Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Duane Casey's coaching ability..

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

  • #61
    GLF wrote: View Post
    LOL at Brooklyn being number one. That's what happens when you have Jor Johnson, Paul Pierce and Deron Williams on your team. All of them hit BIG shot after BIG shot. We're screwed in the playoffs.
    No, its the difference between 5 allstar veterens and a bunch of young idiots.

    It isn't coaching..... its experience. It will take time

    Comment


    • #62
      LMAO this picture is pretty accurate

      "Both teams played hard my man" - Sheed

      Comment


      • #63
        stooley wrote: View Post
        Well I think the stats actually say that the 2 for 1 is beneficial point-wise, despite the poor shots.

        I think the point JimiCliff and SVG were trying to make is that despite this perceived statistical advantage, the undermining of his culture of responsibility caused by these "bad" shots can trickle into the rest of the game, or even practice or other games down the road.

        SVG was talking about placing a priority on his "culture of responsibility" as opposed to a temporary increase in the scoring margin by a fraction of a field goal.
        Apparently Daryl Morey had his stat slaves study it, and it works out to something ridiculous like one win every two years. So yes, it seems to be slightly beneficial in that respect.
        "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


        • #64
          stooley wrote: View Post
          Well I think the stats actually say that the 2 for 1 is beneficial point-wise, despite the poor shots.

          I think the point JimiCliff and SVG were trying to make is that despite this perceived statistical advantage, the undermining of his culture of responsibility caused by these "bad" shots can trickle into the rest of the game, or even practice or other games down the road.

          SVG was talking about placing a priority on his "culture of responsibility" as opposed to a temporary increase in the scoring margin by a fraction of a field goal.
          JimiCliff wrote: View Post
          Apparently Daryl Morey had his stat slaves study it, and it works out to something ridiculous like one win every two years. So yes, it seems to be slightly beneficial in that respect.
          If that last part is true, then it would suggest it's really not that worthwhile point-wise in any significant sense. Definitely not over prioritizing generally good execution, since it should trickle down more positively in terms of building a culture where people are expected to make the responsible decision. I prefer the approach of getting quality shots, and having guys target that as a goal.

          Comment


          • #65
            wallz wrote: View Post
            Good point to bring up. I'd like to see some sort of stat that shows how well the team executes in the last 2 minutes compared to the overall 4th quarter
            http://o.canada.com/sports/basketbal...need-a-closer/

            Comment


            • #66
              wallz wrote: View Post
              Good point to bring up. I'd like to see some sort of stat that shows how well the team executes in the last 2 minutes compared to the overall 4th quarter
              Actually I think this would be a lot better stat for what you were asking for. http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/0...d-in-overtime/

              Comment


              • #67
                Superjudge wrote: View Post
                LOL at guys ripping Casey for late game coaching.

                FFsakes guys, he is a smart guy, has been mentored by amazing coaches, and has a fantastic staff... why is it so difficult to understand that players have to actually execute the plays called for them.

                Casey has done well.
                I'm sorry, but these are the same coaches that, at the end of a game this year, picked the wrong strategy because they admittedly couldn't subtract 22 from 24 .

                I'll bet that they're probably wonderful most of the time. But as for play calling in pressure situations, I'm not taking anything for granted.
                "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


                • #68
                  JimiCliff wrote: View Post
                  With respect to all this, there's that video of SVG at the Sloane Conference talking about how he doesn't like to go 2 for 1 at the end of quarters, because this means that a player can take a 'horseshit' shot that normally wouldn't be allowed, and doing so undermines the culture of shot 'responsibility' that he's trying to create.

                  No doubt, there are waaaaaaay more things going on with the coaching than we could begin to know about.

                  (That said: Dwane, just give to Kyle at the end of the game, ok?)
                  Been mulling over SVG's 2 for 1 comments and how he believes it undermines the culture of "shot responsibility". I'm sure he believes that. but I'm not sure he's correct in his thinking.

                  Scenario 1: Shot clock has wound down and the player with the ball's only chance is to put up a very low percentage shot. Would SVG want him to just let the shot clock expire?

                  Scenario 2: The quarter is almost over and there is no good shot available. Should his player just let time expire rather than putting up a "horseshit" shot?

                  As for the benefits, it's been said it "only" wins 1 game per 2 years. How many 2 for 1 situations are involved in that 2 yr span? And since the average team wins only 82 games every 2 years, one extra win is not insignificant.
                  If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    3inthekeon wrote: View Post
                    Been mulling over SVG's 2 for 1 comments and how he believes it undermines the culture of "shot responsibility". I'm sure he believes that. but I'm not sure he's correct in his thinking.

                    Scenario 1: Shot clock has wound down and the player with the ball's only chance is to put up a very low percentage shot. Would SVG want him to just let the shot clock expire?

                    Scenario 2: The quarter is almost over and there is no good shot available. Should his player just let time expire rather than putting up a "horseshit" shot?

                    As for the benefits, it's been said it "only" wins 1 game per 2 years. How many 2 for 1 situations are involved in that 2 yr span? And since the average team wins only 82 games every 2 years, one extra win is not insignificant.
                    Neither of those scenarios is a 2 for 1 situation, so I'm sure SVG would answer no to both questions. A shot is better than no shot, but one good shot is better than 2 bad ones...I think that's the logic behind SVG's comments. I don't think he would expect players to turn the ball over purposely rather than take a tough shot. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      JawsGT wrote: View Post
                      Neither of those scenarios is a 2 for 1 situation, so I'm sure SVG would answer no to both questions. A shot is better than no shot, but one good shot is better than 2 bad ones...I think that's the logic behind SVG's comments. I don't think he would expect players to turn the ball over purposely rather than take a tough shot. That wouldn't make any sense at all.
                      I don't agree with the whole premise that all 2-for-1 situations result in worse shot attempts.

                      I would hope that coaches don't tell players to execute the 2-for-1 strategy at all costs, but maybe I'm the one guilty of making bad assumptions. I would hope that the first shot is only executed on a 'good' or at least 'decent' shot attempt, as opposed to something purposefully rushed or forced.

                      Of course, the whole concept of a "good" shot is entirely subjective, as many players take shots throughout the game that I would consider "bad" (ie: long 2's early in the shot clock). Plus, statistically speaking, isn't 2 "bad" shots with say a 30% chance of going in, still better than 1 "good" shot with a 50% chance of going in? That's an expected 1.2 points compared to 1.0 points, isn't it???

                      When all is said and done, as long as a coach can trust his players to execute a play to get a reasonably "good" look on every possession, why would you ever choose not to pursue an extra possession? It makes no sense

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        3inthekeon wrote: View Post
                        Been mulling over SVG's 2 for 1 comments and how he believes it undermines the culture of "shot responsibility". I'm sure he believes that. but I'm not sure he's correct in his thinking.

                        Scenario 1: Shot clock has wound down and the player with the ball's only chance is to put up a very low percentage shot. Would SVG want him to just let the shot clock expire?

                        Scenario 2: The quarter is almost over and there is no good shot available. Should his player just let time expire rather than putting up a "horseshit" shot?

                        As for the benefits, it's been said it "only" wins 1 game per 2 years. How many 2 for 1 situations are involved in that 2 yr span? And since the average team wins only 82 games every 2 years, one extra win is not insignificant.
                        I don't disagree with anything you've said. When I heard SVG say this, I was immediately skeptical. But since he has loads of firsthand experience with all of this, I started thinking more about it, trying to figure out what he was getting at. One guess I have is that the egos coaches are dealing with can be much more unreasonable than we'd ever imagine. Most of these players are still just boys, who've been coddled + ego-stroked for most of their adolescent and adult lives. They're used to taking any shot they like at anytime, and I can see how creating a culture of unselfishness and team play could be a difficult sell.

                        As for these:

                        3inthekeon wrote: View Post

                        Scenario 1: Shot clock has wound down and the player with the ball's only chance is to put up a very low percentage shot. Would SVG want him to just let the shot clock expire?

                        Scenario 2: The quarter is almost over and there is no good shot available. Should his player just let time expire rather than putting up a "horseshit" shot?
                        SVG was clearly talking about early shot-clock scenarios. I'm sure that he isn't pleased with horseshit shots at the end of the clock/quarter, but obviously he knows they'll be happening from time to time.

                        3inthekeon wrote: View Post
                        As for the benefits, it's been said it "only" wins 1 game per 2 years. How many 2 for 1 situations are involved in that 2 yr span? And since the average team wins only 82 games every 2 years, one extra win is not insignificant.
                        Yep, I agree. 1 win could, for instance, be the difference in making or not making the playoffs. Or could determine playoff seeding. SVG would probably counter by suggesting that the damage this style does to offensive 'responsibility' could cost even more wins. Not saying I'd totally buy that, but it seems to be where his head his at.

                        Anyways, take a look for yourself if you haven't already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NJNHZNnY4w

                        Can't remember exactly where the 2 for 1 part is, but the whole thing's worth watching anyways
                        "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


                        • #72
                          I'm not saying SVG is wrong, but it's not only me that disagrees. Lots of teams take 2 for 1's, so it seems a lot of teams feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

                          Thanks for the link
                          If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            3inthekeon wrote: View Post
                            I'm not saying SVG is wrong, but it's not only me that disagrees. Lots of teams take 2 for 1's, so it seems a lot of teams feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

                            Thanks for the link
                            Heheh, to be honest, I think I disagree with him as well, I just thought his take was interesting.
                            "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


                            • #74
                              3inthekeon wrote: View Post
                              I'm not saying SVG is wrong, but it's not only me that disagrees. Lots of teams take 2 for 1's, so it seems a lot of teams feel the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

                              Thanks for the link
                              It's all about the coaches principles though and how he wants to control any one of his players from taking too many shots, which usually means that the player is chucking up worse shots than what he could get for his teammates. If he wants to clamp down on that and promote only the good shots, then eliminating the 2 for 1 makes a lot of sense.

                              For example, I have been looking at correlations between # of FGAs vs Winning Percentage, and as soon as the focal player (ie the one doing the 2 for 1 usually) hits >20 FGAs, the winning percentage of the team PLUMMETS. For example the Raps are 5-14 when DD attempts >20 FGAs, yet are 33-17 when he shoots <= 20 FGAs (13-3 when attempting <15FGAs....just saying).

                              In the specific scenario the maths do make sense to do the 2 for 1, but in the scheme of the 48 minute game, I think I have to side with SVG on this one that limiting these scenarios leads to better team play for the rest of the game based on principle. And in a game, the 140 seconds of doing 2 for 1's is miniscule to the 45.6 minutes of the rest of the game.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Why wouldn't you do a 2 for 1? You have nothing to lose, you still get 1 proper play in where you work the clock but now you also get to take a hero shot as well. Even if you go 1 for 50 on the hero pull up 3 you don't lose anything.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X