What do you mean he doesn't know what it is? He explained it. On LeBron (and AD)... it's not rocket science. That premise is correct. They are better in the paint. If you have shooters, there's more space in the paint. If you don't, teams' clough the paint and you have AD and Bron shooting Js and 3 pointers where their efficiency is drastically lower
incompletely. if you're going to rely as heavily on a stat as he was for his argument, you should know the origin of the mathematical adjustments to it. in theory, but shooters don't shoot here, and if they can't defend, we get killed. i'd rather be more creative.
He does, he literally explains it and mentions the 3 variables in the formula as well as the .44 ponderation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_shooting_percentage Look at the formula. He's talking in a podcast for the average Joe. He explained as well as possible for people to understand it. Wouldn't make sense to throw a maths lesson in a basketball podcast. I do training all the time and learned to adjust the language to the trainees. What's easy for you doesn't mean is easy for others. So you simplify it depending on your audience. We won 2020 because we were shooting well. We went far last year on the playoffs because we were shooting well. We had a good run late this year because we were shooting well. I think you're overreaching. Yes, you won't win if you surround LeBron with only shooters like Quinn Cook or Ellington like we tried after the title. The league has shown that only having shooters who can't guard or do other things won't work. But you do need shooting. Boston win it all with no tough series because they only have shooters. Dallas couldn't compete with them because they didn't shoot well. Denver is the only team who shoots less because they have the best player in the world. But they still have MPJ and KCP there, or Gordon killing you from the corner. You need those guys so you can operate in the paint. If you clough the paint, they kill from 3. If you don't overcommit to protect the shooters, they kill you inside with Joker and Jamal. We know it very well I think that's the philosophy. The backbone of your strategy. The basis. But then you need to define how you get there and that depends on your personnel.
if the plan for next season is to surround lebron with a bunch of shooters, it'll be a repeat of 21-22
yeah, i'm a college professor. i get it. and i didn't expand, but basing the philosophy on three point shooting or true shooting percentage worries me. you work with what you have. going out and getting a bunch of one-dimensional shooters again is going to go super poorly again. a bunch of guys who supposedly couldn't shoot shot well, while we constantly have very good shooters not shooting well at key times. i'd rather play great defense and hope my marginal shooters step up than sacrifice defense for offense and watch the three pointers dry up like every dantoni team ever. boston has six two-way players, and all of their perimeter players can both shoot and put the ball on the floor. we're nowhere near being able to assemble such a roster. we're in luke kennard territory, and that's losing territory. they made the finals. if luka's not hurt, maybe that series looks different. dallas got to the finals by morphing into one of the league's best defenses to finish the year. they also got some timely shooting from guys who aren't typically good shooters. this happens a lot, actually. gordon's still a bad shooter (he shoots exactly like vando and is just as open). if he played here, you'd want him benched, lol. but he hits just enough to help them win a game a round, and that was enough for a ring. because he does so many other things--most importantly covering for jokic, porter, and murray on defense and punishing teams for leaving him around the bucket. which guys? aaron gordon simply isn't a deep threat at all. if a two-way player who could shoot was available for what we have to offer, i'd jump at it. but i'm not seeing this player without robbing peter to pay paul. my philosophy (the one that has actually brought a ring) would be to make defense your backbone and try to find ways to scratch out points using two guys who have averaged 25+ ppg most of their lives. much safer gamble.
Okay.I get that it's different sport,but in NHL right now Edmonton and coach who never trained any team except for AHL which is equivalent of G-league just come back from 0-3 in a finals.Last time this s*** happened in 1945. He was hired after a 2-9-1 start to the season.
I think you are reading too much. It's a segment on his podcast where he made an analysis of top/bottom offenses and their shooting percentages. It's not a thesis or his whole philosophy. Just an interesting exercise as it shows some correlations. No one mentioned one dimensional shooters, you're the only one who's bringing it up. I don't know why you're leading the conversation there. Nobody said we wouldn't rely on defense. We were just talking about offense. What's the style and philosophy behind JJ. Defense is a different conversation and nobody said offense would be prioritized over defense. (If he does, I'm with you. I'm also a defense first kind of guy, especially with our core right now) In today's basketball you just can't have one-dimensional players either side of the floor. Pure shooters don't get minutes. Defensive maniacs like Thybulle don't get minutes. To be playing in the league right now you have to contribute to more aspects of the game. Which is why Rui needs to step up to reach the playing time his potential deserves. We were talking about how spacing is important, even when you're best guys are stronger in the paint. It just opens the floor. I mentioned KCP and MPJ but you ignored it. Gordon was a different example, of a guy who isn't a shooter, but still killed us from 3 because we were clogging the paint. It was just to prove that basket is simple nowadays, and because we have AD and LeBron who need the paint clear, we need shooters around to maximize. Most of the times they don't even need to shoot, they just need to scare the help defender to not commit too much so our 2 stars can go to work. I'm sensing you're a bit defensive on JJ and trying to come up with reasons to not like him. I don't know, just a hunch. I like reading your takes, so found it curious
brought up because that's all you can get with our purchasing power. my concern is that jj talks a lot about offense, and we don't have the roster to be a top offense. the only path to being a top offense is to drop some of our support players for better offensive players. we won't be able to get floor spacers who defend for what we have to offer. hence my concerns. if you read my post history on redick, i've been more positive than about 90% of folks here, i think.
If he thought Ham did great, clearly he knows nothing about basketball. but it’s a fraternity, so everyone has to be politically correct to some degree
There's a good JJ bio in here I'm going to pull the Coach K quotes and recommend you read the rest, including some good quotes from Chris Collins (Doug's son) and former Buck John Henson from when he was a rookie.
this was also good perspective: sounds like it's the administrative stuff that long-time assistants (or former head coaches) might know better than guys like redick. i'm sure we're going to get at least one former head coach on the staff.
Scott Brooks and Stan VanGundy would be my two choices for assistants with experience, although I haven’t heard much talk about Stan in these rumors.
the other unspoken part is don't just park them in the corner. like the general sentiment here. vando sets screen for AD or lebron--you going to switch whichever non-defender you gave vando? choices have to be made. vando in corner or dunker? his man plays free safety.
