DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

The Second Eleven

I went 6-5 for the first 11, I'll up it to 7-4, because of things that are starting to worry me. You can't start slow every game and then depend on a come back, Spencer Hawes nagging back and inevitable drop in output (his early season production can't be maintained for a full season), Jrue's poor play over all so far this season is bothering me, and the sixers have one of those 'old guys' people worry about while the season progresses, and ownership in it's first 'non move' is showing me a card by not strengthening the big man depth after letting Speights go.

Hopefully I"m wrong again

I love how one day of rest constitutes "well-rested" this season. :)

Stay healthy and I think we have another 8-3 in us, maybe even a 9-2.

8-3. I think the sixers will have one letdown gamAnton lose to bulls and heat.

Voted 9-2 because I think they surprise us with one of those big games...and unfortunately I did not get video of this awesome 00 moment last night but somebody else did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnoIThHOgxI

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to das411 on Jan 14 at 12:13
+/-

Ha, yeah I mentioned that Kodak moment in the game thread. Good stuff.

That's a huge camera. He must have bought it when he started growing that beard.

PS: Love the beard.

user-pic
eddies' heady's on Jan 14 at 12:11
+/-

Well, I had them at an optimistic 13-2 going into the Miami game (with L's to GSW and NYK).

Will readjust that a little bit after seeing some of these other teams and say they will go 8-3 also, with losses to DEN, MIA, and CHI. Beat every lesser team in this stretch.

I voted 6-5. Until they fix the slow starts, they can't beat good teams in my opinion. So I have DEN and ORL as losses. We need a starting lineup change, I don't even care who it is at this point. Starting out every game poorly and not making one adjustment to the starting lineup is ridiculous. Collins is riding the wave of a easy schedule and unbelievable luck in so many opponents missing their best players. He should be proactive and shake things up rather than wait for a losing streak, but he won't, so we'll continue to start every game badly. We can come back against bad teams, but we can't against good teams, it's as simple as that to me.

You know - with the way he's playing - one could argue that the starting line up change needed involves moving Jrue ot the bench and lou to the start so lou can get hot earlier.

PS - is anyone else already as sick of 'night shift' as I am? Jesus

The problem with a Lou/Jodie starting backcourt is they are our two worst defenders. Lou/Turner would make more sense. My choice would be Jrue/Turner.

Definitely sick of "night shift."

user-pic
Dwight reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 13:39
+/-

You need to mention that with our starting lineup, we play our best basketball of the game.

That is, the beginning of the 3rd quarter. That's where we've either made a comeback or put teams away.

That's great, the only reason (usually) a comeback is needed is because of the piss poor start in the first. You choose to ignore the first quarter play, that's great and all but the sixers strength of schedule is .414, so they're playing bad teams which allows the poor starts to be compensated for, but against better teams, teams you might play in the playoffs, those poor starts might not be as easy to get over.

Great they come out strong in the third, WHY THE HELL can't they start out strong, if it's the same five damn players...there's no logical excuse unless you want to call it REALLY poor scouting and the halftime adjustments made by the coaching staff that should have been ready before the game started

user-pic
Dwight reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 14:05
+/-

You guys were using the poor first quarter to advocate a change in the starting lineup.

I was simply saying that the starting lineup is also the reason why we have such great third quarters.

And using it to excuse poor first quarter starts at the same time, but go right ahead

user-pic
Turtle Bay reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 14:13
+/-

Ok so you want to change the first quarter lineup but not the third quarter lineup. Or you want to change both but pretend that they will still have just as good a start in the third quarter. Either way you are ignoring something. Also, it's way more important to start the third quarter strong than it is the first, and if you change the starting lineup, you are changing the bench rotation, which has been very strong for us.

Nope - I didn't suggest changing the starting line up - now did I - i was just saying that if so the culprit to me would be jrue - I don't think a change needs to be made but dwights logic (as usual) makes no sense - that's all

Or maybe being benched 1 minute in last night gave jrue a clue

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 14:20
+/-

Dwight's logic made perfect sense. The only thing he said was that the team's fast start in the 3rd quarter also needs to be considered in addition to the slow 1st quarters when discussing possible starting lineup changes.

The bench doesn't come in as a foursome all at once, so I don't see how it really hurts the bench. They shuffle in one or two at a time so they could still play together the same amount.

user-pic
Rich reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 15:00
+/-

I find this interesting too, the bench doesn't have an exact flow to it. Sometimes Turner comes in first, sometimes Lou and Thad come in first, sometimes Voose comes in first. I kind of like it, it creates sort of a team vibe in that Doug doesn't have to bring in Lou first if Spence isn't playing well.

Or, you know, it's intelligent coaching, bringing in the player you need to bring in instead of a set rotation based on names or whatever...you know, like having a smart manager in baseball who isn't slaven to pitching roles of the 'set up guy' and the 'closer'

Well that could be an argument for using a different lineup to start the third and first quarters, but I don't see how it advocates for the current 1st quarter lineup. I know every coach does it, but it's not written in stone that "Thou must start the same lineup in the first quarter and third quarter."

The starting lineup is an absolute fail (10 out of 11 garbage starts is preposterous for a good team) and not changing it just reeks of stubbornness and hard-headedness. Collins is trying the "if it aint broke don't fix it" mentality, but it is broke when you start bad 10 of 11 games against mostly crap teams. And it's broke when you haven't once come back from that 1st quarter hole against a good team.

user-pic
Dwight reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 14:12
+/-

You simply can't ignore the 3rd quarter if you're going to continue to say that the starting lineup should be changed based on their play in the 1st quarter.

I'm not ignoring the 3rd quarter, I just said start them in the 3rd if you want. They shouldn't be starting the 1st.

user-pic
Dwight reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 16:02
+/-

How does that make any sense?

user-pic
Tray reply to Dwight on Jan 14 at 16:03
+/-

Doesn't.

They stink together in the 1st. So change the lineup. They don't stink together in the third. So, if you want, keep the lineup the same there. Where was it written in stone that the same players must start the 1st and 3rd? Ultimately I'd have Meeks come off the bench both in the 1st and 3rd (3-point specialists are bench role players in my opinion).'

You keep trying to say that because they're good in the 3rd quarter, we should tolerate their horrendous starts every single game. I don't understand that.

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 16:14
+/-

the team is 8-3, having won 7 of their last 8. no point changing the lineup now, you'd screw up the team dynamic.

user-pic
Dwight reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 16:24
+/-

Stoned, if you have Meeks coming off the bench then the bench play will not be as good. That's why you have to balance the amount of good players you have on the floor at once.

user-pic
MCT reply to Dwight on Jan 14 at 13:47
+/-

The 1st quarter counts too and that's where we have played our worst basketball.

I'm not advocating a change in the lineup just yet but the great 3rd quarters don't erase the awful 1st quarters.

What he said

The great 3rd quarters didn't happen against the only two good teams we've played, Portland and New York.

user-pic
Tray reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 15:06
+/-

New York's a terrible team. How was our third quarter against Indiana?

Don't remember, probably good but they were without their best player so I don't put much stock in it. And I disagree that the Knicks are a terrible team.

+4 against the pacers in the third quarter overall
Best run (+10) was holiday/meeks/iguodala/young as the first 4, +6 with Hawes, +4 with Vucevic

starters themselves were -1

interesting, thanks

user-pic
Tray reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 16:06
+/-

They were without the player who's been, by far, their worst player all year. Their strong record is entirely built on the play of other players, like Hibbert, and - at the moment - they're probably a better team when Granger's not playing.

7-4
I am sipping but not chugging the Gatorade.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to tk76 on Jan 14 at 14:26
+/-

ha, keep sipping, the flavor is good and only will get bettter.

This team's fans really crack me up. I like how the guy who's played the most minutes for an 8-3 team with the #1 defense and #5 offense in the league suddenly needs to be benched and/or his development is stalled after a bad showing in a 31-point win.

The team is +131 when Jrue is on the floor, this team's improvement has a lot to do with his play this year.

I agree with you totally. I just cant see how Jrue got an early hook versus the Wizards but Meeks got torched for 17 first half points versus the Hornets and remained in the game? Not to mention the 7-8 games he could't find the rim.

ditto

Because they are different players, Doug probably knows Jodie is limited in what he can do - but expects more from Jrue.

That's fine to expect more from Jrue, but that doesn't justify the inconsistent treatment of mistakes by players in my opinion. I expect more from Hawes than Battie, but I'd sure be annoyed if Collins yanked Hawes for 1 turnover but allowed Battie to blow for 5 minutes and did nothing about it because he doesn't expect much from him.

If Battie is performing as best Collins knows he is able versus Hawes - sure - I don't have a problem with it.

