Why did Smart and Rozier have good games last nite?

[mobilija]

Pacers played soft and were not matching the physical play of Smart or Rozier. Pacers want a shooting battle running up and taking threes as soon as possible they don't want a grind. Smart and Rozier are much more comfortable when they know they control the contact and have the physical edge on both sides of the court. It was like watching a college team that retreats on D to entice a shot so they can get out in transition asap.

Good analysis, thanks! TP to you and others with interesting opinions to share.

[Eja117]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

[mobilija]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

[nickagneta]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

Of course there is but years of evidence show Rozier and Smart are unbelievably poor shooters. Its much more likely that the law of averages caught up to them and they both had a good night shooting rather than some sudden change in the way Stevens used them or some sudden change to the way they shot suddenly made them better.

[Eja117]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

Well I suppose one thing that works for Bill Belichick is he makes it clear to players if they want to have a future in the league or on the Patriots they have to do certain things better, so it's possible Brad or Danny or both had a little talk with them. 

[tstorey_97]

At ESPN DRPM for PG in the NBA

#1 Ben Simmons -- 1.71
#2 Marcus Smart -- 1.23
#3 Mario Chalm.  -- 1.08
Dunn
Livingston
Westbrook
Ball
Murray
Irving
Vanvleet
Rozier
Harris
Ferrel
Curry
Another 20 or so rounds it out.

This is a defensive stat.

I don't do stats, but, please, there is this endless need to justify the existence of Smart and Rozier as we live in a world of "points".

The NBA is sold/packaged as a world of points, but, we live in a two sided world.

Curry gets paid a ton as he scores.
Smart and Rozier won't because they don't.

If you choose to value one over the other that's fine, it's a free country. Based on minutes per game, you can look at Steven's "valuation system"...then look at his W/L.

My ancient career stat line that justifies an ancient point guard who wasn't much on offense:

7.4 ppg
3.5 rpg
4.3 apg

Eight NBA titles
Two NCAA titles

It's not all about offense is it? Ask KC Jones.

[Eja117]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

They both shot a lot less threes in general.

Maybe with Smart starting he had a little less defensive attention on him, and maybe without Smart in the backups as much Terry had the ball in his hands a tad more.

Although I sorta doubt it. Between the two of them they shot one whole free throw so it's not like they were taking it to the rack tons.

[Eja117]

At ESPN DRPM for PG in the NBA

#1 Ben Simmons -- 1.71
#2 Marcus Smart -- 1.23
#3 Mario Chalm.  -- 1.08
Dunn
Livingston
Westbrook
Ball
Murray
Irving
Vanvleet
Rozier
Harris
Ferrel
Curry
Another 20 or so rounds it out.

This is a defensive stat.

I don't do stats, but, please, there is this endless need to justify the existence of Smart and Rozier as we live in a world of "points".

The NBA is sold/packaged as a world of points, but, we live in a two sided world.

Curry gets paid a ton as he scores.
Smart and Rozier won't because they don't.

If you choose to value one over the other that's fine, it's a free country. Based on minutes per game, you can look at Steven's "valuation system"...then look at his W/L.

My ancient career stat line that justifies an ancient point guard who wasn't much on offense:

7.4 ppg
3.5 rpg
4.3 apg

Eight NBA titles
Two NCAA titles

It's not all about offense is it? Ask KC Jones.

Smart might find himself in a different situation if he suddenly starts playing with Bill Russell, and Heinsohn, and Cousy.

[mobilija]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

Of course there is but years of evidence show Rozier and Smart are unbelievably poor shooters. Its much more likely that the law of averages caught up to them and they both had a good night shooting rather than some sudden change in the way Stevens used them or some sudden change to the way they shot suddenly made them better.

To just attribute it to law of averages implies that their performance is completely random. A player may play well or poorly for a variety of reasons. Such as but not limited to: injury, death in the family, opponent being faced, arena they are playing in, role the coach puts them in, how much time they spent studying, how much time they spent partying,etc.  Sure, sometimes a player just has a lights out performance and you can't attribute it to any one thing.  I didn't watch the game but it appears that several things (aside from shooting numbers) were out of the ordinary like, starters or rotation pattern. So , I think an answer to what went right is more complicated than "even a blind squirrel finds a nut".

[mobilija]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

They both shot a lot less threes in general.

Maybe with Smart starting he had a little less defensive attention on him, and maybe without Smart in the backups as much Terry had the ball in his hands a tad more.

Although I sorta doubt it. Between the two of them they shot one whole free throw so it's not like they were taking it to the rack tons.

Actual sincere thanks this time for contributing to discussion! TP

[mobilija]

At ESPN DRPM for PG in the NBA

#1 Ben Simmons -- 1.71
#2 Marcus Smart -- 1.23
#3 Mario Chalm.  -- 1.08
Dunn
Livingston
Westbrook
Ball
Murray
Irving
Vanvleet
Rozier
Harris
Ferrel
Curry
Another 20 or so rounds it out.

This is a defensive stat.

I don't do stats, but, please, there is this endless need to justify the existence of Smart and Rozier as we live in a world of "points".

The NBA is sold/packaged as a world of points, but, we live in a two sided world.

Curry gets paid a ton as he scores.
Smart and Rozier won't because they don't.

If you choose to value one over the other that's fine, it's a free country. Based on minutes per game, you can look at Steven's "valuation system"...then look at his W/L.

My ancient career stat line that justifies an ancient point guard who wasn't much on offense:

7.4 ppg
3.5 rpg
4.3 apg

Eight NBA titles
Two NCAA titles

It's not all about offense is it? Ask KC Jones.

Love it!

[droopdog7]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

Of course there is but years of evidence show Rozier and Smart are unbelievably poor shooters. Its much more likely that the law of averages caught up to them and they both had a good night shooting rather than some sudden change in the way Stevens used them or some sudden change to the way they shot suddenly made them better.

To just attribute it to law of averages implies that their performance is completely random. A player may play well or poorly for a variety of reasons. Such as but not limited to: injury, death in the family, opponent being faced, arena they are playing in, role the coach puts them in, how much time they spent studying, how much time they spent partying,etc.  Sure, sometimes a player just has a lights out performance and you can't attribute it to any one thing.  I didn't watch the game but it appears that several things (aside from shooting numbers) were out of the ordinary like, starters or rotation pattern. So , I think an answer to what went right is more complicated than "even a blind squirrel finds a nut".

You may not like it but the law of averages IS most likely what we saw yeasterday. It’s ONE game.  Smart or the team didn’t magically find some magic answer for smarts performance last night.  And even if smart did find himself in better situations or take better shots, that too is part of the law of averages.  They were more than likely a result of random fluctuation than anything else.

[nickagneta]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence.

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

Of course there is but years of evidence show Rozier and Smart are unbelievably poor shooters. Its much more likely that the law of averages caught up to them and they both had a good night shooting rather than some sudden change in the way Stevens used them or some sudden change to the way they shot suddenly made them better.

To just attribute it to law of averages implies that their performance is completely random. A player may play well or poorly for a variety of reasons. Such as but not limited to: injury, death in the family, opponent being faced, arena they are playing in, role the coach puts them in, how much time they spent studying, how much time they spent partying,etc.  Sure, sometimes a player just has a lights out performance and you can't attribute it to any one thing.  I didn't watch the game but it appears that several things (aside from shooting numbers) were out of the ordinary like, starters or rotation pattern. So , I think an answer to what went right is more complicated than "even a blind squirrel finds a nut".

I did watch the game and I completely disagree. Rozier just took Rozier type shots and hit them rather than clanging them. Smart took a lot less three pointers but still took shots he regularly shoots and hit them whereas he usually misses them.

Its much more likely that they return to poor shooting for an extended period because they are poor shooters than it is likely they continue to shoot way above their career averages for the rest of the year because they suddenly figured stuff out.

[nickagneta]

At ESPN DRPM for PG in the NBA

#1 Ben Simmons -- 1.71
#2 Marcus Smart -- 1.23
#3 Mario Chalm.  -- 1.08
Dunn
Livingston
Westbrook
Ball
Murray
Irving
Vanvleet
Rozier
Harris
Ferrel
Curry
Another 20 or so rounds it out.

This is a defensive stat.

I don't do stats, but, please, there is this endless need to justify the existence of Smart and Rozier as we live in a world of "points".

The NBA is sold/packaged as a world of points, but, we live in a two sided world.

Curry gets paid a ton as he scores.
Smart and Rozier won't because they don't.

If you choose to value one over the other that's fine, it's a free country. Based on minutes per game, you can look at Steven's "valuation system"...then look at his W/L.

My ancient career stat line that justifies an ancient point guard who wasn't much on offense:

7.4 ppg
3.5 rpg
4.3 apg

Eight NBA titles
Two NCAA titles

It's not all about offense is it? Ask KC Jones.

Hate RPM. It gives some really crazy results. If you're using it to say Smart and Rozier are great defenders then you are saying Simmons is the best defensive PG in the league and that players like Dunn, Chalmers, Ball, Murray. Vanfleet and a couple others are great defenders. Sorry but they aren't.

Smart and Rozier are great defenders but I wouldn't pull out that stat to show it.

[mobilija]

Why did they have good games? Law of averages.

Thanks for the obvious snark answer. But surely your basketball mind can come up with some reason behind this game and circumstance that aided the law of averages to swing in their favor.

No. I really think that is the answer. Your answer implies that if we just sorta did something juuuuusstttt right then maybe in that case Smart could start doing this more often.  That runs counter to years of evidence

You don't think there are instances and circumstance that will allow a player to play better? There is no strategy that can help minimize a players flaws, allow them to be more successful?

Of course there is but years of evidence show Rozier and Smart are unbelievably poor shooters. Its much more likely that the law of averages caught up to them and they both had a good night shooting rather than some sudden change in the way Stevens used them or some sudden change to the way they shot suddenly made them better.

To just attribute it to law of averages implies that their performance is completely random. A player may play well or poorly for a variety of reasons. Such as but not limited to: injury, death in the family, opponent being faced, arena they are playing in, role the coach puts them in, how much time they spent studying, how much time they spent partying,etc.  Sure, sometimes a player just has a lights out performance and you can't attribute it to any one thing.  I didn't watch the game but it appears that several things (aside from shooting numbers) were out of the ordinary like, starters or rotation pattern. So , I think an answer to what went right is more complicated than "even a blind squirrel finds a nut".

I did watch the game and I completely disagree. Rozier just took Rozier type shots and hit them rather than clanging them. Smart took a lot less three pointers but still took shots he regularly shoots and hit them whereas he usually misses them.

Its much more likely that they return to poor shooting for an extended period because they are poor shooters than it is likely they continue to shoot way above their career averages for the rest of the year because they suddenly figured stuff out.

Fair enough. Rozier has shot well two games in a row btw.... and everyone was singing his praises (including you I believe) the first 4 or 5 games when he was crushing the entire stat line. But I agree that he is super streaky, consistency would be nice.

Surely, if you or anyone were coach of a team, you might look for reasons behind the positive days? It seems like a more constructive exercise than to just cry about his awful shooting and think up trade ideas for a player that contributes to a 18-3 team.