Game Thread GAME #46 - BLAZERS @ RAPTORS - JANUARY 23, 2022 - SUNDAY - 3:00 PM (PDT) ROOT SPORTS

[illmatic99]

remember when I was cynical about CJ's start to last season being sustainable and you weren't?

who gives a shit? i dunno what the difference is between your posts and some of our resident trolls sometimes.

 

[wizenheimer]

who gives a shit? i dunno what the difference is between your posts and some of our resident trolls sometimes.

just trying to figure out what you mean by "cynical"

by the way, several time over the years you have attached labels to me, personally, or at at least implied....have I ever labeled you as a poster?

 

[illmatic99]

just trying to figure out what you mean by "cynical"

really?

do you even realize what you post here?

 

[e_blazer]

ok...so then?

not trying to be combative here I'm just not sure what it is you're objecting to...the 'tone' of my post?

Tone? Sure. Your original point seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that we shouldn't take too much heart in the Blazers' 4-2 record because they didn't beat any "good" teams and still aren't likely to fare well in the playoffs. I'd say that right now, without Dame, Norm, Nance and Zeller, the Blazers are pretty much fielding a rebuilding-level roster. For them to achieve the turnaround that they have...to see both Ant and Little shine in an expanded role and get consistent solid performances from McLemore, is encouraging. To know that 3 of the guys who are currently not playing are likely to be available soon and that there's a chance Dame will be available by the playoffs says that this team's best days may be in front of them. To know that they have a stretch of 10 easy games in March that could move them up as high as the 6th seed is something that Cronin has to take into account. So, yeah, a "tone" that seems to say the Blazers should just toss in their hand on this season, I think is unfair.

 

[illmatic99]

Come on, man, I know you want to tamp down expectations, but this post is pretty hard spin on the negative. You average the two losses to Denver and Miami to come up with 22 points per game losing to the two "good teams"? Never mind that the Denver loss was a 32 point blowout and the Miami game was competitive until the final minutes. And the wins over Boston and Toronto count as bad teams because they currently sit at .500? Toronto had a winning record before the Blazers beat them. The Celtics had a winning record the game before they played the Blazers. Winning on the road is tough regardless of opponent records. Going 4-2 with a roster that's missing Dame, Norm, Nance and Zeller? That's a pretty good sign that the Blazers are starting to put things together. Should Cronin see that as a sign that all is well with the Blazers roster? Of course not, but it doesn't mean nothing either.

how dare you post something positive.

wait lemme pull up some stats that show ben mclemore is better than simons.

 

[wizenheimer]

Tone? Sure. Your original point seems to be (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) that we shouldn't take too much heart in the Blazers' 4-2 record because they didn't beat any "good" teams and still aren't likely to fare well in the playoffs. I'd say that right now, without Dame, Norm, Nance and Zeller, the Blazers are pretty much fielding a rebuilding-level roster. For them to achieve the turnaround that they have...to see both Ant and Little shine in an expanded role and get consistent solid performances from McLemore, is encouraging. To know that 3 of the guys who are currently not playing are likely to be available soon and that there's a chance Dame will be available by the playoffs says that this team's best days may be in front of them. To know that they have a stretch of 10 easy games in March that could move them up as high as the 6th seed is something that Cronin has to take into account. So, yeah, a "tone" that seems to say the Blazers should just toss in their hand on this season, I think is unfair.

I have said most of the things you just said, recently, in different ways than you, and in different threads than this. I just didn't say those things in the post you're objecting to. 4-2 over the road trip is a decent result. So is 6-4 over the last 10 games. By the way, 8 teams have a better record over the last 10; 3 other teams are at 6-4 like Portland. Is there a tone in stating those facts?

I got caught up in the tank for the pick mode like most people around here. For damn sure I was not the only one talking about a high lottery pick, so I sure wasn't alone in that tone. But I think it's pretty clear the Blazers will probably make the playoffs or at least make the play-in. Those 6 wins in the last 10 are part of that. My 'cynicism' is making me think it will probably make for a rinse-repeat of previous playoffs though. But if Dame is back playing well, and the Blazers can avoid both Phoenix and Golden State in the first round, maybe not

 

[Hoopguru]

Still only 6 of 15 teams in WC above 500.

 

[BlazerBeav]

Still only 6 of 15 teams in WC above 500.

That's the weird thing - our season has felt like (and has been) a dumpster fire - but there are a lot of other teams also performing well below projections. The Clippers are a mess health-wise. The Lakers are just a mess. The Jazz have health issues AND their awful perimeter defense is finally catching up to them too despite Gobert. GSW is winning but Curry's shooting is awful. Denver has Jokic and a bunch of deadweight.

 

[e_blazer]

I have said most of the things you just said, recently, in different ways than you, and in different threads than this. I just didn't say those things in the post you're objecting to. 4-2 over the road trip is a decent result. So is 6-4 over the last 10 games. By the way, 8 teams have a better record over the last 10; 3 other teams are at 6-4 like Portland. Is there a tone in stating those facts?

I got caught up in the tank for the pick mode like most people around here. For damn sure I was not the only one talking about a high lottery pick, so I sure wasn't alone in that tone. But I think it's pretty clear the Blazers will probably make the playoffs or at least make the play-in. Those 6 wins in the last 10 are part of that. My 'cynicism' is making me think it will probably make for a rinse-repeat of previous playoffs though. But if Dame is back playing well, and the Blazers can avoid both Phoenix and Golden State in the first round, maybe not

Okay, it was the tone. I’m over it.

 

[wizenheimer]

That's the weird thing - our season has felt like (and has been) a dumpster fire - but there are a lot of other teams also performing well below projections. The Clippers are a mess health-wise. The Lakers are just a mess. The Jazz have health issues AND their awful perimeter defense is finally catching up to them too despite Gobert. GSW is winning but Curry's shooting is awful. Denver has Jokic and a bunch of deadweight.

sometimes parity is not a good thing

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Six of 9 Blazers players finished with scores that were prime numbers! That has to mean something, right?

yes, it obviously means we're ready for prime time!

 

[wizenheimer]

Okay, it was the tone. I’m over it.

I understand...you thought I was too negative about the road trip, given the circumstances. I was just focusing on different circumstances in a reply to a post

 

[KSF-ERIC]

How often do 5 seeds win championships? Yeah, give me a break.

How often does a team draft top 3 and win a championship with that player in the last 20 years? I think it’s only Duncan and LeBron. Is there a Duncan or LeBron in this draft?

 

[handiman]

not trying to be combative here I'm just not sure what it is you're objecting to...the 'tone' of my post?

You're very invested in the idea that this team is nothing without Dame. So, when they play well without him, you go to great lengths to downplay the sustainability or the quality of opponent. I can't speak for others, but that tone is pretty obvious to me at times.

 

[Tince]

what about per possession?

Would have to throw it in a spreadsheet to compare. We're 20th in the league in terms of total possessions so it would be fairly to give a minor uptick to to how often we're passing per possession. Unfortunately, the only hurts the case for those extra passes providing a positive results

Just going off the data I can find. I know all the 7th grade coaches who have been preaching jump stops, pivots, and extra passes won't like the data though.

 

[Tince]

How often do 5 seeds win championships? Yeah, give me a break.

Out of the 74 NBA champions, most of them have come from the No. 1 (53) and No. 2 (12) seeds. That’s 65 titles between the two seeds and the rest were divided between the third (7), fourth (1) and sixth seeds (1).

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Would have to throw it in a spreadsheet to compare. We're 20th in the league in terms of total possessions so it would be fairly to give a minor uptick to to how often we're passing per possession. Unfortunately, the only hurts the case for those extra passes providing a positive results

Just going off the data I can find. I know all the 7th grade coaches who have been preaching jump stops, pivots, and extra passes won't like the data though.

It's neat that you're taking an interest, but honestly, I think it's irrelevant until the last 1/4 of next season.
Right now, we're in "learning to make the extra pass" mode. I don't expect an immediate payoff. If we're "contenders" (however one defines that) at the end of next season and the extra passing still doesn't pay off, then the experiment didn't work, and we need to reconsider our options.

 

[wizenheimer]

You're very invested in the idea that this team is nothing without Dame. So, when they play well without him, you go to great lengths to downplay the sustainability or the quality of opponent. I can't speak for others, but that tone is pretty obvious to me at times.

ok...that's your interpretation of what I'm thinking

allow me my interpretation of what I was thinking: a 4-2 record on the road trip is fine, but there was some context to that 4-2 record I felt like pointing out

 

[Tince]

It's neat that you're taking an interest, but honestly, I think it's irrelevant until the last 1/4 of next season.
Right now, we're in "learning to make the extra pass" mode. I don't expect an immediate payoff. If we're "contenders" (however one defines that) at the end of next season and the extra passing still doesn't pay off, then the experiment didn't work, and we need to reconsider our options.

I agree with you 100% that half season stats don't mean a ton. I'd also add looking at a stat for one team vs all 30 teams has way less value. Luckily, I've been pulling this data for the last couple seasons, for all 30 teams, so we have 90 data points on if there is a correlation between more passes/more wins or more passes/better offensive rating. So far after 2.5 seasons and 90 data points, there has been nothing that connects the two. I'm highly confident if we went back 10 years, the lack of a correlation would continue.

To think passing matters signficantly more to Portland than other teams would take some mental gymnastics. So let's say randomly next year we pass a lot more and win more, I don't think one data set by one team would be enought to disprove a much larger data set.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I agree with you 100% that half season stats don't mean a ton. I'd also add looking at a stat for one team vs all 30 teams has way less value. Luckily, I've been pulling this data for the last couple seasons, for all 30 teams, so we have 90 data points on if there is a correlation between more passes/more wins or more passes/better offensive rating. So far after 2.5 seasons and 90 data points, there has been nothing that connects the two. I'm highly confident if we went back 10 years, the lack of a correlation would continue.

To think passing matters signficantly more to Portland than other teams would take some mental gymnastics. So let's say randomly next year we pass a lot more and win more, I don't think one data set by one team would be enought to disprove a much larger data set.

Very interesting. I wonder if you screened out teams with a top 75 all time player, whether there would be some sort of correlation. "Top players don't need passing" would be a compelling narrative, though idk if it's true. However, the GS championship teams and the Spurs championship teams, for example, were very good passing teams.

 

[wizenheimer]

Very interesting. I wonder if you screened out teams with a top 75 all time player, whether there would be some sort of correlation. "Top players don't need passing" would be a compelling narrative, though idk if it's true. However, the GS championship teams and the Spurs championship teams, for example, were very good passing teams.

I wonder is there is a better gauge of passing than just the raw passes numbers. I've seen Portland make several passes around the perimeter on some possessions for years that don't seem to generate good looks at all. 7 passes and a bad shot are not as good as 4 passes and a good shot

 

[Tince]

Very interesting. I wonder if you screened out teams with a top 75 all time player, whether there would be some sort of correlation. "Top players don't need passing" would be a compelling narrative, though idk if it's true. However, the GS championship teams and the Spurs championship teams, for example, were very good passing teams.

Here's the plot chart removing teams with top 75 players: Pretty much no correlation with a minor trend down that the more teams pass, the less likely they are to have a better record.

 

[Tince]

I wonder is there is a better gauge of passing than just the raw passes numbers. I've seen Portland make several passes around the perimeter on some possessions for years that don't seem to generate good looks at all. 7 passes and a bad shot are not as good as 4 passes and a good shot

Yes, this is the right thought process in my eyes. Logically, the closest thing I could come up with is potential assists or assisted points created. Those also have flaws, but touting passing as being valuable has way more flaws. While neither would be considered a strong positive correlation, there at least is a positive correlation between the two. The more you gear towards the stat actually resulting in points, the stronger the correlation gets; which should be no surprise.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

Yes, this is the right thought process in my eyes. Logically, the closest thing I could come up with is potential assists or assisted points created. Those also have flaws, but touting passing as being valuable has way more flaws. While neither would be considered a strong positive correlation, there at least is a positive correlation between the two. The more you gear towards the stat actually resulting in points, the strong the correlation gets; which should be no surprise.

View attachment 44379

not to quibble, but it would be nice for you to "show equation" and R^2, the correlation coefficient. No extra work, just click the right box in the right menu.

 

[Tince]

not to quibble, but it would be nice for you to "show equation" and R^2, the correlation coefficient. No extra work, just click the right box in the right menu.

I hear you. Next time, I'll put that in there for you. I can assure you I haven't been making up the data in the post or the ones I've made the last couple seasons. e

You're also welcome to provide any data you have, so it's not just the "Coach Apologist" with the agenda as some tend to feel. I'd love to find a few metrics that have strong relation to success in the NBA.

So far, having multiple all-stars, one of which is above average height or an MVP at above average height seem to be near requirements. Something our one all-star of below average height roster has been allergic to for years.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I hear you. Next time, I'll put that in there for you. I can assure you I haven't been making up the data in the post or the ones I've made the last couple seasons. e

You're also welcome to provide any data you have, so it's not just the "Coach Apologist" with the agenda as some tend to feel. I'd love to find a few metrics that have strong relation to success in the NBA.

So far, having multiple all-stars, one of which is above average height or an MVP at above average height seem to be near requirements. Something our one all-star of below average height roster has been allergic to for years.

This is some of the data I've been tracking (I have more recent data, but here's a quick pic). Basically, you need a top 5 offense OR defense, and the other better be top 10.

 

[Tince]

This is some of the data I've been tracking (I have more recent data, but here's a quick pic). Basically, you need a top 5 offense OR defense, and the other better be top 10.
View attachment 44381

That's pretty good and makes sense, thanks!

not to quibble, but it would be nice for you to "show equation" and R^2, the correlation coefficient. No extra work, just click the right box in the right menu.