At one point in the 3rd, the Nets are up 71-63. You got the sense that they were beginning to pull away from this decimated 14 point win.
The Griz hit a three. 71-66.
Then this:
- Memphis misses a layup, but gets an offensive board.
- Kickout for another 3. Hits. 71-69.
- Lawrence "the marionette" Frank is signalling for a timeout.
- Krstic has the ball out of bounds. It looks like the refs have called time. He steps on the line while throwing it in. Doh! The refs do not recognize the timeout. Turnover on the Nets!
- Griz miss a shot but loose ball foul on the Nets.
- Memphis inbounds it. Swatted out of bounds by Memphis, but refs say, no, Memphis ball.
- Foul on Nets. Two shots drained. 71 all.
- Timeout Nets.
I have seen the inbounding team turn it over by stepping on the line called in the NBA exactly twice - both this season, within a week of each other, both on the Nets.
Vignette two - Nets down 4 (of course) with a little over a minute left (of course). Miraculously Devin Harris steals the ball! He throws it down court where he anticipates VC will be, but the ball is just too long and winds up going back over to Memphis.
On the replay, there is Frank, jumping up and down, waving his hands and even legs wildly. He looks like a marionette on crack.
Mark Jackson mentions this stat as the seconds bleed away. The Nets are about to be swept for the season by the 14 win Grizzlies. They were swept in the season series by the 19 win Clippers. They have lost 3 so far to the 18 win Knicks. They are 0-7 against 3 teams that have not won 20 games. And this is not to mention their losses to Minnesota and Miami.
At 9:52 in the 4th, as Hakim Warrick finishes a 3 point play with a foul shot, I tell my son, they are going to lose again. He says, there is 9:52 left in the game. I told him, unless Frank calls a timeout right here, right now, they will lose.
He did not. They lost.
My rather dour prediction for the next several games had the Nets be 2-1 at this point.
They are 0-3.
Can we please just fire this guy??
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
How much can Lawrence Frank be making?
You've got a team here with Vince Carter on it, a guy who was a premier shooter, a guy capable of taking over a game and scoring 40 points. You've got Richard Jefferson who is capable of driving the lane and scoring 30+ on any given night. You had a point guard who was in the same class with Oscar Robertson and Magic Johnson in triple doubles.
You've got talented young big men, talented young guards. You've got depth at every position.
Yet if this team gets down 10, even in the first quarter, it's over.
I've never seen anything like it. Never in my 45 or so years of watching basketball.
The Nets make the same mistakes over and over. The coach coaches every game the same way, and does not make adjustments. For the last 2 years the Nets have played the same way, except for when Jason Kidd decided to exert his considerable personal will to win, which apparently VC and RJ do not have.
And neither does Lawrence Frank. Have you ever heard him take responsibility in other than a pro forma way? He does not. I don't think it's because he's egotistical. I think it's because he's lost.
The Nets do not come back from a 10 point deficit because they know they will not get help from the bench, and I'm not talking substitutes.
Why not just fire him? How much can he be making? A mil? Half a mil? Two mil? Why not fire his sorry butt and buy him out?
Really, I'm serious. He doesn't know how to coach in game. Rebounding woes continue. Their offense is a joke. They allow the opponent to have extended multiple runs, while they have 5, 6, 7 minute scoring droughts. Game after game after game.
Doesn't the red headed wonder get tired of Groundhog Day? Doesn't he ever tire of it?
Doesn't he ever tire of poor finish to quarters? Doesn't he ever tire of watching his team pull to 8 and get the ball, only to launch an ill advised three with 20 seconds left on the shot clock? Does he ever call a timeout, put his face in RJ's or VC's and say, DRIVE THE BASKET!?
If he is not, he should be fired for being incompetent. If he is, then his team has tuned him out, and thus he should be fired.
And it's not like there isn't talent out there - I bet Jeff van Gundy, who is from the NY area, would take the job, especially if it meant being the man who goes to Brooklyn...
Bruce Ratner - I know you don't give a crap about basketball. I know the Nets are just a pawn in your real estate development scheme. But hey - doesn't it make sense to try and make something of the last 2 or 3 years before the move to Brooklyn? And if it only costs you a mil or two, why not? You just locked up VC for several years at $15 million per. What's a couple of mil in a buyout?
THIS TEAM CANNOT IMPROVE WITH LAWRENCE FRANK AS COACH. They cannot grow, they cannot improve. They can only get worse.
How much can he be making?
Just fire his sorry ass...
You've got talented young big men, talented young guards. You've got depth at every position.
Yet if this team gets down 10, even in the first quarter, it's over.
I've never seen anything like it. Never in my 45 or so years of watching basketball.
The Nets make the same mistakes over and over. The coach coaches every game the same way, and does not make adjustments. For the last 2 years the Nets have played the same way, except for when Jason Kidd decided to exert his considerable personal will to win, which apparently VC and RJ do not have.
And neither does Lawrence Frank. Have you ever heard him take responsibility in other than a pro forma way? He does not. I don't think it's because he's egotistical. I think it's because he's lost.
The Nets do not come back from a 10 point deficit because they know they will not get help from the bench, and I'm not talking substitutes.
Why not just fire him? How much can he be making? A mil? Half a mil? Two mil? Why not fire his sorry butt and buy him out?
Really, I'm serious. He doesn't know how to coach in game. Rebounding woes continue. Their offense is a joke. They allow the opponent to have extended multiple runs, while they have 5, 6, 7 minute scoring droughts. Game after game after game.
Doesn't the red headed wonder get tired of Groundhog Day? Doesn't he ever tire of it?
Doesn't he ever tire of poor finish to quarters? Doesn't he ever tire of watching his team pull to 8 and get the ball, only to launch an ill advised three with 20 seconds left on the shot clock? Does he ever call a timeout, put his face in RJ's or VC's and say, DRIVE THE BASKET!?
If he is not, he should be fired for being incompetent. If he is, then his team has tuned him out, and thus he should be fired.
And it's not like there isn't talent out there - I bet Jeff van Gundy, who is from the NY area, would take the job, especially if it meant being the man who goes to Brooklyn...
Bruce Ratner - I know you don't give a crap about basketball. I know the Nets are just a pawn in your real estate development scheme. But hey - doesn't it make sense to try and make something of the last 2 or 3 years before the move to Brooklyn? And if it only costs you a mil or two, why not? You just locked up VC for several years at $15 million per. What's a couple of mil in a buyout?
THIS TEAM CANNOT IMPROVE WITH LAWRENCE FRANK AS COACH. They cannot grow, they cannot improve. They can only get worse.
How much can he be making?
Just fire his sorry ass...
Game 60 - Deja vu, only less
At the end of the 3rd quarter, the Nets were losing to a team shooting 35%. By 12.
Funny enough, the Nets were shooting 40%. And losing. By 12.
At one point in the second quarter it was 37-37. The Nets got their 38th point 5 minutes into the SECOND HALF.
So many times in these past two games the Nets got it to 8 and had the ball, but every time they could not close the gap. Turnover, needless 3 with 17 left on the shot clock, offensive foul, jumper with nobody under.
Once the Nets get down 10, AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME, they are done for. First quarter, fourth quarter, any point in between.
The Nets give off an aura of patsy, from the coach on down. The refs pick up on this. With 6 minutes left in the game the Nets have taken just 8 foul shots. SA has taken 24. A difference of 16. At 75%, the NBA average, that adds up to 12 points. Sound familiar?
Tim Duncan scored on a play where he took 4 steps. Ginobili made an assist where he tucked in the ball, "like Ahmad Bradshaw", Marv Albert helpfully added, ran four steps, then passed it. No whistle.
I am sorry, then an NBA game has such a differential in foul shot opportunities, you're not calling a fair game. Three times as many proves bias, period. Space space.
Stat just went up - Nets scored 29 points in the first 15 minutes, 27 points since. Their shooting pcts, by quarter:
1 - 67%
2 - 26%
3 - 33%
4 - 17%
At this moment, with less than 3 minutes left, the Nets are losing to a team shooting 33% - by 17! I have never seen anything like it.
Frank can't help this team. The refs sense the kill and abet it.
What's the point?
Funny enough, the Nets were shooting 40%. And losing. By 12.
At one point in the second quarter it was 37-37. The Nets got their 38th point 5 minutes into the SECOND HALF.
So many times in these past two games the Nets got it to 8 and had the ball, but every time they could not close the gap. Turnover, needless 3 with 17 left on the shot clock, offensive foul, jumper with nobody under.
Once the Nets get down 10, AT ANY POINT IN THE GAME, they are done for. First quarter, fourth quarter, any point in between.
The Nets give off an aura of patsy, from the coach on down. The refs pick up on this. With 6 minutes left in the game the Nets have taken just 8 foul shots. SA has taken 24. A difference of 16. At 75%, the NBA average, that adds up to 12 points. Sound familiar?
Tim Duncan scored on a play where he took 4 steps. Ginobili made an assist where he tucked in the ball, "like Ahmad Bradshaw", Marv Albert helpfully added, ran four steps, then passed it. No whistle.
I am sorry, then an NBA game has such a differential in foul shot opportunities, you're not calling a fair game. Three times as many proves bias, period. Space space.
Stat just went up - Nets scored 29 points in the first 15 minutes, 27 points since. Their shooting pcts, by quarter:
1 - 67%
2 - 26%
3 - 33%
4 - 17%
At this moment, with less than 3 minutes left, the Nets are losing to a team shooting 33% - by 17! I have never seen anything like it.
Frank can't help this team. The refs sense the kill and abet it.
What's the point?
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Game 59 - Oh well...
The good news is that from the 6:00 mark of the first quarter on, the teams played dead even.
The bad news is, they were down 10 at the time, 16-6. That proved to be the margin of loss.
Here's some more bad news:
- 35% shooting
- 27 field goals, only 8 assists. For the entire team.
- Out rebounded 51-42
The Nets fell in love the the jumper a couple of games ago. Last game they shot 68% in the first quarter, twice the rate as tonite. They finished at 51% last game, 17 points higher than tonite.
The Nets pulled with 4 a few times, but couldn't make it stick.
And then there's the old standbys - end of quarters:
Last 2 mins of 2nd: outscored 4-9, -5
Here's their record since the trade:
W
L
W
L
W
L
My prediction thus has to be revised down - 28-39 at the end of the trip.
The Nets cannot move forward with this coach. .500 is the best expected outcome.
.500 ain't gonna cut it.
The bad news is, they were down 10 at the time, 16-6. That proved to be the margin of loss.
Here's some more bad news:
- 35% shooting
- 27 field goals, only 8 assists. For the entire team.
- Out rebounded 51-42
The Nets fell in love the the jumper a couple of games ago. Last game they shot 68% in the first quarter, twice the rate as tonite. They finished at 51% last game, 17 points higher than tonite.
The Nets pulled with 4 a few times, but couldn't make it stick.
And then there's the old standbys - end of quarters:
Last 2 mins of 2nd: outscored 4-9, -5
Here's their record since the trade:
W
L
W
L
W
L
My prediction thus has to be revised down - 28-39 at the end of the trip.
The Nets cannot move forward with this coach. .500 is the best expected outcome.
.500 ain't gonna cut it.
The Upcoming Road Trip - Predictions and Results
So here we are again - 6 games under .500, with the "Texas swing" in the offing. Here are the next several games for the Nets:
Tonite - Spurs
3/4 - @ Spurs
3/5 - @ Memphis
3/7 - @ New Orleans
3/8 - @ Dallas
3/10 - @ Houston
3/12 - Cavs
3/15 - Utah
3/18 - @ Bulls
The Spurs have now won 8 in a row. They play tonite at the Meadowlands. Let's say the juju of the new team make-up, and Tony Parker's relief at Harris getting out of the division is real, and perhaps the Nets win that one. 27-32.
Then they play the Spurs in San Antonio. The probability of the Nets winning there, based on recent history, is essentially nil, but if we have given that the Nets just beat them in NJ, this probability decreases further. 27-33.
At Memphis. The Grizzlies have been decimated, but the Nets will be coming in one night off a bad loss in SA. However, so will the Griz. Tight, losable, but let's say they prevail, narrowly. 28-33.
At New Orleans. Hornets have the one of the best records in the NBA, have just beaten the new look Suns and Utah, and will have tuned up against the sub .500 Wizards, Knicks and Hawks. No chance. 28-34.
At Dallas. Kidd faces his old team, who, when not auditioning him, crush the Nets, especially in Dallas. 28-35.
At Houston. Houston is the hottest team in the NBA. 28-36.
Cleveland is now stacked to win, even on the road. 28-37.
Utah. Best team in the Northwest. 28-38.
