Coach Of The Year

[BGrantFan]

Reasons are messy and hard to understand, just like statistics; best to avoid them altogether.

Exactly. Net net, 54 > 51, excuses aside.

 

[EPIC FAIL GILDERHUS]

I didn't list reasons, but 54 > 51, at least in my household. "Besides, as much as I love 'Dre, Blake won 54 games as the starting PG last year. 'Dre will top out at 51 if we win against GS. The team regressed this season."

Absolutely its a regression if you compare apples to apples-last year we were relatively injury free. But you're comparing apples to oranges, and also pinning the fact that we won three less games this year on Andre. Do you really think, with all the crap we've had to endure this season, we win 51 w/Blake?

 

[Wheels]

Exactly. Net net, 54 > 51, excuses aside.

not sure you understood the post.

 

[BGrantFan]

Absolutely its a regression if you compare apples to apples-last year we were relatively injury free. But you're comparing apples to oranges, and also pinning the fact that we won three less games this year on Andre. Do you really think, with all the crap we've had to endure this season, we win 51 w/Blake?

Actually, I'm comparing victories to victories. I don't even really like apples or oranges. I'm more of a berry guy. As for winning 51 with Blake, the team won 54 games last year with him. I can only go by history.

 

[BGrantFan]

not sure you understood the post.

I'm not sure you're understanding my posts.

 

[Wheels]

I'm not sure you're understanding my posts.

think I did.. I just found them laughable. Sorry.

 

[BGrantFan]

think I did.. I just found them laughable. Sorry.

Then you're on the right track. No need to be sorry. Think about it.

 

[EPIC FAIL GILDERHUS]

Actually, I'm comparing victories to victories. I don't even really like apples or oranges. I'm more of a berry guy. As for winning 51 with Blake, the team won 54 games last year with him. I can only go by history.

OK, I'll bite. Last year we won 54 games in spite of Blake for the most part. This year, we won 50 because of Andre, for the most part.

 

[Wheels]

Also The Cavs won 66 games last year... this year the most they can win is 62... OBVIOUS REGRESSION!!!

 

[Blazer4ever]

Yes, but if you watch the games, you can't really say Blake is better than Miller, you might say they're equal (if you only remember Blake torching us with the Clippers and not Blake getting-torched, with us) but saying Blake is the better player is a reach, IMO.

Also, I'm not sure our record with Blake and Miller was better than what we had last year, until the same time Blake got traded. are you saying Sergio (whom Miller replaced, until Blake left) was also better than Miller? You can't compare wins and then say that proves one player is better than the other, games are won by teams. I actualy think Miller is MUCH superior to Blake and that this season is a much bigger success than last year, considering everything we had to endure.

 

[Minstrel]

Blake won 54 games as the starting PG last year. 'Dre will top out at 51 if we win against GS. The team regressed this season.

The team did regress a bit this year.

If that's due to the point guard play, then Blake is better than Miller.

If that's due to the injuries, then it depends on whether Miller injured those players and/or whether Blake was a superior healer of other players.

If it was due to some random variation, then it depends on whether Blake is a luckier fella than Miller.

But we can all agree that the team regressed a little bit this season in win total. And that Blake was the starting point guard last year, while Miller was (largely) the starting point guard this year. And that last year was an odd numbered year and this year is an even numbered year. These are facts, that's all.

 

[BGrantFan]

OK, I'll bite. Last year we won 54 games in spite of Blake for the most part. This year, we won 50 because of Andre, for the most part.

Yes, that's one opinion.

 

[Wheels]

The team did regress a bit this year.

If that's due to the point guard play, then Blake is better than Miller.

If that's due to the injuries, then it depends on whether Miller injured those players and/or whether Blake was a superior healer of other players.

If it was due to some random variation, then it depends on whether Blake is a luckier fella than Miller.

But we can all agree that the team regressed a little bit this season. And that Blake was the starting point guard last year, while Miller was (largely) the starting point guard this year.

I would say some key players have regressed.. mainly LMA and Rudy. But I think had there been a healthy GO at the way he was playing before he went down.. what he offered more than would have compensated for the regression of Rudy and LMA (not in their skills obviously, but in overall impact on the game, and team)

 

[BGrantFan]

Yes, but if you watch the games, you can't really say Blake is better than Miller, you might say they're equal (if you only remember Blake torching us with the Clippers and not Blake getting-torched, with us) but saying Blake is the better player is a reach, IMO.

Also, I'm not sure our record with Blake and Miller was better than what we had last year, until the same time Blake got traded. are you saying Sergio (whom Miller replaced, until Blake left) was also better than Miller? You can't compare wins and then say that proves one player is better than the other, games are won by teams. I actualy think Miller is MUCH superior to Blake and that this season is a much bigger success than last year, considering everything we had to endure.

I don't recall saying that Blake is better than Miller. I'm merely noting that 54 > 51. I don't understand why this basic mathematical fact is upsetting some people.

 

[BGrantFan]

I would say some key players have regressed.. mainly LMA and Rudy. But I think had there been a healthy GO at the way he was playing before he went down.. what he offered more than would have compensated for the regression of Rudy and LMA (not in their skills obviously, but in overall impact on the game, and team)

So, we agree that the team has regressed. That wasn't so difficult, was it?

 

[hasoos]

Here is the reason I believe Skiles does deserve a lot of consideration:

1. His team really wasn't that good to begin with, and overachieved. Before the season started, they were a bad team that probably wouldn't make the playoffs in the eastern conference. That is bad. Now they are not.
2. They did overcome some injuries.
3. They truly did play some good ball this season. With some excellent winning streaks.

Reasons why I don't think that he deserves all the credit:

1. Brandon Jennings was much better than anticipated by many. If nothing else, he is ahead of schedule.
2. Surprise players like Ilyasova.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't recall saying that Blake is better than Miller. I'm merely noting that 54 > 51. I don't understand why this basic mathematical fact is upsetting some people.

You forgot to add the emote.

Then people would have understood that you were citing a bunch of unconnected facts, not meant to make any point.

 

[BGrantFan]

Anyhow, back to the subject at hand.

I feel that Skiles should win it, followed by Nate McDillon, with Scott Brooks taking 3rd for guiding an injury-free team to the 8th seed in a Yao-less Western Conference.

My reasons don't matter.

 

[Wheels]

So, we agree that the team has regressed. That wasn't so difficult, was it?

not for the same reasons we dont.

 

[BGrantFan]

You forgot to add the emote.

Then people would have understood that you were citing a bunch of unconnected facts, not meant to make any point.

I was citing one connected fact. The fact that 54 > 51. You did add some unconnected possibilities influencing the numeric data, possibilities which may or may not have value in assessing the numeric data.

 

[Minstrel]

not for the same reasons we dont.

He didn't give a reason. He just noted that the team has regressed and Blake was then and Miller is now.

I might similarly note that dinosaurs existed back when there was no USA and since the founding of the USA, there haven't been any dinosaurs. These are facts. I didn't connect them. PapaG didn't connect his facts either, which is where you are misunderstanding him.

 

[BGrantFan]

not for the same reasons we dont.

I haven't listed any reasons. Are you one of those mind-readers I've been seeing on TLC?

 

[BGrantFan]

He didn't give a reason. He just noted that the team has regressed and Blake was then and Miller is now.

I might similarly note that dinosaurs existed back when there was no USA and since the founding of the USA, there haven't been any dinosaurs. These are facts. I didn't connect them. PapaG didn't connect his facts either, which is where you are misunderstanding him.

I'm PapaG!

 

[Wheels]

fair enough.. then I find your lack of reasoning laughable. Now do we agree?

 

[BGrantFan]

fair enough.. then I find your lack of reasoning laughable. Now do we agree?

I have reasons. I just haven't shared them. Well, I did early in the thread, but if you didn't want to read them, no biggie.

 

[Minstrel]

I was citing one connected fact. The fact that 54 > 51.

I was counting in Blake as the starter last year and Miller as the starter this year among your unconnected facts. Both were implied in your post:

"Blake won 54 games as the starting PG last year. 'Dre will top out at 51 if we win against GS. The team regressed this season."

Blake being the starter last year, Miller largely being the starter this year and 54 > 51 are all facts, which you didn't connect together ("Portland lost more games because Miller replaced Blake"). I was just helping you be understood! People thought you were connecting them together and making that argument I put in parenthesis. You were just citing facts. Not making arguments.

 

[Minstrel]

I'm PapaG!

I know!

 

[BGrantFan]

I was counting in Blake as the starter last year and Miller as the starter this year among your unconnected facts. Both were implied in your post:

"Blake won 54 games as the starting PG last year. 'Dre will top out at 51 if we win against GS. The team regressed this season."

Blake being the starter last year, Miller largely being the starter this year and 54 > 51 are all facts, which you didn't connect together ("Portland lost more games because Miller replaced Blake"). I was just helping you be understood! People thought you were connecting them together and making that argument I put in parenthesis. You were just citing facts. Not making arguments.

I thought it was pretty easy to understand numeric values, but then people want to get all touchy-feely and start clouding the issue by throwing out reasons, assumptions, opinions, facts, and anecdotes.

I'm just a simple man.

 

[Minstrel]

I thought it was pretty easy to understand numeric values, but then people want to get all touchy-feely and start clouding the issue by throwing out reasons, assumptions, opinions, facts, and anecdotes.

I'm just a simple man.

We are at base a touchy-feely species. If tigers had language, I imagine they'd appreciate your 54 > 51 argument and not cloud it with other thoughts. As it is, they're pretty on board with "alive > dead" and don't get too wrapped up in opinions, emotions, anecdotes, etc.

 

[BlazerBenner]

I'm willing to opine that 61 games of Oden vs. 21 (and his shoes being filled by Juwan Howard's PER of 10 in 72 games) was a much bigger factor in the 54-to-51 than some supposed drop-off from Blake to Miller. Especially since Blake rewarded Nate's faith in him with a sub-10 PER for 60+ games.

EDIT: To drive that point home a bit more, we started 54 games with Blake and/or Howard and their sub-10 PERs. Half of that is Nate's fault--half is his inspired gameplanning after Przy went down.

Durant scored a bunch last year...what changed?

Blake sucks as a point guard. Anyone with any understanding of basketball can see that. He doesn't make anyone around him better. He actually makes everyone around him worse. He puts no pressure on the opposition.