Comments on: Friday Bolts – 2.5.10

By: MartzMimic

MartzMimic — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:50:19 +0000

People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:09:51 +0000

In the playoffs it comes down to player matchups and Factor matchups and who can exert their strength.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:05:06 +0000

There probably have been times this season where they’ve had 2 top 10s and 4 bottom 10s. I don’t mean to overemphasize getting into or out of each ten about it is a way to simplify the data and balance is important.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:48:03 +0000

If they can keep 4 top 10s and keep it down to 2 or less bottom 10s they are in pretty good shape. Improve by one or two more Factors- into the top 10 or out of the bottom 10 and you will move up in the standings and in playoff contender status.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:44:59 +0000

Actually it is only 2 now that I think about it. They have a 20th and 21st ranking. The former isn’t bottom 10.

It is realistic they could end the season with only 1 bottom 10 Factor- own turnovers. That seems like the least likely to change anytime soon without major personnel change or coaching impact.

By: J.G.

J.G. — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:44:27 +0000

@Sammy And I can definitely understand/respect that. It might just be the writer side of me that finds the statement incomplete and shockingly misleading (just because they don't reference or acknowledge a fact/statistic (the DRR) that could be used to discredit their overall assertion, which is typically Lesson 1 in writing essays or articles that are argumentative/proving a point based). So it strikes me as either lazy or intentionally misleading.

By: Crow

Crow — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:40:55 +0000

Actually Thunder only have 3 weakness to the level of bottom 10 right now. Sorry fouls given fluctuates in and out of bottom 10.

If you willing to make any changes to try to address team weakness you’d reduce minutes for poor shooter / scorers and add for better ones (Collison, White if healthy, if you believe) reduce for turnover producers and add for protectors (Harden and White), reduce for weak rebounders and add for strong ones (Ibaka and Collison).

By: 4razr

4razr — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:30:42 +0000

@Crow So the Thunder have 4 top 10 and 4 bottom 10 out of the 8 factors? I guess that's a good way to exploit strengths/cover weaknesses. Don't try to do everything, but do some things very well. No doubt cutting down on TOs to the point it's no longer bottom 10 would really help.

By: Sammy

Sammy — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:29:57 +0000

@J.G.
Going back to the original question, do I feel comfortable with that statement? Yes, yes I do. When you grab more rebounds than the other team on a consistent basis, you’re the better rebounding team. That Cleveland is a mediocre offensive rebounding team doesn’t mean calling them the “best rebounding team in the league” would be a misleading statement.

I don’t know. To me, getting upset at a statement like that is like getting upset if someone were to say “Monta Ellis is one of the highest scorers in the game.” Sure, if you want to dig into it, you can bring up efficiency stats and rates and pace to devalue Monta’s performance, but the core statement is still pretty impeachably correct.

By: J.G.

J.G. — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:27:17 +0000

@Crow So which one do you think the Thunder are most likely to get out of regarding the four bottom 10 factors?