Nate and Second Half Adjustments

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
PapaG said:
Making half-time adjustments, which leads to outscoring the opponent in a half, and winning/losing the game while trailing at halftime are not the same thing.

I'd think a "stat guy" like you would understand that basic concept.

The same statistic for the 2008-09 Blazers should have told you that, if you actually did some research.

You just made a causation between second-half margin and W/L record after halftime. Horrible horrible mistake. The two have nothing to do with each other in terms of a coach making in-game adjustments. You can argue the validity of thinking second-half margin correlates to in-game adjustments, but you just compared the two and assigned the same parameter to them.

LOL
Click to expand...

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
 
jlprk said:
As you finally admit you were wrong, laughter will not dignify your exit. Are you ready to admit your error in defending McMillan with that silly 2nd-half adjustment statistic?
Click to expand...

Making adjustments is not the same thing as winning games that you trail at halftime.
 
PapaG said:
Yeah, I'd be laughing too. It's about the only way to back down from that amateur mistake you made.
Click to expand...

This is classic. I love it.

You're claiming that others are confusing causation and correlation even though you post garbage like this...

Making half-time adjustments, which leads to outscoring the opponent in a half
Click to expand...

Your entire premise is that a large 2nd half point differential is caused by good coaching adjustments at halftime, while ignoring all other factors.

You started a thread putting two ideas together, and calling it causation. Now you're crying because you're being exposed for your lack of understanding.

Carry on. I enjoy watching the trainwreck of your understanding of statistics.
 
blazerboy30 said:
This is classic. I love it.

You're claiming that others are confusing causation and correlation even though you post garbage like this...



Your entire premise is that a large 2nd half point differential is caused by good coaching adjustments at halftime, while ignoring all other factors.

You started a thread putting two ideas together, and calling it causation. Now you're crying because you're being exposed for your lack of understanding.

Carry on. I enjoy watching the trainwreck of your understanding of statistics.
Click to expand...

I admitted I ignored other factors. You brought up W/L while trailing at halftime as some sort of proof of in-game adjustments. I never called anything 'causation', either. I offered my opinion based on what I thought to be a relevant statistic, and how it appeared that Nate was making in-game adjustments. Some agreed. Other brought their own stats in, and then there is you, doing whatever it is you do, which primarily seems to be building a strawman these days, and then debating that strawman.

I'm still not sure why you brought up W/L record when trailing at the half. That seemed to be you attempting to show causation, and you brought Minnesota and Sacramento as examples for some baffling reason. I'm sure it made sense to you though. Thanks for the laughs!
 
PapaG said:
I admitted I ignored other factors. You brought up W/L while trailing at halftime as some sort of proof of in-game adjustments.
Click to expand...

Nope. I asked you to try to explain those stats. You can't because you think you found the reason for the 2nd half point differential.

PapaG said:
I never called anything 'causation', either.
Click to expand...

Wow. You look pretty silly saying that after you said this:

PapaG said:
Making half-time adjustments, which leads to outscoring the opponent in a half
Click to expand...

You're either blatantly lying (which is pretty silly to do when there is a quote button) or you don't understand what "causation" means.

PapaG said:
I'm still not sure why you brought up W/L record when trailing at the half.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all surprised you don't understand.

PapaG said:
That seemed to be you attempting to show causation,
Click to expand...

Which clearly shows that you don't understand "causation".

PapaG said:
and you brought Minnesota and Sacramento as examples for some baffling reason.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you're baffled. Pretty standard for you when talking about statistics.
 
We're 3-17 when trailing at halftime??? wow, that sucks. And You still think Nate's a good coach? How about we trade in his so called "awesome" 2nd half adjustments skill in favor of first half adjustments and actually win a fucking game. instead of getting destroyed routinely. him and his scouts should be paying attention and making a decent game plan right off the bat instead of waiting for half time to draw one up.

It all smells of bullshit- mcmillian style.
 
Portland has outscored their opponents by an average of 9 points in the 4th quarter in the last 3 games. Not only is Nate a genius at second half adjustments, he's amazing in 4th quarters. Stats don't lie...
 
I have a feeling this thread may enjoy "Fams" status eventually.
 
I was waiting for the 2nd half adjustments tonight. Then I just fell asleep.
 
And here I thought our great second half adjustments came from the fact that Nate kept his starters in long after the other team (with the 30 or so point lead) put in their scrubs.

Gramps...
 
GrandpaBlaze said:
And here I thought our great second half adjustments came from the fact that Nate kept his starters in long after the other team (with the 30 or so point lead) put in their scrubs.

Gramps...
Click to expand...

Not sure I get your point. 4 of our 5 starters played about 10 minutes more than their counterparts:

Aldridge: 35:33
Stoudemire: 25:03

Wallace: 33:14
Anthony: 24:37

Batum: 32:30
Fields: 22:05

Felton: 32:40
Lin: 22:51

The only starters that played comparable minutes were the centers.

Camby: 25:18
Chandler: 26:21

Of course it didn't matter tonight, whoever was on the court for the Knicks killed us tonight. Their starters killed our starters; their bench killed our starters and their bench killed our bench.

BNM
 
GrandpaBlaze said:
No necessarily tonight specifically, but it seems, in general, Nate tends to play his starters longer than necessary.

Gramps...
Click to expand...

Definitely, that was my original point. With so many games out of reach at the half, other coaches are clearing their benches early in the second half, but Nate keeps trotting his starters out there for big minutes to try to make the loss look more "respectable".

BNM
 
Everything is Nate's fault. He's a terrible coach!
 
MickZagger said:
True. But, he's a great 2nd half adjuster.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is the other coaches doing the second half adjustments and not Nate? if they clear their benches (i.e., adjust to having a 20-30 point lead) and Nate DOESN'T adjust, it makes him look like a good second half adjuster because he shows a positive second half scoring margin.

Gramps...
 
GrandpaBlaze said:
And here I thought our great second half adjustments came from the fact that Nate kept his starters in long after the other team (with the 30 or so point lead) put in their scrubs.

Gramps...
Click to expand...

That's the really frustrating thing. If it's plain as day by halftime that you are going to lose, you might as well clear out the bench. Give the youngsters some playing time, and give the veterans some rest (and shame them for their failure).

What's the point in trotting Gerald Wallace out there for 34 minutes when you are clearly going to lose anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top