Some interesting crunch time stats

by myemic23 on Mar 19, 2008 2:54 PM PDT

I stumbled upon some surprising stats today on 82games.com. I have openly questioned why Blake isnt seeing time in the fourth quarter, and I believe I found some stats that should only add fuel to this fire. My point in all of this is that we are better when Blake plays over Jack, most specifically in the 4th quarter. So I will just jump right into it.

For those who arent familiar with 82games style, they use a lot of + - stats that are broken down by the possesion rather than by the minute. They then magnify the stat over 100 possesions to get more useful numbers. This helps even out different styles of play and gets to the nitty-gritty of what happens each possesion, or rather, every 100 possesions.

First the on/off court stats of Jack and Blake. Jacks are here , Blakes are here .

You can see that our team gets outscored by an average 4 points per 100 possesions when Jack is playing and our team outscores our opponents by 2.3 points per 100 when Jack is on the bench. Blakes are just the opposite, we out score our opponents by 1 with Blake on the floor and get outscored by 4.5 with Blake on the bench. People often cite getting to the basket as a reason for JJ to play, but we only get 3 extra freethrows per 100 possesions with JJ over Blake. And when you consider we turn the ball over 1 extra time per 100 with Jack over Blake, it diminishes the value of those 3 freethrows. As a team, we shoot a higher percentage with Blake and also outrebound our opponents with Blake on the floor.

NOW THE MIND BOGGLING STAT

I found what 82games refers to as the "crunch stat". It basically takes a players + - during the overtime or the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter WHEN the game is within 5 points either way. So lets see how our team does in crunch time with Blake at the helm as opposed to Jack. Jacks stats are here , Blakes are here .

Now, did everyone catch that? When Jack plays in crunch time we give up 100.4 points per 100 possesions and only score 94.7 points per 100 possesions. With Jack playing, our record is 12-15 in these close games. Now onto Blake. With him on the floor we hold our opponents to a rediculous 86.1 points per 100 possesions and score an even more rediculous 120.8 points per 100 possesions, and our record is 17-9 in those games!. In all of Jack's crunch time minutes, we have been outscored by 15 points. In all of Blakes crunch time minutes, we have outscored our opponents by an unheard of 54 points. Blake's +54 is by far the best on the team, while Jack's -15 is convincingly the worst. You also might notice that Jack's scoring and passing numbers are all better than Blakes, and this is the problem. Too much JJ1 and not enough Roy. When Blake plays late, Roy gets the ball, the defense spreads, and we win 2 games for every loss. When Jack plays late, he controls the ball too much, the D collapses around his drives, and we lose more than we win. Can we please see Blake finishing some games? Please?

Rant over, and I promise to never say "per 100 possesions" again...

Poll

should blake be playing more late in games

yes

63 votes

no

2 votes

I refuse to question Nate...ever.

2 votes

67 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ball Don't Lie!

There...I said it.

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Mar 19, 2008 3:14 PM PDT reply actions

That's it!

Off with Jack's head!

Oh wait...he is probably just as good as Blake was in his third year....hmmm.....

"martell and blake make mormons angry"

by prezofdeath on Mar 19, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions

Plus/Minus should be taken with a lot of salt.

Personally, I like it when Blake is in a lot better too. However, I'm not a fan of using plus minus to prove it. Theoretically, we play significantly better with Frye in and Przybilla out. While I can see why that may be the case (I think Frye gives some of positive intangibles), it goes against the conventional thinking and isn't very logical if one were to watch all of the games.

In addition to all of the weirdness that normally makes plus minus unreliable, the tiny sample size makes it even worth for "crunch time" stats. Earlier this year, Roy had a negative plus minus and it has recently become positive with a larger sample.

So year, I agree with the conclusion, but I doubt I'll ever like plus minus.

by poster on Mar 19, 2008 3:31 PM PDT reply actions

Nice

I don't really get carried away with the Plus Minus stats, but I really did like this point here
"Too much JJ1 and not enough Roy. When Blake plays late, Roy gets the ball, the defense spreads, and we win 2 games for every loss. When Jack plays late, he controls the ball too much, the D collapses around his drives, and we lose more than we win. Can we please see Blake finishing some games? Please?"
This fact, and the fact that Blake is a better defender makes me wish Nate would do this.
I like Nate as a coach, but this is one thing I disagree with.

This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's out there.

by Jack Burton on Mar 19, 2008 3:49 PM PDT reply actions

Look at the good teams...

...plus/minus stats. It's interesting to me that the best teams have their best players at the top of the list, whereas the blazers don't. With the exception of Blake we've got a bunch of bench players at the top. I take that to mean that our bench is outperforming the opposing teams bench while our starters are being outperformed by the opposing teams starters. But if you look at SA you see Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli, and for Boston you see Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, just like you would expect. That's pretty consistent with the best teams. So if we can take one thing away from those stats I would say it's a good indicator of how you're starters and your bench match up with the rest of the league. Until Roy, Alderidge, and Oden are at the top of that list, and therefore outperforming the other teams starters we can't expect to be one of the great teams in the NBA.

by TubbaDubba on Mar 19, 2008 4:23 PM PDT reply actions

thats a flaw with the + - system

Its hard to compare players from different teams. By nature, the best teams(bos, SA) outscore their opponent more than a team like ours. So its only natural that their players all have good + - ratings. Our team gets outscored by an average of about 1 point every 100 possesions. So our best players, or the players that play the most minutes, are going to spend more time on the floor being slightly outscored(on average). Thats why good teams have nearly all of their players on the positive side of the + -, while bad teams have the majority of their players on the negative side. On a team that consistently gets outscored, the best players spend the most time on the floor getting outscored, and therefore has the worst + - on the team. The same is true for good teams in the opposite direction. With that said, it is still a decent tool for comparing players on the same team, but certainly not perfect...

Rudy > MJ

by myemic23 on Mar 19, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions

and in other news...

I like to repeat myself...

Rudy > MJ

by myemic23 on Mar 19, 2008 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Isn't that exactly why it's a useful stat?

Our best players getting outscored says something. It's not a flaw with the +-. It's a flaw with our starters/

I'm super duper awesome

by hobobob on Mar 20, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Excellent look.

the stats back up everything the majority of people here have been saying about Nate's fixation with jack, especially giving him more minutes in the 4th than Blake. In the game day threads this has come up many times and it is gratifying to see the writing on the wall so plainly.

Using such a specific filter on the plus/minus (the crunch time numbers) really removes a lot of the problems and randomness from plus/minus stats.

Free Sergio! http://www.freesergio.com

by sergioFTW on Mar 19, 2008 4:39 PM PDT reply actions

Baloney

Since I have read that the Blazers employ their own statistical consultants and since their data is likely to be far more relevant than these (or why would the Blazers be paying them?) and since KP is not a moron, your argument appears to be flimsy and unsupported. I want to think you are, like me, interested in the Blazers winning championships. Even so your continuing to lambaste Coach Nate to promote Sergio is not helpful to the team from my perspective. Can we give it a rest? Tell us something constructive - just who would you wish the Blazers to hire to coach here now? And who would you wish the Blazers hire to be General Manager now?

by lee3022 on Mar 21, 2008 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Blake is a better player than Jack.

Jack is not improving, and hasn't appreciably improved during his NBA career. He's a decent back-up point in the NBA, a Tyrone Lue level player unless he starts learning some new skills. It's quite an achievement for an individual to achieve that level in any profession.

Another great stat from that site is player pairings. Blake plays well with everyone on the team, something only Jones also does. Apparently smart veteran shooters are useful.

http://82games.com/0708/0708PORP.HTM

It is comely not to oppose the law, nor a prince, nor one wiser than yourself. -Democrates

by EnglandDan on Mar 19, 2008 6:27 PM PDT reply actions

Not going to buy

this argument on that basis. I looked at the NBA box score last night during the game and LMA had a -8 while leading all scorers and pulling down the 2nd most rebounds. The stats for Blake should be better because he plays with the better players longer. Everyone looked good on the +/- during our streak because we were actually shooting the ball well. When we shoot under 40% in many games no point guard is going to have a good night.

Look, friends, Coach Nate gets paid a good deal of money to make decisions on playing time. It is KP's job to evaluate Coach and to provide a sounding board on players. By all accounts both are highly regarded around the league. I think as fans we can argue the merits of what we see but should realize we have neither the expertise or the data to effectively evaluate those gentlemen.

It is one thing to question why someone is not playing more. It is another altogether to suggest a deliberate sabotage by a coach against a player in favor of another player. There are 15 men playing on this team. They are experienced in coaches and the game and would not be the cohesive unit they are if they perceived favoritism. The sabotage may be by the fans against a coach whose actions they do not understand from lack of experience and training. Unless we like a dysfunctional team and large amounts of turnover in players as we cycle through coaches, I suggest we support Coach Nate and trust his judgment more.

by lee3022 on Mar 19, 2008 7:32 PM PDT reply actions

Did you even read his diary?

the plus/minus in the last five minutes of games with 5 points pretty much removes all your objections about plus/minus. the stats he lists are undeniable: the Blazers stand a significantly better chance at winning in the last 5 minutes of a game when Blake is in.

Free Sergio! http://www.freesergio.com

by sergioFTW on Mar 19, 2008 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions

cmon now, you can lead a horse to water but ...

you know the rest.

Look, I applaud the effor this guy made, truly a PTB fan. Although I agree with the means- Blake is better then Jack, the ways -of statistical analysis, are unconvincing.

Just unwilling to step out so far as to say Nate isnt coaching as well as any of us.

One should always play fairly when one has the winning cards

by bow4meow on Mar 19, 2008 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions

See above

by lee3022 on Mar 21, 2008 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Here, here.

I understand myemic's argument and applaud his research to support his point. I think I'd prefer seeing more of Blake at the end of games. But I'm continuously amazed by how some fans so easily take the next step and accuse McMillan of

a) playing favorites

b) being blind

c) not knowing how to coach

Would some of these people be so good at their own job as they seem to think they'd be at McMillan's.

by timg56 on Mar 20, 2008 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions

let me ask you this

do you think nate has played old school on any of the current blazers? things were different when nate was playing, and winning, and I wonder sometimes if he applies coaching tactics that might have worked in the day, but dont now. So, if you fit a Trail Blazer into that peg, who would it be?

Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else. - Will Rogers

by bow4meow on Mar 20, 2008 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Ok,

present some stats illustrating Nate is NOT playing favorites regarding Blake and Jack if you think fans have unfounded reasons to feel that he is. The proof is in the pudding it seems to me.

by TwoDeep on Mar 20, 2008 8:22 AM PDT reply actions

That is simply not possible

which is the point.

You cannot prove someone is NOT playing favorites.

--Dave

by Dave on Mar 20, 2008 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions

On the contrary

when evidence leads to the suspiscion of a thing, a person may assume the thing, and thus prove the opposite to remove the assumption. It's popular thought and what the whole "innocent until proven guilty" mumbo jumbo is supposed to prevent. An assumption is no different from a fact unless it can be shown to be only an assumption and one that a person ought to yeild in the face of another assumption.

I'm not saying there's evidence to say that Nate is playing favorites, but there is evidence (if interpreted as the diary here suggests) to say that either:

Nate is playing favorites
Nate repeatedly makes the same mistake
Nate wants to lose
Some other factor

Given what's proposed here, there's enough to assume one or the other based on the seriousness of the medium (we're not sending someone to jail so the consequences don't warrant the most serious qualifications for adopting assumptions.

Assuming does not, in fact, make an ass of us. Often it's fun to do. Beyond that, ALL of what we think of as facts are assumptions or lie on top of them. They are real and can be purged. But only if we give them enough credence to make it worth our while. Thus, if we choose to remove the assumption that Nate is playing favorites, we may find ways of doings so. If we're successful, and we remove the assumption from the person or population then that will be consitutive of proof, as proof would be defined as those notions that prevent the assumption being held.

In other words, if we accept that Nate is playing favorites, we can then prove that he is not. Strange, huh? Sorry to be annoying, but I don't think people give enough credence to radical assumptions.

I'm super duper awesome

by hobobob on Mar 20, 2008 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

and it's that

lack of credence for radical assumptions that allows them to continue with force and vigor.

I'm super duper awesome

by hobobob on Mar 20, 2008 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions

So...

if I accept that Nate might be playing favorites, I can look at how Jack plays in the fourth quarter and make the statement, regardless of plus/minus statistics, that I think Jack plays because he brings different strengths to the floor than Blake. These strengths: drawing fouls, making foul shots, playing strong TEAM defense, and putting pressure on the other team by getting to the basket are qualities that one would want in the game in the fourth quarter when the game gets tighter.

Can I now say that I don't think he is playing in the fourth quarter because Nate likes him as a buddy more than he likes Blake who isn't his buddy? Although my mind would change as soon as the pictures of Jack and Nate hanging out at Starbucks or the mall hit the internet.

by tssbro on Mar 22, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions

Lets beat this dead horse into ground meat

If Sergio was a starter, would the Blazers have a better record?

"You see, marriage is like a coffin, and each kid is another nail." - Homer Simpson

by tominhawaii on Mar 20, 2008 10:48 AM PDT reply actions

who was talking about sergio??

Rudy > MJ

by myemic23 on Mar 20, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions

It's just me

I feel like all point guard criticism regarding Nate is somehow related to Sergio. So if someone points out flaws regarding the other two guards, it somehow validates the belief that Nate is also messing up with Sergio.

"You see, marriage is like a coffin, and each kid is another nail." - Homer Simpson

by tominhawaii on Mar 21, 2008 4:31 AM PDT up reply actions

It could, I guess

are you joking though? It's kind of a stretch, but criticism of Jack could lead to the idea that Jack shouldn't play in front of Sergio. We'd need to see Sergio's crunch time stats, of which I think there are NONE

I'm super duper awesome

by hobobob on Mar 21, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions