Dan D'Antoni ... haha. Too bad it's not Dan 'Danny' D'Antoni ... Like Rosanne Rosanna Danna First MDA, now DDA. Gots me wondering about ADA on 3-pt Shooting. By the looks of this floor spacing in the Olympics, they either are still "old school" or analytics works differently
He probably didn't mean to be offensive with this, but we are on a message board here so going for cheap "laughs" is pretty much an industry standard. If you want to laugh this off then I highly recommend reading through the "MDA has to have a serious talk with Harden" thread. I probably never laughed harder in my entire life than i did reading that thread. Dude loves you.
its all good. i had to at least point out it was in poor taste. i couldn't help myself. i don't mean to overreact, it is the internet, i get it. he can say whatever he wants. you know, sometimes you eat the bar, and sometimes the bar eats you....
I realize I will be in the minority here... but this kind of stupidity is the exact reason why I hate when I hear people talk about analytics... He says corner 3 is best shot at 1.3 per attempt... then says an uncontested layup is 1.8 pts per attempt (but .78 if contested...) ... so thats why they don't try to work it inside.... Seems to me, best move would be to work it inside to see if you can shake your man or dump off to a cutter and get an uncontested layup... if not, then you kick it out for the 3... Rockets won a couple championships on this basic philosophy... but I guess all these analytics guys are just too smart for me... lol!
Apologies if it offending you. Here's the way it went in my head. Many here may have noticed I like plays on words and alliteration rhymes. So does CH, hence the title and awesome find by him. I immediately started running through other three letter combos to play on the MDA/DDA initials/acronym. ADA was soon to follow. I looked through dozens of photos of Olympics photos. I'm legitimately curious now if these analytics would still work. Yeah it's a weak use of the ADA acronym, to find a different bball scenario. Not expecting much laughs. Sorry. But if I ever get a chance to see a pro or paralympics game now, I hope to have the conversation with some players/coaches. The photos out there tend to show "old school" strategy. Sorry sgain T for 3 ,,, cheers Back to OP: man, Dan and Mike talk very similar. Had no idea he had a coaching brother, and then to hear him talk,,,,lulz. good stuff
no worries man. i'm regretting bringing it up. i didn't know there was a brother either. seems like a nut. lol
Usually they are saying a layup/alley-oop is 1.8 and post plays are .78. Rather than saying contested vs uncontested layups. Layups and dunks from post-ups moves count towards the post-ups. Layups are typically from passes off of cuts. I agree that he explained it weird.
Fact: Dan D'Antoni is Italian for Pat Patterson. Fact: Dan D'Antoni is a lie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_D'Antoni
Damn, that's some interesting ****. Not sure if I can keep up with this one, I might just have to throw in old duders towel here.
How many uncontested layups do you get per game, and how manys 3s can you get a game? I know the Rockets can get 40-50 3s up any game, but I don't think any team can get more than 10 uncontested layups. And do you know how many uncontested layups you get from slowing the game down and posting up and crowding the lane? Probably not very little. On the other hand, if you spread it out, have your PF stand 5 ft behind the 3pt line, and everyone except your center as your pick and roll screen man, then you'll get a few alley-oop dunks per game, and a few more uncontested layups (most likely).
I like it, but let me take a look from another perspective, here's an admission of a coach that he didn't know what he was doing. What if he still doesn't know what he's doing thinking he does know? And 10 years from now there comes a more advanced analytics crunching the numbers and factors not taken into consideration now psychology, momentum, energy, whatever pointing to a almost completely different conclusion?
I thought D'Antoni had a thick accent, but damn, his brother is a honkey tonkey yankee doodle if there ever was one. Larry the cable guy got nothing on this dude That was funny right there! He had some points, but just because data shows you that a shot taken from a certain spot is worth this much on average with FG% and everything taken into account, does not mean you should just go for threes and lay-ups. Also can everybody stop using the word analytics in the wrong way? Analytics does not say or show anything, it's DATA or statistics that shows you this or that. Analytics means an interpretation of data and finding patterns. I can understand the the whole sphiel about corner three and lay-up being a great shot, but that it's 1.8 or 1.3 doesn't mean that much. It depends on your team, the opponent, which player takes the shot etc. Of course a lay-up, dunk and the shortest 3-pt shot in the corner are highly proficient and shots you should go for. However, not at all costs just because 'analytics' shows that..It's about common sense. Using the inside-out game with bigs like Embiid, KAT and Davis just make sense to me. When you don't have them, it does not so that's where bigs like Dwight should stop trying to force that. We don't have many post up bigs left and I get that in today's game we demand more versatility from bigs; putting ball on the floor, shoot long range etc, but at some point basketball minds will have to see that this focus on the perimeter game for bigs is actually diminishing the impact they can have. We are going from one extreme to the other, just post up to just perimeter oriented so is that really evolving? Also, if today you still had Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon etc. You really think the best way to play them is spread the court, give them the ball at the top of the key, pick and roll..no, it's on the block and you work from there. The game has changed, I'm not going to say evolved, because I don't think this era is better or worse for that matter than any other, but there are some aspects of the game you can only ignore for so long. There will be new theories soon, especially if this focus on threes catches on by many teams, about how mixing it up is probably best since it keeps the defense on their toes, you can get a lot more open shots, but probably not from the 'analytics' side. So at some point, low post game will be used again more IF bigs are taught properly and not everyone or too many buy into this idea of positionless basketball with everybody shooting from long range. At some point, when too many teams do something, you have to come up with something new or re-use old tricks so I'm sure low post game will become bigger in the future and maybe to the point where data will show post up is the best shot since defenses are now built to stop perimeter shots.
DDA (who is really LDA or LJDAII) was really talking 1) in simplified terms and 2) in terms of a general rule that works for 95% of the time rather than absolutely 100% of the time. First, a team does not actually get to decide the specific shot they end up taking-- the defense plays a role. For example, if a defense is determined to pack the paint, you are not likely to get an uncontested layup. What the team on offense does get to decide is which players gets put on the floor and what play they run to create potentially available shots. What I think DDA is saying is that, for the most part, the way to create the best available shots involve having 3 point shooters positioned to shoot 3s (while also having players who can get to the basket if the defenders are staying close to the 3 point line and are not in the paint). This is, for the most part, the best way to create a dilemma for the opposing team between giving up two rather efficient types of shots (the not very well contested shot at rim and a relatively open 3). Second, the point per play numbers given by DDA are averages. There are obviously situations where these numbers are much higher or lower-- like LeBron posting up Isaiah Thomas or DeAndre Jordan shooting contested 3s. But these are not what happens in the vast majority of situations. I doubt that DDA's Marshall team, like the vast majority of college and pro teams, had someone who is exceptionally good at posting up that makes simply "throwing it in to the post" a beneficial proposition.
Exactly... it's basic game theory. There needs to be some unpredictability involved. Even if you are least efficient in post-ups, you need to run some of them just to throw the defense off-balance.
We did it with the best post player that ever stepped on a basketball court and we still never broke any win records. The post up is a bad shot unless you have guys that it isn't a bad shot for. Why force it in when you don't have a the personnel. You can find guys that can find a open look at the 3 anywhere. Finding a once in a lifetime big men that can make a post a high percentage shot is difficult.
