11th January - New Orleans Pelicans @ Boston Celtics - 14-25

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

PPG, by itself, is not a good measure of a player's game.

---

Absolutely nobody is saying that it is. Lighten up.

People really expect Hayes to have much success at 200lbs against a 8 yr vet at 260 lbs... Geeze... Player development isn't linear.

Ease up. Rookie aren't great for a reason.

Plus, we really had no help since our bigs is propped up by often injured Favors. This was a game he couldn't miss, but he did anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

People really expect Hayes to have much success at 200lbs against a 8 yr vet at 260 lbs... Geeze... Player development isn't linear.

Ease up. Rookie aren't great for a reason

---

It's weird, it's like yes, we lost. Everyone (at least everyone who activated their brain before the game) expected a loss. We got a loss. Fine, can we get over that and just try and look for some minor positives?

Hayes had 20 points. That's cool. This is a 19 year old kid who a lot of people thought was going to redshirt the entire year and he just scored 20 points in an NBA game for the first time, and it was on 69% shooting. That's a fun thing. Yeah, in an optimal world he would have got 10 boards to go with it and had a third straight double-double, but he didn't. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

People really expect Hayes to have much success at 200lbs against a 8 yr vet at 260 lbs... Geeze... Player development isn't linear.

---

lets be fair...he should be able to grab double digits in rebounds a game with the mins he plays just by length alone... ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

lets be fair...he should be able to grab double digits in rebounds a game with the mins he plays just by length alone... ..

---

Yup! He was out rebounded by every guard on the court lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Absolutely nobody is saying that it is. Lighten up.

---

Just trying to keep it real.

Don't you think Boston owned the paint tonight? If not, maybe I'm missing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

lets be fair...he should be able to grab double digits in rebounds a game with the mins he plays just by length alone... ..

---

He played 26 minutes :hihi: it's not like he was out there for 40

He had 10 rebounds last game in 23 minutes and 12 the game before in 24. Like Taker says, development isn't linear. He had big boards in limited minutes those games, and only a few tonight in the same minutes. He weighs 210 soaking wet and we were playing against a team that's top 10 in offensive rebounding, with no other bigs to take any assignments and lighten the load. It's fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Just trying to keep it real.

Don't you think Boston owned the paint tonight? If not, maybe I'm missing something.

---

Of course they did, we got smoked.

Anyone who expected anything otherwise was living in a fantasy land. No Favors, no Zion, no Kenrich; we were relying on our primary ''big body'' to be a 19 year old who weighs 50lbs less than the other team's major rebounder. Unsurprisingly, he got outmuscled and outrebounded. It happens.

I will say this... Griffin should be heavily criticized for how he handle the big situation when building this roster.

Putting all your eggs in basket on a rookie and Favors to carry the paint defense was a trash move. Especially, when you got Dwight taking a bargain bin contract.

You can't take much away from this but I do think it reinforces that the Pels need a big wing defender at some point down the road. Doesn't have to be this year, but it'll a be a necessary component when they start competing at higher levels

— Shamit Dua (@FearTheBrown) January 12, 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Of course they did, we got smoked.

Anyone who expected anything otherwise was living in a fantasy land. No Favors, no Zion, no Kenrich; we were relying on our primary ''big body'' to be a 19 year old who weighs 50lbs less than the other team's major rebounder. Unsurprisingly, he got outmuscled and outrebounded. It happens.

---

I guess some in here like you are excited he got 20, while others think his significant shortcomings were exposed.

He's going to be a great one....but. as I've said many times before, that down the road apiece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

I guess some in here like you are excited he got 20, while others think his significant shortcomings were exposed.

He's going to be a great one....but. as I've said many times before, that down the road apiece.

---

Both are true, but the issue is that the shortcoming that got ''exposed'' isn't a new thing. It wasn't even an exposure, it was just a reminder. Jax needs to put on like 30lbs of muscle and improve at his rebounding fundamentals, particularly on the defensive end. Yes, that is an issue with his game that got shown up tonight, but it's nothing new; we've all known about it for months now. Getting upset about it won't help anyone because that issue is going to remain pretty much all season long, and until he's put on some weight in the offseason.