Jrue is supposed to play better than Jodie - Jodie isn't really going to get that much better defensively, he's limited, don't bench a guy because of his native limitations, bench guys who make the mental mistakes or aren't thinking, I'm fine with it, if jodie is doing the best he can, benching him makes no sense, it's not his fault that he's limited (or that the sixers have to start him)

To me they are entirely different issues because of the players, their ability, and what you can expect from them...I think very little of Jodie meeks as an overall basketball player, I don't think he's any better than Kyle Korver ever was, and korver ain't no starter either, just a good piece, but jodie is needed on the sixers more because of the limitations of other players...if he's giving the ffort, you don't pull him, i thik doug pulls guys because of mental mistakes usually

Jodie being bad on defense is just jodie being jodie usually

I hear what you're saying. And I agree that Meeks isn't any better than Korver is neither is an NBA starter. Where I disagree is that the Sixers "have to start Meeks." The sole rationale for starting him is "floor spacing," yet he's generally been wide open this season, and we stink at the start of the game. So (a) there apparently isn't much floor spacing due to respect for Jodie's shot, and (b) whatever floor spacing we're getting is not helping us start well, so what good is it?

So to play devil's advocate

what happens in the third quarter that makes em better?

I don't like Meeks starting, but the only other realistic option right now is Evan (no not Lou not in my opinion) and he's not ready to start in my opinion - he's doing quite well in his role - let him continue to excel at it

8-3
Losses vs DEN, @MIA and they drop one of the easy ones, say vs DET. Thy might be worse or better, there are a lot of possibilities with this schedule but i think they do just fine. And yes that means they beat Orlando and Chicago.

Also i love the "nightshift" thing and i hope it sticks.

user-pic
eddies' heady's on Jan 14 at 14:21
+/-

You know, I'm just not as concerned as much as others with these so-called "slow starts". I've always felt that it takes time to get in the flow and get acclimated to gameflow. Any time I played, it always took a while to get your feel going and also the feeling-out of your opponent, no matter how much pregame preparation and scouting was done. I'm not saying it's a good thing for this to happen so consistently, just that it's not so much a tangible thing to me - more visionary from a fan's standpoint, than actual from the team's.

I agree it will hurt them vs better competition if it continues but I don't necessarily think it's something to read that much into coaching wise, moreso from the players end if it's even worth reading into at all.

I am kind of on board with a lineup change or two, but if he quick-triggers like he did last night, I'm not that worried about it.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to eddies' heady's on Jan 14 at 14:29
+/-

to clarify: the lineup change I'm pondering and leaning towards wanting to see is Lou in for Jodie as I mentioned Thursday along with my reasoning for it. Jrue needs to stay as is. Bad games happen, it's not that alarming.

There's something to be said for that.

Starting lineup: +19 in 120 minutes
Starters w/ Lou instead of Jrue: +/- 0 in a little over 9 minutes.
Starters w/ Lou instead of Meeks: +4 in 9 minutes
Starters w/ Turner instead of Meeks: -4 in 17 minutes

Any combo w/ Jrue and Lou: +51 in 146 minutes

Any combo w/ Jrue and Jodie (at the two): +60 in 175 minutes

Any combo of Jrue and Thad (at the four): +106 in 193 minutes.

Any combo of Lou (at PG) and Thad (at the four): +29 in 93 minutes.

This is pretty remarkable. Any lineup with Thad at the four, period: +137 in 287 minutes.

Any lineup with Jrue at PG: +131 in 379 minutes.

Any lineup with AI9 at the 3: +121 in 342 minutes.

Any lineup with Spence at the 5: +77 in 270 minutes.

Any lineup with Brand at the 4: +26 in 196 minutes.

Any lineup with Brand at the 5: +59 in 107 minutes.

Any lineup w/ Turner at the 3: +38 in 164 minutes.

Any lineup w/ Turner at the 2: +46 in 116 minutes.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Brian on Jan 14 at 14:50
+/-

Brief synopsis of what you were actually getting at?

Started out as just a comparison of Jrue/Jodie vs. Jrue/Lou, then wanted to see some other splits. The only real difference here is That at the 4 vs. Brand at the 4. The team has been much better w/ Thad at the four. Jrue/Lou or Jrue/Jodie is pretty close. Lou/Jodie hasn't been very good at all.

user-pic
Tray reply to Brian on Jan 14 at 15:11
+/-

So the moral of the story is, we're a better team when our most efficient offensive weapon is on the court.

user-pic
Dwight reply to Brian on Jan 14 at 16:00
+/-

I don't take too much stock into +/-, especially when comparing bench players to starters. Brand has proven to be a better post defender than Thad. He has to face against the other team's best big men, while Thad gets to face the other team's bench bigs.

Do you put stock in anything besides FG% and PPG and RPG?

user-pic
Dwight reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 16:11
+/-

The only stats in basketball that I really like are team-based. Such as offensive and defensive efficiency. Team rebounding rates. It's a team sport, so an individual's performance is always going to be affected by the rest of the team.

The only sport where stats are a true measure of a player's talent is baseball.

Then you should learn to understand +/- properly instead of just dismissing it.

All statistics are flawed, but it sounds like you want to ignore the ones that don't prove your points

user-pic
Dwight reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 16:19
+/-

I never ignore stats. I just said "I don't put too much stock into it". I only look at stats when I can't watch the players play, in order to get a sense of how they did. Now, will I be able to get a complete sense of how they play just by looking at stats? No. That's never the case. That's why watching the games is the best way to understand how good a player is.

user-pic
Tray reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 16:12
+/-

Perhaps he believes in adjusted plus-minus, which I thought takes the players you play against into account, somehow.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to eddies' heady's on Jan 14 at 14:33
+/-

and the "or two" on the lineup change would be Thad in for Brand if he keeps playing so relentless on both ends. I believe EB would do well as a weapon vs second units. Not saying DC should do either of these, but they are running through the mind

First quarter - starting line up (until first substitution) through 11 games - -33

Third quarter - starting line up (until first substitution) through 11 games - +56

Now, some people want to dismiss it or excuse it, but either the players consistently aren't ready to start games or the opponents are severely underscouted to start the games

SOS .414

Teams that win in the playoffs don't consistently start off this poorly

user-pic
Rich reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 14:54
+/-

The first quarter is mostly on the players and if you want to call it coaching, just having that lineup out is the problem. Much of the first quarter woes seemingly had to do with the team playing 3 on 5 offensively. Now that Meeks and Brand are playing better, hopefully this will change a little. Considering the level that this team is defending (well, just playing also) at, it's tough to criticize the coaching.

Slow starts are much better than slow finishes, after all. Those haven't even come into play yet.

You mean like the Heat that couldn't win in the playoffs due to slow starts especially against our beloved Sixers last year, right?

Remember the playoffs last year? The Sixers started well against the heat winning 3 of 5 first quarters: 31/19, 13/19 (the blowout game), 29/21, 28/16, 23/27.

So I really think it's (just) sloppiness/a lack of attention. They should slap each other in the face right before the tip-off.

user-pic
Dwight reply to Phil on Jan 14 at 14:40
+/-

I think it's also a trademark of good teams to start out slowly in the regular season and then put teams away in the 4th quarter. You see that a lot with the Spurs and Lakers.

2010/11 season - top 10 first qtr point differentials (on average)

Lakers
Magic
Miami
Boston
Spurs
Chicago
Houston
Clippers
Denver
OKC

2009/2010 top 10
Cleveland
Orlando
Lakers
Spurs
OKC
Boston
Phoenix
Portland
Memphis
Miami

2008/2009
Cleveland
Orlando
Boston
Lakers
Spurs
SIXERS
Dallas
Houston
Denver
New Orleans

user-pic
Turtle Bay reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 15:20
+/-

Yeah, if you look at scoring differential in every quarter those are the teams you are going to see. Better teams score more points than their opponents. Surprise.

Yes - i'm aware of that - but see how they were a reply to a specific comment

I think it's also a trademark of good teams to start out slowly in the regular season and then put teams away in the 4th quarter. You see that a lot with the Spurs and Lakers.

The rankings in the fourth quarter are different, for instance, on average, the lakers were out scored (a bit) in the 4th quarter last year, so now they weren't putting teams away so much as playing them to a draw.

In the 09/10 season - Cleveland outscore their opponents (on average) by 3 in the first quarter, but slightly less than one in the 4th quarter.

The premise he spouted is easily researched and good teams put teams away BEFORE the fourth quarter so the scrubs can finish up the games (and thus fourth quarter scoring would be closer than the first 3)

But thanks for the input

Wow. I just saw that the Sixers currently have a better record than the Heat right now. And Wade may be out for a little while.

Yep, Heat dropped three in a row, including losing to the Warriors w/out Curry. Sixers beat GSW by 28 on the second night of a back-to-back in GSW.

user-pic
bebopdeluxe reply to Dwight on Jan 14 at 14:46
+/-

Getting the 2 seed would be awesome.

welp i am usually not a big mac fan but that free one was mighty good... #thanksjodie #showyaluv

I'm going to have a hard time giving them 8-3 again. In the last 11 they were 1-2 in 'important' games, but the losses to POR and NY are forgivable... for now.

They need to split even against DEN, CHI, MIA, and ORL if they want to be seen as a legitimate threat. Personally I think DEN will be a neat challenge for Doug and as good barometer of where they're at, but as far as wins and losses are concerned, who cares, they're in the West. 8-3 as they continue their barrage on lesser opponents. Losses to DEN, MIA OR CHI, and also one of the scrubbish teams catches fire against them.

The loss to new york isn't forgiveable to me because they really gave the game away even after their poor first quarter start, which does remind me of another serious concern

This team needs to get much better at free throw shootings, over all

user-pic
Rich reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 14:57
+/-

They were dead tired against New York. That was a frustrating game for sure, but there were so many factors that made that a really tough game to win, and they still almost won despite every one of those factors coming to life.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Rich on Jan 14 at 14:59
+/-

agreed

Funny, I'm sure if there was a way to blame evan turner for the loss - you'd have a different point of view

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to GoSixers on Jan 14 at 15:05
+/-

What is the purpose of these type of comments and how do they add to the discussion?

They were at a disadvantage going in and then weren't able to run their normal offense with Hawes out. As long as they show up and at least get in position to steal that type of game against a decent opponent I'm fine with that this early in the season.

If they're 25-30 games in, Hawes is limited or out, and they have to run a makeshift offense because DC doesn't trust Vuce, then I'll be upset.

Good teams overcome injuries

See - we can both play the excuses game

FT shooting that didn't suck would have probably been enough to win that game

One more thing about the starting lineup. We don't only have 10 games of data, we have 69 games.

To start games, the starting lineup has led in 37/69

They've been tied once

Trailed 31 times

Led by 10+ six times.

Trailed by 10+ twice.

Average start is +0.78.

Overall +/- is +54.

So more good starts than bad, but they've never really been world beaters. These numbers include this season, last regular season and last playoffs.

I think it's reasonable to only look at this season. Regardless of what worked last season, it's not working in the first quarter this season, at all.

user-pic
Tray reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 16:03
+/-

But it's working in the third quarter against the other starters; ergo, it's just random that it's not working in the first quarter. On average this season, it's working okay and the difference between the first and third quarters is bound to smooth out.

Totally random that they've been garbage to start 10 out of 11 games? I somehow doubt that.

user-pic
Tray reply to stoned81 on Jan 14 at 16:11
+/-

Yeah, it's random, just like it's random that they've been good in third quarters. We're talking about 12 minute intervals of basketball here, times 10 that's 120 minutes, or 2.5 games. You have a tough time believing that a lineup could randomly suck over a stretch of 2.5 games? I guess if you were Erik Spolestra you'd shake up Miami's lineup right now because they lost the last 3 games. That can't possibly be a slump, must be meaningful. But small sample size aside, what in the world could the cause of their being good in third quarters and bad in first quarters be? Either it's a bad lineup or it isn't.

user-pic
Dwight reply to Brian on Jan 14 at 16:05
+/-

I think the conclusion here is that our starting lineup is good enough to keep us in the game against good opponents. Our bench is good at coming in and winning games because of how much better they are than the other team's benches.

I think the biggest reason why they struggle in first quarters is because their game is largely based on energy and it's hard to have that much energy in the first quarter before the game truly gets in the flow.

I'm not saying that's an excuse, but what i a trying to say is that changing the lineup won't fix it. I guess it's gonna take some time for them to find a rhythm for the start of games.

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to Xsago on Jan 14 at 16:03
+/-

another possible excuse is the fact that the sixers depend on a certain set of players getting hot every game, and it takes time to figure out who has the hot hand that particular night.

This passes the smell test for me, at least as a partial explanation. The condensed schedule could also have something to do with it. They don't have practice time to make adjustments, they don't have a lot of time to go over what to expect/attack against their opponents, they have to do this stuff on the fly.

Of course, the other team has to do all of those things as well, so I'm not sure how big of a deal this stuff is.

"second-best fat player in the league"

who's the 1st?

user-pic
Dwight reply to sixerfan1220 on Jan 14 at 16:35
+/-

Zach Randolph

user-pic
Court_visioN reply to sixerfan1220 on Jan 14 at 16:38
+/-

Speezy.

user-pic
Turtle Bay reply to sixerfan1220 on Jan 14 at 16:59
+/-

Marc Gasol

Felton, right now. I think.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif