quote:

---

Having Parker and/or Belinelli on Paul is a recipe for disaster. Green is one of the best defenders in the NBA when going against smaller/quicker guards. Opposite of Kawhi. Green has to play more. Love Belinelli, and the guy is cold-blooded. Hit a huge shot at the end of regulation but Pop cannot be running him out there that much in a series like this. He's a below average borderline awful defender who cannot guard one on one and is consistently late at getting out on shooters.

---

You may have missed it. Marco actually played stretches of great D last night. Amazing, I know.

Good post. Plus all this talk about limiting possessions is somewhat negated by the fact that you can't use it with under 2 minutes to go. Leaving plenty of time for a comeback within those two minutes where the hacking strategy can't be used. It is not like this strategy is being employed when up 4 with 30 second left or something like that where time is a critical factor to cover the deficit. If the game is still close enough to be using hack a Jordan, then it is likely close enough to have plenty of possessions to tie it up when it gets to 2 minutes left.

When does the increased possession argument come into play? Just in the 4th Qtr? In the 3rd Qtr? Throughout the game? I'm sure Pop just looks at the averages like GS posted and sees that Jordan won't beat the average often and the Spurs won't run an offense below that average often, therefore to him it is a good strategy throughout the game.

Here is the Blake Griffin choke:

http://streamable.com/qzqm

Side note: can you disrespect a post player any more than by having Beli guarding him?

quote:

---

I would say that the statistical probability that hacking Jordan will work to lower their points per possession is great.

---

No one is arguing that. We're talking about specific situations where no average outcome of any strategy will result in a change in who wins or loses. Variation, in the form of a confidence interval, takes over and becomes the only thing that matters. Just because you will win by more on average does not mean that you will win more often.

If that doesn't make sense, read Tversky and Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow. It's a really good book about situations exactly like this one, how people do approach them, and how people should approach them. Maybe when I get home tonight I'll hack together some wicked sweet graphs to demonstrate the principle as well.

You seem much more knowledgeable than the mavs fan on this. I understand more possessions equal more chance for variance, but when does that come into play in your opinion? Does that apply only late in the game or throughout? Why?

I don't watch many LAC games, but does Griffin normally handle the ball like that at the 3 point line? Just seems like a stupid play to run in that situation.

That may be something he doesn't come back from in this series. I can imagine that plays like that aren't exactly easy ones to brush off.

Edit: and were we lucky on that foul call on Patty? I couldn't see much from the replay.

IMO, the increased possession argument only really matters between about six and two minutes left in the game. You would expect each team to get about 8 possessions in that span. That's also the time when it is mostly likely to be scrutinized, which is why we are talking about it in the first place.

quote:

---

You have a really nice sample size for Jordan in 1827 FTs shot in regular season+playoffs for his career. Over that time he has made just 41.54% of them. The current season has him making 39% on 471FTs, which would be in line with his career.

It would take him shooting a great deal over his career and season averages to make it not worth it to hack him.

The Clippers averaged 1.12 points per possession. For Hacking Jordan not to work, he needs to hit 56% of his FTs, to make 1.12 points per possession, the Clippers average.

This year, DeAndre Jordan shot over 5 FTs 29 times. In those 29 games, he hit 60% one time (6-9). He hit 56% or more just 3 times out of 29 chances. (8-14, 6-9, 4-7.) So 26 of 29 times that DJ shot over 5 FTs, he hit at a rate lower than the Clippers points per possession rate this year.

I would say that the statistical probability that hacking Jordan will work to lower their points per possession is great.

---

perfect example of the Rainman thing.

But again, is there any logical reason why the variance would occur more during that timeframe than it would between say 10 minutes and 6 minutes? It is all arbitrary and simply opinion. And again, that factor goes away to a degree since the strategy ends with 2 minutes to go.

quote:

---

Here is the Blake Griffin choke:

http://streamable.com/qzqm

Side note: can you disrespect a post player any more than by having Beli guarding him?

---

That video makes me smile.

I'm very interested to see how these games play out in SA. That could be devastating loss for LAC and some of their body language did not look good last night (CP3, Blake, etc). On the other hand, they are extremely talented and just a road win away from taking back control of this series.

The Spurs shoot the ball so much better at home, especially Green who shoots the ball like a ridiculous 12% better at home. Clippers have really hurt us inside, particularly defensively but if the Spurs start to get going from outside that will start to open up the paint area. I think the Spurs will shoot the ball a lot better at home. I hope so at least because we missed a ton of open shots these last two games.

quote:

---

But again, is there any logical reason why the variance would occur more during that timeframe than it would between say 10 minutes and 6 minutes? It is all arbitrary and simply opinion. And again, that factor goes away to a degree since the strategy ends with 2 minutes to go.

