The 2 for 1 debate

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/03/01/mit...er-daryl-morey

Quote:

---

7. The 2-for-1 debate is a waste of our time. One of the topics Morey and Van Gundy used to go back-and-forth on (oh, to be a fly on that wall) was JVG’s refusal to try and get two shots at the end of a quarter instead of one. Statistics told Morey that it was wiser to take two bad shots than one good one, but Van Gundy still preferred the latter. Eventually, Van Gundy asked Morey how many more wins the Rockets would total if they did, in fact, utilize the strategy. Morey crunched the numbers. The result? About one victory every two years

---

There's a lot of people who crush Monty on his 2 for 1 stance, this is from the Sloan conference.

I thought the most amazing number out of that conference was that in a football game there is only 11 min of real game play, everything else is huddling, subbing players, etc

BTW, that article was money. I loved Shane Battier as much as I did Stockton and Malone. I would have loved for us to have him here at any part of his career (he probably could have netted us a title if he was here during the Chandler, West, CP3 days). His stories and quotes made for a good lunch time read.

Thanks.

Also, The Kings owner on the value of NBA teams is interesting. If the NBA keeps growing, and viewership with it, NBA teams will be worth billions (we already see that with teams like the Clipps). That said, it will take a while, but Benson and his family are sitting on billions of dollars between his two franchises alone. Depending on how far AD can transcend, he could be like a Kobe or an LBJ, and make the Pelicans international favorites.

Quote:

---

26. Paul allows the fewest points of any backcourt player in the NBA. Who is on the opposite side of the spectrum? The Pelicans’ Jrue Holiday, who edges Shaun Livingston, Jarrett Jack and Mo Williams. The best wing defender using the same metrics, surprisingly, is Mike Dunleavy while the worst is Jodie Meeks.

---

Is Jrue as elite defensively as we think he is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/03/01/mit...er-daryl-morey



There's a lot of people who crush Monty on his 2 for 1 stance, this is from the Sloan conference.

---

What is Monty's stance? Is there a real quote about it or just a fan perception?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

What is Monty's stance? Is there a real quote about it or just a fan perception?

---

People on this forum crush Monty on not forcing his players to shoot 2 for 1; that's what i was addressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

People on this forum crush Monty on not forcing his players to shoot 2 for 1; that's what i was addressing.

---

Oh, I know - I was just referring to your original post which said 'Monty's stance' as if he had one we knew about.

I have pointed out before, using numbers, how our lack of 2-for-1's is not abnormal. TBW have pointed out how Monty is good out of timeouts with play calls.

But it never matters. People create a narrative and stick with it despite having zero facts of their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

Oh, I know - I was just referring to your original post which said 'Monty's stance' as if he had one we knew about.

I have pointed out before, using numbers, how our lack of 2-for-1's is not abnormal. TBW have pointed out how Monty is good out of timeouts with play calls.

But it never matters. People create a narrative and stick with it despite having zero facts of their own.

---

I probably could have used better verbiage.

I also think a point needs to be addressed in creating habits. When you tell your team to shoot 2 wild shots to end a half, for the sake of shooting wild shots, those behaviors can become a habit. And that habit while may not rear it's ugly head and can happen in key situations. Thats my major argument against it. I think the goal is to come together as a team and get 2 good shots quickly, but if the first one isn't there quick enough focus on getting 1.

To me, the teams that take a lot of 2-for-1's have guards or wings who can shoot off the dribble. We don't have one of those guys on the roster. Hence, the higher rate when we had CP3.

It's not a "Monty thing" IMO, it's a personnel thing.

Another interesting tidbit (BSH) from the SSC, is the amount of time Mike D'antoni spent at the conference. Makes you wonder if he could resurface as a new coach, having changed his ways for the better. I don't think I want to be the team to experiment with the new Mike D, but after Hubie Brown was away from the game for a long enough period that people forgot how bad a coach he used to be, and he had learned some new things from being off the job for so long. When he did come back he was coach of the year after taking a losing team and making them winners.

I wonder if Mike D could be merrinating in thought and come back and be a different guy.

An interesting thing to me is the perception that D'Antoni is a bad coach. Why? Because of record. Yet the same guy was considered a great coach years before. Why? Because of record.

It can't be this simple. It just can't.

Wasn't he a great coach because of his style and then a bad coach because of his style? I know he had good records and he had bad records, but I remember him most being criticized for his style of coaching (at least that's what I remember). Either way, if he could get the right group of guys together (like he had in Phx but not in NY or LA) he could be a hot commodity, but that style is almost like Shaka Smart and Don Nelson's, only Shaka also demands players play defense, and Nelli-ball required a lot of good 3pt shooters. D'antoni doesnt seem to require either of those.

Speaking of "the 2-1 debate", D'antoni would go for the 3 for 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

An interesting thing to me is the perception that D'Antoni is a bad coach. Why? Because of record. Yet the same guy was considered a great coach years before. Why? Because of record.

It can't be this simple. It just can't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

Wasn't he a great coach because of his style and then a bad coach because of his style? I know he had good records and he had bad records, but I remember him most being criticized for his style of coaching (at least that's what I remember). Either way, if he could get the right group of guys together (like he had in Phx but not in NY or LA) he could be a hot commodity, but that style is almost like Shaka Smart and Don Nelson's, only Shaka also demands players play defense, and Nelli-ball required a lot of good 3pt shooters. D'antoni doesnt seem to require either of those.

Speaking of "the 2-1 debate", D'antoni would go for the 3 for 1.

---

It's important to remember that D'Antoni was the father (so to speak) of this new spacing type offense. He may not have invented it, but he mastered it and was probably one of the first people to use it as an entire offensive scheme. D'Antoni was a great coach then. Over time, more people accepted it and used principles of this system and the world had to learn how to defend against it. As the NBA adjusted against it, D'Antoni failed to make meaningful adjustments against those changes. He refused to adopt a system that catered more towards defense, or thats at least how it seems from the outside looking in. He also upon getting the Lakers job alienated his second best player (Gasol). I don't think the game has completely passed him by at this point, but he hasn't proved much to me in terms of adapting his system into the NBA today.

I was going to say the same thing. He was a pioneer in certain regards, but he never changed, and because of that he is unemployed.

I think he could have won a title with the Suns back in (when was the bench clearing debacle) 2006-2007 (?), when his system was running the league, but it didn't happen because of that bench clearing mess, and he lost Diaw and Amare for a pivotal game.

D'antoni's system worked because of the players he had in it. Nash and Amari were deadly pick-and-rollers, and they surrounded the court with consistent shooters.

As time went on they lost the players that made the system work, and D'Antoni never really had a "counter-move". His teams never played alot of defense, so they couldn't hang their hat onto that either.

Coaching has alot to do with the players. You can coach players on "where to be", but you can't turn them into Steve Nash. Some players are born with it. Amare hasn't been nearly the same since the knees started failing him. Phoenix then lost all of their shooters and bench players (Barbosa was a freak in that 2nd unit).

I think there are maybe 3 to 4 coaches that can transcend their roster. The rest are prisoner to it.

Spoelstra and Vogal were both top 5 coaches according to that GM poll and ESPN rankings. I doubt they will be on either list next year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

I thought the most amazing number out of that conference was that in a football game there is only 11 min of real game play, everything else is huddling, subbing players, etc

BTW, that article was money. I loved Shane Battier as much as I did Stockton and Malone. I would have loved for us to have him here at any part of his career (he probably could have netted us a title if he was here during the Chandler, West, CP3 days). His stories and quotes made for a good lunch time read.

Thanks.

---

holy crap, 11minutes?

I never understood the Spoelstra love, I could understand the Vogal love (but I never got 100% behind it). I think Monty falls into this category (while we have been on a recent run its not like we have been beating the 12-13 Miami Heat, or the 95-96 Bulls), and that's why I would like a new coach. He looks amazing when his roster is at full strength, but when it's not he has problems adjusting.