Whereas the 20pt new career high for him is new. It's a cool milestone in his very young career, and it's never happened before. So it should take priority, I think. Especially when we expected a loss anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

You can't take much away from this but I do think it reinforces that the Pels need a big wing defender at some point down the road. Doesn't have to be this year, but it'll a be a necessary component when they start competing at higher levels

— Shamit Dua (@FearTheBrown) January 12, 2020

---

Iiiiiiiiisaac Okoro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

You can't take much away from this but I do think it reinforces that the Pels need a big wing defender at some point down the road. Doesn't have to be this year, but it'll a be a necessary component when they start competing at higher levels

— Shamit Dua (@FearTheBrown) January 12, 2020

---

Meh... I want see which direction we go as head coach and trying to play more complementary ball. If you play to not help your defense. More young prospects ain't gonba fix that problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

He played 26 minutes :hihi: it's not like he was out there for 40

He had 10 rebounds last game in 23 minutes and 12 the game before in 24. Like Taker says, development isn't linear. He had big boards in limited minutes those games, and only a few tonight in the same minutes. He weighs 210 soaking wet and we were playing against a team that's top 10 in offensive rebounding, with no other bigs to take any assignments and lighten the load. It's fine.

---

come on bruh....you also dont like to be fair....

in players you like you go hard..like hayes you would point out all the good in stats but you dont point out the bad he does that the eye test show you on the court and you are using his age as an excuse...

in players you dont like say lonzo,,ingram,,moore,,if you point out the good they do in a game then you would follow it up with a back stab comment about them...

and again you not being fair about a player you like.....hayes should be getting double digits in rebounds since he is the only big that plays behind favors.....arm length alone should get him 5-7 rebounds a game...i get he dont know how to block out yet and i dont hold that against him but rebounding is effort....

i get it..all summer you were putting down the laker players and especially ingram but those guys and moore have proved you wrong and you have hayes by default to show out on and you are going hard with it...

but like you do with ingram and other players you dont like and criticize them when they do good in a game but you find bad things they do and point out,,,hayes is not above the criticism either...

hayes need to rebound better...

Anyway, Jaxson Hayes is one of only 5 rookies in the NBA to have a positive PIPM this year, and has now scored in double digits 3 games in a row. This is cool stuff :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

but like you do with ingram and other players you dont like and criticize them when they do good in a game but you find bad things they do and point out,,,hayes is not above the criticism either...

hayes need to rebound better...

---

I've been extremely complimentary towards Lonzo and Ingram recently, since they've been playing well. Yes, I've been negative tonight about Ingram: it's his worst offensive showing all year, in my opinion, so of course I'm going to do that.

I'm not saying Hayes is above criticism, and I'm not denying he needs to improve as a rebounder. Of course he does.

I'm just saying that ragging on him for needing to improve as a rebounder is a pointless exercise because we all know he needs to improve on that end, and also because one of the key ways to make that improvement is by adding muscle mass and weight. Which is something that's virtually impossible for him to do mid-season, so it's not exactly a constructive piece of criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

come on bruh....you also dont like to be fair....

in players you like you go hard..like hayes you would point out all the good in stats but you dont point out the bad he does that the eye test show you on the court and you are using his age as an excuse...

in players you dont like say lonzo,,ingram,,moore,,if you point out the good they do in a game then you would follow it up with a back stab comment about them...

and again you not being fair about a player you like.....hayes should be getting double digits in rebounds since he is the only big that plays behind favors.....arm length alone should get him 5-7 rebounds a game...i get he dont know how to block out yet and i dont hold that against him but rebounding is effort....

i get it..all summer you were putting down the laker players and especially ingram but those guys and moore have proved you wrong and you have hayes by default to show out on and you are going hard with it...

but like you do with ingram and other players you dont like and criticize them when they do good in a game but you find bad things they do and point out,,,hayes is not above the criticism either...

hayes need to rebound better...

---

What he said; I thoroughly agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taker597

I will say this... Griffin should be heavily criticized for how he handle the big situation when building this roster.

Putting all your eggs in basket on a rookie and Favors to carry the paint defense was a trash move. Especially, when you got Dwight taking a bargain bin contract.

