Nate you are an idiot!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
More stats

Portland is 15th in fast break points/game this year. The only thing keeping this number from being higher is that the Blazers are 26th in FB efficiency, and it's not Nate's fault that the team blows so many lay-ups, is it?

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/fastbreak-points-per-game

Portland was 29th last year, 29th in 2009-10, and 29th in 2008-09.

Seriously though, Nate hasn't changed his approach at all, other than playing at a faster pace, allowing more fast break opportunities, and making a PF the primary offensive player instead of a SG. :crazy:
 
More stats

Portland 6th in NBA in scoring. 24th in 2011, 21st in 2010, 16th in 2009.

Portland 4th in NBA in scoring margin (#1 in Western Conference) - 12th in 2011, 12th in 2010, 5th in 2009.

Portland 16th in NBA in points in the paint. 19th in 2011, 30th in 2010, 18th in 2009.

Nate hasn't changed a thing, though.
 
PapaG said:
More stats

Portland 6th in NBA in scoring. 24th in 2011, 21st in 2010, 16th in 2009.

Portland 4th in NBA in scoring margin (#1 in Western Conference) - 12th in 2011, 12th in 2010, 5th in 2009.

Portland 16th in NBA in points in the paint. 19th in 2011, 30th in 2010, 18th in 2009.

Nate hasn't changed a thing, though.
Click to expand...

Yawn... All those numbers, yet you have steadfastly refuse to address the ONLY stat that matters. The Blazers are 1-9 in close games and haven't won a close game since opening night. I already explained why Nate's refusal to change his 4th quarter offense to match his new personel has lead to this abysmal "stat". Margin of victory doesn't mean shit when one 44-point blowout home win over Charlotte trumps nine straight losses in close games.

So, please tell us how Mr. Flexible has adapted his coaching style in anyway that will reverse this pathetic trend. For christ's sake, after NINE STRAIGHT HOME LOSSES isn't it painfully obvious that Nate's 4th quarter offense isn't working as well as it should be? That running an ISO based offense with the game on the line just doesnt' work when you don't have a player that excels in that situation? And if it isn't working (and it isn't), why has he refused to change it?

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Yawn... All those numbers, yet you have steadfastly refuse to address the ONLY stat that matters. The Blazers are 1-9 in close games and haven't won a close game since opening night. I already explained why Nate's refusal to change his 4th quarter offense to match his new personel has lead to this abysmal "stat". Margin of victory doesn't mean shit when one 44-point blowout home win over Charlotte trumps nine straight losses in close games.

So, please tell us how Mr. Flexible has adapted his coaching style in anyway that will reverse this pathetic trend. For christ's sake, after NINE STRAIGHT HOME LOSSES isn't it painfully obvious that Nate's 4th quarter offense isn't working as well as it should be? That running an ISO based offense with the game on the line just doesnt' work when you don't have a player that excels in that situation? And if it isn't working (and it isn't), why has he refused to change it?

BNM
Click to expand...

I consider the 1-9 stretch a statistical anomaly. Looking back on past seasons, here are Nate's teams in games 5-points or closer.

2011-12 - .100 (30th in NBA)
2010-11 - .586 (8th in NBA)
2009-10- .542 (14th in NBA)
2008-09 - .600 (7th in NBA)
2007-08 - .700 (1st in NBA)

He's been top half in the NBA, and with a winning record, for the previous 4 years. 3 of those 4 years saw the Blazers in the Top 8 in the "close game" category. One of those years saw the Blazers lead the league in "close game" winning.

It's an anomaly. If you're the type willing to fire a coach, based on the "ONLY stat that matters", when it historically hasn't been a problem, I'd say that say more about your own use of statistics than it says anything of mine. :)

Also, NINE STRAIGHT HOME LOSS? I assume you meant "close loss". This trend will self-correct, IMO. In the meantime, the past 4 seasons, with multiple injury problems and player rotations, Nate has proven he can win close games.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/win-pct-close-games?date=2008-06-18

I offer that Nate's coaching in close games, with all of the injuries, has been remarkable and borderline elite. Would you dump LMA if he had a rough stretch?
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
I consider the 1-9 stretch a statistical anomaly. Looking back on past seasons, here are Nate's teams in games 5-points or closer.

2011-12 - .100 (30th in NBA)
2010-11 - .586 (8th in NBA)
2009-10- .542 (14th in NBA)
2008-09 - .600 (7th in NBA)
2007-08 - .700 (1st in NBA)

He's been top half in the NBA, a with a winning record, for the previous 4 years. 3 of the 4 years saw the Blazers in the Top 8 in the "close game" category.

It's an anomaly. If you're the type willing to fire a coach, based on the "main problem", when it historically hasn't been a problem, I'd say that say more about your own use of statistics than it says anything of mine. :)

Also, NINE STRAIGHT HOME LOSS? I assume you meant "close loss". This trend will self-correct, IMO. In the meantime, the past 4 seasons, with multiple injury problems and player rotations, Nate has proven he can win close games.

http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/win-pct-close-games?date=2008-06-18
Click to expand...

