- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is Monty responsible for some of Vasquez’s TOs?
Posted on 1/3/13 at 9:36 pm
Posted on 1/3/13 at 9:36 pm
LINK
“One thing I am certain of is that Williams' many different rotations are not making life easy on Greivis Vasquez. After Wednesday's action, the Hornets starting PG was tied for first place in the NBA with 109 turnovers. New Orleans fans have been overly critical of Vasquez for something that I believe is mostly not his fault. How can Vasquez develop any consistency or rhythm on the court when Monty Williams is trying so many different rotations?”
I was somewhat surprised when I read this article as I did not think about it before. The question is: Is it legit to blame Monty’s tendency not to settle on a fixed rotation affecting Vasquez ability to connect with his team mates? I personally think is mainly Vasquez own fault, but I guess, it would not heart for him to play with the same people for a while (by the way today GV climbed up one spot and is now 3rd in APG in the league, and climbed up from 56th to 17th in A/TO ratio
4
Posted on 1/3/13 at 9:58 pm to morsatun
quote:
Is it legit to blame Monty’s tendency not to settle on a fixed rotation affecting Vasquez ability to connect with his team mates?
Yes. Those turnovers should all belong to Aminu instead... Would learning the tendencies of 4 guys be easier to master than 9? Sure, but I think Vasquez himself would tell you it's HIS responsibility to be able to play well with everyone on the team. People talk about 2nd units like teams sub out 5 guys at a time, that's just not how it works. Whether Vasquez is starting or coming off the bench he'd still need to be able to play well with the top 10 guys on the roster.
People want a finished product but this roster is a work in progress with only a few major pieces in place.
This post was edited on 1/3/13 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 1/3/13 at 10:00 pm to morsatun
That would make sense if Vasquez's turnover issues had to do with chemistry. They don't. The Hornets run the same set over and over...high pick and roll.
His turnovers usually come from opposing PGs pressing him and getting into his chest, because they aren't afraid of blow-bys.
With that said, its not all that big a deal considering the league leaders in turnovers looks like a whos who of NBA stars every year.
His turnovers usually come from opposing PGs pressing him and getting into his chest, because they aren't afraid of blow-bys.
With that said, its not all that big a deal considering the league leaders in turnovers looks like a whos who of NBA stars every year.
This post was edited on 1/3/13 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 1/3/13 at 10:44 pm to eyeran
Higher usage = higher turnovers
He has had to dominate the offense so far. Assist/turnover is probably a more useful measure. I really think Gordon will help a lot by taking a lot of the pressure off. Assists may fall a bit, but will be offset by Gordon converting at a higher rate on kicks.
He has had to dominate the offense so far. Assist/turnover is probably a more useful measure. I really think Gordon will help a lot by taking a lot of the pressure off. Assists may fall a bit, but will be offset by Gordon converting at a higher rate on kicks.
Posted on 1/3/13 at 11:48 pm to Jester
Of the 91 players averaging at least 30 minutes per game, 17 players (none of which are Lillard) have an AST%/TO% ratio exceeding 2. Only 10 players have a ratio higher than Greivis’ 2.228: George Hill (2.261), Jrue Holiday (2.353), Deron Williams (2.423), Kyle Lowry (2.437), Raymond Felton (2.628), Kemba Walker (2.746), LeBron “I’m not a point guard” James (2.966), Russell Westbrook (3.088), Tony Parker (3.313), and Chris Paul (3.383).
In other words, Greivis passes alot, so he gets a ton of assists and turnovers. He passes effectively though and is likely top 10 among high minute players on some nights.
In other words, Greivis passes alot, so he gets a ton of assists and turnovers. He passes effectively though and is likely top 10 among high minute players on some nights.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 2:00 am to 42
Vasquez has the same TO% he has had throughout his career. His playmaking has been better than I thought this year. However, considering his shooting and defensive limitations, the TO% is too high for me.
edit: Steve Nash, throughout his career, has a similar TO% and defensive limitations, but Nash is also one of the greatest shooters to ever play to go along with his outrageous passing ability
But complaining about his total TOs is as dumb as the way MIP voting is done.
edit: Steve Nash, throughout his career, has a similar TO% and defensive limitations, but Nash is also one of the greatest shooters to ever play to go along with his outrageous passing ability
But complaining about his total TOs is as dumb as the way MIP voting is done.
This post was edited on 1/4/13 at 2:04 am
Posted on 1/4/13 at 3:53 am to 42
does Rondo not average 30 minutes or something? 
Posted on 1/4/13 at 9:46 am to ATLienTiger
Rondo's AST%/TO% today is 2.232.
Vasquez's AST%/TO% today is 2.33.
Both average over 30m, but Rondo at the time, just like a couple of days ago when the numbers were compiled (coincidence that I did that for a Vasquez piece), had a lower AST%/TO% than Vasquez, which is why he wasn't listed in the 10 players with better numbers that day. He was counted int eh 17 players that day with an AST%/TO% exceeding 2.
Vasquez is an effective passer. Rondo not being on `the list' either day should make people who are down on his turnovers take a pause. There's a ton of other things to make his supporters take a pause, too.
He's the best option to start on this team, assuming you want to start a distributor and have him play significant minutes, all things considered.
Vasquez's AST%/TO% today is 2.33.
Both average over 30m, but Rondo at the time, just like a couple of days ago when the numbers were compiled (coincidence that I did that for a Vasquez piece), had a lower AST%/TO% than Vasquez, which is why he wasn't listed in the 10 players with better numbers that day. He was counted int eh 17 players that day with an AST%/TO% exceeding 2.
Vasquez is an effective passer. Rondo not being on `the list' either day should make people who are down on his turnovers take a pause. There's a ton of other things to make his supporters take a pause, too.
He's the best option to start on this team, assuming you want to start a distributor and have him play significant minutes, all things considered.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 9:50 am to morsatun
people on this board are far too critical of Vasquez. he hasn't been the best in clutch time, but the more experience he gets in it, the better he will get. it will also help when he has EG on the court to help spread it out, rather than having teams double down on anderson/AD
Posted on 1/4/13 at 9:55 am to quail man
Agreed. If Vasquez doesn't play perfect people can't wait to blame him.he has his flaws but a lot of people put every loss on him
Posted on 1/4/13 at 10:04 am to fightingtiger2335
Every player appears worse because the team is horrible at least in part because of the buyouts, which were good decisions that have this suackage as an effect.
If Gordon were around, the effect would be there to a lesser degree. You have to almost look at this like a preseason NFL game. You can't pay any attention to how the teams perform because the system doesn't match the full gameday system.
You can, however, check out individual effort and how players fit as a unit. Lopez can actually put the ball in the hole given half a second worth of space, something that he could not do before, which is better. How often does that happen? I don't know, but what does it say about his ability to finish when defended? Maybe it's a little better, maybe not.
And so on, and so forth.
They are actually playing better than I thought they'd play, even if the wins are not there. They stuff they do when moving around the court is very good at times.
If Gordon were around, the effect would be there to a lesser degree. You have to almost look at this like a preseason NFL game. You can't pay any attention to how the teams perform because the system doesn't match the full gameday system.
You can, however, check out individual effort and how players fit as a unit. Lopez can actually put the ball in the hole given half a second worth of space, something that he could not do before, which is better. How often does that happen? I don't know, but what does it say about his ability to finish when defended? Maybe it's a little better, maybe not.
And so on, and so forth.
They are actually playing better than I thought they'd play, even if the wins are not there. They stuff they do when moving around the court is very good at times.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 10:27 am to 42
people keep putting a lot of the blame on Monty, and to an extent I agree (the lack of calling timeouts, some players lacking effort, 3rd Q woes, etc.)...but honestly this team has been in far more games than not, and that's in part due to his coaching. not a large amount of coaches out there would would have their team beating the clippers on the road and hanging in there against some of the better teams in the league.
this season, the coaches and front office get a pass. they are building. but next season will tell a lot. i expect the team to compete to be .500 with eric gordon playing over 30 minutes, and next season with a legit SF, I am hoping for them to be in the 8-10 range
this season, the coaches and front office get a pass. they are building. but next season will tell a lot. i expect the team to compete to be .500 with eric gordon playing over 30 minutes, and next season with a legit SF, I am hoping for them to be in the 8-10 range
Posted on 1/4/13 at 10:38 am to quail man
I'm skeptical on the 0.500, but I hope you are right.
As far as 3Q woes . . . we've lost more 2Q than 3Q this season. The worst quarters this season have been 2Q, not 3Q. There are issues in the 3Q, but there are there in the second as well.
I think both are talent related as opposed to pure coaching. We win more 1Q than we lose, so the gameplan coming in is ok, even if you just call it 50-50 (6H on 10 coin tosses doesn't mean the coin is not 50-50) considering the talent. The second quarter issues are likely due to being thinner than a Ritz. The 3Q is bad, in my opinion at this time, because Monty lacks the resources to make the necessary adjustments ("We've getting killed at the 3 so we're going to . . . continue to get killed," as a cartoon example). They are likely less bad due the starters playing. The 4Q is just a crap shoot.
It's interesting that 3Q collapses happen a good more often at home, while 2Q collapses happen more often on the road.
To me, this says that the collapse is going to happen, but it's just a matter of when. At home, they hold out longer due to home court advantage. It's a working theory at this point.
The poor coaching idea can be used to explain the 3Q issues in a vacuum, but then you need many other theories to explain the other clear and present data. This idea is simple and sort of explains it all using common knowledge.
It may be totally wrong, but I think it's worth me thinking about.
As far as 3Q woes . . . we've lost more 2Q than 3Q this season. The worst quarters this season have been 2Q, not 3Q. There are issues in the 3Q, but there are there in the second as well.
I think both are talent related as opposed to pure coaching. We win more 1Q than we lose, so the gameplan coming in is ok, even if you just call it 50-50 (6H on 10 coin tosses doesn't mean the coin is not 50-50) considering the talent. The second quarter issues are likely due to being thinner than a Ritz. The 3Q is bad, in my opinion at this time, because Monty lacks the resources to make the necessary adjustments ("We've getting killed at the 3 so we're going to . . . continue to get killed," as a cartoon example). They are likely less bad due the starters playing. The 4Q is just a crap shoot.
It's interesting that 3Q collapses happen a good more often at home, while 2Q collapses happen more often on the road.
To me, this says that the collapse is going to happen, but it's just a matter of when. At home, they hold out longer due to home court advantage. It's a working theory at this point.
The poor coaching idea can be used to explain the 3Q issues in a vacuum, but then you need many other theories to explain the other clear and present data. This idea is simple and sort of explains it all using common knowledge.
It may be totally wrong, but I think it's worth me thinking about.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 10:42 am to 42
great points. i agree all around. i was actually doing a little bit of research on quarter scores (for shits) the other day, and I noticed 3rd and 2nd Q were pretty bad, but i didn't notice that the 2nd Q was actually worse. very interesting.
i think the 3Q issues are a bit more magnified because of the halftime break...you know, like when a team starts off a game crappy you are more likely to notice it than if they play, say, then 10-3 minute mark crappy in the 2nd Q. just kinda how i feel about it.
100% agree with that.
i think the 3Q issues are a bit more magnified because of the halftime break...you know, like when a team starts off a game crappy you are more likely to notice it than if they play, say, then 10-3 minute mark crappy in the 2nd Q. just kinda how i feel about it.
quote:
It's interesting that 3Q collapses happen a good more often at home, while 2Q collapses happen more often on the road.
To me, this says that the collapse is going to happen, but it's just a matter of when. At home, they hold out longer due to home court advantage. It's a working theory at this point.
100% agree with that.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 10:46 am to quail man
quote:
but honestly this team has been in far more games than not, and that's in part due to his coaching.
This. Given the talent and injuries, the offense has been good. Defense has been bad, but there is less defensive talent on the team than offensive. Davis isnt quite ready to anchor the team.
quote:
expect the team to compete to be .500 with eric gordon playing over 30 minutes
This is reasonable.
linked article is anti tank piece, but more importantly shows how hard it is to go from awful to good. Pieces are here but they need time.
LINK /
Posted on 1/4/13 at 10:47 am to quail man
1) Looks like you found a way around one rewrite filter.
2) I think you are right about it seeming magnified.
3) The 3Q is actually more correlated to victory for us than any other season, even when looking at our performances as winning or losing the quarter. In fact, we win half our games where we win the 3Q (6-6). We are 1-18 when we lose it (if I remember right), and in the 1 we lost the quarter by 1. I read this as "Having our starters match theirs is the best chance at victory" (duh!), and the game then boils down to how the backups play. half the time they do well, half the time not . . . which is amazing, frankly.
ETA: Starters, high minute guys, whatever. I don't think being on the court at the tip confers special powers or acknowledges greatness, but that's just me.
2) I think you are right about it seeming magnified.
3) The 3Q is actually more correlated to victory for us than any other season, even when looking at our performances as winning or losing the quarter. In fact, we win half our games where we win the 3Q (6-6). We are 1-18 when we lose it (if I remember right), and in the 1 we lost the quarter by 1. I read this as "Having our starters match theirs is the best chance at victory" (duh!), and the game then boils down to how the backups play. half the time they do well, half the time not . . . which is amazing, frankly.
ETA: Starters, high minute guys, whatever. I don't think being on the court at the tip confers special powers or acknowledges greatness, but that's just me.
This post was edited on 1/4/13 at 10:50 am
Posted on 1/4/13 at 12:46 pm to 42
I just farted and it smells terrible. Thankfully, half of the people in my office are off today. I could probably can this shite and sell it.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 6:46 pm to Jester
I absolutely agree that GV defence is terrible, and he is too slow and turns the ball over too much. But the argument that he gets more assists than what he should, and that he gets easy assists is non-sense. Look, playing in a talented limited team (given Gordon has been out) the only way that a PG gets 9 APG over 30 games is if he is a good distributor, and there is no way around it. You could argue that you can get a lot of points if you shot a lot (like JJ last year when he would take 35 shots and make 20 points), but that does not apply to assists.
Posted on 1/4/13 at 8:55 pm to morsatun
All I know is that I saw what kind of player he was at around this time last season. And I see what kind of player he is now. He's really good at some things. Kind of good at a couple of things. And he's not so good at a couple of things too. Last season, in the first couple of months, he was pretty much bad at everything, except his attitude. But they brought him in here to develop and that's exactly what he's done. Personally, I really like the guy.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News