At Chicago. The Bulls are way too decimated to contend with a demoralized Nets team, now certainly out of the playoffs, but it will be close, maybe OT. 29-38.
Nets net: Two more weeks down, three more games in the hole.
I just saw the Sixers beat the Suns, and have now passed the Nets as the 7th seed. Just behind the Nets are now the Hawks, Bulls and Indiana. That game on the 18th in Chicago could be for the 8th and final spot, even tho the Bulls have been dismantled. The Hawks could turn it around during the next two and a half weeks, playing as well if not better than the Nets and with an easier schedule during that span, featuring games against the Knicks, Heat, Wizards and Clippers. And guess who the Nets play right after the Bulls - Atlanta.
It is possible that the Nets could catch fire, but with San Antonio in a playoff race for the first time in years, and with an 8 game win streak, the best that can be hoped for is a split. Not exactly the best way to catch fire. The games are set up not to be conducive to streaks, at least not win streaks. They could get demoralized and swoon again and come back from Chicago with less than 28 wins. I'm being optimistic and predicting 2 road wins and a triumph over SA tonite. But wild optimism might have them win 2 more games than that, which would only put them at 31-36, a net increase of just one little game in the standings.
The Nets, with Kidd, with Frank, with the other Big Two, have dug themselves an inconvenient hole. After March 18 they will have only 15 games left, during which they will have to go 11-4 just to make .500. 11-4 while having to play Denver, Phoenix, at Detroit, Toronto, at Cleveland, at Toronto and at Boston. They will need to win at least 3 of those games and sweep the rest, including resurging Atlanta and at Philadelphia, just to break .500. Some of those games against the tougher teams might be easier since they would have clinched their playoff spots. But then some of the games against the "second division" teams might be tougher as they all claw for the privilege of getting destroyed by Boston or Detroit in the first round.
Things look bleak.
I can't possibly expect the playoffs this year. All I can hope for is for this team to play creditably and for Frank to learn some things, and hope for the best in what looks like several years of rebuilding.
Tonite - Spurs
3/4 - @ Spurs
3/5 - @ Memphis
3/7 - @ New Orleans
3/8 - @ Dallas
3/10 - @ Houston
3/12 - Cavs
3/15 - Utah
3/18 - @ Bulls
The Spurs have now won 8 in a row. They play tonite at the Meadowlands. Let's say the juju of the new team make-up, and Tony Parker's relief at Harris getting out of the division is real, and perhaps the Nets win that one. 27-32.
Then they play the Spurs in San Antonio. The probability of the Nets winning there, based on recent history, is essentially nil, but if we have given that the Nets just beat them in NJ, this probability decreases further. 27-33.
At Memphis. The Grizzlies have been decimated, but the Nets will be coming in one night off a bad loss in SA. However, so will the Griz. Tight, losable, but let's say they prevail, narrowly. 28-33.
At New Orleans. Hornets have the one of the best records in the NBA, have just beaten the new look Suns and Utah, and will have tuned up against the sub .500 Wizards, Knicks and Hawks. No chance. 28-34.
At Dallas. Kidd faces his old team, who, when not auditioning him, crush the Nets, especially in Dallas. 28-35.
At Houston. Houston is the hottest team in the NBA. 28-36.
Cleveland is now stacked to win, even on the road. 28-37.
Utah. Best team in the Northwest. 28-38.
At Chicago. The Bulls are way too decimated to contend with a demoralized Nets team, now certainly out of the playoffs, but it will be close, maybe OT. 29-38.
Nets net: Two more weeks down, three more games in the hole.
I just saw the Sixers beat the Suns, and have now passed the Nets as the 7th seed. Just behind the Nets are now the Hawks, Bulls and Indiana. That game on the 18th in Chicago could be for the 8th and final spot, even tho the Bulls have been dismantled. The Hawks could turn it around during the next two and a half weeks, playing as well if not better than the Nets and with an easier schedule during that span, featuring games against the Knicks, Heat, Wizards and Clippers. And guess who the Nets play right after the Bulls - Atlanta.
It is possible that the Nets could catch fire, but with San Antonio in a playoff race for the first time in years, and with an 8 game win streak, the best that can be hoped for is a split. Not exactly the best way to catch fire. The games are set up not to be conducive to streaks, at least not win streaks. They could get demoralized and swoon again and come back from Chicago with less than 28 wins. I'm being optimistic and predicting 2 road wins and a triumph over SA tonite. But wild optimism might have them win 2 more games than that, which would only put them at 31-36, a net increase of just one little game in the standings.
The Nets, with Kidd, with Frank, with the other Big Two, have dug themselves an inconvenient hole. After March 18 they will have only 15 games left, during which they will have to go 11-4 just to make .500. 11-4 while having to play Denver, Phoenix, at Detroit, Toronto, at Cleveland, at Toronto and at Boston. They will need to win at least 3 of those games and sweep the rest, including resurging Atlanta and at Philadelphia, just to break .500. Some of those games against the tougher teams might be easier since they would have clinched their playoff spots. But then some of the games against the "second division" teams might be tougher as they all claw for the privilege of getting destroyed by Boston or Detroit in the first round.
Things look bleak.
I can't possibly expect the playoffs this year. All I can hope for is for this team to play creditably and for Frank to learn some things, and hope for the best in what looks like several years of rebuilding.
Hack a Whomever - Why It Never Works
I hammer my boy Lawrence Frank for his poor in game coaching a lot, it's no secret. He can be a good coach in the NBA if he would leave his Byron Scott ideas about substitution and timeouts behind and just coach the in game situations as they arise.
So this little post is yet another attempt to dissuade him from the error of his ways. This time, however, I wish to appeal to his obvious respect for statistics and computing. This time, I have proof that what he is doing is essentially futile.
Frank, like Scott, is inordinately fond of hoarding timeouts for use at the end of the game in case he has to micro-manage it to erase a moderate lead late, say 7 points or less. This is essentially a self fulfilling strategy - IF you thus hoard, then you are almost ENSURING that you will need to use them, because your failure to use them earlier, to throw water on the other teams' runs or to settle down your own team when it is in disarray, guarantees that your leads will evaporate or close games will widen against you by the time the crunch arrives.
Frank does not see this. His strategy is akin to the Invasion of Iraq - there were no terrorists there, but your invasion gave them the opportunity to be there, and so they are there now. Similarly, the game was not close, but your coaching as if it would inevitably be close forced you to make it close, and thus it was.
