Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raptors analytics... and an internal rift? [post #67]

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Employee wrote: View Post
    Yeah it's crazy. When you do the math for 28% 3 pt shooting the value is the exact same as 42% mid range.
    I think that goes to show why ball movement is so important, to give guys as clean a look as possible, ideally a good 3pt shooter with an open 3pt shot - ie: Anthony Parker and his corner 3's during the Bosh playoff years. The Raps starting lineup, as good as they are individually, struggle with ball movement and aren't a very good 3pt shooting group.

    Comment


    • #17
      Axel wrote: View Post
      While I like the overall use of advanced analytics, I have to agree with Casey in the sense that you don't want the numbers developing his "star". Players still need to learn and sometimes the old fashion way works best. I would love to see more JV and less Gray, especially at this point in the season, but how can JV learn if there is no ramifications to his actions?

      Ideally, the Raps can use the ghost defence and project the ghost players on the court in practice to show the players how it's done. Heck, at this point I'd let the ghost team projections take the court in a real game, couldn't be worse
      +1
      Some would like to point at this and call Casey a `dumbass`, but there`s a lot more to developing a 20 year old rookie to eventually be his best in the NBA, than blindly following ideal computer generated scenarios. I may be as old school as Casey, yet accept that there`s is value in the use of these types of analytics. Valuable data, but there`s much more to consider in the balancing a variety of goals.

      Comment


      • #18
        p00ka wrote: View Post
        +1
        Some would like to point at this and call Casey a `dumbass`, but there`s a lot more to developing a 20 year old rookie to eventually be his best in the NBA, than blindly following ideal computer generated scenarios. I may be as old school as Casey, yet accept that there`s is value in the use of these types of analytics. Valuable data, but there`s much more to consider in the balancing a variety of goals.
        I've stated before that I can appreciate a coach benching a rookie for not following orders on the court, but I disagree with the player being glued to the bench for the remainder of the game. I like the idea of making a rookie (or any other player really) earn his minutes and learn from his mistakes.

        However, I think any player worth developing should be given the opportunity within the same game (ie: same opponents, same gameplan, same opportunities to run plays on both ends of the court) to demonstrate his ability to properly execute the gameplan and to prove both his desire and ability to learn from mistakes (and from the coaching that comes in-game while benched for making the first mistake). This is where I see Casey's approach lacking, in that he has the quick hook, without providing the opportunity for redemption.

        Comment


        • #19
          CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
          I've stated before that I can appreciate a coach benching a rookie for not following orders on the court, but I disagree with the player being glued to the bench for the remainder of the game. I like the idea of making a rookie (or any other player really) earn his minutes and learn from his mistakes.

          However, I think any player worth developing should be given the opportunity within the same game (ie: same opponents, same gameplan, same opportunities to run plays on both ends of the court) to demonstrate his ability to properly execute the gameplan and to prove both his desire and ability to learn from mistakes (and from the coaching that comes in-game while benched for making the first mistake). This is where I see Casey's approach lacking, in that he has the quick hook, without providing the opportunity for redemption.
          I respect that you have a different philosophical approach to developing a rookie learning from mistakes, but that`s very different than pointing to analytics saying that the D is better with JV to paint the coach as a dumbass.

          Comment


          • #20
            CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
            I've stated before that I can appreciate a coach benching a rookie for not following orders on the court, but I disagree with the player being glued to the bench for the remainder of the game. I like the idea of making a rookie (or any other player really) earn his minutes and learn from his mistakes.

            However, I think any player worth developing should be given the opportunity within the same game (ie: same opponents, same gameplan, same opportunities to run plays on both ends of the court) to demonstrate his ability to properly execute the gameplan and to prove both his desire and ability to learn from mistakes (and from the coaching that comes in-game while benched for making the first mistake). This is where I see Casey's approach lacking, in that he has the quick hook, without providing the opportunity for redemption.
            This is the fine balance of coaching. Do you make the kid ride the pine for his errors or do you let him learn on the fly? Finding the balance between the two is the whole art of developmental coaching. Too much of a hardass and you kill his confidence, but too much lee-way isn't any good either as it tends to create the primadona attitude that sabotaged many a NBA careers.

            For me, the pinacle of NBA coaching can be summed up in a simple sentence, "What would Pop do?". I think Popovich is the best coach in the NBA (and has been for a long time) because he gets the most out of both the superstars and the role players. I have to think that Pop would sit JV on the pine if he missed a rotation too. Now I know the context is different since the Spurs are actually a contending team, but the philosophy should be the same.
            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

            If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

            Comment


            • #21
              CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
              It was very thought-provoking. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it all comes down to points per possession.

              10 possessions, 1 shot each:

              3 pt shots (30%) = 10 x 0.3 x 3 = 9 points

              2 pt shots (40%) = 10 x 0.4 x 2 = 8 points


              Obviously there's much more to a game than simply choosing between 2 equally open shots, but it's interesting to think about. It's also no suprise, given the success the Raptors have had in games when their 3pt shots have been falling.
              Really that's not even analytics...it's common sense and basic math.

              Kyle Lowry shoots 40% from three (actually 39% but 40% work nicer) which is the equivalent of someone shooting 60% from the field. (calc: 3*0.4=1.2 1.2/2=0.6)

              Conclusion: Kyle Lowry shooting threes is our better than anyone on our team shooting two's.

              Bigger conclusion: John Lucas III shoots 42% from three. He should take all the shots ever.

              Obviously this is an oversimplification, JLIII doesn't get open for threes is Gay, DD, and Amir arent drawing the defense in. This does make me re-evaluate the value of a guy like Terrance Ross though, who likes to jack threes. Maybe he's actually making good decisions: he shoots 33% from 3, which is equivalent to almost 50% from the floor.
              "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

              -Churchill

              Comment


              • #22
                Axel wrote: View Post
                This is the fine balance of coaching. Do you make the kid ride the pine for his errors or do you let him learn on the fly? Finding the balance between the two is the whole art of developmental coaching. Too much of a hardass and you kill his confidence, but too much lee-way isn't any good either as it tends to create the primadona attitude that sabotaged many a NBA careers.

                For me, the pinacle of NBA coaching can be summed up in a simple sentence, "What would Pop do?". I think Popovich is the best coach in the NBA (and has been for a long time) because he gets the most out of both the superstars and the role players. I have to think that Pop would sit JV on the pine if he missed a rotation too. Now I know the context is different since the Spurs are actually a contending team, but the philosophy should be the same.
                + 1,000,000 on this statement...

                however...

                Pops is known for putting his young, inexperienced players in crunch-time and letting them play:

                http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...gregg-popovich (well worth the read!)

                He may have a quick hook sometimes, but that isn't his only way.
                "Stop eating your sushi."
                "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                - Jack Armstrong

                Comment


                • #23
                  the 3pt analysis is silly. if they are going entirely by logic, then they should be saying every team should just drive to the net: much higher %, increased chance for a foul on the opposing team, and thusly the chance for the third point from the free throw line, which is also very high %, all three of these metrics derozan is outstanding.

                  the ghost players also really dont show anything a video replay doesnt already show you. "thats you amir johnson, and thats you not defending david west" simple?

                  the only thing i guess this is useful for is the fact the software can recognize plays. so you could analyze a large batch of games using computer data, and let the software tell you "you suck against pick and rolls" or "always leaving wings undefended"

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Axel wrote: View Post
                    While I like the overall use of advanced analytics, I have to agree with Casey in the sense that you don't want the numbers developing his "star". Players still need to learn and sometimes the old fashion way works best. I would love to see more JV and less Gray, especially at this point in the season, but how can JV learn if there is no ramifications to his actions?

                    Ideally, the Raps can use the ghost defence and project the ghost players on the court in practice to show the players how it's done. Heck, at this point I'd let the ghost team projections take the court in a real game, couldn't be worse
                    He can learn by being given more court time. The idea that taking away a player's minutes when they blow an assignment doesn't hold water to me, unless it's clear that they're willfully contradicting what they've been told to do. But if they just aren't able to 'get it' yet but are making an effort, I say let them play through their mistakes. Especially in Jonas' case, because the numbers show that he can make up for his mistakes.
                    Last edited by JimiCliff; Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:04 PM.
                    "Stop eating your sushi."
                    "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                    "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                    - Jack Armstrong

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                      I've stated before that I can appreciate a coach benching a rookie for not following orders on the court, but I disagree with the player being glued to the bench for the remainder of the game. I like the idea of making a rookie (or any other player really) earn his minutes and learn from his mistakes.

                      However, I think any player worth developing should be given the opportunity within the same game (ie: same opponents, same gameplan, same opportunities to run plays on both ends of the court) to demonstrate his ability to properly execute the gameplan and to prove both his desire and ability to learn from mistakes (and from the coaching that comes in-game while benched for making the first mistake). This is where I see Casey's approach lacking, in that he has the quick hook, without providing the opportunity for redemption.
                      It also raises the question of how/what we define as a "mistake". If Jonas has the athletic ability to correct his "mistakes" on the fly, and has a net positive impact on the floor, can his mistakes really be considered "mistakes"?

