Game Thread GAME# 45: BLAZERS @ KINGS - JANUARY 14, 2019 - MONDAY, 7:00 PM, NBCSNW

[illmatic99]

Some things defy statistical analysis. If you've ever experienced "the zone", you know it exists. If not, it's easy to disavow.

Seriously, i've only had it a few times in my life, but i was hitting everything in pickup. From 25 feet, fading away, absolutely horrible shots that i wouldn't dream of even taking any other day, but when you're on, the basket is literally ten feet wide.

 

[wizenheimer]

exactly....any shooting or scoring metric that doesn't account for FT's is deeply flawed

This is terrific work. And a great way to show CJ's usefulness. Unfortunately, we live in a time when everyone values PER more than ppg.

well, I disagree. PPG doesn't account for efficiency, only opportunity. If a player is scoring 22 points a game on 24 FGA's. he's not a good player....more precisely, he's not contributing to wins

that list is so incomplete it's essentially useless

 

[Blazers Roy]

Just posted this in the 'Bashing CJ thread', but thought it also applies here -

CJ had a tough night, and is having a bit of a down year. But how good is he compared to other teams number 2 scoring option?

Here's a look at each team's number 2 scoring option, ranked by points-per-game and eFG%:

View attachment 24275

Yes, I know there are many ways to rank players. But I'm simply looking at the scoring efficiency of each team's number 2 option. Defense of course isn't take into account. Contracts aren't taken into account. Simply scoring productivity and efficiency.

We all expect a lot out of CJ. He's got a big contract to live up to. And yes, he's having a down year. But looking at the league wide picture, I think CJ stacks up pretty good for the role that he's in.

People on this forum will not be satisfied until our #2 option would be a top5 player.
A SG who has off nights shooting around 2/12 is an alien lifeform, it seems.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What's even worse is this forum used to be a group of people that would like to get together in a suite and watch a game. @SlyPokerDog used to work hard putting together opportunities for us to all come together. That seems strangely absent this year. Think about that will ya?

 

[3putt]

I don't feel sorry for him. He's a millionaire. He will be fine

Agreed. Not going to hate on him if he wants to get rings cause he’s got enough money. But he is loyal to pdx and I like that about the guy

 

[hoopsjock]

Sly, I'm not really sure where to put this but it kind of applies to this conversation. How come the Blazers never mention the official forum on twitter or during a game or anything like that?

 

[blazerboy30]

Some things defy statistical analysis. If you've ever experienced "the zone", you know it exists. If not, it's easy to disavow.

No. There is no such thing as "the zone". If it exists, it should be easy to show supporting data. I'd love to see it

People claim to see patterns that aren't there. This is a perfect example of that. (Research Paper)

 

[blazerboy30]

Seriously, i've only had it a few times in my life, but i was hitting everything in pickup. From 25 feet, fading away, absolutely horrible shots that i wouldn't dream of even taking any other day, but when you're on, the basket is literally ten feet wide.

And if you repeatedly flip a coin, at some point you'll get many heads in a row. Do you have a "hot hand" for coin flipping?

 

[3putt]

Are you familiar with the notion of sticking with the hot hand? Nobody is saying Jake is a super-star....but he is capable of getting hot. The issue is why Stotts is so reluctant to to take advantage of what he does well. Stotts just doesn't adapt on the fly.

Jake adds an element that seems to be optional for most of the team, energy. Will he score 40 prolly not but he changes the game with energy and momentum and when he puts up 15 points it’s hard to overlook.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Tonight Giles was notably excellent at offense and Jackson at defense. So I have just voted in the above poll for them. Collins sucked.

Admittedly I was pushing for Jackson before the draft, and was pretty much shot down. And quite frankly they may have been right. At the moment I am not convinced that Jackson is better than Jake. I think I would rather have Collins and Jake then Giles and Jackson.

 

[THE HCP]

Reading a thread with over 600 posts dominated by 3 or 4 posters that think they know more than people who actually do a job that the posters have never even sniffed.
You are just comical with your "Advanced" knowledge of basketball.

It's a game dude. Tagging me to your posts and calling me out by name points to the fact that people can live in your head a little too easily if they don't agree with your take on everything.

The Blazers are 26-19 and currently 5th in the Western Conference. This from a team that no one anywhere thinks has a chance to win a Championship. That seems about as good as it will get. If the Blazers beat all predictions and win 50 games it still won't be enough for you or the others like you on this thread. Seriously if they end up with 32 losses we are going to have to read a thread 13 more times dominated by you telling us all how you could coach the Blazers better than Stotts. It seems like a sad existence at best dude. If they only win 48 games then it will be 15 more threads.

One thing that even seems funnier is you claiming that Stotts only does what YOU suggest when they win. It's comical at best.

What's even worse is this forum used to be a group of people that would like to get together in a suite and watch a game. @SlyPokerDog used to work hard putting together opportunities for us to all come together. That seems strangely absent this year. Think about that will ya?

I officially nominate this for Post of the Year.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No. There is no such thing as "the zone". If it exists, it should be easy to show supporting data. I'd love to see it

People claim to see patterns that aren't there. This is a perfect example of that. (Research Paper)

Again, not talking about observation or analysis. Talking about experience. It's not a clinically replicable situation. It's not something you can understand unless you've experienced it, and it's not something you can predict or capture.

 

[wizenheimer]

And if you repeatedly flip a coin, at some point you'll get many heads in a row. Do you have a "hot hand" for coin flipping?

bullshit. Flipping a coin is random. You won't change chances by practicing

but the 10,oooth time you shoot a FT you'll be better than the 1st time

 

[illmatic99]

bullshit. Flipping a coin is random. You won't change chances by practicing

but the 10,oooth time you shoot a FT you'll be better than the 1st time

Exactly. Muscle memory and hand eye coordination has a huge role in getting hot

 

[e_blazer]

I officially nominate this for Post of the Year.

Sounds good. Of course, the year is only 15 days old.

 

[oldmangrouch]

There is no such thing as "getting hot". This "notion" has been statistically disproved many times.

But by all means, continue using a made up term as a reason to bash the coaching.

So, what are you contending?

A) Players are 100% consistent and there is no fluctuation in game-to-game performance.
B) You are arguing semantics.

 

[kjironman1]

Everyone is welcome to their opnions. If you don't like certain peoples opinions don't read their posts. Put them on ignore.

If you feel you are being tagged and being unfairly called out and instigated let a mod know. It will be looked into.

There are a lot of passionate fans here who get upset when the Blazers continously underperform. Yeah the Blazers are 26-19. They should have a better record than that. Looking back there is up to 10 games they could have won, but didn't. People are upset about it. And, that is ok. The Blazers have little chance to win a championship, and their play continues to be mediocre. It can be incredibly stressfull at times to be a fan.

@SlyPokerDog just put together a Skybox game earlier this season. We have had interviews with Harry Glickman and a live one with Kerry Eggers. We were doing one with Larry Weinberg before he passed. I am sure there will be more things to come before the season is over. Those oppurtunities have not been absent.

It's all good. No need to look into anything.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So, what are you contending?

A) Players are 100% consistent and there is no fluctuation in game-to-game performance.
B) You are arguing semantics.

I think his contention is that the probability of a player making a particular shot is not affected by the manner in which the player is playing at any given time. If (for example) Aminu has missed 5 consecutive 3's, he is not any less likely to make his next one than if he had made 5 straight.

 

[kjironman1]

Sounds good. Of course, the year is only 15 days old.

Much room for improvement then....

 

[kjironman1]

Sly, I'm not really sure where to put this but it kind of applies to this conversation. How come the Blazers never mention the official forum on twitter or during a game or anything like that?