There are a lot of time worn strategies in baseball that have never been challenged, such as playing the infield in. In this case, however, it occurred to me that we could indeed mathematically test the validity of the Hack a Whomever strategy at the end of the game. This blog is the results of that study.
Let's set the stage:
The Hack a Whomever strategy is one where one finds his team down by more than one score with less than 2 minutes remaining in the game. The idea is to foul the other team right away when they get possession, put them on the line, hope that they miss occasionally, and score as quickly as you can when you have the ball. If you get enough possessions, and the other team misses enough foul shots, you can narrow the gap to one score. Then "it's anybody's game".
Frank (and other coaches) further refine this strategy by relying on 2 point baskets, gambling that they can drive to the hoop and score 2 with greater percentage than 3s because the other team is not going to foul them.
There are various fallacies of this strategy, such as the unwillingness of the other team to foul you and make you earn it at the stripe. But without going there, I posed the simple question - Given this strategy, what is a reasonable expectation of points differential by using it?
I broke down the strategy into 6 identifiable and quantifiable variables:
SLG - Number of seconds left in the game
SYP - Number of seconds of your possessions
SFO - Number of seconds before you foul your opponent
YSP - Your shooting pct
OFP - Your opponent's free throw pct
COS - Whether you shoot 3s or 2s
Clearly, by the way, shooting pct varies with your choice of shooting 3s or 2s.
I began by constructing the formula. Given so many seconds left in the game (SLG), and given the amount of time in seconds it takes you to score (SYP) as well as how many seconds it takes you to foul the other team (SFO), the number of opportunities that both teams together within the time remaining will be:
SLG/(SYP+SFO)
For example, if there is 90 seconds left in the game, and it takes you 20 seconds to score and 10 seconds to foul, there will be at most 3 such exchanges of possession. If you can get your possessions down to 10 and can foul on average at 5, you can get 6 such exchanges.
Clearly, the number of possessions will not be an integer, so I modified the expression to take that into account, using the Greatest Integer Less Than function, or FLOOR:
FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
So if we plug in 12 seconds to score and 7 seconds to foul, say, we'll get an integral value for the number of possessions.
Now, how many points can we expect to score? Take the number of possessions, take the kind of shot, and take a shooting pct for that kind of shot. Thus:
YSP*COS*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
So, if we're gonna shoot 2s, and we have 3 possessions, and we shoot 67%, we'll should expect to score 4 points. If we shoot 3s, have 6 possessions and shoot 50%, we should expect to score 9 points.
Of course, the other team is not standing still. They're getting fouled (btw, it is assumed that you are over the limit, which, in this scenario, is the best case - otherwise more time will have to tick down as you foul repeatedly with the other team not having to shoot free throws) and sinking some shots. Remember, they shoot 2 shots. Thus they are scoring:
2*OFP*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
Given the NBA average of FT pct of 75%, and given those 3 possessions, the other team will score at least 4 points. If they have 6 possessions, they will score 9.
The expectation, therefore, of the strategy, is the difference between these two scoring expectations:
YSP*COS*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1) - 2*OFP*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
or, distributing out, we get:
(YSP*COS - 2*OFP)*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
This is mathematically the expectation for the net points you will get from such a strategy. Like it or not, this is the formula.
All that remains is to plug some values in.
As we can see in our above examples, their net scoring is 0. That is, nothing is gained from this strategy.
Well, a coach might argue, that assumes an NBA average for free throw shooting. But at the end of the game there is more pressure, especially if the team you're facing is on the road (ie, you're at home) and if you foul the right person, ie, one who's a bad foul shooter.
Okay, lets use these numbers, then:
SLG - 90
SYP - 15
SFO - 10
YSP - .500
COS - 3
OFP - .400
This says there's a minute and a half left in the game, it takes you 15 seconds on average in a possession during which you score half the time and when you do it's a three, while it takes you 10 seconds to foul the duffer at the line who only shoots 40%.
Expectation? +2 points.
That's it? That's all I can expect?
That's it. So if you're down 3, you can expect to lose. You're far better off letting your team play.
Of course, no coach is gonna go into the Hack-a-Whomever down by 3 with 90 seconds left. They'd more likely use it if they were down, say 5. But if your expectation is net +2, why in the world would you do it?
Even more to the point, this scenario assumes you shoot 3s. LFrank, and many other coaches, would say, well, we don't have to shoot 3s. Oh no? Clearly, given 50% shooting, and shooting 2s, our expectation should be LESS. Ie, we'll lose by a larger deficit!
Even if we crank up our shooting pct to 75% shooting 2s, our expectation in the same situation with the duffer and the time allotted yields:
Expectation? +2 points!
See? Altho the 2, given matador D due to a reluctance of the other team to foul, has a much higher percentage of success, the net comes out EXACTLY THE SAME because the 3 pointer COUNTS AS MORE POINTS!
This only makes sense, after all. The other team is shooting foul shots and will sink some of them. You're making up the difference, but at a rate so slow it can't possibly ever shrink to zero within the allotted time, ie, the time that's left when you elected to use the strategy.
Thus Frank's strategy of Foul-and-go-for-2 is just as futile as if he let his guys bomb away from downtown.
Wait - the coach might say - we don't use this because it is guaranteed to work, or even likely to work. We use it in the hope we get lucky.
Fair point. So then, exactly how lucky do we have to get?
Let's be generous and very optimistic with our luck, and reasonable about when we're gonna use it.
Let's say we're down by 7 with 2 minutes left. This is the earliest we would use the strategy, and we would have to be awfully alert to decide to use it with that much time left. Let's further say that we're gonna go on a roll and shoot 75% from 3, only take 10 seconds off the clock, and foul a 40% duffer (say, like Josh Boone) from the line with 5 seconds EVERY time.
Expectation? +11.6
So this WOULD work - BUT there are other considerations.
For example, not only would you need to be lottery lucky, the lead will evaporate long before the 2 minutes is up. In fact, you will tie it in 0:40, and take the lead with 30 seconds left. Will you continue with the strategy after then?
And what if the other coach, sensing your use of the strategy early, puts all guards out there, all of whom are at least 65% free throw shooters? The best you can hope for is a tie. And that's assuming you have the perspicacity to start using the strategy with 2 minutes left. If you waited until only a minute and a half left, you lose.
I did see this strategy work exactly once, and it was at the college level. Stanford used it with a little over 1 minute left vs Rhode Island in the 98 NCAAs to advance to the Final Four. But they were even luckier than the improbable scenario posed above. And again, they were young college players, not professionals used to playing tight games on the road in packed houses.
Frank, however, does not get this. He robotically uses it, uses the version less inclined to success, and uses it so often without positive results that he actually undermines his authority by demoralizing a team that sees what every other person in the building sees - IT NEVER WORKS. WHAT'S THE POINT??
Take Tuesday's game vs Orlando. With 1:31 left the Nets foul, down 8. They are shooting 43% for the game, 42% from 3 land. Orlando is shooting 67% from the line.
Let's be optimistic and hope that we can score in 10 and foul in 5.
Now, I have, at this moment, not figured out what the expectation should be. Let's plug in these numbers and see what our expectation should be, both shooting 2s and 3s.
Expectation shooting 2s: -2.88
Expectation shooting 3s: -0.48
Either way, and anything in between, the Nets should expect their deficit to WIDEN, not close. In fact, they lost by 10, an increase in the deficit by 2 points, EXACTLY AS PREDICTED.
In fact, in order to have won, the following numbers would have had to apply:
SLG - 90 (fixed)
SYP - 10 (optimistic)
SFO - 5 (very optimistic)
YSP - .750 (wildly optimistic)
COS - 3 (which Frank would never do)
OFP - .400 (wildly optimistic)
and EVEN THEN all they would have done is FORCED OVERTIME!
Even if they just played it out, held Orlando scoreless, kept them to 20 seconds per possession and scored a 3 every time down, they'd win by just 1. BUT AT LEAST THEY'D WIN. And how improbable is that scenario compared with the wildly optimistic Hack-a-whomever scenario above?
Of course, the best scenario is to NEVER HAVE LET THE DEFICIT GET TO 8 WITH 1:30 TO GO IN THE FIRST PLACE. The score had seesawed all game with no team having a lead bigger than 6 until the very end, when Frank's inability to call a well placed timeout let it get out of hand.
The bottom line, then, is this:
- The Hack-a-Whomever strategy is theoretically set up for failure in almost all circumstances when it would be used.
- The Foul-and-Go-For-2 variant is EVEN LESS LIKELY to succeed.
Thus it would appear, to any rational coach with a desire to win, to NOT HOARD TIMEOUTS for this eventuality and JUST KEEP PLAYING THE GAME.
I will try to communicate this to Frank and Rod Thorn, in the hope that perhaps, just maybe, if the facts are laid out for him, he will change his approach and COACH THE GAME THAT PRESENTS ITSELF, not the game he has a priori decided on.
So this little post is yet another attempt to dissuade him from the error of his ways. This time, however, I wish to appeal to his obvious respect for statistics and computing. This time, I have proof that what he is doing is essentially futile.
Frank, like Scott, is inordinately fond of hoarding timeouts for use at the end of the game in case he has to micro-manage it to erase a moderate lead late, say 7 points or less. This is essentially a self fulfilling strategy - IF you thus hoard, then you are almost ENSURING that you will need to use them, because your failure to use them earlier, to throw water on the other teams' runs or to settle down your own team when it is in disarray, guarantees that your leads will evaporate or close games will widen against you by the time the crunch arrives.
Frank does not see this. His strategy is akin to the Invasion of Iraq - there were no terrorists there, but your invasion gave them the opportunity to be there, and so they are there now. Similarly, the game was not close, but your coaching as if it would inevitably be close forced you to make it close, and thus it was.
There are a lot of time worn strategies in baseball that have never been challenged, such as playing the infield in. In this case, however, it occurred to me that we could indeed mathematically test the validity of the Hack a Whomever strategy at the end of the game. This blog is the results of that study.
Let's set the stage:
The Hack a Whomever strategy is one where one finds his team down by more than one score with less than 2 minutes remaining in the game. The idea is to foul the other team right away when they get possession, put them on the line, hope that they miss occasionally, and score as quickly as you can when you have the ball. If you get enough possessions, and the other team misses enough foul shots, you can narrow the gap to one score. Then "it's anybody's game".
Frank (and other coaches) further refine this strategy by relying on 2 point baskets, gambling that they can drive to the hoop and score 2 with greater percentage than 3s because the other team is not going to foul them.
There are various fallacies of this strategy, such as the unwillingness of the other team to foul you and make you earn it at the stripe. But without going there, I posed the simple question - Given this strategy, what is a reasonable expectation of points differential by using it?
I broke down the strategy into 6 identifiable and quantifiable variables:
SLG - Number of seconds left in the game
SYP - Number of seconds of your possessions
SFO - Number of seconds before you foul your opponent
YSP - Your shooting pct
OFP - Your opponent's free throw pct
COS - Whether you shoot 3s or 2s
Clearly, by the way, shooting pct varies with your choice of shooting 3s or 2s.
I began by constructing the formula. Given so many seconds left in the game (SLG), and given the amount of time in seconds it takes you to score (SYP) as well as how many seconds it takes you to foul the other team (SFO), the number of opportunities that both teams together within the time remaining will be:
SLG/(SYP+SFO)
For example, if there is 90 seconds left in the game, and it takes you 20 seconds to score and 10 seconds to foul, there will be at most 3 such exchanges of possession. If you can get your possessions down to 10 and can foul on average at 5, you can get 6 such exchanges.
Clearly, the number of possessions will not be an integer, so I modified the expression to take that into account, using the Greatest Integer Less Than function, or FLOOR:
FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
So if we plug in 12 seconds to score and 7 seconds to foul, say, we'll get an integral value for the number of possessions.
Now, how many points can we expect to score? Take the number of possessions, take the kind of shot, and take a shooting pct for that kind of shot. Thus:
YSP*COS*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
So, if we're gonna shoot 2s, and we have 3 possessions, and we shoot 67%, we'll should expect to score 4 points. If we shoot 3s, have 6 possessions and shoot 50%, we should expect to score 9 points.
Of course, the other team is not standing still. They're getting fouled (btw, it is assumed that you are over the limit, which, in this scenario, is the best case - otherwise more time will have to tick down as you foul repeatedly with the other team not having to shoot free throws) and sinking some shots. Remember, they shoot 2 shots. Thus they are scoring:
2*OFP*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
Given the NBA average of FT pct of 75%, and given those 3 possessions, the other team will score at least 4 points. If they have 6 possessions, they will score 9.
The expectation, therefore, of the strategy, is the difference between these two scoring expectations:
YSP*COS*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1) - 2*OFP*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
or, distributing out, we get:
(YSP*COS - 2*OFP)*FLOOR(SLG/(SYP+SFO),1)
This is mathematically the expectation for the net points you will get from such a strategy. Like it or not, this is the formula.
All that remains is to plug some values in.
As we can see in our above examples, their net scoring is 0. That is, nothing is gained from this strategy.
Well, a coach might argue, that assumes an NBA average for free throw shooting. But at the end of the game there is more pressure, especially if the team you're facing is on the road (ie, you're at home) and if you foul the right person, ie, one who's a bad foul shooter.
Okay, lets use these numbers, then:
SLG - 90
SYP - 15
SFO - 10
YSP - .500
COS - 3
OFP - .400
This says there's a minute and a half left in the game, it takes you 15 seconds on average in a possession during which you score half the time and when you do it's a three, while it takes you 10 seconds to foul the duffer at the line who only shoots 40%.
Expectation? +2 points.
That's it? That's all I can expect?
That's it. So if you're down 3, you can expect to lose. You're far better off letting your team play.
Of course, no coach is gonna go into the Hack-a-Whomever down by 3 with 90 seconds left. They'd more likely use it if they were down, say 5. But if your expectation is net +2, why in the world would you do it?
Even more to the point, this scenario assumes you shoot 3s. LFrank, and many other coaches, would say, well, we don't have to shoot 3s. Oh no? Clearly, given 50% shooting, and shooting 2s, our expectation should be LESS. Ie, we'll lose by a larger deficit!
Even if we crank up our shooting pct to 75% shooting 2s, our expectation in the same situation with the duffer and the time allotted yields:
Expectation? +2 points!
See? Altho the 2, given matador D due to a reluctance of the other team to foul, has a much higher percentage of success, the net comes out EXACTLY THE SAME because the 3 pointer COUNTS AS MORE POINTS!
This only makes sense, after all. The other team is shooting foul shots and will sink some of them. You're making up the difference, but at a rate so slow it can't possibly ever shrink to zero within the allotted time, ie, the time that's left when you elected to use the strategy.
Thus Frank's strategy of Foul-and-go-for-2 is just as futile as if he let his guys bomb away from downtown.
Wait - the coach might say - we don't use this because it is guaranteed to work, or even likely to work. We use it in the hope we get lucky.
Fair point. So then, exactly how lucky do we have to get?
Let's be generous and very optimistic with our luck, and reasonable about when we're gonna use it.
Let's say we're down by 7 with 2 minutes left. This is the earliest we would use the strategy, and we would have to be awfully alert to decide to use it with that much time left. Let's further say that we're gonna go on a roll and shoot 75% from 3, only take 10 seconds off the clock, and foul a 40% duffer (say, like Josh Boone) from the line with 5 seconds EVERY time.
Expectation? +11.6
So this WOULD work - BUT there are other considerations.
For example, not only would you need to be lottery lucky, the lead will evaporate long before the 2 minutes is up. In fact, you will tie it in 0:40, and take the lead with 30 seconds left. Will you continue with the strategy after then?
And what if the other coach, sensing your use of the strategy early, puts all guards out there, all of whom are at least 65% free throw shooters? The best you can hope for is a tie. And that's assuming you have the perspicacity to start using the strategy with 2 minutes left. If you waited until only a minute and a half left, you lose.
I did see this strategy work exactly once, and it was at the college level. Stanford used it with a little over 1 minute left vs Rhode Island in the 98 NCAAs to advance to the Final Four. But they were even luckier than the improbable scenario posed above. And again, they were young college players, not professionals used to playing tight games on the road in packed houses.
Frank, however, does not get this. He robotically uses it, uses the version less inclined to success, and uses it so often without positive results that he actually undermines his authority by demoralizing a team that sees what every other person in the building sees - IT NEVER WORKS. WHAT'S THE POINT??
Take Tuesday's game vs Orlando. With 1:31 left the Nets foul, down 8. They are shooting 43% for the game, 42% from 3 land. Orlando is shooting 67% from the line.
Let's be optimistic and hope that we can score in 10 and foul in 5.
Now, I have, at this moment, not figured out what the expectation should be. Let's plug in these numbers and see what our expectation should be, both shooting 2s and 3s.
Expectation shooting 2s: -2.88
Expectation shooting 3s: -0.48
Either way, and anything in between, the Nets should expect their deficit to WIDEN, not close. In fact, they lost by 10, an increase in the deficit by 2 points, EXACTLY AS PREDICTED.
In fact, in order to have won, the following numbers would have had to apply:
SLG - 90 (fixed)
SYP - 10 (optimistic)
SFO - 5 (very optimistic)
YSP - .750 (wildly optimistic)
COS - 3 (which Frank would never do)
OFP - .400 (wildly optimistic)
and EVEN THEN all they would have done is FORCED OVERTIME!
Even if they just played it out, held Orlando scoreless, kept them to 20 seconds per possession and scored a 3 every time down, they'd win by just 1. BUT AT LEAST THEY'D WIN. And how improbable is that scenario compared with the wildly optimistic Hack-a-whomever scenario above?
Of course, the best scenario is to NEVER HAVE LET THE DEFICIT GET TO 8 WITH 1:30 TO GO IN THE FIRST PLACE. The score had seesawed all game with no team having a lead bigger than 6 until the very end, when Frank's inability to call a well placed timeout let it get out of hand.
The bottom line, then, is this:
- The Hack-a-Whomever strategy is theoretically set up for failure in almost all circumstances when it would be used.
- The Foul-and-Go-For-2 variant is EVEN LESS LIKELY to succeed.
Thus it would appear, to any rational coach with a desire to win, to NOT HOARD TIMEOUTS for this eventuality and JUST KEEP PLAYING THE GAME.
I will try to communicate this to Frank and Rod Thorn, in the hope that perhaps, just maybe, if the facts are laid out for him, he will change his approach and COACH THE GAME THAT PRESENTS ITSELF, not the game he has a priori decided on.
Game 58 - A New (if odd) Hope
There is this idea, described most recently in "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, that when people are in shock they are more likely to suggestion. Despite the dark tone of her work, it seems to be just what the Nets need...
The Nets beat a bad, but hungry and recently successful Milwaukee team by 14 (!) points, just the 6th time ALL SEASON that they've won by double digits, albeit the second of three since Kidd left, and the other was an 8 point win. (Contrast that with their largest win skein of the season, when they won 7 of 8 in December with an average margin of victory less than 2 points...) The only time it got a little dicey was at the end of 3 when they led by a mere 6. The Nets then went on a spurt in the mid 4th to put it out of the realm of question.
They scored 68 points in the first half, easily a season high, on 64% shooting, also easily a season high. Still, with Milwaukee shooting only 45%, the lead was only 13. One would expect at the very least that the Nets shooting pct would come down from the stratosphere, leaving us with a tight game, and at the end of the third it looked exactly that. In fact, the Bucks were outshooting the Nets 51.7% to 51.3%. (They tied for the game at just over 50%.) And from the middle of the second to the end of the third, the Nets got only 5 stops, 4 of them in the third, with the Bucks driving the lane seemingly at will. Luckily, altho Milwaukee's shots were mostly layups and dunks, the Nets shot incredibly well from the outside, and managed a double digit lead that proved insurmountable.
(One yearns for the kinds of wins they had in the 2002-2006 era, when fast breaks and back doors led to solid leads that did not depend on one or another jump shooter being hot, but at 26-32, we'll take what we can get.)
The entirety of the media gave credit almost exclusively to Devin Harris (CBS Sportline headline - "Jason Who?"), who was playing his first game as a Net, but closer inspection reveals another story.
In the first game after Kidd officially left (because the first game without Kidd was in Toronto with him in streets as the Raptors blew their socks off; we're not counting that one...) the Nets similarly cruised to a victory over a team in a similar position in the playoff race - the Bulls. There was no Devin Harris then.
What both victories had in common, and what the two losses and the squeaker win that intervened did not have, was this - Lawrence Frank did not coach the game in his usual robotic fashion.
I remarked within this blog about that first game back that Frank did not substitute according to plan (and anyone who watches all the games knows it's a predetermined plan and that he NEVER wavers from it) and used up all his timeouts with more than a minute left in a close game. Remarkably - and since I have predicted it all season and longer, predictably - he did not need them. The Nets won comfortably. Marcus Williams shined without the Damocles' Sword of LFrank's rigid substitution pattern.
Frank then went back to his old ways, and so did the Nets, losing 2 out of 3 with the team having to suffer thru the inane and never successful (see the more recent post about this strategy above) hack-a-whomever strategy at the end.
What do these two impressive victories, last night and vs Chicago, have in common? Conditions presented themselves wherein Frank was not in his comfort zone and was forced to coach the game within the context the game, NOT according to some predetermined plan. That is, he was shocked out of his automatic responses and actually had to think on his feet.
The result? Two victories that really weren't close. Two victories where the team's deep talent shone. Two victories with balanced scoring. Two victories where the team felt good about itself.
This is no coincidence. Despite his impressive record this year, Byron Scott clearly was not an effective big game coach in the NBA when he was with the Nets. Commentators noticed this in 2003, questioning his substitution patterns and bizarre use of timeouts (sound familiar?), chalking it up at the time to Jason Kidd's putative demands to play less time than the previous year, even tho his average minutes played wound up being essentially identical. Scott's failings became painfully obvious when he benched an on fire Kerry Kittles to start the fourth in Game Six in 2003 and failed to use timeouts properly to preserve the 11 point lead his team had during a Spurs 19 point run. Kidd sardonically joked about this abysmal coaching performance, and by the middle of the next season, Scott was gone.
In his place stepped Lawrence Frank, and despite his fine job to finish the 2004 season (in which only Kidd's lame leg prevented them from finishing off the Pistons and probably moving to their third straight NBA finals appearance), he soon revealed himself to be a Byron Scott disciple in the two areas where Scott was weakest - substitutions and timeouts.
The media are respectful of coaches, more than players, more than they should be. There are loads of reasons for this (race, respect for authority and age, pressure from team management, the prevalent (and I claim mistaken) belief that only talent matters in the Nothing But Ability NBA, flat out lack of sophistication, etc) but commentators spend a great deal of time making excuses and using explanations for odd coaching that stretch credulity. So for 4 years LFrank has been given copious passes regarding his rigid substitution patterns, with most speculation centering on the "contract demands" of one Jason Kidd.
Well, Kidd's gone. What's the excuse now?
Five games is really not enough time to assess what Frank has learned or how he might or might not have been freed from the presumably self-centered and pernicious demands of Number 5, but the early results are in: When Frank deviates from his preconceived notions, the team plays very well and wins handily. When he does not deviate, the best outcome is a squeaker.
The shock of no Kidd forced Frank into a situation where Williams had to play a lot of minutes and where Frank had to keep his team in it because of a reduced roster and no obvious method of coaching to that. Williams, along with the Big 2 out of 3, responded. Frank used timeouts early to preserve a big lead. Easy Nets win. Well, relatively, for them.
With Devin Harris sidelined, Frank settled into his old ways, and the team lost embarrassingly to Indiana, shakily won over mediocre Indiana in the second leg of a "home and home", and lost to Orlando, with Frank allowing the Magic to go on a run with little time left in the game, then subjecting his team to the humiliation of the foul and two strategy (again, see an analysis of this strategy above).
Then Harris is ready. Now Frank can't merely designate one of them as the Kidd-heir-apparent, so he cannot revert to his mechanical substitutions. Result? Comfortable Nets win.
Frank even called a key timeout when he needed to, in the first half, when his team was dissembling with bad shots, stupid fouls and even sillier turnovers, like Swift stepping on the line during an unchallenged in bounds pass. It took a while, but with a 5 point lead (down from 9) and the potential of it becoming a 3 or even 2 point lead, he did call a timeout and settled the team down. Nets then went on a 12-0 run and essentially put the game away.
Lawrence Frank - Are you listening? Are you paying attention?
You CAN coach in this league if you can get over being Byron Scott the Younger. You DO have enough talent to make some noise this year and even contend next year if you can get over being Mr. Roboto, thank you (ie, domo arigato). Your team CAN find the same level of success as with Jason Kidd if you would only TRUST YOUR FEELINGS.
In summary, there is hope for the Nets, as long as Lawrence Frank is shocked out of relying on unsuccessful and mechanical modes of in game coaching. It's an odd hope, but their best hope. Byron Scott is not your Obi-wan, Frank - not your only hope. Use the force, Lawrence.
And leave the computer at home.
The Nets beat a bad, but hungry and recently successful Milwaukee team by 14 (!) points, just the 6th time ALL SEASON that they've won by double digits, albeit the second of three since Kidd left, and the other was an 8 point win. (Contrast that with their largest win skein of the season, when they won 7 of 8 in December with an average margin of victory less than 2 points...) The only time it got a little dicey was at the end of 3 when they led by a mere 6. The Nets then went on a spurt in the mid 4th to put it out of the realm of question.
They scored 68 points in the first half, easily a season high, on 64% shooting, also easily a season high. Still, with Milwaukee shooting only 45%, the lead was only 13. One would expect at the very least that the Nets shooting pct would come down from the stratosphere, leaving us with a tight game, and at the end of the third it looked exactly that. In fact, the Bucks were outshooting the Nets 51.7% to 51.3%. (They tied for the game at just over 50%.) And from the middle of the second to the end of the third, the Nets got only 5 stops, 4 of them in the third, with the Bucks driving the lane seemingly at will. Luckily, altho Milwaukee's shots were mostly layups and dunks, the Nets shot incredibly well from the outside, and managed a double digit lead that proved insurmountable.
(One yearns for the kinds of wins they had in the 2002-2006 era, when fast breaks and back doors led to solid leads that did not depend on one or another jump shooter being hot, but at 26-32, we'll take what we can get.)
The entirety of the media gave credit almost exclusively to Devin Harris (CBS Sportline headline - "Jason Who?"), who was playing his first game as a Net, but closer inspection reveals another story.
In the first game after Kidd officially left (because the first game without Kidd was in Toronto with him in streets as the Raptors blew their socks off; we're not counting that one...) the Nets similarly cruised to a victory over a team in a similar position in the playoff race - the Bulls. There was no Devin Harris then.
What both victories had in common, and what the two losses and the squeaker win that intervened did not have, was this - Lawrence Frank did not coach the game in his usual robotic fashion.
I remarked within this blog about that first game back that Frank did not substitute according to plan (and anyone who watches all the games knows it's a predetermined plan and that he NEVER wavers from it) and used up all his timeouts with more than a minute left in a close game. Remarkably - and since I have predicted it all season and longer, predictably - he did not need them. The Nets won comfortably. Marcus Williams shined without the Damocles' Sword of LFrank's rigid substitution pattern.
Frank then went back to his old ways, and so did the Nets, losing 2 out of 3 with the team having to suffer thru the inane and never successful (see the more recent post about this strategy above) hack-a-whomever strategy at the end.
What do these two impressive victories, last night and vs Chicago, have in common? Conditions presented themselves wherein Frank was not in his comfort zone and was forced to coach the game within the context the game, NOT according to some predetermined plan. That is, he was shocked out of his automatic responses and actually had to think on his feet.
The result? Two victories that really weren't close. Two victories where the team's deep talent shone. Two victories with balanced scoring. Two victories where the team felt good about itself.
This is no coincidence. Despite his impressive record this year, Byron Scott clearly was not an effective big game coach in the NBA when he was with the Nets. Commentators noticed this in 2003, questioning his substitution patterns and bizarre use of timeouts (sound familiar?), chalking it up at the time to Jason Kidd's putative demands to play less time than the previous year, even tho his average minutes played wound up being essentially identical. Scott's failings became painfully obvious when he benched an on fire Kerry Kittles to start the fourth in Game Six in 2003 and failed to use timeouts properly to preserve the 11 point lead his team had during a Spurs 19 point run. Kidd sardonically joked about this abysmal coaching performance, and by the middle of the next season, Scott was gone.
In his place stepped Lawrence Frank, and despite his fine job to finish the 2004 season (in which only Kidd's lame leg prevented them from finishing off the Pistons and probably moving to their third straight NBA finals appearance), he soon revealed himself to be a Byron Scott disciple in the two areas where Scott was weakest - substitutions and timeouts.
The media are respectful of coaches, more than players, more than they should be. There are loads of reasons for this (race, respect for authority and age, pressure from team management, the prevalent (and I claim mistaken) belief that only talent matters in the Nothing But Ability NBA, flat out lack of sophistication, etc) but commentators spend a great deal of time making excuses and using explanations for odd coaching that stretch credulity. So for 4 years LFrank has been given copious passes regarding his rigid substitution patterns, with most speculation centering on the "contract demands" of one Jason Kidd.
Well, Kidd's gone. What's the excuse now?
Five games is really not enough time to assess what Frank has learned or how he might or might not have been freed from the presumably self-centered and pernicious demands of Number 5, but the early results are in: When Frank deviates from his preconceived notions, the team plays very well and wins handily. When he does not deviate, the best outcome is a squeaker.
The shock of no Kidd forced Frank into a situation where Williams had to play a lot of minutes and where Frank had to keep his team in it because of a reduced roster and no obvious method of coaching to that. Williams, along with the Big 2 out of 3, responded. Frank used timeouts early to preserve a big lead. Easy Nets win. Well, relatively, for them.
With Devin Harris sidelined, Frank settled into his old ways, and the team lost embarrassingly to Indiana, shakily won over mediocre Indiana in the second leg of a "home and home", and lost to Orlando, with Frank allowing the Magic to go on a run with little time left in the game, then subjecting his team to the humiliation of the foul and two strategy (again, see an analysis of this strategy above).
Then Harris is ready. Now Frank can't merely designate one of them as the Kidd-heir-apparent, so he cannot revert to his mechanical substitutions. Result? Comfortable Nets win.
Frank even called a key timeout when he needed to, in the first half, when his team was dissembling with bad shots, stupid fouls and even sillier turnovers, like Swift stepping on the line during an unchallenged in bounds pass. It took a while, but with a 5 point lead (down from 9) and the potential of it becoming a 3 or even 2 point lead, he did call a timeout and settled the team down. Nets then went on a 12-0 run and essentially put the game away.
Lawrence Frank - Are you listening? Are you paying attention?
You CAN coach in this league if you can get over being Byron Scott the Younger. You DO have enough talent to make some noise this year and even contend next year if you can get over being Mr. Roboto, thank you (ie, domo arigato). Your team CAN find the same level of success as with Jason Kidd if you would only TRUST YOUR FEELINGS.
In summary, there is hope for the Nets, as long as Lawrence Frank is shocked out of relying on unsuccessful and mechanical modes of in game coaching. It's an odd hope, but their best hope. Byron Scott is not your Obi-wan, Frank - not your only hope. Use the force, Lawrence.
And leave the computer at home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)