1st December - New Orleans Pelicans VS OKC Thunder 6-13

[Pelicanidae]

All that will mean is Hayes will probably get minutes cut.

I think Gentry absolutely loathed having AD & Boogie together slowing down the pace.

Sadly there's probably truth to this.

What should happen is that when Favors comes back, Hayes should continue getting his 20 minutes a night, and those minutes should come from Okafor and Melli, with Favors getting the other 28.

What will probably actually happen is Okafor will somehow find a way to get 15 minutes a night, Melli will get 8 minutes per game at really inopportune moments, Favors will play 34 minutes a game, and Hayes will only ever come in for 3 minutes at a time in garbage time.

[Taker597]

Sadly there's probably truth to this.

What should happen is that when Favors comes back, Hayes should continue getting his 20 minutes a night, and those minutes should come from Okafor and Melli, with Favors getting the other 28.

What will probably actually happen is Okafor will somehow find a way to get 15 minutes a night, Melli will get 8 minutes per game at really inopportune moments, Favors will play 34 minutes a game, and Hayes will only ever come in for 3 minutes at a time in garbage time.

It's a bit of a hyperbole, but Gentry is gonna fumble the minutes up badly like he does every night.

I'm ready for him to move to the FO. He's a great person and personality. I would love for him to stick with organization that are short on basketball minds. I personally think the game has passed him by a long time ago outside of one lightning in a bottle. There is nothing wrong with it, but he has done a lot of great things for this organization that don't show up on the W/L record.

[luckyman]

It's a bit of a hyperbole, but Gentry is gonna fumble the minutes up badly like he does every night.

I'm ready for him to move to the FO. He's a great person and personality. I would love for him to stick with organization that are short on basketball minds. I personally think the game has passed him by a long time ago outside of one lightning in a bottle. There is nothing wrong with it, but he has done a lot of great things for this organization that don't show up on the W/L record.

The game hasnt passed him by. On the contrary, he's trying to be too far in front of it.

This is 7-9 Sean Payton 2.0. There are certain fundamentals of football and basketball that will never change.

Just like Sean Payton tried to throw the ball 40-50 times per game and resulted in 7-9 seasons, Gentry wants "at least 40 threes per game." and the results will be the same.

You have to run the ball in football and be balanced. Sean Payton adjusted and it's paid dividends.

Gentry has to draw up sets to get into the paint and draw fouls or get uncontested layups or mid range shots.

Naturally Zion will help fix that, but it shouldnt be reliant on one player. It is a fundamental coaching flaw.

[Taker597]

The game hasnt passed him by. On the contrary, he's trying to be too far in front of it.

This is 7-9 Sean Payton 2.0. There are certain fundamentals of football and basketball that will never change.

Just like Sean Payton tried to throw the ball 40-50 times per game and resulted in 7-9 seasons, Gentry wants "at least 40 threes per game." and the results will be the same.

You have to run the ball in football and be balanced. Sean Payton adjusted and it's paid dividends.

Gentry has to draw up sets to get into the paint and draw fouls or get uncontested layups or mid range shots.

Naturally Zion will help fix that, but it shouldnt be reliant on one player. It is a fundamental coaching flaw.

His lightning in a bottle was the Sun run. It got figured out and he never learned to overcome that coaching wall.

Don't let the Warriors run fool you. That was a hall of fame squad and the only one to really successfully to run a diet verison of Gentry's offense.

[Pelicanidae]

His lightning in a bottle was the Sun run. It got figured out and he never learned to overcome that coaching wall.

Don't let the Warriors run fool you. That was a hall of fame squad and the only one to really successfully to run a diet verison of Gentry's offense.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I almost feel like Gentry had very little to do with the success of that Suns run either.

Nash was still there in that first year (the most successful year, the WCF trip) and he was still going bonkers. He averaged 16pts and 11asts per game that year, and shot 50/40/90. He was incredible still, despite his advancing age, and it was one of his last really healthy seasons (he played 81 games that year). I'm convinced that it was Nash's continued incredible play, combined with the roster continuity of guys like Stoudemire, that propelled the Suns on that run, not Gentry.

It was momentum that pushed through one more year, not the coach.

[Taker597]

Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I almost feel like Gentry had very little to do with the success of that Suns run either.

Nash was still there in that first year (the most successful year, the WCF trip) and he was still going bonkers. He averaged 16pts and 11asts per game that year, and shot 50/40/90. He was incredible still, despite his advancing age, and it was one of his last really healthy seasons (he played 81 games that year). I'm convinced that it was Nash's continued incredible play, combined with the roster continuity of guys like Stoudemire, that propelled the Suns on that run, not Gentry.

It was momentum that pushed through one more year, not the coach.

Nope, you're not.