Have you read a game thread recently. C'mon... You can't be serious.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I think his contention is that the probability of a player making a particular shot is not affected by the manner in which the player is playing at any given time. If (for example) Aminu has missed 5 consecutive 3's, he is not any less likely to make his next one than if he had made 5 straight.

That's an interesting abstract argument - but it leads to the conclusion that no player is better than another, since every player in the league is equally likely to make/miss their next shot. As others have said, shooting a basketball is not a random act.

 

[wizenheimer]

 

[blazerboy30]

Again, not talking about observation or analysis. Talking about experience. It's not a clinically replicable situation. It's not something you can understand unless you've experienced it, and it's not something you can predict or capture.

You're actually agreeing with me. The entire point is that you can't predict the next shot or series of shots based on the outcome of the previous set of shots. So going with the "hot hand" because they made some number of previous shots is a myth with no statistical backing.

 

[blazerboy30]

That's an interesting abstract argument - but it leads to the conclusion that no player is better than another, since every player in the league is equally likely to make/miss their next shot. As others have said, shooting a basketball is not a random act.

That is absolutely NOT what this says.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You're actually agreeing with me. The entire point is that you can't predict the next shot or series of shots based on the outcome of the previous set of shots. So going with the "hot hand" because they made some number of previous shots is a myth with no statistical backing.

Your initial statement was that there is no such thing as "the hot hand". That is the statement with which I disagree.

From simply a numbers perspective, making a shot or two has no bearing on the next shot. So if one attempts to define "the hot hand" as simply, "a guy who is at present shooting a higher percentage in that game, then yes, that definition will be fallacious. But from an experiential perspective, one can enter a physical/mental state during which probability of success increases. That immeasurable, unquantifiable state fits the "hot hand" description, but defies depiction in quantitative analysis.

 

[blazerboy30]

Your initial statement was that there is no such thing as "the hot hand". That is the statement with which I disagree.

From simply a numbers perspective, making a shot or two has no bearing on the next shot. So if one attempts to define "the hot hand" as simply, "a guy who is at present shooting a higher percentage in that game, then yes, that definition will be fallacious. But from an experiential perspective, one can enter a physical/mental state during which probability of success increases.

Those two statements are completely contradictory. How would anyone know they were in this mythical mental state, except for after the fact? That's called data mining.

That immeasurable, unquantifiable state fits the "hot hand" description, but defies depiction in quantitative analysis.

It's not quantifiable because the state doesn't exist. You can't just claim something is "unquantifiable" because it helps to align with your opinion.

 

[Chris Craig]

LMAO...does he really think he can take Nurkic?

 

[Strenuus]

No. There is no such thing as "the zone". If it exists, it should be easy to show supporting data. I'd love to see it

People claim to see patterns that aren't there. This is a perfect example of that. (Research Paper)

While I agree that getting hot or "you're due" is kind of misleading, technically "The zone" if it were to be researched, would have to be labeled as a construct.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Those two statements are completely contradictory. How would anyone know they were in this mythical mental state, except for after the fact? That's called data mining.

It's not quantifiable because the state doesn't exist. You can't just claim something is "unquantifiable" because it helps to align with your opinion.

Again, you can't understand it because you haven't experienced it. You're speaking from an uninformed position. There's nothing I can say to convey to you what it is like, but you know it when you're in it.

 

[GrandpaBlaze]

You're actually agreeing with me. The entire point is that you can't predict the next shot or series of shots based on the outcome of the previous set of shots. So going with the "hot hand" because they made some number of previous shots is a myth with no statistical backing.

So what you are saying is that CJ going 1-14 on 3’s during a game while Dame is 7-8 from 3, you don’t think it makes any difference in which of them takes the final “clutch” shot?

If hot hand means nothing, perhaps we should have Nurk take that final 3 as he is just as likely to make it as Dame as all shots are equal.

At the end of the season does everyone also get a participation trophy rather than having a champion as, by extension, no team can get “hot” either so crowning a champion is random discrimination.

Do you work for Stotts?