Beat the Blazers

[nuraman00]

Anyways, good luck OregonDucks in getting the outcome from games that you want, for the rest of the year.

 

[OregonDucks]

Anyways, good luck OregonDucks in getting the outcome from games that you want, for the rest of the year.

Thanks, best of luck to you guys making the playoffs and knocking off the Lakers from the 8th spot.

 

[MHSL82]

Avery got himself fired by not keeping Reggie Evans in the lineup. Look at the # of games that Reggie started under Johnson, then when Carlesimo started him. Johnson started Reggie briefly but went away from Reggie. Boom, he's fired.

The difference for the Nets has been a large part due to Reggie. Brook isn't a good rebounder nor defensive player, so starting Reggie who's a great rebounder and ok defensive player compliments the frontcourt well.

The Nets are 28-18 when Reggie starts, and 14-10 without.

(Ok those records are pretty close, in terms of %, but I think they're better).



As soon as Carlesimo took over, he started and kept Reggie in the lineup.

The PG hasn't been as much of a factor as Reggie Evans in determining the Nets success.

Nah, I'll stick with my original comment. You know me, I'm not going to be objective about a guy who made the front office turn against Sloan for just a chance at keeping that guy. Now, "made" is loose for gave them strong influence to do so. DW has a big ego and has regressed. He blames injuries, teammates, coaches, etc. So, I don't care for him to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's a coach killer. Sloan's tough enough to duke it out, but it wasn't worth it for him, what does that tell you? I think it says something about DW and management. Stockton was better and didn't let it get to his head. DW was full of himself. On the court, he was fine, I just don't mesh well with his personality.

 

[MHSL82]

Also, fuck Wesley Matthews. Dude thinks he is WAY better than he really is. Countless times how many times i've seen him throw up bricks from all over the court.

They have a promising PG though. How is their coaching? Wes was credible in UT. We miss him some days.

Personally i'd rather see a two PG lineup rather than having Wesley Matthews in there. what a joke that guy is.

I had the impression that you guys got us stuck with Millsap's big deal that we had to match, thought we'd do it again for Matthews and then we didn't, sticking you with the bill. It was obvious to me that you had too many Millsap-like position players the year you signed him to the offer sheet. It seemed like a strategy to stick us. It worked once but not the next year.

 

[nuraman00]

I had the impression that you guys got us stuck with Millsap's big deal that we had to match, thought we'd do it again for Matthews and then we didn't, sticking you with the bill. It was obvious to me that you had too many Millsap-like position players the year you signed him to the offer sheet. It seemed like a strategy to stick us. It worked once but not the next year.

Millsap is underpaid.

Jazz got a good value for him (but shouldn't bring him back because they need more talented players than him).

Jazz got a bargain contract for Millsap.

 

[nuraman00]

Nah, I'll stick with my original comment. You know me, I'm not going to be objective about a guy who made the front office turn against Sloan for just a chance at keeping that guy. Now, "made" is loose for gave them strong influence to do so. DW has a big ego and has regressed. He blames injuries, teammates, coaches, etc. So, I don't care for him to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's a coach killer. Sloan's tough enough to duke it out, but it wasn't worth it for him, what does that tell you? I think it says something about DW and management. Stockton was better and didn't let it get to his head. DW was full of himself. On the court, he was fine, I just don't mesh well with his personality.

Sloan didn't want to coach anymore.

If he still wanted to coach, just not with the Jazz, he would have signed with another team by now.

It was as much as Sloan's own decision, IMO, that he was tired, for many reasons.

I also don't think the Jazz chose the PG, if they traded him at about the same time. If they had chosen him, they would have kept him through the trading deadline.

Sloan is 71 now, you don't see many coaches even at age 69 that are healthy enough, and with enough energy, to handle the travel.

It's probably easier for a similarly-aged Larry Brown, to handle a college schedule.

It's also no surprise the Nets lost by 2. Reggie came off the bench, and only played 19 minutes.