---

but was that the plan?...if we going to be honest here,we know the main bigs to play were zion,,melli,,okafor,,favors.........zion and favors forced hayes to play and that turned out to be good for the future....

gentry is our coach and he i assume would have zion playing the 5 playing small ball if he was healthy and i dont think hayes would have hit the floor.....zion being hurt was a blessing for hayes imo because i still dont believe gentry would have played the kids if zion would have been healthy or favors being out.....i think griff built the 4 and 5 according to gentry style...

Etwaun for Norvel Pelle, picks, and whatever else needed for filler would be nice.

Sixers desperately in need of shooting. So makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13 - 3

You can't take much away from this but I do think it reinforces that the Pels need a big wing defender at some point down the road. Doesn't have to be this year, but it'll a be a necessary component when they start competing at higher levels

— Shamit Dua (@FearTheBrown) January 12, 2020

---

Roll with what we got for the remainder of the season then make one free agent signing next off season. The Pelicans would be a dynasty for the next six years.

Who? He played here for seven seasons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Roll with what we got for the remainder of the season then make one free agent signing next off season. The Pelicans would be a dynasty for the next six years.

Who? He played here for seven seasons

---

Anthony Davis?

Looking at the advanced stats on this game. Not really expecting to find much positive because of how thoroughly we got whipped, but thought it might be fun to see who came the closest to being a positive.

Best Net Rating: Nicolo Melli, at -2.1
Worst Net Rating: Okafor, at -48.2 (4 different players had net ratings of worse than -40, including Ingram and Jax)

Best TS%: Jahlil Okafor, at 75.2%. Jax only got 65.8%, because he shot poorly on FTs.

Most Screen Assists: Jax, with 4 for 9 points

Most Deflections: Melli, with 4

Most Contested 2pt shots: Jax with 11

Most Contested 3pt shots: Jax with 4 (tied with NAW, who also had 4)

Effective Box Outs: Okafor with 2, tied with Melli. Jax and Lonzo both had 1. Moore, Ingram, Hart, Frank, and Frank didn't register a single boxout between them.

When looking at shot charts, a few things come up which are notable. First, Ingram only took 2 shots all game within 5 feet of the hope. That's bad. It's a sign that he was having trouble creating separation and space when driving, which I think we all recognised while watching. His handle isn't tight enough to really stand up against disciplined, lengthy defenders and that's why people like Tatum (a very strong defender) gave him trouble. Similarly, his long legs and heavy feet create issues when trying to adjust momentum in small areas which stymies his in-paint fluidity. When he gets crowded like he did tonight, it creates issues and sometimes this deters him. That's what we saw tonight: very few at-rim attempts.

By contrast, Hayes (because a lot of his shots were dunks/lobs) only missed one shot within 5 feet of the hoop. All his other misses were more hook-type shots, things he was throwing up without really having optimal position. This is a shame, but we saw him have trouble establishing position against stronger defenders like Theis, particularly in the half court.

Lonzo Ball had 1 shot at the rim. It was his only shot within 10 feet of the hoop. He made it, but come on. Again, this is indicative of his relatively poor handle (for a PG); he doesn't quite have the moves to really get into the paint reliably in the halfcourt. This lack of driving has been an issue with him all season and recently he had been better there, but it looked like tonight it reared its ugly head again.

Frank Jackson had a great game. Perhaps a fire has been lit.

Jaxson Hayes is now 18th in the league among all players (min. 30 games played) in Screen Assists per game, with 3.4

He is the only teenager in the top 50 in screen assists per game.

He's one of only 2 players in the top 20 to play 20 minutes or fewer per game also. If you adjust it to screen assists per 48 minutes, Jax is 11th in the league, with 8.

Edit: Jax also has only picked up 8 fouls in his last 73 minutes of play. That's equivalent to 3.9 per 36, which is fairly reasonable. It's fewer fouls per 36 than Joel Embiid, Marc Gasol, Jaren Jackson Jr, Aaron Baynes, and Dwight Howard are averaging, and it's also far fewer than Jaxson's own season average of 5.2 per 36.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6warddude

lets be fair...he should be able to grab double digits in rebounds a game with the mins he plays just by length alone... ..

---

I think you underestimate how physical basketball is. Even in games where he had double digit rebounds, there were possessions where he got pushed under the goal or completely out of the paint.

And Brad Stevens was showing our interior no respect tonight.

And in case nobody knows who Norvel Pelle is, this is the type of big thats needed. But we probably would never go after because he cant shoot 3s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

When looking at shot charts, a few things come up which are notable. First, Ingram only took 2 shots all game within 5 feet of the hope. That's bad. It's a sign that he was having trouble creating separation and space when driving, which I think we all recognised while watching. His handle isn't tight enough to really stand up against disciplined, lengthy defenders and that's why people like Tatum (a very strong defender) gave him trouble. Similarly, his long legs and heavy feet create issues when trying to adjust momentum in small areas which stymies his in-paint fluidity. When he gets crowded like he did tonight, it creates issues and sometimes this deters him. That's what we saw tonight: very few at-rim attempts.

---

Part of this was because they doubled him on his first dribble a lot. Its the first time I can recall a team trying that strategy and it gave him fits. He will adjust if he sees more of it. Judging by how effective it was he will certainly see it again.

Nightmarish game, terrible defense.

They were drunk or what ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P_B_&_G

Part of this was because they doubled him on his first dribble a lot. Its the first time I can recall a team trying that strategy and it gave him fits. He will adjust if he sees more of it. Judging by how effective it was he will certainly see it again.

---

That's definitely part of it. He was passing well in the first half which kind of made up for some of the shooting issues, but he didn't have a single assist in the second half, and only scored another 5 points. It's clear that the way the Celtics dealt with him was something that he had trouble getting over, and it didn't help that there was a clear lack of other release valves who could reliably run offense.

Jrue's not been perfect this season, we all know it, but it's clear how much him being out hurt us tonight; it's the kind of thing that doesn't show up when you're playing the Knicks, but when you only have one reliable half-court creator against a team with a functional defense like Boston, you get shown up.

Currently on pace for 29 wins still.

28.7, more exactly, but you can't win 0.7 of a game, so that's 29.

The Celtics have been playing poorly for a few weeks due to a combination of injuries, a compacted recent schedule, reintegrating injured players, and just plain hitting a low point that every team does. Even before their losing streak, they were disjointed and not performing well.

It was only a matter of time until they put it back together. Facing an injured, young Pelicans team on the second night of a back to back was the elixir.

Brown and Ingram had very similar off-games. Both went 4-15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Currently on pace for 29 wins still.

28.7, more exactly, but you can't win 0.7 of a game, so that's 29.

---

Idk... Gentry turns that into an art form with those 0.7 games.

Been on BI's bandwagon all year, but yesterday he played miserably. Five turnovers from his position is awful. Recently, he has been a little loose with the ball (specifically his lazy passing) which has led to some easy 'pick sixes'. (in football terms). He's too good of a talent to let sloppiness get in the way of greatness.

Now go re-sign him this summer.

Derrick Favors is our MVP. We have no interior defense without him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Currently on pace for 29 wins still.

28.7, more exactly, but you can't win 0.7 of a game, so that's 29.

---

I see that your not a Probablity and Statistics guy. %'s are based on both past and possible future circumstance. SOS is MUCH easier & the strong possibility that ZION will be playing.
Your definition of pace is a bit specious. %'s axiomatically change after every game played. What is the Pelicans pace for wins if you start from AFTER their 13 game losing streak?
Point being- Odds of losing 13 in a row again are astronomically low. Odds of Pelicans winning more games % wise moving forward are far greater that w/l % over the 1st 40 games.
Thus PACE is a useless tool to base what the outcome of the season will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinman

I see that your not a Probablity and Statistics guy. %'s are based on both past and possible future circumstance. SOS is MUCH easier & the strong possibility that ZION will be playing.
Your definition of pace is a bit specious. %'s axiomatically change after every game played. What is the Pelicans pace for wins if you start from AFTER their 13 game losing streak?
Point being- Odds of losing 13 in a row again are astronomically low. Odds of Pelicans winning more games % wise moving forward are far greater that w/l % over the 1st 40 games.
Thus PACE is a useless tool to base what the outcome of the season will be.

---

Ah, calm down, I'm not making predictions. I'm just saying that if we continue winning games at the same rate we have all year, that's the number of games we're roughly heading for right now.

