Everything (2016-2017) Regular Season Game Threads

[Axel]

Well the problem is it's difficult to actually measure tactical acumen in any sort of quantifiable way. All we can really do is make judgment causes that are heavily biased by what or who we watch with the most regularity and our own personal opinions on what is most important. That's why I thought the topic I brought up earlier was relevant, but since you asked me not to I won't continue to delve further into it.

Yes it is very subjective, but to make the assertion that it has anything to do with racism, especially in response to another poster does not go over well.

[Barolt]

But we aren't talking about a difference of minutae, we're talking about a massive difference between Scola and Patterson, and if you break it down by 2,3,4,5 man units, universally Patterson was better than Scola with those players.

[planetmars]

A good thing about this season is that our vet's vet is also the best player on our team. So Casey can't mess that one up.

[Lupe]

There is a bit of a difference between not starting your best line up and starting a line up that is a negative. Scola's unit was losing ground fairly consistently, so it's not even really defendable as an option.

That's a fair argument. Like I said I supported starting 2Pat also. But then one might wonder what happens to the team's production from units that come on later as rotations are made. Don't really have any data on that though since we haven't seen 2Pat start for a long period of time, basically ever.

[white men can't jump]

I think it's from February last year. I'm trying to find a bigger data set right now.

Why bother? Ppp after a timeout is not a telling stat. Is it because of good coaching? Is it because you simply have talent that can score even off uninspired play-calls? It tells you points per possession, but does not tell you who deserves the credit. And that's fine.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[DanH]

I'm also in favor of starting Patterson, but you also have to wonder how much that oRTG is inflated by who that lineup was matched up against. It might've dropped off if it started against the other teams' best units.

Like it's hard for me to see the logic in not starting 2Pat, but one thing I have considered is that we were not the only team that didn't start its best lineup.

For example the Cavaliers did in fact start their best lineup (talking over 100 mins played here btw). But Golden State didn't (the death lineup), the Spurs didn't (Tony-Manu-Kawhi-Aldridge-Duncan), the Clippers also didn't (they had 4 lineups that were better than their starters), neither did the Hawks (although their best lineup doesn't include Millsap so that's likely why).

You think Demar, Lowry AND JV were all on the court together against inferior bench units?

That 4-some is mostly made up of what became the closing lineup late in games when Carroll was hurt, the lineup that played against the opposing team's best players in close games. And they ravaged the opponent.

I'm not saying to start the best lineup. For example, the best lineup would actually project to not even include Patterson (CoJo with starters, Carroll at 4). I wouldn't want to start CoJo. But that's an entirely different conversation to starting Patterson versus Scola.

[Nilanka]

Depends how you measure "lighting the world on fire." Individually, with his shooting? No.

But look at this (4-man units used because of the rotating door at SF) from last season:

4-man unit: Lowry-DeRozan-Scola-JV: 103.2 ORTG, 108.1 DRTG, -4.9 RTG
4-man unit: Lowry-DeRozan-Patterson-JV: 127.4 ORTG, 107.9 DRTG, +19.5 RTG

A 127 ORTG is pretty much by definition lighting the world on fire. That's no small sample size either - that 4-some had 250+ minutes played together.

Hey, I was desperately calling for a Scola benching myself last year. But in hindsight, it's clear that Casey values his "eye test" more than advanced stats.

There will always be an element of subjectivity which defines a coach's decision. In Casey's case, he eventually made the right move benching Scola in the playoffs (albeit, he took forever to do it), and we still were 1 of 4 teams standing in the end.

Let's hope he's not as stubborn this year.

[Axel]

You think Demar, Lowry AND JV were all on the court together against inferior bench units?

That 4-some is mostly made up of what became the closing lineup late in games when Carroll was hurt, the lineup that played against the opposing team's best players in close games. And they ravaged the opponent.

I'm not saying to start the best lineup. For example, the best lineup would actually project to not even include Patterson (CoJo with starters, Carroll at 4). I wouldn't want to start CoJo. But that's an entirely different conversation to starting Patterson versus Scola.

Exactly, finding a middle ground between the best unit and a unit that drags the team down is the goal. Hopefully Pascal can at least help the unit be on the plus side of the column, because I don't expect Casey to really split starts between the two moving forward.

[Lupe]

Why bother? Ppp after a timeout is not a telling stat. Is it because of good coaching? Is it because you simply have talent that can score even off uninspired play-calls? It tells you points per possession, but does not tell you who deserves the credit. And that's fine.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Woah I wasn't trying to say it makes him a great coach.

Someone specifically pointed out that he needed to get better at drawing up plays after timeouts, and I posted that specifically in reference to that comment. Not the overarching discussion we're having here.

[white men can't jump]

Woah I wasn't trying to say it makes him a great coach.

Someone specifically pointed out that he needed to get better at drawing up plays after timeouts, and I posted that specifically in reference to that comment. Not the overarching discussion we're having here.

So you specifically posted it to refute a comment about him not being good atdrawing up plays, but werent using it to support that he's a good coach?

Ok then

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[slaw]

So you specifically posted it to refute a comment about him not being good atdrawing up plays, but werent using it to support that he's a good coach?

Ok then

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Given that head coaches don't draw up ATO plays in the timeout I'm not even sure what this is all about. Everyone realizes that those plays are designed with input from the entire coaching staff and practised weeks and months in advance, right? And are more often than not just specific sequences (or variations of) of offensive sets that the team uses every night. I mean, I'm not completely discounting that on very rare occasions some coach might ad lib a great play but I have trouble with the notion that happens on a regular basis. In Toronto, Nick Nurse has the ATO plays under his umbrella and it's not like he makes it up on the spot.... it's part of his job to make sure it doesn't have to be improvised.

[Mess]

"It reminds you of a soccer stadium because their stars are always flopping"

har har

[Mess]

So you specifically posted it to refute a comment about him not being good atdrawing up plays, but werent using it to support that he's a good coach?

Ok then

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

He said "great coach" since you mentioned Popovich in your reply. Ok then.


Anyway, nice to see the same level of continuity here in the forums on the subject of Casey.

[white men can't jump]

He said "great coach" since you mentioned Popovich in your reply. Ok then.


Anyway, nice to see the same level of continuity here in the forums on the subject of Casey.

I didnt mention Popovch in anything at all. Like. At. All.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[white men can't jump]

Given that head coaches don't draw up ATO plays in the timeout I'm not even sure what this is all about. Everyone realizes that those plays are designed with input from the entire coaching staff and practised weeks and months in advance, right? And are more often than not just specific sequences (or variations of) of offensive sets that the team uses every night. I mean, I'm not completely discounting that on very rare occasions some coach might ad lib a great play but I have trouble with the notion that happens on a regular basis. In Toronto, Nick Nurse has the ATO plays under his umbrella and it's not like he makes it up on the spot.... it's part of his job to make sure it doesn't have to be improvised.

Does Nick Nurse do it? I disticntly remember Kalamian drawing them up at times last year.

And if anything we are critiquing that it appears it isn't something they practice enough or design with enough variations. I am not in any way saying "oh they dont spontaneously pull enough amazing creative plays out of their asses". On the contrary it seems they dont spend months trying to create enough ripples in these plays so that come playoffs they're harder to scout/stop for these situations.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk