Tristan Thompson

[Jon]

Not really. Advanced metrics are a great way of projecting how guys will fare in the NBA. I don't see how Grant would be an idiot to be a believer in them. He's certainly not the only GM who uses them as a major tool in structuring his team.

If by great you mean terrible, you'd be spot on.

For instance, it would be moronic to judge a player based on his rebound rate when you can scout his games, watch his tapes, and work him out to evaluate exactly how good he is or isn't .vs. the level of competition.

At best, it's a time saver that will help tell you were you should be looking or clue you to something you may have missed.

[Jack Brickman]

If by great you mean terrible, you'd be spot on.

For instance, it would be moronic to judge a player based on his rebound rate when you can scout his games, watch his tapes, and work him out to evaluate exactly how good he is or isn't .vs. the level of competition.

At best, it's a time saver that will help tell you were you should be looking or clue you to something you may have missed.

Who said anything about only judging players on their metrics? Obviously you have to use some traditional scouting, along with comparing players against their competition. Advanced metrics do, however, play a large role in scouting for most teams these days, and they are only gaining a stronger foothold as they become more specific and accurate.

And I could counter your argument by saying that metrics can easily help teams pick out guys who don't pass the eye test but can still become solid contributors because of things like a strong rebound rate.

[Amherstcavsfan]

If Z is this good at developing young players, I wouldn't mind him being our head coach in waiting after Scott.

[shoes22]

If Z is this good at developing young players, I wouldn't mind him being our head coach in waiting after Scott.

It takes way more than "developing young players" to be a successful NBA coach. You need to be a good strategist, have offensive and defensive plans, cater to superstars' wishes and simultaneously keep their egos under control, give daily interviews to the media, and effectively manage the entire team. No one becomes a head coach in the NBA without first being an assistant coach for several years.

[Jon]

Who said anything about only judging players on their metrics?

You did! You said they're a great way to project how a prospect will fare in the NBA. If that statement was true, anything else done to evaluate the prospect would be superfluous and likely counter-productive.

Obviously you have to use some traditional scouting, along with comparing players against their competition. Advanced metrics do, however, play a large role in scouting for most teams these days, and they are only gaining a stronger foothold as they become more specific and accurate.

You can claim this, but it still doesn't prove that advanced metrics played any role in anybody's evaluation of Dion or Tristan - other than guys like Hollinger who promote the stuff.

And I could counter your argument by saying that metrics can easily help teams pick out guys who don't pass the eye test but can still become solid contributors because of things like a strong rebound rate.

Heh, I don't think anybody needs "advanced metrics" to identify a player with a superior rebound rate NOR to come to the conclusion that rebounding is a skill that actually conveys from the NCAA to the NBA.

In fact, that's one of my biggest problems with Hollinger's draft rater.

It hides information and assumptions, rather than exposing them!

I know a lot more about Tristan if you tell me that he's a very good offensive rebounder and that he's good at drawing fouls ... and that those traits tend to convey to the NBA than if you tell me he was one of the highest rated players according to Hollinger's "draft rater".

[ArchieBunker7]

It takes way more than "developing young players" to be a successful NBA coach. You need to be a good strategist, have offensive and defensive plans, cater to superstars' wishes and simultaneously keep their egos under control, give daily interviews to the media, and effectively manage the entire team. No one becomes a head coach in the NBA without first being an assistant coach for several years.

I agree with the vast majority of this, except that there are exceptions, of course. Mark Jackson, Isiah Thomas, Larry Bird, and Kevin McHale all are examples of former players who became HC's without any previous coaching experience. I'm not agreeing by any means that Z should be a HC, or even an assistant, just there are many examples of guys who do it.

[Jon]

If Z is this good at developing young players, I wouldn't mind him being our head coach in waiting after Scott.

If Z (or even Andy) has actually made such a big difference in Tristan and Tyler and it's not just a nice fluff piece for the fans ... that stinks of failure to me.

We're rebuilding. We're developing players. It doesn't have to be Byron Scott, but we should have coaches ON THE STAFF who can work with these guys and improve their game. If Mosley and Pressey aren't getting the job done, if they're too far gone from the game or not tall enough or whatever ... then what the heck have they been doing on the staff for the past 2 1/3 seasons?

[kovanovich]

I find it funny that Thorpe loves Thompson but hates Waiters even though both were big metrics guys. Probably has something to do with Thompson paying him.