Utah Jazz at Brooklyn Nets Box Score, December 18, 2012 | Basketball-Reference.com

 

[nuraman00]

Can't compare a Sloan in his 40s with a Sloan in his late 60s. An older person will have a different attitude and priorities. If Sloan really still wanted to coach, he could have coached the Kings, Bucks, Wizards, Clippers, Trail Blazers, Knickerbockers, Magic, Bobcats, Pistons, Suns, teams that have changed coaches within the past 2 years.

The fact that he hasn't gotten back into coaching, means he's been pretty much done.

 

[nuraman00]

I believe Sloan would have stepped down even if he had different players on his roster. He would always take his time after every year anyways, and his decision was based on himself, not his players, not based on the team's record. It didn't matter if Stockton or Lopez or Rusty LaRue or Giricek was on his team, his decision was HIS. And age had something to do with it. He would still take his time after a successful year, just the same as after an average year, because coaching was more than about the players.

 

[nuraman00]

I also think if it was just because of the PG, Sloan would have come back to the Jazz, if not any of the other 17 teams that have changed coaches since Sloan stepped down. Sloan could have come back to the Jazz during the offseason, if it really was because of the PG, and not age/health other multiple factors.

 

[nuraman00]

The Nets were 14-14 when Johnson was fired.

They went 2-1 over their next 3 games, but the two wins were against the Bobcats and Cavs.

Carlesimo then put Reggie in the lineup, and stuck with him, at 17-15. They went 25-15 since.

It's Reggie.

The Reggie Storm is going to hit tonight. The Jazz better be ready.

The Nets have the 3rd best rebounding team in the league, and that is in large part due to giving more minutes to Reggie.

Hollinger's NBA Team Stats - ESPN Insider - National Basketball Association - ESPN

It's Reggie. He's just a better fit next to Lopez than Humphries, whom I also like.

 

[nuraman00]

I also think if it was just because of the PG, Sloan would have come back to the Jazz, if not any of the other 17 teams that have changed coaches since Sloan stepped down. Sloan could have come back to the Jazz during the offseason, if it really was because of the PG, and not age/health other multiple factors.

From what I can find, Sloan is the 4th oldest to coach in the NBA, at the time of the following's last game:

Bill Bertka: Last coached @ 71 (he's coached 3 career games, 1 game @ 71, he doesn't count, but listed him for posterity)
Hubie Brown: Last coached @ 71
Larry Brown: Last coached NBA @ 70
Don Nelson: Last coached @ 69
Jerry Sloan: Last coached @ 68, 10 months
Paul Silas (last coached @ 68, 9 months).
Chuck Daly (last coached @ 68, 9 months)
Bernie Bickerstaff (last coached @ 68, 5 games in 2012, doesn't count since he wasn't a full-time coach)

In their 60s:

Rick Adelman: (66)
Dick Motta (last coached @ 65)
Phil Jackson (last coached @ 65)
Gregg Popovich (64)
P.J. Carlesimo (63)
Bob Bass (last coached @ 63)
Bob Weiss (last coached @ 63)
George Karl (61)
Paul Westphal (last coached @ 61)



Bob Hill (last coached @ 59)



So Hubie Brown, Larry Brown, Don Nelson, and Jerry Sloan are the oldest full-time coaches, at the time of their last game. Then its Silas, and Chuck Daly. Adelman appears next.

 

[MHSL82]

Bill Bertka: Last coached @ 71 (he's coached 3 career games, 1 game @ 71, he doesn't count, but listed him for posterity)

What was his career winning percentage? It was either terrible (.000), poor (.333), good to great (.666), or holy smokes why isn't he in the Hall of Fame (1.000).

 

[nuraman00]

Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G W L W-L% Notes
1993-94 66 NBA LAL 2 1 1 .500 0.0 5
1998-99 71 NBA LAL 1 1 0 1.000 0.5 2

 

[nuraman00]

What was his career winning percentage? It was either terrible (.000), poor (.333), good to great (.666), or holy smokes why isn't he in the Hall of Fame (1.000).

You calculated those different results with Robotic precision.

 

[MHSL82]

Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G W L W-L% Notes
1993-94 66 NBA LAL 2 1 1 .500 0.0 5
1998-99 71 NBA LAL 1 1 0 1.000 0.5 2

You calculated those different results with Robotic precision.

You threw me a curve ball, considering he coached four games not three. I am an amateur human mathematician, not a robot, so it's nearly impossible to figure out the winning percentage of four games. Three is my limit of expertise, though two is confusing.

 

[nuraman00]

Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G W L W-L% Notes
1993-94 66 NBA LAL 2 1 1 .500 0.0 5
1998-99 71 NBA LAL 1 1 0 1.000 0.5 2

You threw me a curve ball, considering he coached four games not three. I am an amateur human mathematician, not a robot, so it's nearly impossible to figure out the winning percentage of four games. Three is my limit of expertise, though two is confusing.

That's 3 total games.

2 games in 1993-1994, with a W/L of 1-1.

1 game in 1998-1999, with a W/L of 0-1.

You were right the first time. You must have been testing your error detection algorithm.

Your visual sensor needs to be re-calibrated. I suggest putting water in your eye hole socket. Don't worry, you're water-proof.

 

[MHSL82]

What was his career winning percentage? It was either terrible (.000), poor (.333), good to great (.666), or holy smokes why isn't he in the Hall of Fame (1.000).

Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G W L W-L% Notes
1993-94 66 NBA LAL 2 1 1 .500 0.0 5
1998-99 71 NBA LAL 1 1 0 1.000 0.5 2

You threw me a curve ball, considering he coached four games not three. I am an amateur human mathematician, not a robot, so it's nearly impossible to figure out the winning percentage of four games. Three is my limit of expertise, though two is confusing.

That's 3 total games.

2 games in 1993-1994, with a W/L of 1-1.

1 game in 1998-1999, with a W/L of 0-1.

You were right the first time. You must have been testing your error detection algorithm.

Your visual sensor needs to be re-calibrated. I suggest putting water in your eye hole socket. Don't worry, you're water-proof.

You see! This is what I was complaining about with the freakin' NHL standings! Why the F do they list games played and not just the damn records?!!! Here, with your awful (kidding) formatting, it looked like the 2 was the wins and the 1 was the losses and I ignored the next 1. I didn't bother to look at the percentages in the same lines...

What's worse is that I saw "2-1" from the first year and "1-0" from the second year, not "2-1" and "1-1" respectively, as I would have if I had the columns consistent. Had your list just said "1-1 .500" and "0-1 .000," it would have been clear, no mistakes, no misreads, and most importantly, no marshmallow chicken butterflies.

Either way, I wouldn't have paid attention to the winning percentages for each year, because that'd be cheating. And only cream cheese wafflers cheat, and I ain't no cream cheese waffler. And I'm no robot, either! It takes one to know one and one (you) should know when one isn't!

 

[nuraman00]

the odd year factor in 3... 2... 1...

There you go admitting it again! What you Robotically just sounded like to all humans:

 

[nuraman00]

You see! This is what I was complaining about with the freakin' NHL standings! Why the F do they list games played and not just the damn records?!!!

Good supporting evidence post.

 

[nuraman00]

You see! This is what I was complaining about with the freakin' NHL standings! Why the F do they list games played and not just the damn records?!!! Here, with your awful (kidding) formatting, it looked like the 2 was the wins and the 1 was the losses and I ignored the next 1. I didn't bother to look at the percentages in the same lines...

What's worse is that I saw "2-1" from the first year and "1-0" from the second year, not "2-1" and "1-1" respectively, as I would have if I had the columns consistent. Had your list just said "1-1 .500" and "0-1 .000," it would have been clear, no mistakes, no misreads, and most importantly, no marshmallow chicken butterflies.

Either way, I wouldn't have paid attention to the winning percentages for each year, because that'd be cheating. And only cream cheese wafflers cheat, and I ain't no cream cheese waffler. And I'm no robot, either! It takes one to know one and one (you) should know when one isn't!

I think some of your favorite places to eat (Taco Bell; Sonic; Black Bear Diner; Hardees) need to make some of your favorite foods, which are bolded in the above post.

Maybe you should have a Diet Pepsi when you eat them.