Suns vs Warriors

[Haren]

There were only 3 players with a +/- rating in the minuses last night. Sideshow and Stro show were 2 of them.

Nash was the third.

Didn't Tucker also have a minus rating?

 

[nashman]

Nash was pretty instrumental in that game if you can't see that I am not sure what game you were watching! 11pts 9assists 7 rebounds in only 23 minutes almost a triple double in one half of ball. The key is Barnes and Richardson BOTH playing well on the same night when that happens we just have too many weapons to stop us from scoring the ball.

 

[nashman]

Gentry did a nice job of minute distribution since this was the second night of a b2b only 2 guys over 30 min. Richardson and Barnes with 31 but they were both on fire so that is very acceptable.

 

[cly2tw]

Awesome dunks by Shaq and Richardson last night.

Loved the sequence where Hill and Richardson are diving for the ball on the floor....somehow Barbosa ends up with the ball in his hands and calmy nails the three.

To beat the buzzer at that!
Hill's dunk was the best though.
It's GS. We play as if we were contenders against them to make you forget the pain of the season somewhat.

 

[cly2tw]

Nash led team in score in 5 of our 6-game losing streak. We seem only be able to win when he is not playing too much.
This game is a perfect example of his impact. He will get you 10-0 runs in a minutes but gives up 0-10 to the opponents with equal ease. When he sits, even Shaq becomes a good defender, but particularly the bench guys Dudley and Dragic shine through to hold it on defense for us. We had 56 fastbreak pts, because of defensive stops, not SSOL after others' score. In a way, the defensive hustling by LB, Hill, JRich only can be effective when Nash sits, since otherwise the other team would simply exploit this weakness of us for that to matter.

Actually, Nash seemed to be instructed by Gentry to stick to one man and make it hard for him to catch the ball, which was good. But with him in, our transition defense is atrocious. And he makes a couple of bad SSOL plays, the opponents swiftly go to a 10-0 run.

 

[Haren]

I kind of felt bad for Azubuike. He was dunked on twice by Hill and Shaq IIRC.

 

[green machine]

Nash was pretty instrumental in that game if you can't see that I am not sure what game you were watching! 11pts 9assists 7 rebounds in only 23 minutes almost a triple double in one half of ball.

Then why was he a minus?

 

[elindholm]

I kind of felt bad for Azubuike.

Yeah, it must have been quite a shock for him not to be left wide open behind the arc all game, as he was the last time these two teams played, back when the defensive wizard Porter was at the helm.

 

[cly2tw]

Yeah, it must have been quite a shock for him not to be left wide open behind the arc all game, as he was the last time these two teams played, back when the defensive wizard Porter was at the helm.

One huge contributing factor was Nash didn't play that long and our other guys were savvy at covering their men even in zone. Dragic, Dudley, Amundson, and even LB now don't lose positions that easily and they cover back well even then.

 

[Haren]

Yeah, it must have been quite a shock for him not to be left wide open behind the arc all game, as he was the last time these two teams played, back when the defensive wizard Porter was at the helm.

I still can't believe what Porter said about him. How do you, as a coach, not know Azubuike's one of the top three-point shooters?

 

[Hat]

Besides not having the lateral quickness to cover quick PG's, I think Nash's other problem on defense is he leaves his man open too much. For example, watch when they are in a zone. When the opposing team passes into the inside man, Nash comes over to help swat the ball away or double team. Why he does this, I don't know. Then the guy he was covering is either open for a 3 or J, or does a slash to the basket. If Nash would just stay with the guy and not help out, it would cut down on some of the problems.

 

[lou_skywalker]

One huge contributing factor was Nash didn't play that long and our other guys were savvy at covering their men even in zone. Dragic, Dudley, Amundson, and even LB now don't lose positions that easily and they cover back well even then.

Further justification for why Nash should be replaced

 

[cly2tw]

Besides not having the lateral quickness to cover quick PG's, I think Nash's other problem on defense is he leaves his man open too much. For example, watch when they are in a zone. When the opposing team passes into the inside man, Nash comes over to help swat the ball away or double team. Why he does this, I don't know. Then the guy he was covering is either open for a 3 or J, or does a slash to the basket. If Nash would just stay with the guy and not help out, it would cut down on some of the problems.

That's really painful to see. But in this game, Nash tried a lot with preventive measure by covering his man close before they get the ball. Gentry seems to recognize it and brave enough to convey that to Nash. It'd be sufficient if he just stays with whomever is parked at 3 pt line and let the others play 4 on 4, on defense!

Further justification for why Nash should be replaced

Right. But anything but for Curry.

 

[lou_skywalker]

Right. But anything but for Curry.

haha yeah that was just a wild guess, coz Nash wants to go to NY so badly.
Nash for Calderon or Bayless and a pick should be realistic.

 

[Errntknght]

Someone on RealGM posted this scenario that would get us into the Playoffs. It's not that likely but it wouldn't be unbelievable if this happened.

Suns:

vs OKC W
@GS W
vs Philly W
vs Wash W
vs Denver W
vs Utah W
@port L
@Utah L
@SAC W
vs Hou W
vs SAC W
@DAL W
@NO L
@MEM W
@MIN W
vs MEM W
vs GS W


MAVS:

@ LAL L
vs DET L
@ATL L
@Indiana L
vs GS W
vs Denver W
@CLE L
@MIN W
vs Miami W
@MEM W
vs PHX L
vs UTAH L
vs NO W
@NO L
vs MIN W
vs HOU W

If Dallas wins some of its games marked down as losses, they could still lose to Houston, NO, Miami, Denver, and GS.

Our odds are definitely higher than 1%. 10% sounds about right.

Actually it sounds great, but not right. If you'll recall from my post I said if we knew Dallas would go 7-8 in their last 15 games and would lose to us then our chances would be around 10%, so you turn around and use a scenario which meets precisely those conditions in support of your contention that 10% is realistic!

Combining statistics is often surprising. For example, in almost any scenario that puts us in the playoffs we have to win all eight of our remaining games against sub .500 teams. If the odds of winning each of those averages 3-1 in our favor then composite odds of winning all 8 is 10%. (Just put .75 in your calculator and raise it to 8th power - answer = .1001.) Then you have to multiply that by our chances of winning 4 (or more) of 7 against WC playoff teams - against whom we are 8-14 this year by my count - a 22% shot for a combined probability of 2.2% that we carry out our half of the scenario you quoted.

Now the author of that scenario probably didn't realize that Dallas' conf record is 22-20 while ours is 22-17 so if we beat them the last game and tie them in the standings then we are a virtual lock to have the tie breaker. The upshot of that is that we can afford to lose 4 other games, not just 3. Thus we'd only have to win 7 of 8 against the sub .500 teams, which is 36% instead of 10%. That ups the chances of us doing our half to .22 * .36 = .079 or about 8%, which is the way I arrived at about 10% chance if we assume Dallas finishes 7-8 and loses to us.

If Dallas plays .600 ball(as they've done all season) the rest of they way they finish 9-6 and its just as dreary as I said - we have to beat all 8 sub .500 teams and 5 of 7 against WC playoff teams, best case.

 

[Proteus]

That was game was a lot of fun to watch. Too bad we went through that scoring drought at the end of the 2nd quarter, put in non-scorers with about 5 to 6 minutes to go in the 4th quarter, and didn't shoot great fom the free throw (we hit 76% (28/37)), we could've scored 160 to 170 points.

 

[Suns_fan69]

Didn't Tucker also have a minus rating?

You're right! I totally overlooked that. My mind must have seen double digits and automatically assumed it was a + as all the others were. That -15 is just terrible considering we won by 24.

 

[Errntknght]

Hopefully, Gentry takes a lesson from these last two games and doesn't return to his death grip on the youngsters when we play tougher opponents from here on out.

 

[cly2tw]

Hopefully, Gentry takes a lesson from these last two games and doesn't return to his death grip on the youngsters when we play tougher opponents from here on out.

My sentiment exactly.

 

[Ninjafish]

Actually it sounds great, but not right. If you'll recall from my post I said if we knew Dallas would go 7-8 in their last 15 games and would lose to us then our chances would be around 10%, so you turn around and use a scenario which meets precisely those conditions in support of your contention that 10% is realistic!

Combining statistics is often surprising. For example, in almost any scenario that puts us in the playoffs we have to win all eight of our remaining games against sub .500 teams. If the odds of winning each of those averages 3-1 in our favor then composite odds of winning all 8 is 10%. (Just put .75 in your calculator and raise it to 8th power - answer = .1001.) Then you have to multiply that by our chances of winning 4 (or more) of 7 against WC playoff teams - against whom we are 8-14 this year by my count - a 22% shot for a combined probability of 2.2% that we carry out our half of the scenario you quoted.

Now the author of that scenario probably didn't realize that Dallas' conf record is 22-20 while ours is 22-17 so if we beat them the last game and tie them in the standings then we are a virtual lock to have the tie breaker. The upshot of that is that we can afford to lose 4 other games, not just 3. Thus we'd only have to win 7 of 8 against the sub .500 teams, which is 36% instead of 10%. That ups the chances of us doing our half to .22 * .36 = .079 or about 8%, which is the way I arrived at about 10% chance if we assume Dallas finishes 7-8 and loses to us.

If Dallas plays .600 ball(as they've done all season) the rest of they way they finish 9-6 and its just as dreary as I said - we have to beat all 8 sub .500 teams and 5 of 7 against WC playoff teams, best case.

You can't just make up a stat and add it up like that. You're not taking into account important variables, such as whether the Suns will play motivated and with a lot of energy. If they do play motivated and they come out with a lot of energy, they will almost always beat the sub .500 teams.

Do you really there's only a 10% chance that we will beat Philly, Washington, Sacramento x 2, Memphis x 2, Golden State, and Minnesota? Or 36% that we'll only lose once? If we're even thinking about making a serious playoff push, it would be absolutely pathetic if we lost to those teams twice over 8 games. Those teams don't even have any reason to want wins.

In the past few years, Suns have never had a problem getting wins over weak teams. We should all be more concerned about having to win 4 out of 7 against playoff teams. I think the chances are good that the Suns will win all 8 against sub .500 teams, but winning against the playoff teams I'm not so sure about.

 

[Ninjafish]

Also if by some act of God we beat Utah in Salt Lake City, the rest of their schedule has games against NO, San Antonio, Dallas, Lakers, Portland, Denver, and us again all on the road.

That's something to keep an eye on, considering how bad Utah is on the road. They've only beaten one above .500 team on the road so far this season, and that was Detroit, a team that's barely .500, in overtime.

The odds of passing them up may be better than passing up the Mavs.

 

[YouJustGotSUNSD]

except that they are a healthy team for the first time this season

 

[Errntknght]

Also if by some act of God we beat Utah in Salt Lake City, the rest of their schedule has games against NO, San Antonio, Dallas, Lakers, Portland, Denver, and us again all on the road.

That's something to keep an eye on, considering how bad Utah is on the road. They've only beaten one above .500 team on the road so far this season, and that was Detroit, a team that's barely .500, in overtime.

The odds of passing them up may be better than passing up the Mavs.

You're quite right, I left Utah out of consideration altogether. Them losing their last three games has brought them back within reach and I had not been keeping an eye on them because they'd been on such a positive roll before that. The last three games were all on the road against playoff teams so those losses don't indicate they've come apart at the seams

We are five behind them now with the primary tie breaker even at 1-1. If we split with them they'll get it via the secondary because their conf. record is much better. That would mean we have to gain 6 games on them in our other 13 games. If we go 11-2 then they have to go 5-8 for us to pass them - thats not out of the question for them, though not real likely. In their other 13 games they have 6 at home with Houston being the only real challenge and 7 on the road with OklaC the only easy opp - all the rest are WC playoff teams. The good thing about Utah is that we'll know soon because after Wash tonight they have their two iffiest games @Okl and Houston home then their two games against us. If they lose both those iffy games then split with us they have to finish 4-6, losing 6 straight tough road games and winning 4 gimmies at home. Their chances of winning one of those six, figuring they're 3-1 underdogs in each is 82% or 18% chance of losing them all. Altogether that gives them about .25 * .18 = .045 prob. (4.5%) of going 5-8... not as hopeful as I thought and then we have to go 11-2, which is about as unlikely.

In short, we have to beat them both games to have a realistic chance at catching them. That would give us the tie breaker so we'd have only 3 games to make up on them. 8-5 U & 11-2 us; 7-6 U & 10-3 us; 6-7U & 9-4 us.

 

[Ninjafish]

Damn you Pistons. Why does AI, Rip, and Rasheed all have to be out? Are they tanking or something? I had considered that game a probable Mavs loss.