Obviously I know we've played better since Christmas, and obviously I know the schedule gets easier towards the end. As a result of this, we'll probably end up winning some number of games above the basic "win rate so far applied to the whole season" idea. Not going to speculate as to how many more that will be, but it's some number.

Just interesting to note the overall standard the team has performed at this far, considering the competition and injury issues. That's all. Don't take it too seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tinman

I see that your not a Probablity and Statistics guy. %'s are based on both past and possible future circumstance. SOS is MUCH easier & the strong possibility that ZION will be playing.
Your definition of pace is a bit specious. %'s axiomatically change after every game played. What is the Pelicans pace for wins if you start from AFTER their 13 game losing streak?
Point being- Odds of losing 13 in a row again are astronomically low. Odds of Pelicans winning more games % wise moving forward are far greater that w/l % over the 1st 40 games.
Thus PACE is a useless tool to base what the outcome of the season will be.

---

You're basically describing the problem of heteroskedasticity. Meaning the Pelicans have been two different teams when Favors plays and when he doesn't. So past results have to be seperated or you have that long word problem.

Or, he has mostly played since December 18th, and they've been 8-4 in that time frame.

Anyway, they really need to find a backup power forward that blocks shots, rebounds, plays good PnR defense. All the little things Gentry mostly never talks about.

They went a got a Gentry type guy in Melli, but obviously they dont believe he is the answer. Otherwise he should honestly be in the starting lineup right now so BI can go back to the 3.

Saw a little note earlier that puts how incredible Ingram's improvement this year has been into perspective.

Since 1995, there have been 93 top 10 draft picks who have posted a negative combined BPM over their first 3 seasons of NBA play (with at least 1000 minutes played per year). Ingram was one of that number.

Of those 93 players, only 7 of them (7.5%) had an average +2 BPM or better over the next 3 seasons (seasons 4-6).

Those 7 players?
1) Marcus Camby
2) Mike Miller
3) Tyson Chandler
4) DeSagna Diop
5) Mike Conley
6) Brandan Wright
7) DeMarcus Cousins

And, in fact, if you restrict that to at least +3 BPM over seasons 4-6, you're left with only DeMarcus Cousins.

Obviously Ingram is only in season 4, so we can't say for sure what seasons 5 and 6 will look like for him, but so far this year he's posting a +2.2 BPM. That puts him in that group of 7 players, and with an easier half of the year left we could easily see it rise closer to +3.

Basically, Ingram's improvement (at least by BPM, which is far from a perfect metric but it's just interesting!) is nearly unprecedented among high draft picks. Less than 10% of top 10 picks who are as statistically bad as Ingram was in his first 3 years later go on to produce at a high level. The leap he's taken this year is massive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Saw a little note earlier that puts how incredible Ingram's improvement this year has been into perspective.

Since 1995, there have been 93 top 10 draft picks who have posted a negative combined BPM over their first 3 seasons of NBA play (with at least 1000 minutes played per year). Ingram was one of that number.

Of those 93 players, only 7 of them (7.5%) had an average +2 BPM or better over the next 3 seasons (seasons 4-6).

---

Because they are usually cemented into a God-awful situation for the first six years of their career.

Blessed are the fortunate one's who escape the chains of "cellar-dweller bondage", mismanagement, and ineptitude in the front office, for theirs' is a career on the rise filed with promise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by As I See It

Because they are usually cemented into a God-awful situation for the first six years of their career.

Blessed are the fortunate one's who escape the chains of "cellar-dweller bondage", mismanagement, and ineptitude in the front office, for theirs' is a career on the rise filed with promise.

---

Oh yeah there are plenty of reasons why this situation happens.

Sometimes it's because, like you said, they're stuck on a terrible team. Sometimes it's because they were drafted high as a developmental prospect and then ended up somewhere that doesn't do development (see: Kevin Knox in New York). Sometimes it's because they're drafted super young and would have actually benefitted from going back to college for another year or two. Sometimes it's because they're so bad in their first few years that they stop getting minutes after year 2 or 3, and therefore never get the opportunity to make that leap.

Sometimes it's because they're just bad at basketball.

But still, interesting to note how rare Ingram's leap has been.