Maybe who we need is Shaka Smart, maybe it is Fred Hoiberg, maybe it is some analytical junky, but I don't think we have that here. The other day I was listening to the Grizzlies gm talk about Joerger. He said the appeal they had to him was that he won in the NBA-DL and the CBA where rosters are always changing. He says, go look at some of the better coaches in the NBA (Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, George Karl), they were all winners at lower levels where things were always in flux. Maybe you can compare college coaches dealing with one and dones to CBA and NBA-DL coaches, but you need a guy who can fly by the seat of his pants. When the going gets tough you need a man with a plan, not a guy looking to draw excuses for why he lost. Either way, the way this team is built, if you can find that next George Karl, or that next Larry Brown, or that next Joerger, sign him. Let he and Demps (or whoever is the GM at the time) make the most of the roster. We have a player that can take us to multiple NBA Championship games, we just need the best system for him. Is it coach Cal? Is it Smart? Is it Hoiberg? Is it Lil Lewy wi he gimpy leg? Who knows, but he isn't here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iNolaNightmare

Is Jrue as elite defensively as we think he is?

---

Just got through reading the academic summarization paper on this. Was kind of shocked to see Jrue so low.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com...terpoints2.pdf

What the article didn't mention but the paper does is who was the number 2 and 3 defenders in that category based on their statistical parameters and who was number 3 in terms of wing defenders.... I'll let the board go check those out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

I never understood the Spoelstra love, I could understand the Vogal love (but I never got 100% behind it). I think Monty falls into this category (while we have been on a recent run its not like we have been beating the 12-13 Miami Heat, or the 95-96 Bulls), and that's why I would like a new coach. He looks amazing when his roster is at full strength, but when it's not he has problems adjusting.

---

I wrestled with this for a while dabting over just how good Phil Jackson was (since some say he was just a product of his players while others think he was an all-time great). The conclusion I came to was that coaching is more than X's and O's or knowing when to call time outs, or making sure you yell at the refs. It's about doing whatever it takes in your faculty to get wins including those things. Jackson and Phil (Not that either doesn't have the X's and O's) were at least good facilitators for their teams. Replace them with Vinny Del Negro or Byron Scott and the teams probably don't do as well. They were good at what their teams needed to win even if in an unconventional way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

Just got through reading the academic summarization paper on this. Was kind of shocked to see Jrue so low.

http://www.sloansportsconference.com...terpoints2.pdf

What the article didn't mention but the paper does is who was the number 2 and 3 defenders in that category based on their statistical parameters and who was number 3 in terms of wing defenders.... I'll let the board go check those out.

---

I brought this up in my thread earlier today. It is quite surprising where Jrue, Gordon, and Salmons stand, and maybe explains why the Cavs gave up so much for Mozgov. At any rate, as the author writes, this is the start of the new way that defensive statistics should be shaped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BallSoHard

It's important to remember that D'Antoni was the father (so to speak) of this new spacing type offense. He may not have invented it, but he mastered it and was probably one of the first people to use it as an entire offensive scheme. D'Antoni was a great coach then. Over time, more people accepted it and used principles of this system and the world had to learn how to defend against it. As the NBA adjusted against it, D'Antoni failed to make meaningful adjustments against those changes. He refused to adopt a system that catered more towards defense, or thats at least how it seems from the outside looking in. He also upon getting the Lakers job alienated his second best player (Gasol). I don't think the game has completely passed him by at this point, but he hasn't proved much to me in terms of adapting his system into the NBA today.

---

You nailed it. Have thought this for a while. I can't find the graph but I saw a graph of average points per game in the NBA. It shot up a few times. IIRC the shot clock and 3pt line added bumps. MJ added a huge bump but the biggest happened just after the peak of the Run and Gun Suns. Diantoni may not be a great coach but he had an unorthodox style, the gull to enforce it, and a hall of fame player that was built to play it. If we go with another coach and he had an unorthodox style people would kill him while we went through growing pains but innovation is invaluable. Thibedeu is another who changed the way the game was played who now isn't as valued. I'm excited to see where the next innovation lies. It may already be taking place with the Hawks, Warriors, and Spurs who take a good amount of 3s and put emphasis on ball movement on offense.

Sorry I don't have time to read the whole paper since I'm on my lunch but look at the list. Gravy is a top 5 PG defender? Advanced metrics are great, and they CAN prove a lot, but in this case I think I'll go ahead and say that Jrue is as good or better defender than CP3 and feel pretty confident in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UNO Gracias

I brought this up in my thread earlier today. It is quite surprising where Jrue, Gordon, and Salmons stand, and maybe explains why the Cavs gave up so much for Mozgov. At any rate, as the author writes, this is the start of the new way that defensive statistics should be shaped.

