB% of 11.3 to AD’s 6.7. FTr of .684 to AD’s .446. He just simply impacted the offensive production of a good offensive team in more positive way. And his passing is the real story with that. Shaq led all Centers in AST% that year. AD is around 25th (ugh). Having Shaq at a 30+% usage made complete sense FOR THE TEAM. Having AD over that rate is not having the same effect.
So, AD’s usage rate is HIGHER than Shaq’s absolute dominance by 2 points. But does not provide the passing or PPS of Shaq that year. TS% is negligible, but Shaq got to the line at an absurd rate which gave his teammates more FT’s as well. The Lakers that year took 28.5 FT per game (1st in the league) versus the Pels 22.3 (21st) this year. That's basically 3-4 extra points per game over us because of Shaq's usage.
And since you brought up teammates, let’s take a quick look. Kobe was literally the ONLY other above average offensive player on that team (and his TS% was a bit higher than E’Twaun Moore’s, so maybe don’t go there so much anymore). Now of course Kobe, even as a 22 year old in his 3rd year as a starter, made a huge difference. Hence an NBA championship. But is Kobe all this team is missing from duplicating that success? Looking at that Lakers roster its not that far off honestly, assuming AD is as good as Shaq on offense like you're insinuating. But none of this matters because Alvin Gentry would have no idea how to use Kobe anyway. His offense would relegate Kobe to a perimeter shooter.
The Lakers had an OFF RTG of 105.6 that year, but we don’t have ON/OFF data other than BBREF’s ON/OFF +/- which has Shaq at +15.6 (oh, AD at +7.2 btw). It stands to reason when looking at his trash teammates that the Lakers offense was much better than 105.6 with Shaq ON, and MUCH higher than AD’s current 102.7 (in an era with inflated OFF RTGs too). And again, his teammates outside of Kobe were NOT GOOD offensive players. They were mostly a collection of average to mediocre journeymen. Take a gander: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/2001.html But the system utilized them properly.
So to sum all of this history lesson up, using Shaq and his usage rate as a point was a disaster for you. He is actually the perfect example of HOW TO USE YOUR FRONT COURT STAR. Focus on what he is elite at, and build your strategy around it. Gentry does the opposite. He has his rigid, perimeter oriented strategy, and he forces players into it. This keeps AD further from the basket shooting a larger volume of long 2 pt jump shots (only 26% of his shots at the rim!?!). AD shoots over 50% of his shots from further than 10 feet. Some of that is his skill set, I will admit to that. But it should not be this much. In 14-15 he was at 35% at the rim, a much better number (and that sweet, sweet TS% bump for ya!).
Literally no one is comparing AD to Shaq. No one is comparing this team to one of the best dynasties in league history. No one needs a lesson on how dominant those Lakers teams were and why they were. But I distinctly remember you saying
You know which PF/C's have put up multiple winning years and won several championships while putting up usage over 30%?Go back and look: Admiral, Duncan, Dream etc never had a usage rates this high (usually mid to upper 20%). It just does not spell success to have your PF/C dominate the ball at the expense of other players being involved.
Shaq, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Hakeem, Dirk - all multiple seasons. So not only does it directly contradict your assertion that guys like the Admiral and Dream never had usage rates that high (they did and won plenty with them), but it was used to show that there is more than one way to skin the cat. And lastly, the major point you missed on that there is nothing to suggest Gentry will continue to put such a burden on AD if AD had better teammates.
. Better teammates -> less of an offensive burden on AD -> more wins. You are stuck on the less of an offensive burden on AD -> more wins part, but that is only possible when you look at the root source - better teammates.
But thanks for the irrelevant history lesson on my favorite player of all time. It's also super cute that you compare Kobe to E'twuan Moore offensively using TS%. It shows you've not only learned nothing in our conversation, but refuse to read what I'm actually writing.
Last edited by Kumar; 01-20-2017 at 01:47 PM.
and it arrived
And I'm done answering. It's an endless cycle of me making my points, him moving the goal post and talking about things that aren't relevant, then concluding ipso facto my stats don't matter.and it arrived
Said without a hint of irony. The cognitive dissonance of Pels blogging community is astounding.
Enjoyed listening to you talking about Jrue on Jake's podcast. I think the only real option (unless we are able to somehow trade Jrue for a lot of talent in return) is to resign him even if the price tag is a bit high. Alvin always looks high during games with the red eyes, so maybe he has some connections to get Jrue some cocaine prior to games. I do wish he'd be more aggressive on offense, because I think the talent is there.
"Our front court players are TO A MAN having among their least efficient, worst offensive years in their careers (Solo and Dante in particular)."
Uh oh.
So let's just get this clear. You have called me out with constant condesension, accusing me of moving goal posts and flip flopping. Meanwhile you cannot even be honest about the most basic elements of my positon. My position which has not changed, has not shifted and has not evolved. The mirror can be a lonely place, no?
That was the only statement I made on DC's efficiency. And its still true, despite your ramblings, statistical gymnastics and efforts to discredit me. He is having AMONG his worst offensive years of his career (much like last year). Gentry ball!
Translation: "I'm a grown man with obligations and can't spend all day on a basketball message board digging up stats to back up opinions." I was respectful and apologetic to you because I know how time consuming those posts are, but thanks for not reciprocating. Classy. I made this post on my lunch break, and I'll be happy to address some other points this weekend if I have the time. But hey, stick to the grade school stuff if you prefer.
Also, my Shaq/Lakers stuff was gold. Convenient, and understandable, how you totally ignored it.
You Laker Shaq stuff was irrelevant, arguing a strawman, and a direct contradiction of your own assertion that playing a PF/C with high usage is isn't a winning playstyle. A ridiculous assertion in it's own right because it implies there is one way to win.
Gold tho.Go back and look: Admiral, Duncan, Dream etc never had a usage rates this high (usually mid to upper 20%). It just does not spell success to have your PF/C dominate the ball at the expense of other players being involved.
The Laker/Shaq stuff was an indictment of Alvin Gentry, and a demolition of your invoking Shaq's usage as any evidence that AD is being used optimally.
Career HIGH Usg Rate:
Admiral: 32.6 (only 2 seasons over 30)
AST %: 21.6
Dream: 31.9 (only 3 seasons over 30)
AST%: 18.3
Mailman: 32.7 (The highest usage guy, AND STILL less than AD)
AST%: 24.5 (!)
AD currently: 33.3 (!!!)
AST%: 12.2 ()
So no, like I said they quite literally never had a usage rate this high. And they were used quite differently even when they approached this level. Keep up. Gentry sucks giant ones dude.
The Lakers having Shaq and Kobe is hardly an indictment of Alvin Gentry. And I never once claimed that AD was being used optimally. This is what I mean when I say you argue strawmen. You are arguing against points no one is making. The point you're missing which has been pointed out to you twice now is
"Sure it's not ideal that AD has to do it this year, but lets not act like this would be the case if we had competent offensive threats. Why wasn't his usage that high last year? Because even last year, with all of our injuries, Anderson gave us 60 games, a really good Jrue gave us 60 games, Gordon 40 games - and our offense was top 10 until Gordon went down. You see the trend? Personnel matters. "
And it's just factually incorrect that AD having such a high usage is having a negative impact on the team. The team is drastically better with AD on the floor, there is no way around that fact.
You're a walking bag of contradictions. At first using PF/Cs at a high usage is not a good way to win, now it's possible as long as you assist? I'm glad you're pointing out .5-1% differences in usage as if its a significantly different thing.Career HIGH Usg Rate:
Admiral: 32.6 (only 2 seasons over 30)
AST %: 21.6
Dream: 31.9 (only 3 seasons over 30)
AST%: 18.3
Mailman: 32.7 (The highest usage guy, AND STILL less than AD)
AST%: 24.5 (!)
AD currently: 33.3 (!!!)
AST%: 12.2 ()
So no, like I said they quite literally never had a usage rate this high. And they were used quite differently even when they approached this level. Keep up.
Here's a news flash, assist ratio not only doesn't correlate with winning, it has shown a slight negative correlation over the years.
"Assist ratio. This is a surprising one, but the ratio between points created by assists and points actually had a minimally negative correlation (-6.8) to offensive rating. It seems to run counter to basketball wisdom that ball movement makes an offense good, but three of the top eight offenses ranked in the bottom 10 of the percentage of their points created by an assist, and three of the worst seven offenses ranked among the best.
More than anything else, a team needs scorers; it doesn’t matter what offense you run if you don’t have players that can finish the play. If you pass the ball around in a well-run offense, you get an open look a la the Spurs. If you throw it around until someone takes a bad shot, you get the Bucks."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