---

It's far from opinion. Early in the game, the variance would still occur but you would have more time for it to average out.

I ran a quick Monte Carlo simulation (n=1000) where a 40% shooter tries 10 shots . He shoots 60% or greater (so 1.2 points per possession) 17% of the time he shoots 10 free throws. That's the variation we're talking about. Over the long run it's a good idea, but if you're already in a situation where you're a heavy favorite to win by virtue of having a solid lead close to the end of the game, you don't want to put a guy on the free throw line ten times and give him a one in six chance to outscore you while lengthening the game. Much better to let the time run as quickly as possible.

One thing you aren't (and can't) really take into statistics is age.

• Duncan is 39
  
• Parker is 32
• Diaw is 33
• Manu is 37

Jordan shooting free throws gives them more rest. Obviously Green, Patty and Kawhi don't need that rest.

The Clippers only have Barnes and Crawford at over 30 years old and Crawford is only playing 20mpg.

That rest helps the Spurs much more than it helps the Clips.

I'm tired of debating it, but I bet if you ran the numbers the offense would also increase 17% of the time or so over their normal average for a net delta of pretty much zero.

Plus you aren't factoring in, that they likely are starting to foul you as well if you don't to also extend the game. I think it all equals out to about the same in a real world application. You either believe it is an advantage or you don't and then you trust the averages.

I would have to see actual real world data (not a math problem) to ever believe that if you played out the hack a Jordan scenario vs a straight up play it out scenario with say 6 minutes or under, that the percentage of comebacks would spike using the hack a Jordan method. I believe your math, just not the real world practicality.

quote:

---

I'm tired of debating it, but I bet if you ran the numbers the offense would also increase 17% of the time or so over their normal average for a net delta of pretty much zero.

Plus you aren't factoring in, that they likely are starting to foul you as well if you don't to also extend the game. I think it all equals out to about the same in a real world application. You either believe it is an advantage or you don't and then you trust the averages.

I would have to see actual real world data (not a math problem) to ever believe that if you played out the hack a Jordan scenario vs a straight up play it out scenario with say 6 minutes or under, that the percentage of comebacks would spike using the hack a Jordan method. I believe your math, just not the real world practicality.

---

I wish this kind of data were available. I could spend days crunching through data sets on stuff like this. It's out there, we just need better availability of SportVU data. The behavioral side of things is very real and very difficult to account for mathematically. My gut feeling says that it's actually a landslide in favor of not hacking, but Pop and co have access to better data and they obviously think it has a place in more than just specialized situations. That or what we're really seeing is full-on CIA Pop generating the live game data he needs to make a decision for future years.

quote:

---

That or what we're really seeing is full-on CIA Pop generating the live game data he needs to make a decision for future years.

---

He needs to know what to do when Timmy is playing for his 15th ring in 2035.

quote:

---

You seem much more knowledgeable than the mavs fan on this. I understand more possessions equal more chance for variance, but when does that come into play in your opinion? Does that apply only late in the game or throughout? Why?I

---

I'm literally arguing the exact point Ulrich is, and I'm the one that brought it up in the first place. I'm not going to argue that I'm more knowledgeable than Ulrich. He clearly knows what he's talking about and seems to know a lot more than me. But we are arguing the same point.

Yes, the variance becomes more important later in the game. I don't see how you can't understand that. The more you are up, and the less time that is left, you want to reduce variance. Isn't this obvious. If you are up by 8, you don't get extra points for winning by 15. A win is a win. The less the variance, the more times you will win and the fewer times you will lose. The greater the variance, the more times you will lose.

Don't tell me, tell coach Pop that you know more than him. I guess you are also for hurry up offenses slowing down once they have the lead or are in the 4th Qtrs Maybe you know more than Sumlin too.

quote:

---

But again, is there any logical reason why the variance would occur more during that timeframe than it would between say 10 minutes and 6 minutes? It is all arbitrary and simply opinion. And again, that factor goes away to a degree since the strategy ends with 2 minutes to go.

---

We aren't saying that the variance is greater at the end of the game than the variance in the first quarter. But it's more important to limit variance at the end of the game because if there is no variance you have a great chance at winning. Therefore, it makes more sense not to hack late in the game if you are up by a fairly large margin.

