Nate and Second Half Adjustments

[PapaG]

I'm not upset. I just treat fools the way they deserve to be treated. You have the very annoying habit of resorting to personal insults when you can no longer discuss an issue based on the merits of your position. I find that very childish behavior and respond by treating you like an insolent child.

BNM

The merits of my position are that the Blazers are 1st in the NBA in second-half margin. You can post whatever you want to counter that, but that statistic is reality. What it means in terms of Nate's in-game coaching is up for debate, but you referencing this thread, and taking a shot at me, in another thread doesn't exactly smack of maturity. It's rather childish, isn't it?

Also, if your idea of treating insolent children is to mock them, call them names, taking shots at them in discussions that have nothing to do with them, and composing long diatribes toward them, I suggest you take a few parenting classes. Seems like you're being childish too, doesn't it?

 

[Boob-No-More]

The merits of my position are that the Blazers are 1st in the NBA in second-half margin. You can post whatever you want to counter that, but that statistic is reality.

I never disputed the reality of that statistic. What I dispute is:

"Actually, second-half scoring margin is a pretty good measurement for assessing if a coach makes adjustments during a game."

I asked you to provide some evidence to support that claim. You didn't. When I offered evidence that second hand margin is not necessarily a function of coaching adjustments, you started in with your childish name calling and personal attacks.

What it means in terms of Nate's in-game coaching is up for debate, but you referencing this thread, and taking a shot at me, in another thread doesn't exactly smack of maturity. It's rather childish, isn't it?

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want people to call you on your stupid shit, stop posting stupid shit.

Also, if your idea of treating insolent children is to mock them, call them names, taking shots at them in discussions that have nothing to do with them, and composing long diatribes toward them, I suggest you take a few parenting classes. Seems like you're being childish too, doesn't it?

Gee, thanks for the heartfelt advice.

Why is it so many threads you participate in become personal? Your standard mode of operation seems to be to post something you know will be contentious, stir the the pot until someone disagrees with you, and then, as soon as you are no longer able to argue the merits of your position, start with the insults and personal attacks and then finally play the victim card. It gets old.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

I never disputed the reality of that statistic. What I dispute is:

"Actually, second-half scoring margin is a pretty good measurement for assessing if a coach makes adjustments during a game."

I asked you to provide some evidence to support that claim. You didn't. When I offered evidence that second hand margin is not necessarily a function of coaching adjustments, you started in with your childish name calling and personal attacks.



If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want people to call you on your stupid shit, stop posting stupid shit.



Gee, thanks for the heartfelt advice.

Why is it so many threads you participate in become personal? Your standard mode of operation seems to be to post something you know will be contentious, stir the the pot until someone disagrees with you, and then, as soon as you are no longer able to argue the merits of your position, start with the insults and personal attacks and then finally play the victim card. It gets old.

BNM

This thread wasn't personal until you arrived and made it personal. You even offered a long, loonnngg post that you admitted was comprised of you "personal" observation. Calling me an "insolent child" and a "fool" makes it personal. Using a passive-aggressive post in another thread to slam me makes it "personal". As for second-half margins and scoring, I also illustrated how 13 out of the top 14 team in second-half margin are currently in the playoffs. The Blazers, as bad as they are, are sitting right outside of the playoffs. Typically, the playoff teams are seen to have better coaching than the bad teams, and Nate's made the playoffs 3-straight seasons. His second-half margins, and being in the top half of the rankings, is consistent during his career.

You can't convince me that second-half margin isn't a measurement for making adjustments. To me, it is, and you can't handle it, so you call it "stupid". The question is, what data is out there that says Nate it terrible at second-half adjustments? If you're going on this season, did he suddenly forget how to make adjustments, or were his teams outscoring others, and winning games, in spite of him?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'm not upset. I just treat fools the way they deserve to be treated. You have the very annoying habit of resorting to personal insults when you can no longer discuss an issue based on the merits of your position. I find that very childish behavior and respond by treating you like an insolent child.

BNM

The merits of my position are that the Blazers are 1st in the NBA in second-half margin. You can post whatever you want to counter that, but that statistic is reality. What it means in terms of Nate's in-game coaching is up for debate, but you referencing this thread, and taking a shot at me, in another thread doesn't exactly smack of maturity. It's rather childish, isn't it?

Also, if your idea of treating insolent children is to mock them, call them names, taking shots at them in discussions that have nothing to do with them, and composing long diatribes toward them, I suggest you take a few parenting classes. Seems like you're being childish too, doesn't it?

I never disputed the reality of that statistic. What I dispute is:

"Actually, second-half scoring margin is a pretty good measurement for assessing if a coach makes adjustments during a game."

I asked you to provide some evidence to support that claim. You didn't. When I offered evidence that second hand margin is not necessarily a function of coaching adjustments, you started in with your childish name calling and personal attacks.



