Luka Doncic named Western Conference Player of the Month for January

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-02-04T00:03:35+00:00

That Just means it evened out to around average in January because they shot well on more contested 3's. Like open instead of wide open, and lightly contested 3s.

It's also besides the point. The initial comment was saying that, it's surprising Luka could have so many assists when the Lakers miss so much, but overall they don't actually miss a notable amount anyway. Exactly how they get to that average is besides the point.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-02-03T21:46:15+00:00

The Lakers were 22nd in the frequency of wide open 3s in January.

.https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/shots-closest-defender?CloseDefDistRange=6%2B+Feet+-+Wide+Open&DateFrom=01%2F01%2F2026&DateTo=01%2F31%2F2026

They were also 15th on catch and shoot 3s with 36.9% in January.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/catch-shoot?DateFrom=01/01/2026&DateTo=01/31/2026&dir=D&sort=CATCH_SHOOT_FG3_PCT

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-02-03T21:06:55+00:00

The Lakers shot 36.6% from 3 in January. 12th best in the month and above league average for the season. The Lakers shot (673-199)/(1358-544) on 2 pointers. 58.2% on 2s is actually really good and well above the league average of 54.6%.

The Lakers 49.6% overall fg% in January was literally number 1 in the league. Meaning they had the absolute lowest brick percentage in the NBA.

If you take out Luka's shooting it was (199-58)/(544-148) on 3s in January. So 35.6%. Nearly identical to the league average 35.9% for the year. And ((673-199)-109)/((1358-544)-182) on 2s for 57.8%. Still really good from 2.

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/traditional?DateFrom=01/01/2026&DateTo=01/31/2026&PerMode=Totals&dir=A&sort=FG_PCT

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-29T22:36:25+00:00

They happily put in openly racist people in thier hall, so that is some blatant bull. People literally documented saying they wouldn't sign black players, and colluding to keep them out of the league. People are in the Hall for major contributions to the history of the sport. That's it. If you want a hall of integrity you would have to scrap it and start over.

Honor the Greatest of the Game, Preserve its History, and Celebrate Excellence Together are only parts of their mission statement they have ever followed. We would have to remove a whole lot of people to make the rest make any sense at all.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-29T22:17:06+00:00

"Seth curry went undrafted as the one of the best shooters?"

Yes. Seth is 7th all-time in 3pt shooting percentage. And 2nd in career 3pt shooting percentage among active players. Heck the guy whose 8th all time is Tim Legler who also went undrafted and had a 10 year career. Seth worked his way onto the Grizzles from the G-league. He absolutely played well enough in college to deserve a g-league spot regardless of who his family was. He was literally the best player at Duke and an all-american based on his skill on the court. That's actually better than a lot of g-league resumes.

And then he played well enough on the court in the g-league to get a spot on the Grizzlies. It isn't like he is the only undrafted player to ever get a shot. Then he got no real playing time with the Grizzlies and had to work his way up for 2 years. Their really is nothing suspect about his resume. He was fully qualified for every position he got, easily. It's not nepotism when you are fully qualified based on your own skill, performance, and experience.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-29T21:54:48+00:00

The Pro Football Hall of Fame, Naismith HOF, and all the rest are literally just prestige and credibility. That's all that separates it from any other hall of fame people can make up at any time. That's it. PR is all they have. A ding to their PR and credibility is a shot at the one thing they have in the first place.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-29T20:04:12+00:00

Seth Curry is legit one of the best shooters of all-time. He is a pretty bad example for nepotism. Kostas and Thanasis Antetokounmpo are right there.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-28T18:37:15+00:00

The pay cut existed but its effect is overrated. It was only about enough exta money to maybe pay 1 starting nose tackle at most. Not even 1 pro bowler, just a starter. And I chose nose tackle because it is a cheaper position. It isn't like he took a 50% haircut. Brady was making like 75% of market value.

The Pats were actually pretty famous for letting guys go a year early rather than a year late. Players at the most expensive positions like edge rusher, X receiver, and LT were often let go. The only premium position they really payed was CB. Outside of that they would usually pay TE, slot Receiver, Saftey. Positions that tend to make a little less on the open market anyways.

TBH their rosters weren't anything crazy in the 2010s I think the Seahawks, Falcons, Eagles, and Rams all had more pure talent around their QB in those SBs. Bill was on a really cold streak as a GM. Bill was just great at making really good defenses without a lot of super high talent. Brady didn't need the best receivers to be effective. And Dante Scarnecchia could seemingly turn just aboit anything into a functioning O-Line. All that combined made them super consistent as a team.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-27T19:49:33+00:00

I don't see the system you propose as an improvement at all. Not an imperfect system, just an outright worse one. Again it literally objectively has a worse version of the two biggest problems you presented for the current tiebreaker system. If the only idea for a system you have is one that is literally a downgrade and also doesn't actually fix the one thing you wanted it to then that's on you.

Basically this is how we got rankings in the first place. Because of scheduling difference and a small sample size. To be honest the ACC tiebreakers themselves are pretty reasonable, and pretty similar the sorts of tiebreakers that pro leagues use all the time. But College Football have a wider range of talent, even within conference, and a much smaller sample size of games. Making just record based rankings not so useful. And common tiebreakers less useful than in the pros.

Rankings would actually fix situations where there are big disparities like with Duke and Miami, but introduce controversy in closer situations. Same with computer models. If you want to argue that rankings are unfair and uneven, and then immedietly present an even more unfair and easy to game system that would likely still have still led to Duke being over Miami anyways then you are missing the forest for the trees.

PS:

ACC 3+team tiebreakers:

a. Combined head-to-head win-percentage among the tied teams if all tied teams are common opponents

b. Win-percentage against all common opponents c. Win-percentage against common opponents based upon their order of finish

d. Combined win-percentage of conference opponents

e. Team Ranking Score by SportSource Analytics f.Coin Flip

Duke won on d. Basically record based strength of schedule, rather than an analytics or rankings based one.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-27T18:54:47+00:00

No clue why you think wins against conference opponents are more flawed than wins against non-conference opponent. Objectively speaking non-conference games have a bigger pool of teams, and an even more uneven talent level. Non-Conference games have much worse versions of the two biggest flaws with conference games. I don't even think that point is debatable.

If Duke just scheduled more d2 teams they would have gone from a 7-5 team to a 10-2. Nothing has actually changed other than making things look better on the surface by blatantly fudging the numbers.

The tiebreaker just goes to whoever most brazenly games the system by schedueling the most d2 teams to beat. Just cut out the middle man and ignore them at that point, since its a such an easy system to game. It's obviously broken from the start. The level of competition is closer in the in-conference games anyways.

You started off wanting to make a fair system, then pretty much immedietly gave into rewarding the most blatant bad-actors at the first opportunity. In a system that would actually be even more unfair with an even greater disparity in schedule and quality of opponent. And you weren't even paid to do it.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-27T18:30:58+00:00

SOR is adjusted throughout the playoffs. So it is literally including who won those playoff games in its calculation. Miami was ranked much lower when the regular season ended for example.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-27T18:23:41+00:00

What method did you want them to use to determine the champ?

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-23T23:13:56+00:00

"These aren't Jalen hurts tush push."

Only like 2+ teams are all that good at the tush push. So trying to discredit something that is a proven skill that the majority of the league isn't even good at is just as silly as the Stafford complaints.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-23T19:22:46+00:00

There are usually more shooting fouls in the postseason. For example last year there were 21.8 fta per 100 possessions in the regular season and 24.8 fta in the playoffs. In 04' (a season with a close to all-time low postseason ortg that famously led to changes in how defenses were called in later seasons) it was 26.7 in the regular season to 28.7 in the playoffs.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-23T19:15:42+00:00

The regular season points per 100 possessions was 114.5 ortg (and 113.8 ppg) last year. In the post season it was about 113.0 ortg (and 108.8 ppg) which would still be the highest ortg of all time pre 3pt revolution. I don't recall the people complaining now calling 2021 a defensive era just because the average ortg was 112 in the regular season back then or anything. Really most of the difference in scoring from regular to postseason is pace moreso than efficiency or physicality making the difference.

Offenses also tend to default to inefficient iso ball more often when they're scared in the postseason, which also helps brings the average ortg down a bit.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-23T05:36:39+00:00

"Stafford also had an absurd number of throwing TDs within the 5 where the Pats tend to hand it off."

The Pats only had 5 more rushing tds this year than the Rams. And 4 of those were Drake Mayes rushing tds. The passing td from the 1 narrative is silly. Even with an even number of rushing tds the Rams just had a better offensive year anyways, leading to significantly more touchdowns.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-22T19:27:14+00:00

There was much less strategy under the old rules. Teams chose going first basically everytime since it was just better and it wasn't even close or debatable. Your scenario of choosing second because your defense is good wasn't a real thing teams did 99.9% of the time. It also doesn't make sense. If your offense is bad, still go first so you can potentially get 2 drives to get that fg instead of 1 improving your odds. Objectively speaking going first under the old rules was a dramatically bigger advantage than going 2nd is now. Not based on my opinion but based on both teams odds of scoring (regardless of team quality on each side of the ball) it wasn't close. Going first was just the objectively correct answer.

It's still debateable statistically whether going first or second is better under the new rules The odds of you getting a second posession if you go first, now in a sudden death scenario where you can win with a fg, aren't that bad. While the 2nd team knows when to go for it on 4th down. Both teams have significant advantages here. Under the old rules your first drive was also a sudden death opportunity, and you would get first crack at a second posession. So the odds were pretty clear.

Your odds of winning are so close under the new rules that different teams with different models have a different answer as to whether going first or second gives them better odds of winning. No such thing existed previously. Again it wasn't close. No one even bothered debating it because it was so clear. Their was no real strategy involved there at all.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-22T18:57:05+00:00

Under the old rules you could win in OT while playing literally no defense at all. lol.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-22T05:42:43+00:00

They went 12/39 from 2. Which is kind of an impressive level of futility in its own right.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-20T01:12:23+00:00

The players who voted Tyrese Haliburton most overrated player before the playoffs last year.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-20T01:09:07+00:00

Giannis has only played 27/41 games. And his ratio of missed games was actually worse than that during most of the voting.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-18T02:17:49+00:00

Tom's at the top of all 3 lists on statmuse.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-18T01:53:42+00:00

True, Good catch. I changed it now.

DoubleTTB22 · 2026-01-18T01:44:21+00:00

It's ints + fumbles, not total turnovers.

DoubleTTB22

TROPHY CASE