---

Yeah it is definitely where things need to start going and it seems to be the case. As the paper pointed out the overwhelming majority of analytics is focused on the offensive side of the ball. I think the teams that really make a breakthrough in terms of finding a knowledge advantage over other teams on the defensive side of things are going to be able to exploit that to get a leg up in some trades, drafting, FA and even in on the field strategy.

This stuff isn't the be all end all and is still in its infancy when you think about it, but it was a little disheartening to see that both Monty and Demps are pretty skeptical and adverse to using analytics in their decision making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DroopyDawg

D'antoni's system worked because of the players he had in it. Nash and Amari were deadly pick-and-rollers, and they surrounded the court with consistent shooters.

As time went on they lost the players that made the system work, and D'Antoni never really had a "counter-move". His teams never played alot of defense, so they couldn't hang their hat onto that either.

Coaching has alot to do with the players. You can coach players on "where to be", but you can't turn them into Steve Nash. Some players are born with it. Amare hasn't been nearly the same since the knees started failing him. Phoenix then lost all of their shooters and bench players (Barbosa was a freak in that 2nd unit).

---

That's an interesting thing to point out. Nash was an average pg until D'Antonio got to him. Amare has been a shell of himself without D'Antoni but the knees could have a lot to do with that. Barbosa nothing since him Diaw until Pop came into his life again was nothing. Shawn Marion? It's easy to say they made the coach but I don't buy it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Might not be the place for it but reading BSH's comment about Amare, that is the reason I would go Gasol over Jordan. Without freakish athleticism Jordan is Timofy Mozgoz (if that). Over the next few years Jordan might be able to jump out the gym, but on the tail end of that contract you are going to be looking to move him for day old mashed potatoes and cut up credit cards. Father Time is undefeated, and he will take athletecism as quickly as its presented. Gasol on the other hand will still have his basic pedestrian skills as they don't require 1/4 the athletecism that Jordan's do. So he will age like Tim Duncan.

But all of that is neither here nor there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iNolaNightmare

Is Jrue as elite defensively as we think he is?

---

I'll take Jrue Holiday triggering the on-ball defense any day of the week. In that first matchup in OKC, stealing the ball from Westbrook and feeding AD for the game-winner was classic! Mind you, that play happened with three minutes remaining in the game and pushed us ahead 101-99. The Thunder nor Westbrook scored a point in that duration and ends with Jrue stopping Russell's penetration by poking the ball loose and forcing a missed jumper from beyond the arc to preserve the win. I'll take my chances with Jrue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPL0ndox6E

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RENFO

I'll take Jrue Holiday triggering the on-ball defense any day of the week. In that first matchup in OKC, stealing the ball from Westbrook and feeding AD for the game-winner was classic! Mind you, that play happened with three minutes remaining in the game and pushed us ahead 101-99. The Thunder nor Westbrook scored a point in that duration and ends with Jrue stopping Russell's penetration by poking the ball loose and forcing a missed jumper from beyond the arc to preserve the win. I'll take my chances with Jrue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSPL0ndox6E

---

I agree with you. Jrue may give up some points, but he's a pest. I was just simply pointing out the stat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iNolaNightmare

I agree with you. Jrue may give up some points, but he's a pest. I was just simply pointing out the stat.

---

I hear ya. It's all good! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara

An interesting thing to me is the perception that D'Antoni is a bad coach. Why? Because of record. Yet the same guy was considered a great coach years before. Why? Because of record.

It can't be this simple. It just can't.

---

It's not about wins and losses. Its about his ability to coach a certain style on offense and having no ability to coach defense. Plus, when he left his teams, they never got worse (like in Phoenix) and actually improved (New York).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

This stuff isn't the be all end all and is still in its infancy when you think about it, but it was a little disheartening to see that both Monty and Demps are pretty skeptical and adverse to using analytics in their decision making.

---

Why do you say this? Is it because of that ESPN list? The way the team has played this season seems to say otherwise. For offense, 3pt shots and shots at the rim are up, mid-range shots are down, team creates a hell of a large amount of open shots. On defense, they successfully limit 3PA, especially corner 3s. Those choices all stem from decisions based on analytics, imo.