If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Don't want people to call you on your stupid shit, stop posting stupid shit.



Gee, thanks for the heartfelt advice.

Why is it so many threads you participate in become personal? Your standard mode of operation seems to be to post something you know will be contentious, stir the the pot until someone disagrees with you, and then, as soon as you are no longer able to argue the merits of your position, start with the insults and personal attacks and then finally play the victim card. It gets old.

BNM

This thread wasn't personal until you arrived and made it personal. Calling me an "insolent child" and a "fool" makes it personal. Using a passive-aggressive post in another thread to slam me makes it "personal". As for second-half margins and scoring, I also illustrated how 13 out of the top 14 team in second-half margin are currently in the playoffs. The Blazers, as bad as they are, are sitting right outside of the playoffs.

You can't convince me that second-half margin isn't a measurement for making adjustments. To me, it is, and you can't handle it, so you call it "stupid".

Dude, really, you're 50 years old? A little bit old for the victim shtick, aren't you?

Wouldn't you both be happier insulting and calling me names?

 

[PapaG]

Wouldn't you both be happier insulting and calling me names?

I don't find second-half adjustments and W/L to be at all connected, and I think Nate's long-term record of winning games says that he can make coaching adjustments.

I feel he's lost the team, though, or perhaps the team has left him, so it's clearly time for a change for everybody involved, including the fans. I find the "stupid" position to be that Nate is a terrible coach, though. He's well-respected in the coaching communtity, is a coach for the Olympic team, and I think USA Basketball, and those who run it, know a lot more about basketball than the same 12 people who have been bitching about Nate for years.

 

[OddEnormous]

Portland is still #1 in the NBA in 2nd-half margin.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Take that OKC!!!!!

 

[Boob-No-More]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Take that OKC!!!!!

And take that Scotty Brooks. You may have got to coach the all-star team, but Nate should have been allowed to coach the second half of that game!

BNM

 

[PapaG]

And take that Scotty Brooks. You may have got to coach the all-star team, but Nate should have been allowed to coach the second half of that game!

BNM

Brooks does his damage in the first half as a coach.

 

[blue32]

Nates rotations, play-calling, offensive/defensive schemes, and player handling are all suspect. It's been pretty much the same year to year. The only reason we did good with B.Roy, is because he is one helluva a player that even Nate couldn't fuck up 100%.

I firmly believe if we had a different coach, this season would have been WAY more productive in terms of winning.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Brooks does his damage in the first half as a coach.

And yet his team wins games...

Nate's team leads the league in second half margin, yet his team has a losing record. When you're down 35 at the half, a second half margin of +17 is pretty meaningless. Maybe if Nate had his team prepared to play they wouldn't be down 35 at the half.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

And yet his team wins games...

Nate's team leads the league in second half margin, yet his team has a losing record. When you're down 35 at the half, a second half margin of +17 is pretty meaningless. Maybe if Nate had his team prepared to play they wouldn't be down 35 at the half.

BNM

Nate's team has won games as well over the past 4 years. Did he suddenly forget how to coach? Or did he just forget how to coach this year? I'm confused.

Some may also say that Brooks having Westbrook and Durant helps Brooks quite a bit in terms of winning games. It would be interesting to see how OKC did if they lost Westbrook to a career-ending injury (Durant too, if we want to play the Roy and Oden game).

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nate's team has won games as well. Did he suddenly forget how to coach? Or did he just forget how to coach this year? I'm confused.

Yes, you are confused. I've pointed this out several times in the past two years, but you can't seem to understand. Nate's simplistic, unimaginative, easily defended 4th quarter offense was only effective when he had a healthy Brandon Roy performing at his peak. Two years ago, teams began to figure it out and it became less effective. When Roy was injured, he tried to run the same offense with Jerryd Bayless filling in for Roy. He even tried running the Roy ISO for Andre Miller a couple times in the 4th quarter of close games. Miller is a decent player, but he's no Brandon Roy, especially when it comes to ISOs. Needless to say, these attempts to run the Roy ISO, without Roy, failed miserably. I pointed it out at the time. I recall you blaming Andre Miller for Roy's declining performance, completely ignoring Roy's own failing knees and Nate's simplistic offense.

Last year, Nate continued to run the same offense with a less than 100% Brandon Roy and the results were predictable. This season, with Roy retired, we now have Jamal Crawford starring in the Brandon Roy offense. Again, in the right role, Crawford is a decent player, but he's no Brandon Roy. So, Nate has had over two years to come up with a better, or at least different, 4th quarter offense. Hell, two years ago my then 14-year old daughter pointed out the Blazers were running ISOs in the 4th quarter against a zone defense (Phoenix) and failing to score every time. Even her 8th grade girls coach knew better than to run ISO after ISO against a zone (nothing like playing 1 on 5). Nate knew he wasn't going to have Brandon Roy heading into this season. Rather than come up with a better offense, he just thought he'd plug Jamal Crawford into Roy's role and hope for the best.

Well, that hasn't panned out, has it. What's our record in close games? His personnel has changed, but Nate hasn't. The NBA game is one of constant adjustments. The good coaches are always one step ahead of their counterparts. Nate has a horrible track record of making in-game, game-to-game (especially in the playoffs) and now season-to-season adjustments. He got lucky. He found one very unique player who was able to make his simplistic offense look good, for about two seasons. That player is long gone. Given how he has failed to adjust, Nate should be gone, too. The sooner the better.

BNM

 

[SlyPokerDog]

So exactly how long have Papa G and Boob-No-More been married?

 

[Boob-No-More]

So exactly how long have Papa G and Boob-No-More been married?

Ever since he put out on our first date.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Yes, you are confused. I've pointed this out several times in the past two years, but you can't seem to understand. Nate's simplistic, unimaginative, easily defended 4th quarter offense was only effective when he had a healthy Brandon Roy performing at his peak. Two years ago, teams began to figure it out and it became less effective. When Roy was injured, he tried to run the same offense with Jerryd Bayless filling in for Roy. He even tried running the Roy ISO for Andre Miller a couple times in the 4th quarter of close games. Miller is a decent player, but he's no Brandon Roy, especially when it comes to ISOs. Needless to say, these attempts to run the Roy ISO, without Roy, failed miserably. I pointed it out at the time. I recall you blaming Andre Miller for Roy's declining performance, completely ignoring Roy's own failing knees and Nate's simplistic offense.

Last year, Nate continued to run the same offense with a less than 100% Brandon Roy and the results were predictable. This season, with Roy retired, we now have Jamal Crawford starring in the Brandon Roy offense. Again, in the right role, Crawford is a decent player, but he's no Brandon Roy. So, Nate has had over two years to come up with a better, or at least different, 4th quarter offense. Hell, two years ago my then 14-year old daughter pointed out the Blazers were running ISOs in the 4th quarter against a zone defense (Phoenix) and failing to score every time. Even her 8th grade girls coach knew better than to run ISO after ISO against a zone (nothing like playing 1 on 5). Nate knew he wasn't going to have Brandon Roy heading into this season. Rather than come up with a better offense, he just thought he'd plug Jamal Crawford into Roy's role and hope for the best.

Well, that hasn't panned out, has it. What's our record in close games? His personnel has changed, but Nate hasn't. The NBA game is one of constant adjustments. The good coaches are always one step ahead of their counterparts. Nate has a horrible track record of making in-game, game-to-game (especially in the playoffs) and now season-to-season adjustments. He got lucky. He found one very unique player who was able to make his simplistic offense look good, for about two seasons. That player is long gone. Given how he has failed to adjust, Nate should be gone, too. The sooner the better.

BNM

I provided stats in another thread that show LMA among the top 10 in the NBA in the last five minutes of close games for getting his FGA.

http://www.82games.com/1112/CSORT5.HTM

http://sportstwo.com/threads/208872-NBA-Clutch-Stats

He's the highest placed post player in the list.

I suppose this state means nothing as well, though. I do appreciate the passion you put behind your opinions, but in the end, they're just opinions.

Also, who was Nate's ISO player in Seattle? Luke Ridnour? Ray Allen? Rashard Lewis? Who was it?

 

[PapaG]

Go back to even last year, and with a hobbled Roy, the Blazers are still Top 10 in "close games".

I'll say it again, but which team that excels in "close games" doesn't have a closer, or a player that can control the ball in ISOs?

Winning teams have great players. Nate's been in the Top 10 in "close games" the past 4 season, and yes that was with Roy.

Guess what? Great players aren't great players because they don't win games.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Go back to even last year, and with a hobbled Roy, the Blazers are still Top 10 in "close games".

I'll say it again, but which team that excels in "close games" doesn't have a closer, or a player that can control the ball in ISOs?

Winning teams have great players. Nate's been in the Top 10 in "close games" the past 4 season, and yes that was with Roy.

Guess what? Great players aren't great players because they don't win games.

Sounds like a bit of a strawman to me. I never said I expect this team to win close games at the same rate as they did with Roy. I don't expect them to be top 10 in close games, but I do expect them to be better than they are (what is it now 2-11?). This team doesn't have a superstar closer any more. Why does our coach continue to coach like we do?

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Nice second-half adjustments tonight by Nate. Only up 3 at the half, and coaches the team to a +8 to win a must-needed road game.