                      It's like saying that when performing a layup from the left side, one should go up with one's left hand. But if the player goes up using his right hand instead (again from the left side)....and still scores....can it really be considered a mistake? Sure it's a mistake from a textbook POV, but the net result is the same (that is, a made bucket).

                      Regardless, I would assume that winning games is the ultimate goal of any franchise. That's hard to do when one of your net positive players is sitting on the bench because he achieved his net positive status in a way the coach disapproves of....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        phez wrote: View Post
                        the 3pt analysis is silly. if they are going entirely by logic, then they should be saying every team should just drive to the net: much higher %, increased chance for a foul on the opposing team, and thusly the chance for the third point from the free throw line, which is also very high %, all three of these metrics derozan is outstanding.

                        the ghost players also really dont show anything a video replay doesnt already show you. "thats you amir johnson, and thats you not defending david west" simple?

                        the only thing i guess this is useful for is the fact the software can recognize plays. so you could analyze a large batch of games using computer data, and let the software tell you "you suck against pick and rolls" or "always leaving wings undefended"
                        Not neccesarily. A Let's say someone makes 69% of the shots at the rim, which is pretty good (it's what Amir makes and he leads all PF who have played at least 40 games this year http://www.hoopdata.com/shotstats.as...&gp2=40&mins=0). Using the math presented earlier, if you had a player who shot at least 46% from three, and there are several players in the league who do (Calderon has since the trade), you are actually doing better than taking a shot at the rim. Now if we look at the league average for shots at the rim, 64%, that is the equivalent of about 42%, which is what JLIII and a bunch of other guys shoot (I count 33, but some of those are guys who don't take threes regurly).

                        Point is, there are some players that you would rather have shoot threes than take a shot at the rim. Now this doesn't account for free throws which is a big benefit to getting to the rim, but then it is also easier to get a good shot from three than it is to get to the rim.

                        Edit: Interestingly, Terrance Ross has the highest at rim shooting % among all SG's and is 6th overall.
                        Last edited by hateslosing; Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:04 PM.
                        "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

                        -Churchill

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Nilanka wrote: View Post
                          It also raises the question of how/what we define as a "mistake". If Jonas has the athletic ability to correct his "mistakes" on the fly, and has a net positive impact on the floor, can his mistakes really be considered "mistakes"?

                          It's like saying that when performing a layup from the left side, one should go up with one's left hand. But if the player goes up using his right hand instead (again from the left side)....and still scores....can it really be considered a mistake? Sure it's a mistake from a textbook POV, but the net result is the same (that is, a made bucket).

                          Regardless, I would assume that winning games is the ultimate goal of any franchise. That's hard to do when one of your net positive players is sitting on the bench because he achieved his net positive status in a way the coach disapproves of....
                          i would assume the right hand basket from the left side would be considered a 'mistake' because it has a lower chance of success? so even if the basket did go in, you don't want your player to continuously attempt it in the long run.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                            He can learn by being given more court time. The idea that taking away a player's minutes when they blow an assignment doesn't hold water to me, unless it's clear that they're willfully contradicting what they been told to do. But if they just aren't able to 'get it' yet but are making an effort, I say let them play through their mistakes. Especially in Jonas' case, because the numbers show that he can make up for his mistakes.
                            +1

                            Jonas doesn't exactly seem like the type to be like, "Screw you coach. I only care about minutes".

                            I'm sure he's absorbing everything Casey's telling him, regardless of how many minutes he plays.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              p00ka wrote: View Post
                              I respect that you have a different philosophical approach to developing a rookie learning from mistakes, but that`s very different than pointing to analytics saying that the D is better with JV to paint the coach as a dumbass.
                              I never said anything about the bolded part, I was just continuing the conversation from your post.

                              Personally, I think coaching experience and analytics could be integrated to improve the overall management of a team, but I certainly wouldn't want coaches replaced by analytics.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                iblastoff wrote: View Post
                                i would assume the right hand basket from the left side would be considered a 'mistake' because it has a lower chance of success? so even if the basket did go in, you don't want your player to continuously attempt it in the long run.
                                I understand that....but what if a player has a knack for seeing seams in the defense, can jump higher/quicker than most defenders, and actually scores consistently from the left side using his right hand? If the statistical analysis proves this to be true, can it be considered a mistake?
                                Last edited by Nilanka; Tue Mar 19, 2013, 03:08 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X