Are you really this blunt? Who do you see missing from the rosters those years that is gone this year?
 
yuyuza1 said:
Are you really this blunt? Who do you see missing from the rosters those years that is gone this year?
Click to expand...

Outlaw/Roy/Miller, primarily.

Nate won close games with all three of them, and won close games missing two of them many times.

The past shows Nate wins close games, and he largely does it without superstar players. Calling me "blunt" when I'm just pointing out stats that directly counter what I view an uninformed opinion is about par for this board, though.

Question ... if your coach has consistently proven he can win close games, and has done so with one All-Star over time, and also without that player, is it the coach's fault that the team is losing close games now?

Seems like a rather stupid opinion to me, and it flies in the face of available data.
 
Last edited:
How many practices has Nate had this year?

Not sure how one implements a new offense with almost no practice . . . but with no GM and heads needing to roll, Nate is an easy target.

BTW-I like Dallas' offense with the game on the line. Give to Dirk and clear out. If I am a Dallas fan I would be so pissed if mavs lose that game to the Blazers. So after that game your going to have chants to either fire Nate or fire Rick. But that is why NBA coaches get the big bucks and we get nothing playing armchair coach . . . they can't fire us and the whoever the next coach is, also sucks.
 
Last edited:
Treaty_of_Batum said:
How many practices has Nate had this year?

Not sure how one implements a new offense with almost no practice . . . but with no GM and heads needing to roll, Nate is an easy target.

BTW-I like Dallas' offense with the game on the line. Give to Dirk and clear out. If I am a Dallas fan I would be so pissed if mavs lose that game to the Blazers. So after that game your going to have chants to either fire Nate or fire Rick. But that is why NBA coaches get the big bucks and we get nothing playing armchair coach . . . they can't fire us and the whoever the next coach is, also sucks.
Click to expand...

The stats I posted about 'close games' and Nate were a surprise to me. With all of the hand-wringing about ISO-ball, and how you can't win down the stretch with it, one would think that the Nate Haters would applaud a more diversified approach to closing games, even if it means a 1-9 record.

Of course, the cynic in me says that some people just need to consistently bitch about the coach, and will find any reason to do it, even if the statistics show it to be a ridiculous opinion. I pointed out Dirk's ISOs at the end of games in another thread, or perhaps even earlier in this one. I forget, because nobody had much to say about it in a negative manner.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Margin of victory doesn't mean shit when one 44-point blowout home win over Charlotte trumps nine straight losses in close games.


BNM
Click to expand...

Are we allowed to throw out the 25-point loss to PHX, then? Let me know on what stats/games we can and can't use on this board. I'd hate to use any more that blow up your opinions. :)
 
PapaG said:
I consider the 1-9 stretch a statistical anomaly. Looking back on past seasons, here are Nate's teams in games 5-points or closer.

2011-12 - .100 (30th in NBA)
2010-11 - .586 (8th in NBA)
2009-10- .542 (14th in NBA)
2008-09 - .600 (7th in NBA)
2007-08 - .700 (1st in NBA)
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could. The Roy ISO offense worked when we had Roy. Now we don't; and surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. This was EXACTLY my point. Nate has not changed his 4th quarter offense to match his current personnel. He merely plugged Jamaal Crawford in place of Brandon Roy and seems to expect the same results. Jamaal Crawford is NOT Brandon Roy, and the stats you posted prove it. 1-9 is NOT a statiistical anomaly. It's a fact and a significant sample size and nine close loses in a row is a significant trend.

Either Nate needs to change, or he needs to go. 1-9 in close games is simply not acceptable under any conditions.

BNM
 
PapaG said:
Are we allowed to throw out the 25-point loss to PHX, then? Let me know on what stats/games we can and can't use on this board. I'd hate to use any more that blow up your opinions. :)
Click to expand...

Include or ignore anything you wish. To me, in the end, the only stats that matter are wins and losses and when your team loses nine close games in a row, that means something is the matter. Feel free to bury your head in the sand and pretend that isn't a problem. Whatever makes you happy.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
Include or ignore anything you wish. To me, in the end, the only stats that matter are wins and losses and when your team loses nine close games in a row, that means something is the matter. Feel free to bury your head in the sand and pretend that isn't a problem. Whatever makes you happy.

BNM
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but it appears our difference is that I think it will self-correct, while you want a firing to take place to correct it.

The OKC 'loss' wasn't really a loss in my book, anyhow. Still, 2-8 is 2-8.
 
The Blazers have been the same ol- same ol for the last 5-6 years. This year is nothing different than the last. We still suck, we still cant close games, we still cant make it past the first round in the play offs, and we still have a shitty slow point guard.

My blame rests with the person that keeps getting talent year after year and does nothing with it but produce the same results we've all come to know.
 
blue32 said:
The Blazers have been the same ol- same ol for the last 5-6 years. This year is nothing different than the last. We still suck, we still cant close games, we still cant make it past the first round in the play offs, and we still have a shitty slow point guard.

My blame rests with the person that keeps getting talent year after year and does nothing with it but produce the same results we've all come to know.
Click to expand...

The actual statistics belie that claim, but the rest is accurate.
 
Batum doesnt look like he's struggling to acclimate to his new position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top