Gentry has glaring track record of poor talent development and lack attention to details. He had a vet squad and basically was a caretaker. Buddy Heild looked like bench player at best with Gentry and soon as he flipped. His game changed overnight.

Something isn't right in that practice facility.

[Pelicanidae]

I was just looking things up to compare, now that there's a slightly larger sample of games:

If you look at our first month of games (October 22nd until November 22nd) you find that only 33% of our shots were at the rim, and 42% were from behind the arc. 25% of our shots came from midrange.

Shooting at the rim, we generated 1.26 points per shot. At the arc, 1.15. In the midrange, 0.74.

It's clear that the most valuable shots this team can generate, in terms of creating-points-per-attempt, at at rim attempts. Followed by threes, followed by the midrange in the last place. So how come we're taking more shots from 3 than at the rim? What sense does that make, strategically? It's a simple calculation to find out that the best shots in terms of creating value are at-rim attempts, so why are we prioritising threes which are less valuable? Why 33% at rim and 42% from 3, and not the other way around?

And then, get this: since November 22nd until today, the shots we're creating are even worse!

At-rim attempts over the last 10 days or so are down to only 26% of our shot profile, despite us having become more effective at scoring on those attempts: the points per at-rim attempt has gone up to 1.31. Meanwhile, our mid-range shooting has dropped off from 0.74 points per shot to a truly disgusting 0.66 points per shot, yet our volume of midrange shots has crept up to being 31% of our offense. That's right, we are now taking more mid-rangers than shots at the rim, despite having gotten even less efficient at them. Our 3pt shooting has stayed fairly stable in terms of volume at 43% of our attempts, though our efficiency has fallen a little to 1.09pps.

And get this: In the 4th quarter, despite our efficiency soaring to 1.5 points per shot on these attempts, at-rim shots have dropped off even further to only 18% of our offense during this time period. Midrangers stay the same, roughly, in terms of volume (31% still) but our efficiency continues dropping off: we have been generating only 0.52 points per shot on midrangers during this stretch.

The real change is the volume of three pointers: others have pointed out how many aimless threes we've been shooting off isolation plays or bone-headed fastbreak choices, and that shows up: since the 22nd, 51% of our shot attempts in the 4th quarter have been 3 pointers, and our efficiency has dropped off to only 0.8 points per shot on these attempts. This is largely because they're bad shots, rushed shots, isolated shots, etc etc.

So why, when 3 pointers are working less for us, and midrangers are working less for us, do we continue to keep taking those shots at such high frequencies, while ignoring the fact that we're actually generating extremely efficient offense at the rim? Why do this? Does Gentry not check these numbers? Does nobody on the staff check these numbers? Does nobody look at our efficiency from various spots on the floor and ask, hey why don't we take the shots that we're creating lots of points on, and fewer of the terrible shots that don't give us anything?

This is a legitimate problem with our scheming. Obviously Zion returning will bump up the volume of paint attempts, as will Favors, but there's still no excuse for taking only 18% of your shots at the rim in 4th quarters. That's unforgivable.

[13 - 3]

People seem to forget Mark Jackson built the Warriors. Not Kerr or Gentry.

[Taker597]

People seem to forget Mark Jackson built the Warriors. Not Kerr or Gentry.

Mark Jackson didn't built anything. Dude was a nut. Over here pouring holy water on Curry ankle and telling him it's good to play on...

[13 - 3]

Mark Jackson didn't built anything. Dude was a nut. Over here pouring holy water on Curry ankle and telling him it's good to play on...

Don't believe Darren Erman

[Pelicanidae]

Mark Jackson didn't built anything. Dude was a nut. Over here pouring holy water on Curry ankle and telling him it's good to play on...

It's crazy what revisionist history does.

You look back at Mark Jackson's actual time with the Warriors, you find everyone mad at him for refusing to run the ball through Curry in key situations because he preferred to post-up David Lee, and telling players that their teammates were possessed by demons, and then a few years later everyone runs around pretending he was some closet-genius who gifted Curry his shooting prowess via some strange alchemy.

[Taker597]

I was just looking things up to compare, now that there's a slightly larger sample of games:

If you look at our first month of games (October 22nd until November 22nd) you find that only 33% of our shots were at the rim, and 42% were from behind the arc. 25% of our shots came from midrange.

Shooting at the rim, we generated 1.26 points per shot. At the arc, 1.15. In the midrange, 0.74.

It's clear that the most valuable shots this team can generate, in terms of creating-points-per-attempt, at at rim attempts. Followed by threes, followed by the midrange in the last place. So how come we're taking more shots from 3 than at the rim? What sense does that make, strategically? It's a simple calculation to find out that the best shots in terms of creating value are at-rim attempts, so why are we prioritising threes which are less valuable? Why 33% at rim and 42% from 3, and not the other way around?

And then, get this: since November 22nd until today, the shots we're creating are even worse!

At-rim attempts over the last 10 days or so are down to only 26% of our shot profile, despite us having become more effective at scoring on those attempts: the points per at-rim attempt has gone up to 1.31. Meanwhile, our mid-range shooting has dropped off from 0.74 points per shot to a truly disgusting 0.66 points per shot, yet our volume of midrange shots has crept up to being 31% of our offense. That's right, we are now taking more mid-rangers than shots at the rim, despite having gotten even less efficient at them. Our 3pt shooting has stayed fairly stable in terms of volume at 43% of our attempts, though our efficiency has fallen a little to 1.09pps.

And get this: In the 4th quarter, despite our efficiency soaring to 1.5 points per shot on these attempts, at-rim shots have dropped off even further to only 18% of our offense during this time period. Midrangers stay the same, roughly, in terms of volume (31% still) but our efficiency continues dropping off: we have been generating only 0.52 points per shot on midrangers during this stretch.

The real change is the volume of three pointers: others have pointed out how many aimless threes we've been shooting off isolation plays or bone-headed fastbreak choices, and that shows up: since the 22nd, 51% of our shot attempts in the 4th quarter have been 3 pointers, and our efficiency has dropped off to only 0.8 points per shot on these attempts. This is largely because they're bad shots, rushed shots, isolated shots, etc etc.

So why, when 3 pointers are working less for us, and midrangers are working less for us, do we continue to keep taking those shots at such high frequencies, while ignoring the fact that we're actually generating extremely efficient offense at the rim? Why do this? Does Gentry not check these numbers? Does nobody on the staff check these numbers? Does nobody look at our efficiency from various spots on the floor and ask, hey why don't we take the shots that we're creating lots of points on, and fewer of the terrible shots that don't give us anything?

This is a legitimate problem with our scheming. Obviously Zion returning will bump up the volume of paint attempts, as will Favors, but there's still no excuse for taking only 18% of your shots at the rim in 4th quarters. That's unforgivable.

I think losing AD kind of give Gentry the green light on doing what he wants to do instead of catering to Ad's play style.

You know how many open runs Hayes get passed on in a game in the paint.They watch film... About 20+ games where Hayes has anywhere to 5-10+ easy looks and alley opportunities. They don't focus on it. The spacing Hayes gets is disrespectful.

[Pelicanidae]

I think losing AD kind of give Gentry to green light on doing what he wants to do instead of catering to Ad's play style.

You know how many open runs Hayes get passed on in a game in the paint.They watch film... About 20+ games where Hayes has anywhere to 5-10+ easy looks and alley opportunities.

Hayes is probably the one who gets short changed the most by this, although not entirely (Jrue should be driving more, Ingram should be driving more, etc etc) but you're right. I've said it before as well, and it's obvious to anyone who watches the games: Hayes should be getting about 3 or 4 wide open dunks a game from his off-ball movement, rim running, and streaking out ahead of the play. But nobody sees him, nobody's looking for him, nobody cares. Easy buckets that just get left on the table.

[13 - 3]

It's crazy what revisionist history does.

You look back at Mark Jackson's actual time with the Warriors, you find everyone mad at him for refusing to run the ball through Curry in key situations because he preferred to post-up David Lee, and telling players that their teammates were possessed by demons, and then a few years later everyone runs around pretending he was some closet-genius who gifted Curry his shooting prowess via some strange alchemy.

True. You are right. By the way I can't see a Klutch spokesperson coaching this team.

[Creative]

Another disappointing and pathetic game. TERRIBLE to watch.

[luckyman]

It's crazy what revisionist history does.

You look back at Mark Jackson's actual time with the Warriors, you find everyone mad at him for refusing to run the ball through Curry in key situations because he preferred to post-up David Lee, and telling players that their teammates were possessed by demons, and then a few years later everyone runs around pretending he was some closet-genius who gifted Curry his shooting prowess via some strange alchemy.

From what I heard, Mark Jackson was the one who wanted to replace David Lee with Draymond a lot earlier. But it was the higher ups that wanted to force the ball to David Lee.

[Taker597]

I was just looking things up to compare, now that there's a slightly larger sample of games:

If you look at our first month of games (October 22nd until November 22nd) you find that only 33% of our shots were at the rim, and 42% were from behind the arc. 25% of our shots came from midrange.

Shooting at the rim, we generated 1.26 points per shot. At the arc, 1.15. In the midrange, 0.74.

It's clear that the most valuable shots this team can generate, in terms of creating-points-per-attempt, at at rim attempts. Followed by threes, followed by the midrange in the last place. So how come we're taking more shots from 3 than at the rim? What sense does that make, strategically? It's a simple calculation to find out that the best shots in terms of creating value are at-rim attempts, so why are we prioritising threes which are less valuable? Why 33% at rim and 42% from 3, and not the other way around?

And then, get this: since November 22nd until today, the shots we're creating are even worse!

At-rim attempts over the last 10 days or so are down to only 26% of our shot profile, despite us having become more effective at scoring on those attempts: the points per at-rim attempt has gone up to 1.31. Meanwhile, our mid-range shooting has dropped off from 0.74 points per shot to a truly disgusting 0.66 points per shot, yet our volume of midrange shots has crept up to being 31% of our offense. That's right, we are now taking more mid-rangers than shots at the rim, despite having gotten even less efficient at them. Our 3pt shooting has stayed fairly stable in terms of volume at 43% of our attempts, though our efficiency has fallen a little to 1.09pps.

And get this: In the 4th quarter, despite our efficiency soaring to 1.5 points per shot on these attempts, at-rim shots have dropped off even further to only 18% of our offense during this time period. Midrangers stay the same, roughly, in terms of volume (31% still) but our efficiency continues dropping off: we have been generating only 0.52 points per shot on midrangers during this stretch.

The real change is the volume of three pointers: others have pointed out how many aimless threes we've been shooting off isolation plays or bone-headed fastbreak choices, and that shows up: since the 22nd, 51% of our shot attempts in the 4th quarter have been 3 pointers, and our efficiency has dropped off to only 0.8 points per shot on these attempts. This is largely because they're bad shots, rushed shots, isolated shots, etc etc.

So why, when 3 pointers are working less for us, and midrangers are working less for us, do we continue to keep taking those shots at such high frequencies, while ignoring the fact that we're actually generating extremely efficient offense at the rim? Why do this? Does Gentry not check these numbers? Does nobody on the staff check these numbers? Does nobody look at our efficiency from various spots on the floor and ask, hey why don't we take the shots that we're creating lots of points on, and fewer of the terrible shots that don't give us anything?

This is a legitimate problem with our scheming. Obviously Zion returning will bump up the volume of paint attempts, as will Favors, but there's still no excuse for taking only 18% of your shots at the rim in 4th quarters. That's unforgivable.

Here is something else that you'd enjoy... That closing rotation that Gentry put out to win the game...


That lineup had only played together for 9 minutes prior to tonight.

We are stunting the development on NAW for that. Gross incompetence 20 games into the season.

[P_B_&_G]

Tomorrow (today for me, 39 minutes past midnight gang) for you guys marks exactly 6 weeks since Zion's surgery.

Holding out hope.

They said 6 to 8 so I'm thinking any time between now and the 17th he will make his debut. Likely in a home game.

[Pelicanidae]

They said 6 to 8 so I'm thinking any time between now and the 17th he will make his debut. Likely in a home game.

I mean, the 17th is more like 9 weeks but I guess they might give him a little extra time just to get through some practices.

The reality is that, unless there's been some complications or some twinges, he could probably play in the next game we have, but they'll want to take it cautiously and even if he was technically ready to go today, at 6 weeks, they'd probably still leave him until at least 7 just to be sure.

Obviously I'm not saying he is ready to go, I'm not there examining him and I'm not a doctor so nobody get at me for that hypothetical

[luckyman]

They said 6 to 8 so I'm thinking any time between now and the 17th he will make his debut. Likely in a home game.

Griffin recently said it will be closer to 8 weeks. So next thing to look for is news of him practicing, like later this week sometime.

[Pelicanidae]

Griffin recently said it will be closer to 8 weeks. So next thing to look for is news of him practicing, like later this week sometime.

Do you remember when/where Griff said this? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to check out the interview/article/whatever, since I've missed it

[Fedupfan]

Do you remember when/where Griff said this? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to check out the interview/article/whatever, since I've missed it

He said it in a TV interview. I remember him saying it could be 6 weeks or 9 weeks. But, no rush is what I took from it.

[AusPel]

No need to rush Zion back one bit. We need Favors back though, what the hell is going on with him

[Taker597]

No need to rush Zion back one bit. We need Favors back though, what the hell is going on with him

You get someone from a team that's dead last in pace 4 out of the last 5 years and you tell him to run.

[luckyman]

Do you remember when/where Griff said this? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to check out the interview/article/whatever, since I've missed it

About 10 days ago.

https://www.nba.com/pelicans/news/da...chedule-return

“Where we are with Zion is he’s on schedule. He’s progressing exactly as we hoped he would,” Griffin said on ESPN New Orleans 100.3 FM. “(In terms of a timetable), I think we’re on target for eight weeks. Probably not to the day, but in or around that.”

And for those wondering, Favors mother just passed away and funeral was Saturday.