Drummond never has been “coached”

[polycom]

This video is hilarious.

His level of discontent is funny

 

[bballgrda]

Coaches and GMs are about 60% of the way through the math of efficiency. Expect the game to change a lot in the next 5 years as models get refined. Jacking a million 3's won't be the answer either.

What does the game look like when they're 100% through?

 

[Kenny11]

This guy would disagree.

Jeeez lol. It is crazy how Drummond is incapable of extending his arms when he goes up for a shot.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Who the heck is Kyle Kuzma to say that?

It is good to see UConn fans pile on a former Husky because of the ignorant bleatings of a third tier NBA nobody.

How is this good?

 

[SportsFan88]

How is this good?

I think he is being facetious

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

I think he is being facetious

Yes indeed.
And how is that good?
Bad comedians get heckled.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

Motor has always been his biggest problem, when he's motivated he totally dominates. He can get 18 rebounds in his sleep.

That and when he plays hard he can easily outmuscle most guys in the league.

 

[HuskyWarrior611]

He's arguably the worst finisher in the NBA. I don't think that's motor. He just struggles to put the ball through the basket.

Prior to joining the Lakers, Drummond had the worst field goal percentage from the restricted area (51.9%) of anyone in the NBA that attempted at least 200 field goals from there.

Cause he plays so f#cking lazy sometimes. It's infuriating watching him play and do some of the weakest post moves for a guy his size. He's literally one of the biggest most athletic guys in the NBA and has no idea what to do with it. He could be playing like Shaq but instead he wants to be a guard.

 

[Jaker]

Love the guy, but honestly, thought he was very underwhelming at Uconn. He should have dominated college bball that year, but I think he did just enough to get by.

 

[aceboon]

If you think Drummond's only issue is lack of motor then you're probably in that same bucket of folks who think Andrew Wiggins sole issue is his lack of motor. Both guys who haven't lived up to their HS hype because they have clear deficiencies in their skillset. Drummond has the touch of a lobster around the basket, that's not due to "motor".

 

[ClifSpliffy]

andre drummond will still be playing basketball in the nba, in the 2030s.
he wins.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

What does the game look like when they're 100% through?

Basketball, unlike other games where analytics have been used, is not static. Unlike football or baseball, basketball does not stop between plays so everyone can organize. Each play in basketball impacts the next play, and each event is dependent on the event before. Most analytics is done performing static evaluations. For example, a shot from one spot on the court has a higher expected value than a shot from another sport on the court. But when the analysis is done dynamically, for example, where a shot from one spot on the court creates a higher probability of scoring for the defense if the shot is missed, it will lead to different strategies. Run the analysis not just based on where the shot was taken, but where everyone else is on the court when the shot is taken. Now run that analysis for 110 to 115 possessions a game, 82 games a season. The game will change.

My theory is that there will be at least two significant changes as analytics becomes more dynamic:

When and where 3 pointers are taken. Corner 3's are considered good shots in a static analysis, but I believe they are terrible shots in a dynamic analysis, because corner 3's are difficult to rebound for the offense and the offensive players in the corners can not get back to stop the transition on a change of possession off a steal or rebound.

Offensive rebounds are much more valuable in a dynamic analysis. Short shots increase the chance of offensive rebounds, and offensive rebounds are high percentage shots. Therefore, teams should shoot more shots that result in offensive rebounds, which will result in a return to inside play.

 

[auror]

Basketball, unlike other games where analytics have been used, is not static. Unlike football or baseball, basketball does not stop between plays so everyone can organize. Each play in basketball impacts the next play, and each event is dependent on the event before. Most analytics is done performing static evaluations. For example, a shot from one spot on the court has a higher expected value than a shot from another sport on the court. But when the analysis is done dynamically, for example, where a shot from one spot on the court creates a higher probability of scoring for the defense if the shot is missed, it will lead to different strategies. Run the analysis not just based on where the shot was taken, but where everyone else is on the court when the shot is taken. Now run that analysis for 110 to 115 possessions a game, 82 games a season. The game will change.

My theory is that there will be at least two significant changes as analytics becomes more dynamic:

When and where 3 pointers are taken. Corner 3's are considered good shots in a static analysis, but I believe they are terrible shots in a dynamic analysis, because corner 3's are difficult to rebound for the offense and the offensive players in the corners can not get back to stop the transition on a change of possession off a steal or rebound.

Offensive rebounds are much more valuable in a dynamic analysis. Short shots increase the chance of offensive rebounds, and offensive rebounds are high percentage shots. Therefore, teams should shoot more shots that result in offensive rebounds, which will result in a return to inside play.