If you are up by 10 points with 12 minutes left, there is still a good chance for the other team to come back. If you are up by 10 points with 4 minutes left, their chance of coming back is much slimmer. So you don't want variance to be raised.

It's not opinion at all.

Again, that is your opinion. Pop disagreed last night. The averages remain the same.

quote:

---

I'm tired of debating it, but I bet if you ran the numbers the offense would also increase 17% of the time or so over their normal average for a net delta of pretty much zero.

Plus you aren't factoring in, that they likely are starting to foul you as well if you don't to also extend the game. I think it all equals out to about the same in a real world application. You either believe it is an advantage or you don't and then you trust the averages.

I would have to see actual real world data (not a math problem) to ever believe that if you played out the hack a Jordan scenario vs a straight up play it out scenario with say 6 minutes or under, that the percentage of comebacks would spike using the hack a Jordan method. I believe your math, just not the real world practicality.

---

We don't care about the net delta. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 20. All that matters is if there is a greater chance of losing by employing the hack strategy. If you lose 15 times out of 10 when hacking and lose 5 times out of 100 when not hacking, that means it's a poor decision. This is true even though your average margin of victory is likely higher when you hack. Net delta doesn't factor into the equation.

quote:

---

Again, that is your opinion. Pop disagreed last night. The averages remain the same.

---

If you call math "opinion" then sure it's my "opinion."

You are still talking about averages. This is hopeless, I'm done trying to explain it to you.

I never understand how people can argue in the face of math/science. You should have been a gm for a baseball team back in the 80s. You would have fit in well.

Y'all need to take this argument to the vertical dynamic deflection of the South End Zone thread.

There is zero data to support your numbers. They just as easily could be reversed and favor the hacking.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm tired of debating it, but I bet if you ran the numbers the offense would also increase 17% of the time or so over their normal average for a net delta of pretty much zero.

Plus you aren't factoring in, that they likely are starting to foul you as well if you don't to also extend the game. I think it all equals out to about the same in a real world application. You either believe it is an advantage or you don't and then you trust the averages.

I would have to see actual real world data (not a math problem) to ever believe that if you played out the hack a Jordan scenario vs a straight up play it out scenario with say 6 minutes or under, that the percentage of comebacks would spike using the hack a Jordan method. I believe your math, just not the real world practicality.

---

We don't care about the net delta. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 20. All that matters is if there is a greater chance of losing by employing the hack strategy. If you lose 15 times out of 10 when hacking and lose 5 times out of 100 when not hacking, that means it's a poor decision. This is true even though your average margin of victory is likely higher when you hack. Net delta doesn't factor into the equation.

---

Not even remotely. A team is more likely to hack when losing than winning.

You need more data than simply winning when hacking and losing when not hacking

quote:

---

Don't tell me, tell coach Pop that you know more than him. I guess you are also for hurry up offenses slowing down once they have the lead or are in the 4th Qtrs Maybe you know more than Sumlin too.

---

If a team is up by 21 points with 10 minutes left and has the ball, do you seriously not see the benefit in slowing the game down and limiting possessions? I'm not saying just run the ball for three plays and punt. But if you run your same offensive plays, it's obviously better to use all the play clock as opposed to running plays every 5 seconds. This is to limit variance.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I'm tired of debating it, but I bet if you ran the numbers the offense would also increase 17% of the time or so over their normal average for a net delta of pretty much zero.

Plus you aren't factoring in, that they likely are starting to foul you as well if you don't to also extend the game. I think it all equals out to about the same in a real world application. You either believe it is an advantage or you don't and then you trust the averages.

I would have to see actual real world data (not a math problem) to ever believe that if you played out the hack a Jordan scenario vs a straight up play it out scenario with say 6 minutes or under, that the percentage of comebacks would spike using the hack a Jordan method. I believe your math, just not the real world practicality.

---

We don't care about the net delta. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or 20. All that matters is if there is a greater chance of losing by employing the hack strategy. If you lose 15 times out of 10 when hacking and lose 5 times out of 100 when not hacking, that means it's a poor decision. This is true even though your average margin of victory is likely higher when you hack. Net delta doesn't factor into the equation.

---

Not even remotely. A team is more likely to hack when losing than winning.

You need more data than simply winning when hacking and losing when not hacking

---

I've already said I like the strategy when you are losing. I like it when losing for the same reasons I dislike it when winning by a large margin.

quote:

---

There is zero data to support your numbers. They just as easily could be reversed and favor the hacking.

---

No they can't be. It's scientifically impossible for them to be reversed. I'm sorry if you can't understand why. For a hint on why, here is part of Ulrich's first post:
The expected value per possession of the strategy does not change, but the mavs fan is right that variance factors into the equation. If I were at home I would draw some pictures, but imagine two graphs. Each graph shows not just the average, but the cones of uncertainty for scoring over the last two minutes of game time. Graph A has a higher average and fewer events. Graph B has a lower average but more events. Because the situation in graph B encompasses more events, the coen of uncertainty diverges more from the average and eventually encompasses more possible outcomes than graph A, even though graph A has a higher average points per possession.




I'm done with this thread. Sorry for the derail guys. Didn't realize it would turn into this.

Hope ya'll win the series.

That still ignores others benefits. Rest benefits Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and Boris Diaw more than it benefits Chris Paul, DJ and Blake Griffin.

You get the ball out of Paul and Blake's hands.

The Clippers offense is about run and gun. This stops that.

Duncan was clearly winded at the end in any event. Extra rest for him is a good thing.

quote:

---

But 6 or 8 points is not a large margin when you're playing one of the highest octane offenses of the last 5 years in the NBA. That was the Spurs lead when they were employing the strategy.

---

agreed. But the higher the margin is or the less the time is, there becomes a point where it seems to not be a good decision to hack. I'm not arguing what that point is, just that there is one. And it's not like the Clipps were torching your D last night. I thought your D was doing a pretty good job in the 4th before they started hacking.

If someone really did a complete study of it they would have to factor in all kinds of things such as rebounding, the hacking team always facing a set defense, etc.

quote:

---

That still ignores others benefits. Rest benefits Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and Boris Diaw more than it benefits Chris Paul, DJ and Blake Griffin.

You get the ball out of Paul and Blake's hands.

Duncan was clearly winded at the end in any event. Extra rest for him is a good thing.

---

Yea maybe. The Clipps are younger, but they are basically not using a bench. SO the rest benefits both teams.

That is one theory, but there is also many coaches (sumlin often does this as well) that keep the pressure and hurry up on. Same thing with prevent defense. The numbers say it prevents big plays when the reality is it often loses games. Not everything is done on a calculator in sports.

Plus let's compare what you are saying to craps. If you roll one time or ten times the odds of rolling a 7 is the same for each independent roll, but the odds of a variance of possibly rolling more 7s one time vs ten times is lower simply because you roll less. The odds of rolling a 7 are however the same regardless of how many times you roll. I understand your point that if you get up on the house and roll less then your odds of losing decline, but so do your odds of winning. Also, your theory loses credibility in real world practicality because you still have to play the final two minutes straight up, therefore you want to roll as many times as you can with a higher advantage (hacking) to sustain through those final two minutes (non hacking). You dont always want to milk that small lead and play even odds when you had an advantage prior to the 2 minutes. Again, it is either an advantage or it isn't. If you are up big then it likely doesn't matter either way, but in a close game you want to stack the odds in your favor which hacking does based on the averages GS posted, which is why Pop does it.

quote:

---

That is one theory, but there is also many coaches (sumlin often does this as well) that keep the pressure and hurry up on. Same thing with prevent defense. The numbers say it prevents big plays when the reality is it often loses games. Not everything is done on a calculator in sports.

Plus let's compare what you are saying to craps. If you roll one time or ten times the odds of rolling a 7 is the same for each independent roll, but the odds of a variance of possibly rolling more 7s one time vs ten times is lower simply because you roll less. The odds of rolling a 7 are however the same regardless of how many times you roll. I understand your point that if you get up on the house and roll less then your odds of losing decline, but so do your odds of winning. Also, your theory loses credibility in real world practicality because you still have to play the final two minutes straight up, therefore you want to roll as many times as you can with a higher advantage (hacking) to sustain through those final two minutes (non hacking). You dont always want to milk that small lead and play even odds when you had an advantage prior to the 2 minutes. Again, it is either an advantage or it isn't. If you are up big then it likely doesn't matter either way, but in a close game you want to stack the odds in your favor which hacking does based on the averages GS posted, which is why Pop does it.

---

haha what?

Craps is not a timed game, so your example is nonsensical. But if I was forced to play craps for 1 hour, and I was up money after 50 minutes, then yes my odds of losing money overall decline if I start stalling and roll less. Likewise, my odds of winning money overall increase if I stall.


Ok, I promise I really am done this time. Ya'll can go back to talking about the series.