Game Thread GAME# 63: WIZARDS @ BLAZERS - MARCH 4, 2020 - WEDNESDAY, 7:00, NBCSNW

[wizenheimer]

They need a lot of things, better shooters, better passers, better players. Passing will only go so far. Cause all those teams were just flat out better than the Blazers.

you're preaching to a choir of one TB. I agree....what the Blazers need is more talent at the top end of the roster; messing around with the lower end of the rotation doesn't alter a team's trajectory. Portland needs to upgrade the core, and I think the core is, by default, Dame-CJ-Nurk. Actually, I think Blazer management should consider they only have one core player, Dame, and build from that. The belief that anybody else on the roster is untouchable is a big part of the problem

I can see both sides of the assist debate. On one side, I think it's likely true you can't just isolate on one stat and say "this is what a contender must have". There are more paths to contention than just one, and every once and a while a team can zag to a title when the rest of the teams are zigging.

on the other side, you have to keep in mind that assist numbers are just the proxy for offensive production. They represent ball movement, player motion, and dependable offense. Iso-offense seems easier to defend than effective team offense, unless of course the iso-offense is coming from generational talent like Lebron/Dwade; Durant/Curry; Kobe/Shaq; Jordan/Pippen; Bird/McHale....even then, those teams generated a lot more team offense from their iso-ball than Portland does.

 

[wizenheimer]

2012-2020 Blazers under Stotts

19 or less assists: 90-134 (.402%)

20 or more assists: 263-150 (.637%)

21 or more assists: 237-123 (.658%)

22 or more assists: 206-102 (.669%)

23 or more assists: 183-79 (.698%)

24 or more assists: 156-63 (.712%)

25 or more assists: 131-40 (.766%)

26 or more assists: 100-21 (.826%)

27 or more assists: 73-12 (.859%)

28 or more assists: 57-11 (.838%)

29 or more assists: 38-7 (.844%)

30 or more assists: 20-7 (.741%)

31 or more assists: 12-4 (.750%)

32 or more assists: 9-3 (.750%)

Under Stotts over 35% of their games they've had less than 20 assists in a game and win just 40% of the time when that happens. The problem this season? They're only averaging 20.1 assists per game!!! Only 19% of their games they have 26 or more assists but win at a near 83% clip when they do so.

This is why I don't care what other team's records are when they get assists. It's a fact the Blazers are better when they have more assists. Look at those winning percentages and just try to dispute them.

holy shit....

did you have some sort of search algorithm to come up with th0se numbers? I'm trying to think if BBREF has a game finder app for that. That's a ton of data

the only question I would have about those numbers would be along the lines of: did those 224 games of 19 or less assists come against a lot of top-10 defenses? A lot of times it seems Portland has low assists when they are playing great defensive teams that take away Blazer passing lanes.

 

[hoopsjock]

I can see both sides of the assist debate. On one side, I think it's likely true you can't just isolate on one stat and say "this is what a contender must have". There are more paths to contention than just one, and every once and a while a team can zag to a title when the rest of the teams are zigging.

I don't think anyone has argued that assists are an isolated stat that shows what a contender needs to have. It is the easiest way to show "ball movement" in a stat but it's far from ideal.

In the Stotts era I think it's pretty obvious that when the ball is moving the Blazers are a better team than if it's iso heavy.

 

[hoopsjock]

holy shit....

did you have some sort of search algorithm to come up with th0se numbers? I'm trying to think if BBREF has a game finder app for that. That's a ton of data

the only question I would have about those numbers would be along the lines of: did those 224 games of 19 or less assists come against a lot of top-10 defenses? A lot of times it seems Portland has low assists when they are playing great defensive teams that take away Blazer passing lanes.

Unfortunately the search doesn't have a way to filter opponents defensive rating in those games. I could give someone a list of the 224 games if someone wants to figure it out.

Edit: It wouldn't also account for if opposing players were missing or injured in those games.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

@wizenheimer if you really want to go crazy with data on bbref, it's a pretty easy site to grab data from. You can use python and beautifulsoup or some other library and pandas / numpy to grab data and organize it. Since you really like numbers and putting those stats together this might save you some time even if it has a little bit of a learning curve to it. None of the coding parts is that complicated and there are like a billion tutorials on how to do it. Just an idea.

 

[wizenheimer]

@wizenheimer if you really want to go crazy with data on bbref, it's a pretty easy site to grab data from. You can use python and beautifulsoup or some other library and pandas / numpy to grab data and organize it. Since you really like numbers and putting those stats together this might save you some time even if it has a little bit of a learning curve to it. None of the coding parts is that complicated and there are like a billion tutorials on how to do it. Just an idea.

it's almost like you were speaking in tongues there. I couldn't choose between panic and coma. I'm more of a hardware guy than a software guy

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

it's almost like you were speaking in tongues there. I couldn't choose between panic and coma. I'm more of a hardware guy than a software guy

Haha, don't tell your doctor it was me.

 

[Hobbesarable]

@wizenheimer if you really want to go crazy with data on bbref, it's a pretty easy site to grab data from. You can use python and beautifulsoup or some other library and pandas / numpy to grab data and organize it. Since you really like numbers and putting those stats together this might save you some time even if it has a little bit of a learning curve to it. None of the coding parts is that complicated and there are like a billion tutorials on how to do it. Just an idea.

Copy and paste into excel. Done deal. Boom boom.

 

[bobf]

I tried to analyze the correlation between assists and W/L percentage by holding FG% constant in order to eliminate hot shooting as a hidden cause of more winning and more assists. I filtered games on FG% between 45% and 48%. I split that into two groups (1) games with 25+ assists (2) games with fewer than 25 assists. Each groups had nearly identical FG% but the high assist group still had a much better W/L% (by almost 12%).

But there was another correlation. The high-assist group had significantly more extra possessions defined as ORB + STL - TOV. Those extra possessions are almost enough to explain all of the difference W/L record. So are extra possessions the hidden cause of everything?
1. Did the extra possessions cause the extra assists? No way. There were only about 3 extra possessions. That might produce one more assist, not 7+ assists.
2.Did the extra passing cause the extra possessions? More passing could lead to more ORB by breaking down the defense, but it should also lead to more turnovers. And more steals? I don't think so.



More likely there is a separate cause of higher assists, extra possessions, and more wins. That cause IMO is simply being more talented than the other team. When an offense can dominate a defense (whether by great passing or great one on one) defenses get compromised, players are open (more assists), the offense flows easily (fewer turnovers) and the defense is scrambling (more offensive rebounds).

Bottom line, I like passing and do think it results in better offense in the long run. But I don't think it's something you can simply turn on. There is effective and ineffective passing just as there are good and bad shots. Here are the top 6 teams in the NBA by number of passes. There seems to be a strong correlation between passing and losing. What does this prove? Probably that bad teams can't get an open shot so they make another pass.