As long as the defense still has to guard the corner 3 and still has to keep themselves in-between the shooting man and the ball for a rebound, the corner 3 will not affect transition rates too much. The only factor is crossmatches, but that's not always done and is too specific to lineups to break down except individually. As a defense, you can't leave a corner 3 open, because the PPP is just too high. A corner 3 is equivalent to an open layup. So giving up a non-advantaged semi-transition will always be worth it (1.5 > 1.2 or whatever), because this doesn't even consider the spacing that the corner man opens up for the rest of the team.

Offensive rebounds are important.. if you can get them. In college, you can, because the talent disparity is greater and you can specialize your personnel. In the NBA, it's much harder unless you have explicit mismatches. You have to balance your personnel to do too many things (guard in space, defend the rim, stretch the floor, finish at the rim with great touch, and win the boards). So unless you have someone like Anthony Davis, who can literally do everything, it's just not reliable enough and getting back on D is much more reliable and consistent. You might find some guys who can offensive rebound well, but it's likely they're deficient in some other areas which hold your team back (for example, your boy Kanter can rebound and finish at the rim, but he gets killed guarding in space and can't stretch the floor).

 

[bballgrda]

Basketball, unlike other games where analytics have been used, is not static. Unlike football or baseball, basketball does not stop between plays so everyone can organize.

Corner 3s aren't going away w/o a rule change. I won't claim to have an in depth knowledge of basketball X's and O's, I have never committed myself to understanding all of the strategy. I have a general awareness and sense, however, which leads to my next thought. Offensive rebounds are even more dynamic of an event than the ways you describe, such as where a shot is taken. Obviously, who gets the rebound is mostly determined by positioning. Good players will take shots that might otherwise be bad if their big has position down low. The concept of the "Kobe assist" has been around for a while and I am sure existed under other names before.

While the game will certainly change as teams develop strategies to counter one another, I would bet that NBA analytics teams have way more of a grasp on the game than you are implying. You reference the regular season in your post when its clear that all the major players in the NBA only care about the playoffs. Strategies in these games are way different as teams have time to prepare and adapt over the course of a series. At the end of the day, all of the contenders play styles are determined by their generational talents that defy any analytics you could apply to a normal player.

 

[Ratso]

Is that we're doing? I don't care what Kyle Kuzma has to say. I love Dre, he's a great rebounder, but he's not a great NBA player.

Who the heck is Kyle Kuzma to say that?

It is good to see UConn fans pile on a former Husky because of the ignorant bleatings of a third tier NBA nobody.

and a member of one the worst USA teams in history. celtics & kemba included

 

[nelsonmuntz]

As long as the defense still has to guard the corner 3 and still has to keep themselves in-between the shooting man and the ball for a rebound, the corner 3 will not affect transition rates too much. The only factor is crossmatches, but that's not always done and is too specific to lineups to break down except individually. As a defense, you can't leave a corner 3 open, because the PPP is just too high. A corner 3 is equivalent to an open layup. So giving up a non-advantaged semi-transition will always be worth it (1.5 > 1.2 or whatever), because this doesn't even consider the spacing that the corner man opens up for the rest of the team.

Offensive rebounds are important.. if you can get them. In college, you can, because the talent disparity is greater and you can specialize your personnel. In the NBA, it's much harder unless you have explicit mismatches. You have to balance your personnel to do too many things (guard in space, defend the rim, stretch the floor, finish at the rim with great touch, and win the boards). So unless you have someone like Anthony Davis, who can literally do everything, it's just not reliable enough and getting back on D is much more reliable and consistent. You might find some guys who can offensive rebound well, but it's likely they're deficient in some other areas which hold your team back (for example, your boy Kanter can rebound and finish at the rim, but he gets killed guarding in space and can't stretch the floor).

The corner 3 creates a few problems for the offense in a dynamic analysis. First, the corner 3 is easier to defend than a 3 at the wing or the top because baseline is easy to cut off. Second, anyone in the corner is out of the play for a rebound. Third, anyone in the corner is as far away from defending their own hoop as a person can be and still be on the court.

Spoelstra looked like a genius when he threw the stretch 2-3 at Milwaukee and Boston in the playoffs last year. Now you can see middle school AAU coaches do it in local tournaments all over the country. A stretch 2-3 turns the corner 3 into a contested shot every time, and speeds up the defense to offense transition, leaving the corner shooters in the dust. A stretch 2-3 does allow for open mid-range shots, and isolates the middle of the zone 1-on-1 if the offense wants it, but analytics don't allow for those shots so the offense plays right into what the defense wants it to do.

Hurley's man-to-man defense plays a lot like those stretch 2-3's. He sells out to defend the perimeter and protects the hoop, but the middle is wide open against our defense. How many teams really took advantage of it? A dynamic analysis would argue that if the opposing defense is selling out to stop the 3 then the 3 is not such a great shot against that defense, but you almost never see that. Most teams just take more contested 3's.