Honest question for Stotts supporters

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
I did not delete anything. It only said Olshey when I replied. You must have edited your quote. I’m sure a mod can back me.
 
Stotts sucks. He isn't going anywhere. Get over it. The end.
 
Literally 4 players watching Damian Lillard go one on one over and over and over again. If I was an NBA team I'd want to play the Blazers every night. They are so predictable and easy to defend.

Terry Stotts is trash at this point.
 
Any more riders want to jump aboard the Fire Stotts bandwagon?

iu
 
Neil O. Shyster said:
Dead last in entire NBA in assists, a full assist behind Knicks says it all... Stotts lets CJ go ISO on every possession... we need a new coach
Click to expand...

Assists and winning percentage have a low correlation. Why do people think otherwise?
 
TBpup said:
Being in the top half in assists has a VERY high correlation for those winning NBA titles.
Click to expand...

"Very high" in terms of your opinion or a very high correlation coefficient?

I don't even think you could come up with a statisically relevant data set trying to do that unless you felt the game hasn't changed over the history of the NBA.
 
oldfisherman said:
Not only are the Blazers dead last in assists.

They are also dead last in steals.
Click to expand...

Is the goal here to point out all the statisical categories with low correlations (less that 0.5)? Let's talk about FT% defense while we're throwing meaningless stats around.

Not sure how the Blazers have historically ranked in these, but FG%, 3PTM, 3PT% are all above 0.5 so at least have a moderate correlation.
 
Tince said:
Is the goal here to point out all the statisical categories with low correlations (less that 0.5)? Let's talk about FT% defense while we're throwing meaningless stats around.

Not sure how the Blazers have historically ranked in these, but FG%, 3PTM, 3PT% are all above 0.5 so at least have a moderate correlation.
Click to expand...

Being dead last in multiple categories says something about the scheme and philosophy of the coach.

So what you're really arguing is "Why is our coach THIS bad?" with all of this. The numbers don't lie, our coach sucks.
 
Tince said:
Is the goal here to point out all the statisical categories with low correlations (less that 0.5)? Let's talk about FT% defense while we're throwing meaningless stats around.

Not sure how the Blazers have historically ranked in these, but FG%, 3PTM, 3PT% are all above 0.5 so at least have a moderate correlation.
Click to expand...

Also, assists and steals arent meaningless stats, they are actually some of the most important.

So if that's the criteria of meaningless stats, then we have a meaningless coach.
 
Elite isolation scorers like a James Harden will create a lack of correlation between ball movement and offensive productivity, because its situational evidence to the contrary. It also doesnt take into account and counter extremely effective non-assist situations such as a putback, a one-man fastbreak, or when the defense break down and gives up a wide open driving lane (which can often be created by good balk movement but might not result in an assist). Trying to use a direct assists to offensive prodcution study without context as evidence that ball movement doesnt matter is ridiculous, and a stretch to try and cover for Terry Stotts.

The average "lack of correlation" doesnt mean that ball movement is meaningless for the Portland Trail Blazers, who dont have James Harden. And weve seen time and time again that the more we move the ball, the more productive our offense is.
 
Last edited:
Is there any stats of how many passes teams make in games? And I don't mean assists, I mean ball movement.
 
Tince said:
"Very high" in terms of your opinion or a very high correlation coefficient?

I don't even think you could come up with a statisically relevant data set trying to do that unless you felt the game hasn't changed over the history of the NBA.
Click to expand...

I believe @wizenheimer listed out the last 20 or so NBA Champs. All but 1 (IIRC) were in the top half in assists.

But it's not just the assist itself. There are other things that come from the assist:

  • More of the team is involved so they have/keep their rhythm for when they do get a shot....instead of not having taken one for 15 minutes of real time.
  • The shot created from more ball movement likely is an easier shot than the continually contested one.
  • Players are more likely to be engaged on the defensive end if they are included in the offensive end.
  • Offensive rebounds are more likely as the defense is moving vs being packed in on the inside waiting for one player to make their move.

Some of these might be tough to get stats for but @BonesJones, myself, and others who have played high levels of basketball through D1 and pro ball listed those things when we've had discussions about Iso vs ball movement. Even ss good as Michael Jordan was, it wasn't until he backed off scoring so much, moved the ball more and trusted his teammates, that he started getting rings.
 
brooklynballer said:
Thanks for this. Not surprisingly, Portland is dead last in the NBA in passes made, almost a hundred passes per game behind the league leaders.
Click to expand...

100 passes per game....that seems like quite a bit. Especially since many of Portland's passes are basically hand-offs 25' from the basket as they run the weave.

iu
 
Hobbesarable said:
You have called and I have answered!

Try these.

Team Passing Stats: https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/

Player Passing Stats: https://stats.nba.com/players/passing/
Click to expand...

yeeeeeeesh!

so then, Portland is dead last in the NBA in:

* assists,
* passes made
* passes received
* potential assists
* assist points created
* adjusted assists

now, the correlation between a lot of these categories and a winning record does seem a bit tenuous. But even if you just sort by raw assist numbers, 7 of the top-10 teams are Denver, 76ers, Bucks, Lakers, Pacers, Miami, and Toronto. So maybe the correlation is a little stronger than it seems. Even when you drop lower in the rankings, you see Portland at a disadvantage against other lower-assist-winning-teams. Dame/CJ/Melo just don't have the one-on-one power of Kawhi/PG13/Lou Williams or Harden/Westbrook. Portland is bringing dull knives to gunfights
 
BonesJones said:
Is there swriously people trying to argue that ball movement doesnt matter?

Oh my goodness....
Click to expand...

If I ever said "ball movement doesn't matter" I might have mispoke. I know I've said over and over that the correlation between assists and winning % or offensive efficiency has a low correlation. That isn't an opinion of mine, that's what league wide data has proven in multiple studies. If you have a large data set that shows more passes will increase the chance a team wins, I'm all for it.

If I kept going around saying Whiteside is the best free throw shooter in the NBA because I thought his form looked the prettiest, but his career average was 60%, I think people would question my assessment because the facts don't back it up.
 
wizenheimer said:
yeeeeeeesh!

so then, Portland is dead last in the NBA in:

* assists,
* passes made
* passes received
* potential assists
* assist points created
* adjusted assists

now, the correlation between a lot of these categories and a winning record does seem a bit tenuous. But even if you just sort by raw assist numbers, 7 of the top-10 teams are Denver, 76ers, Bucks, Lakers, Pacers, Miami, and Toronto. So maybe the correlation is a little stronger than it seems. Even when you drop lower in the rankings, you see Portland at a disadvantage against other lower-assist-winning-teams. Dame/CJ/Melo just don't have the one-on-one power of Kawhi/PG13/Lou Williams or Harden/Westbrook. Portland is bringing dull knives to gunfights
Click to expand...
Boom!
 
TBpup said:
I believe @wizenheimer listed out the last 20 or so NBA Champs. All but 1 (IIRC) were in the top half in assists.

But it's not just the assist itself. There are other things that come from the assist:

  • More of the team is involved so they have/keep their rhythm for when they do get a shot....instead of not having taken one for 15 minutes of real time.
  • The shot created from more ball movement likely is an easier shot than the continually contested one.
  • Players are more likely to be engaged on the defensive end if they are included in the offensive end.
  • Offensive rebounds are more likely as the defense is moving vs being packed in on the inside waiting for one player to make their move.

Some of these might be tough to get stats for but @BonesJones, myself, and others who have played high levels of basketball through D1 and pro ball listed those things when we've had discussions about Iso vs ball movement. Even ss good as Michael Jordan was, it wasn't until he backed off scoring so much, moved the ball more and trusted his teammates, that he started getting rings.
Click to expand...

I really liked his @wizenheimer post and I found it interesting. 20 data points that are heavy on a couple coaches would not provided anything statisically relevant.

All the bullet points you listed appear to be your theories or ones shared with you during your playing experience. We're lucky in this day and age that we have more data to test of these theories are true or not.

You last point is interesting because Portland has been no worse than 16th under Stotts and top 5 a few times. Do you think we're getting those rebounds because of all the movement our offense is causing?

I like reading the theories and stories on here as I think it's great to not have your mind made up on a topic. Usually all I'm doing is asking if the data backs up any of these theories or applying the same logic to a different situation. Some of the theories are backed up, some aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top