EPTThis puts Stan Van at the very most, top 7 coaches, and i wouldnt put him higher than Doc, Brooks, or Thibs this year, which puts him more around possibly top 10 coaches. How is he one of the best if i cannot even put him within the top 10 coaches of this year? Stan Van is a mid-tier coach in this league, hell, i have a hard time not rating Doug Collins, and Alvin Gentry above him
NBA 2010-2011 Season - Page 136
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
This puts Stan Van at the very most, top 7 coaches, and i wouldnt put him higher than Doc, Brooks, or Thibs this year, which puts him more around possibly top 10 coaches. How is he one of the best if i cannot even put him within the top 10 coaches of this year? Stan Van is a mid-tier coach in this league, hell, i have a hard time not rating Doug Collins, and Alvin Gentry above him | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
Doc Rivers got good using Thibedeau's system, not too confident if he started from scratch on another team. Van Gundy got 60 something win seasons out of his Howard lineup. Buckets in the pain and 3's are the best shots in the game. There's a lot of "good" coaches who get coach of the year on an up and coming team, and are fired 2 years later. With Sloan out, Brown out, and Jackson out next year, Steve van Gundy's a contender for the 2nd best coach in the league. | ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
Even if that were true (it's not), how does it relate to the Malone vs. Dirk/Rose thing? | ||
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
edit Jesus the Hawks shot 50% and are losing by 29 at half. 74% from the field, 78% from 3, this is just amazing | ||
|
iLoveKT
Philippines3615 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
| ||
|
thunk
United States6233 Posts
| ||
|
thunk
United States6233 Posts
On March 23 2011 10:43 Signet wrote: Holy shit, last 6 quarters by the Bulls they've scored 30+ points. Shot 60% last night and are over 70% midway through 3Q here. I read on ESPN that winning close games against strong teams isn't indicative of play off performance, but destroying bad teams is. And with that in mind, the Bulls are way scarier than the Celtics. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 23 2011 06:32 slyboogie wrote: 1. Young Team a. Scott Skiles, but only for 2 years before he drove all my players insane b. Tom Thibodeau c. Rick Carlisle d. Nate Mcmillan e. Rick Adelman 2. Contender a. Rick Carlisle b. Rick Adelman c. Nate Mcmillan d. Flip Saunders e. George Karl Somehow neither of your lists has Jackson or Pops on it? | ||
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
On March 23 2011 10:58 thunk wrote: I read on ESPN that winning close games against strong teams isn't indicative of play off performance, but destroying bad teams is. And with that in mind, the Bulls are way scarier than the Celtics. Wouldn't that make the Heat the scariest team in the NBA then? | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 23 2011 10:58 thunk wrote: I read on ESPN that winning close games against strong teams isn't indicative of play off performance, but destroying bad teams is. And with that in mind, the Bulls are way scarier than the Celtics. I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. A game won by 1 or 2 points may come down to the last shot... maybe it goes in, maybe it misses. The result is a clear win-loss but maybe with 10 seconds left there was a 45% chance one team would win, 55% chance the other. Whereas a 30 point lead with 2 mins to play is practically a guaranteed win. There's probably a good reason Vegas cares about point differentials more than record in their predictions. | ||
|
sixghost
United States2096 Posts
On March 23 2011 06:32 slyboogie wrote: IDK how much I'd blame Skiles for the collapse of the mid 2000 Bulls. There were some real pieces of crap on that team.1. Young Team a. Scott Skiles, but only for 2 years before he drove all my players insane b. Tom Thibodeau c. Rick Carlisle d. Nate Mcmillan e. Rick Adelman 2. Contender a. Rick Carlisle b. Rick Adelman c. Nate Mcmillan d. Flip Saunders e. George Karl | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On March 23 2011 10:58 thunk wrote: I read on ESPN that winning close games against strong teams isn't indicative of play off performance, but destroying bad teams is. And with that in mind, the Bulls are way scarier than the Celtics. There's more to it than that. What it really means is this: If you blow out a lot of the bad teams and even mediocre teams, but play close games vs top tier competition your chances for winning the chip are pretty good. Of course other things have to be taken into account: Offensive/Defensive rank, average point differential vs top teams, matchups in each round but the idea is there. The thing with the Celtics, and it's the same as last year: It's hard to judge them based on W-L record. Since 2008 they've always came out of the gate flying and blowing everyone away, then in January they slow down. Now this is a major thing you also have to remember: The team you see in the regular season might not be the playoff team. With the Celtics last year the in-season and post-season teams were not the same. Lakers? Same thing with Bynum being more effective. Chicago, LA and San Antonio are pretty much set this year. Boston, Miami and Dallas are the other 3 that nobody has seen at 100% yet for the year. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 23 2011 10:58 thunk wrote: I read on ESPN that winning close games against strong teams isn't indicative of play off performance, but destroying bad teams is. And with that in mind, the Bulls are way scarier than the Celtics. Applied to Football: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2005/fo-fox-guts-and-stomps Skate = Close win over bad team Gut = Close Win over good team Stomp = Big win over bad team Domination = Big win over good team For predicting future wins Domination>Stomp>Gut>Skate On March 23 2011 11:04 Signet wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if that's true. A game won by 1 or 2 points may come down to the last shot... maybe it goes in, maybe it misses. The result is a clear win-loss but maybe with 10 seconds left there was a 45% chance one team would win, 55% chance the other. Whereas a 30 point lead with 2 mins to play is practically a guaranteed win. There's probably a good reason Vegas cares about point differentials more than record in their predictions. Pythagorean wins are more predictive than records, I thought most people knew this. | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On March 23 2011 10:59 cLutZ wrote: Somehow neither of your lists has Jackson or Pops on it? I was responding to Ace's post before my own. Please read the rest of the thread. EDIT: Also, D-Rose had a TREMENDOUS game. 6-8 on threes? 30 points on 20 shots and 10 assists; just 1 turnover. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 23 2011 11:26 slyboogie wrote: I was responding to Ace's post before my own. Please read the rest of the thread. EDIT: Also, D-Rose had a TREMENDOUS game. 6-8 on threes? 30 points on 20 shots and 10 assists; just 1 turnover. /facepalm | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 23 2011 11:21 cLutZ wrote: Pythagorean wins are more predictive than records, I thought most people knew this. Well, I doubt most people know anything about predictive analytics of any type  | ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13007 Posts
| ||
| ||
