Posted by BRIGGS:

There was only 1 key to this loss--it was called taking way too many low % shots. We need 2-3 different efficient athletic players to move away from this all or nothing offense. The coach needs to sit players and take away they're PT if they continue taking bad shots. He comes of has a hard arse coaching but I don't see the toughness controlling the players actions.

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by OldFan:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by OldFan:

Charles Barkley is entertaining but says a lot of BS... and I'd like to agree but from looking at the Stats it looks like AST:TO is only weakly correlated with winning.

It's not like Charles Barkley got up on the podium and said

winning = alpha + beta(team assist:team turnover)

personally, I do think it's one of the more important aspects. That, rebounding, and free throw percentage/FTM. Get the ball, keep the ball, and hit your free attempts.

....


I'd like to see which teams belong to those ratios though... and if you know where to pull up some of the all -time great teams A:TO, I'd like to see that

[Edited by - supremecommander on 01-16-2009 11:21 PM]

Ok maybe I owe Charles and you and apology it seems in years gone by teams had much better assist to to ratios checkout: http://www.nba.com/statistics/encyc/Season.jsp

You know what I think it was, now that I slept on it? I think his point was a specific box score form a playoff game... when a team performs at 30:10, it will win. And the teams that come close more often than not are the best teams in the league.

I think I added the sustainability argument in my head... meaning, the averages are different and there will be some variance in the figures, but the *potential* to hit 30:10 more often than the others is what matters.

Oh man. How bout they just suck as a team?

Posted by 4949:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by OldFan:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by OldFan:

Charles Barkley is entertaining but says a lot of BS... and I'd like to agree but from looking at the Stats it looks like AST:TO is only weakly correlated with winning.

It's not like Charles Barkley got up on the podium and said

winning = alpha + beta(team assist:team turnover)

personally, I do think it's one of the more important aspects. That, rebounding, and free throw percentage/FTM. Get the ball, keep the ball, and hit your free attempts.

....


I'd like to see which teams belong to those ratios though... and if you know where to pull up some of the all -time great teams A:TO, I'd like to see that

[Edited by - supremecommander on 01-16-2009 11:21 PM]

Ok maybe I owe Charles and you and apology it seems in years gone by teams had much better assist to to ratios checkout: http://www.nba.com/statistics/encyc/Season.jsp

You know what I think it was, now that I slept on it? I think his point was a specific box score form a playoff game... when a team performs at 30:10, it will win. And the teams that come close more often than not are the best teams in the league.

I think I added the sustainability argument in my head... meaning, the averages are different and there will be some variance in the figures, but the *potential* to hit 30:10 more often than the others is what matters.

Oh man. How bout they just suck as a team?

You know, I have no idea how to respond... me and OldFan were having a discussion about what made some of the great teams great and *that* is your response/contribution

Posted by Anji:

I don't know if I would make a keys to the loss thread after every knicks game. Wouldn't it be easier to just keep the same thread going until they won again???