By your saying both Thompson and Waiters were big metrics guys, I think you are primarily referring to Hollinger's draft rater, which rated both highly. Not singling anyone out here, but equating "advanced metrics" with Hollinger or Hollinger's draft rater is really misleading. There are a number of major "advanced metric" schools and they frequently do not agree with one another. We can hope that Hollinger's stuff will get less exposure now that he has moved to the Memphis FO.

I really doubt Hollinger's PER or draft rater have any impact on Cavs' decision making.

I don't know why Thorpe liked Thompson so much and doesn't like Waiters, but I suspect it had nothing to do with "advanced stats" of any sort. (By the way, to his credit, I think Thorpe's most recent comments on Waiters are his fairest yet -- they have been recently posted in the Waiters' thread.)

[mhi]

Am eating my words when it comes to how TT looks now. Is it because his playing next to Zeller whose game streches out farther from the basket than AV ? Is it because his awareness has skyrocketed ? Did Grant show him some advanced metric that showed he was the next Horace Grant ?

Am just gonna go with Z being the next Hakeem Olajuwon of big man training; for now.

[Marcus]

It takes way more than "developing young players" to be a successful NBA coach. You need to be a good strategist, have offensive and defensive plans, cater to superstars' wishes and simultaneously keep their egos under control, give daily interviews to the media, and effectively manage the entire team. No one becomes a head coach in the NBA without first being an assistant coach for several years.

Doc Rivers?

I'm just giving you a hard time though, I know what you're saying. Coaches like Rivers and McHale are the exception.

[Rich]

I'm not buying the notion that playing next to Zeller is the reason. Whoever he's paired with has nothing to do with his fluidity. If it was Varejao in there, his newly found jump-hook that he can perform smoothly would look just the same. It's just like, all of a sudden, he goes up straight and has an idea of what he wants to do.

[Maximus]

If Z (or even Andy) has actually made such a big difference in Tristan and Tyler and it's not just a nice fluff piece for the fans ... that stinks of failure to me.

Or you can look at the cup as half-full and say that it was a success. Seriously Jon, they added a 2-time all-star who is 7'3" and can teach these guys. 2-1/3 seasons??? Tyler has been playing with us for 6 months and TT for 18 months, so what's the 2-1/3 seasons argument all about? Z is a nice addition...not sure what there is to complain about. Z has been a great addition. Appreciate it instead of calling it a failure.

[apolo29]

I would argue that what we're seeing is not the product of a week or two with Z, but rather the product of the work he did this offseason and last year and in training camp. Work takes time to pay off, it's not instant. You put pieces together, you learn skills in practice, but there's a difference between being able to make that hook in practice and implementing it in a game.

When you learn a skill you go through several steps. You first acquire the skill, in the sense that you CAN do it. I learned how to do a crossover. I learned how to shoot a fadeaway properly. If I concentrate in practice I can have a perfect shooting form.

But game time is a whole new ball game. For a skill to show up in game time it has to become the automatic response. You have to have trained it so much and practice so much that in the heat of the moment that is what your body does. Not the old form, not the slow gather, the new whatever.

For the skill to become the automatic response it takes a LONG time. You think tristan's free throw shooting spike at the SAME TIME the rest of his game has "improved" is a coincidence?
You think Z taught him how to shoot free throws too? He's been working on these skills for a long time, and they are now coming to fruition, and he is becoming comfortable enough with these skills to use them in game.

There's also the matter of his teammates becoming comfortable with it as well; earlier in the season I can't say how many times I would see tristan posting up and calling for the ball only to be ignored. His teammates didn't have confidence that a post up would result in something positive. Maybe he didn't have the green light from the coach. Maybe if he had the confidence of his teammates he would be showing the same sort of things he is showing now.

There are a lot of possible reasons for his success other than some guy came in for a week or two and revolutionized every part of TT as a player. That idea is disrespectful to our coaches and to tristan and to everyone that helped him work for years now on his game, and if it is true as some of you think it is then it speaks very badly on our coaching staff.

[Rich]

If Z (or even Andy) has actually made such a big difference in Tristan and Tyler and it's not just a nice fluff piece for the fans ... that stinks of failure to me.

We're rebuilding. We're developing players. It doesn't have to be Byron Scott, but we should have coaches ON THE STAFF who can work with these guys and improve their game. If Mosley and Pressey aren't getting the job done, if they're too far gone from the game or not tall enough or whatever ... then what the heck have they been doing on the staff for the past 2 1/3 seasons?

It takes a special mind to see success and improvement, admit that he sees said success and improvement, and then conclude that even though there is success and improvement, it stinks of failure.

Well done.

[Henry Tuttle]

Making a mental note to avoid this thread for the next 3 pages...