 

[BBert]

I've been avoiding this thread, until now. I knew nothing good could come from it. But hey, I'm bored. This argument simply reminds me of back in the good ole Brandon Roy days, when "Nate" had a really great rate of scoring out of time outs. He was a coaching genius, he was, at drawing up plays out of time outs. Or should I say play: "Give the ball to Brandon and get out of the way." The scoring out of time outs stat didn't make Nate a great coach, either.

 

[BBert]

Nice second-half adjustments tonight by Nate. Only up 3 at the half, and coaches the team to a +8 to win a must-needed road game.

Hah! Touche.

 

[MickZagger]

Unfortunately for us Blazer fans, McMillan peaked as a head coach in Seattle about 8 years ago. He's just not a great basketball mind. No innovation or adaptation.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Nice second-half adjustments tonight by Nate. Only up 3 at the half, and coaches the team to a +8 to win a must-needed road game.

Woo Hoo!!!! We beat the second worst team in the league!!! Way to coach 'em up Nate!

Actually, I did like what I saw in the 4th quarter tonight. I saw some variety for once. I saw some two man plays and some ball movement. I saw all five players involved - not at the same time, but all five guys in the game were getting shots. It's much harder to defend when you don't know what's going to happen every time down the court. I have no idea if Nate was calling those plays or the players were freelancing, but it was much more effective than the typical Nate all ISO all the time 4th quarter offense.

Washington may suck, but any win is a good win.

BNM

 

[jlprk]

Also, who was Nate's ISO player in Seattle? Luke Ridnour? Ray Allen? Rashard Lewis? Who was it?

For the first half of his 5 years coaching it was Payton. For the second half it was Ray Allen. Flip Murray was good at it too. Back in McMillan's playing days it was Dale Ellis. Bickerstaff had Ellis the whole focus, though Ellis was a bad dribbler, so he was all catch and shoot.

McMillan was a weird, unorthodox coach in Seattle, just like here, but with poorer owners and thus less talent than here. So Papa, have you gotten even one person to agree with the stupid premise of your thread about his talent in making adjustments? Well you go girl, just keep trying.

 

[Boob-No-More]

So Papa, have you gotten even one person to agree with the stupid premise of your thread about his talent in making adjustments? Well you go girl, just keep trying.

Of course he hasn't, because it's all based on a single stat that has been shown to be meaningless in this context.

In their last two nationally televised games against the Lakers and Celtics, the Blazers were completely embarrassed and down by over 30 before halftime. Yet, they were +11 and +17 in the second halves of those games due to extensive second half garbage time. Of course, they still lost both games by double digits. The fact that they were down by 30+ points in the second quarter of both games tells us a lot more about Nate's coaching than the fact that we outscored them in the second half well after the outcome of those games had long since been decided.

BNM

 

[PapaG]

Of course he hasn't, because it's all based on a single stat that has been shown to be meaningless in this context.

In their last two nationally televised games against the Lakers and Celtics, the Blazers were completely embarrassed and down by over 30 before halftime. Yet, they were +11 and +17 in the second halves of those games due to extensive second half garbage time. Of course, they still lost both games by double digits. The fact that they were down by 30+ points in the second quarter of both games tells us a lot more about Nate's coaching than the fact that we outscored them in the second half well after the outcome of those games had long since been decided.

BNM

I actually have. Four reps alone for this thread. The silent majority.

 

[blazerboy30]

I actually have. Four reps alone for this thread. The silent majority.

I'm smiling as I read this thread. Thanks PapaG.

It adds special entertainment after you call yourself a "stats guy". You are confused because "stats guys" don't just copy-and-paste stats from another website, followed by completely ignoring the notion of correlation vs causation.

If Nate is making great second half adjustments, and we have that amazing second half point differential, why are the Blazers still 3-17 (15%) when trailing at halftime?

For comparison, the 21-21 Timberwolves are 12-16 (43%) when trailing at halftime.

The 16-21 Warriors are 7-10 (41%) when trailing at halftime.

The 14-26 Kings are 8-18 (30%) when trailing at halftime.

 

[PapaG]

I'm smiling as I read this thread. Thanks PapaG.

It adds special entertainment after you call yourself a "stats guy". You are confused because "stats guys" don't just copy-and-paste stats from another website, followed by completely ignoring the notion of correlation vs causation.

If Nate is making great second half adjustments, and we have that amazing second half point differential, why are the Blazers still 3-17 (15%) when trailing at halftime?

For comparison, the 21-21 Timberwolves are 12-16 (43%) when trailing at halftime.

The 16-21 Warriors are 7-10 (41%) when trailing at halftime.

The 14-26 Kings are 8-18 (30%) when trailing at halftime.

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

 

[jlprk]

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...LOL

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?

 

[MickZagger]

How one can be a Nate apologist until red in the face is beyond me.

 

[blazerboy30]

How one can be a Nate apologist until red in the face is beyond me.

You're not new here. You know that PapaG is bored and just wants some attention. It appears to be a sad, sad life.