ClutchFans Game Thread: Pacers @ Rockets 3/27/2013

Bench is very important if you want to go in deep into the playoffs

 

No disrespect, i like the warriors going forward, but both Curry, Klay seem shrink 4th and struggle against really good defense.
I'm not sure how a jump shooting team with no defense can go deep in the playoffs.

 

Did anyone see Brandon Jennings reaction to being benched in the 4th? Both teams are fighting for playoffs but one has a distraction while the other does not.

 

6 easy points + 6 points Rockets could have scored on those possessions = 12 points.

 

Pretty good game plan against the Rockets, if you consider that Harden and Lin are the only two players that can create their own shots.

 

what if we made some 3pt shots? that's a 15 points turnaround broheim.

 

If you are going to go that route then every Harden missed shot = 4 points. How many did he miss again?

Stop belabouring the point dude.

 

what if we made some 4 point play? asik gets fouled makes first misses second and gets rebound then harden 3. Boom. that's 16points.

 

Don't forget about the defensive 3 seconds. Add a couple of those in and you get a 20+ point swing!

 

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, I should have bought apple stock!

 

That math is plain wrong.

Expected points per possession when a team is playing well is a little over 1 point per possession. The highest offensive rated teams score 1.0-1.1 points per possession. Low scoring teams score under 1 point per possession.

So, let's assume a normalized shooting night for both teams. http://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/offensive-efficiency

Houston - 1.063 points per possession on 49.6% shooting.
Pacers - 1.002 points per possession on 48.1% shooting.

3 TO's, so that's Houston -3.189, Pacers +3.006 for a net differential of 6.195 points.

And that's assuming our normal field goal percentage, which the Pacers game wasn't remotely close to normal.

Indiana usually allows 0.950 points per possession on 46.2% shooting.
Houston usually allows 1.027 points per possession on 48.8% shooting.

The Pacers shot 44.9% (5% less than average shooting, and 4% less than Houston usually allows opponents).
Houston shot 38.6%. (11% less than average shooting, and 9.6% less than Indiana usually allows opponents).

So basically, our shooting was worse than normal ... a combination of a poor shooting night, and superior defense by Indiana (Vogel called it their best defensive performance all season).

So, that point differential from those 3 TO's would be expected to be even LOWER than 6 points assuming normal shooting.

You're confusing a *chance* at 6 points on Houston's end (more likely 3 points or less) and a *chance* at 6 points for Indiana (which was actually 4 points), and using that to inflate the impact of Lin's turn overs.

You're also ignoring that Turnovers have to come from SOMEWHERE on a given night.

Houston averages 16.4 turnovers per game. Houston had 14 turnovers against Indiana... against the #1 defense in the NBA, they actually had FEWER than the normal number of turnovers

Even if you assume that Lin's turnovers would multiply linearly on an increase in time, taking his minutes from 20 to 30 minutes would still add only 2 turnovers to the team total, IE, right at our team Average... a Better than normal outcome versus the best defense in the NBA.

You also conveniently ignore that Turnovers tend to go in bunches. When a player has an average of 2 turnovers per game, it doesn't mean they get 2 TO's every game. Some games they get zero, others they get 1, 2 or 3. And others still they get 5 or 6 Turnovers.

Another thing to keep in mind is it is completely IRRELEVANT whether that player has 2 Turnovers one after the other, or separated across 30 minutes. The total is the SAME regardless.

Does it matter if someone misses 5 shots then makes 5 shots for 5/10 versus alternating shots and misses as long as the total is 5/10 shooting? No, it doesn't. The same applies to turnovers. The impact on the end score is the exact SAME.

This is why good coaches leaves players in the game even when they start out with a weak first quarter or half in terms of shooting or turnovers. It's called Regression to the Mean... and unlike what some people think, Regression cuts BOTH ways.

However, the thing about reacting to streaks in statistical chance is you basically Guarantee a worse outcome by NOT letting those numbers play out.

It's like gambling in Vegas.

Imagine you decide you want to gamble for 30 minutes each day. However, every time you lose $100 you quit, regardless of whether that's 5 minutes or 25 minutes. And when you are winning, you keep playing the entire 30 minutes.

In that scenario, you are GUARANTEED to lose more money. This is because when you are on a negative variation, you LOCK IN the loss, but do NOT lock in the Win.

For every time you quit at the $100 loss after 10 minutes, a good chunk of those you would have broken even by the end of the 30 minutes. While forcing yourself to play even when you are way up gives the odds time to regress back to the true statistics.

This is why it is nearly always the best option to go with your best players, even when they have a poor start unless their back ups are playing at a level significantly above what that player would *NORMALLY* play at, as you are most likely giving up any potential upside.

In other words, if Jeremy has a level of X normally, but is playing at 60% of X for 10 minutes, unless Beverly is playing at 110% of X or 120% of X, you should NOT be reducing Lin's minutes.

By increasing Beverly's minutes, you are essentially asking for Beverly to regress to the mean (downward), and not giving Lin to regress to his mean (upwards).

It makes no sense to sit Lin unless you have a sufficient sample size that night to determine that he's playing poorly... and 6 minutes is NOT long enough to determine that with any real certainty.

One way people look at that game is they see Lin playing poorly in the first quarter, then well in the 3rd and assume it's something the Coach did, or Jeremy did in terms of mental adjustments. It is JUST as likely that Lin was regressing to his mean... ie his *NORMAL* level of expected play. However, McHale cutting his time in the 3rd and 4th quarter short never gave him the opportunity to level out his performance that night.

Now, if Lin had played poorly in the 3rd, then you have a more reasonable sample size, but that was NOT the case, and Beverly was not playing as well in the 2nd half as the first half (both were regressing to their mean).

And this is why McHales substitutions in the 2nd half (and in the 1st in my opinion) were errors.

As statistical analysis has shown, the biggest impact that a coach has on success is their substitutions... ie, the assignment of minutes, and the use of their players on the floor.

McHale does get it right a good chunk of the time, but he also gets it wrong often enough that it undoubtedly costs us games.

Did it cost us the Pacers game? Who knows... however, I believe his knee-jerk substitutions when the starters play poorly, and slavish dedication to substitutions when the starters are playing well hurt the team in terms of maximum production. And that costs us games.

 

You're literally r****ded.

 

You wrote that entire essay in response to me one sentence.

 

Yes, he enlightened your narrow mind and other of your ilk. Takes a lot given how narrow the inlet was.

 

Instead of the Facebook stock that you did buy?

 

Lol, thank god i didnt. But dom't to get too pff topic here of course.

 

:grin::grin::grin:

 

Now let's see you write your essay mr thorpe....

As usual spot on insights mr toroman..

 

Wow you're beyond help. That 3 pointer didnt matter? Did you SEE how many overall shots he took? A total of 6. Of course he's not gonna get a lot of points if he doesn't shoot much. Besides, he's the freaking point guard, whose job isnt to shoot but to distribute the ball.

Do you even look at the stuff u write or does your blind hatred just make logic go out the window?

 

Well, I guess some people take things too seriously on the board and some are just stupid. You're just stupid.