This one hurts it’s so frustrating. Take a look at the box score; the Nets lost by 13 points overall, and 13 points in the first quarter. In other words, they played the Kings (their best chance to avoid history at 0-18) equal for the vast majority of the game; but they came out flat and unprepared and essentially gave the game away in the first 12 minutes. It is very, very difficult to not attribute this to coaching as much as to the players- it’s a coach’s job to help keep the team motivated and ready to go, it’s probably the most crucial aspect of his job when a team is on a bad streak like this, and that was completely absent tonight. Throw in the ridiculous stunt in the 4th with deliberate off-ball fouling of Omri Casspi which managed to lose the Nets their dignity along with the game, and it becomes increasingly hard to justify Frank staying on. All things run their course, and after more than 5 years it’s pretty clear that his time with this team is up. The counter-argument is that it would be somehow scape-goating the coach; I’d prefer to think of it as starting the fix at the easiest-to-reach point.

As a technical matter the Nets’ offense still stinks; they can’t space the floor, they don’t really move off the ball, they play tight and force bad shots, they lose their concentration continually (see: having two inbounds passes picked off), etc. etc. To be honest it’s not an offense with problems so much as one which is poor in every phase of the game. Some of that is injury issues as Yi Jianlian for instance, with all his flaws, would still be helpful now for the range he can add to the offense; some of it however, maybe most of it, is not. Devin Harris was available for this game, started, and played 38 minutes; Brook Lopez started and played 45. These are talented players, and in CDR they in theory have a competent third option out there. Yet once again they managed collectively to shoot below 40%, and it’s impossible to say exactly what it is that the team is trying to do on offense. It looks for all the world like 5 guys just running around, a glorified pickup game. And as has been the case, that’s still the issue; Sacramento is actually an above-average offensive team (11th), and the Nets did not turn in a shameful performance against them at all. But with an offense like this there’s only so far that will go. There was a signal play in the 3rd I believe tonight which to me said a great deal: Devin Harris stole the ball down 7 or 8 points, broke in alone towards the net and then deliberately slowed in order to allow a defender to catch up to him, hoping to draw a foul. Instead the defender did a nice job of harassing him without fouling and forced a miss. I wouldn’t criticize Harris on the play; to me it didn’t appear a miscue so much as a player who has no confidence in the offense or most of his teammates trying to use his smarts to steal an extra point in transition. It’s not a high-percentage play, and the fact that Harris was even attempting it says a lot about what he thinks of the situation. It’s desperation time.

The worst thing about this game is that I really don’t know when this streak is going to end now. The Lakers and Dallas are the next two teams up and those are near-certain losses. Charlotte follows and could be a win, but they’ve just had a team shakeup with the Jacko trade, have won 3 in a row, and will be well-rested with three days off between games. After them it’s the Knicks in one of those derby games which take place in a world unto themselves, away to Chicago, and then home to Golden State. The not-particularly-Ultimate Warriors look to be the best bet to end this streak, which would have risen to an ungodly 21 straight by that point- over a quarter of a season. If that game is lost… well, we get another shot at Minnesota on the 23rd of next month. God help us if that becomes relevant. It’s not worth dwelling on but this has the potential to be one of the all-time bad teams; they can make history in two games obviously, but beyond that- for large chunks of these games, the Nets are really trying. And they’re STILL getting pasted. If Frank is kept around for money reasons or management blindness reasons and the team thoroughly quits on him it’s really anyone’s guess how bad this could be. It’s going to be an utterly wretched season regardless, but it would be nice to get at least 20 wins for respectability purposes.

March UFC is supposed to be in Newark. Behold, one of the few things that will actually get me to go to that city. Hopefully it’s a better match on top than Bisping/Evans….

EDIT: Hmm. Apparently GSP vs. Hardy is the rumor. Is that better?

I have not written much on the Nets this season; after all, how often and in how many ways can you write “the team sucks, they lost, this season hurts like an angry beard of bees”? Well, actually, let’s find out:

Nets scoring average this season in 14 games: 85.1 per game.
Opponents’ average: 95.5.
Average margin of loss: 10.4

Smallest margin of Nets loss: 1 point (against Miami, Nov. 14)
Largest margin of Nets loss: 28 (against Denver, Nov. 4)

Best record of a Nets victor, as of now: Orlando, 11-3
Worst record of a Nets victor, as of now: Minnesota, 1-13 (yes, they could only beat the Nets… by 2 points)

Rank of the Nets’ leading scorer in PPG, in the league: 31st (Brook Lopez)
Rank of the Nets’ leading rebounder, in rebound rate: 33rd (Josh Boone)
Rank of the Nets’ leading assister, in assist ratio: 30th (Devin Harris)
Rank of the Nets’ leading shooter, in TS%: 103rd (Chris Douglas-Roberts)
Rank of the Nets’ leading PER producer: 66th (Chris Douglas-Roberts)
Number of teams in the league: 30

Games where Nets’ leading scorer had <20 points: 5

Nets team offensive rating: 89.8
League rank: 30
League leader: Phoenix, 112.2

Nets team defensive rating: 101.8
League rank: 13th
League leaders: Boston, 94.4
Sidenote: Defense wins championships, amirite?

Nets team TS%: 47.5
League rank: 30th
League leaders: Phoenix, 58.8
Sidenote: same position, leader and rank for eFG%

Nets team rebound rate: 48.8
League rank: 23rd
League leaders: Portland, 54.0

Nets team turnover rate: 26.9
League rank: 27th
League leaders: Atlanta, 20.6

Nets team assist ratio: 11.2
League rank: 30th
League leaders: Boston, 17.3

Nets team pace: 22nd in league

…And there you have it, really: an average defensive team with a slow, turgid, worst-in-the-league offense holding them down and losing them game after game in horrifically boring fashion. There's fewer blowouts here than you might expect, and given that defense is often a proxy for effort it's pretty clear the team hasn't given up. That's heartening so far as it goes, especially since when young teams get beaten down like this it often escalates into full-blown chaos and self-destruction. Their trouble is, well, at the NBA level they're a pretty terrible collection of offensive players once you factor in the injuries and such. Is it Larry Frank's fault? Depends how you look at it. Keeping a team playing hard and well at 0-14 is difficult to do and impressive for a coach. On the other hand, in Frank's full seasons in charge of the team the Nets' offensive rating has placed 26th, 25th, 16th, 25th, and 16th. That's not so good. Their defensive ratings in that time span have gone 7th, 4th, 15th, 21st, and 24th as well. Much of the defensive decline you can likely ascribe to changes of personnel, but given that Frank consistently produced below-average offensive teams with Vince Carter, Jason Kidd and Richard Jefferson on them, it's more than fair to question exactly what he's contributing (or not) to the current state of affairs.

Should he go? Ironically, Frank would to my mind be the exact kind of coach you'd like to bring into a situation like this as a caretaker- good motivator, professional demeanor and demands such of his players, tends to maintain emotional balance in rough times; a steady hand at the wheel. And yet, for all of that, the blight on this season continues unabated by anything he's said or done. Sometimes a team just needs a new voice, and someone can be a good or even great coach who just doesn't fit anymore. I don't know if the team has tuned him out precisely, but if RodandKiki get that sense… well, yes, he should probably go. For many reasons he's not the kind of coach who would be likely to lead the next serious Nets team (small reputation, too defensive, too slow-paced in his offense, etc.), which means he's going to go sooner or later. If a reasonable caretaker can be found to keep the team motivated, tweak the offense and generally mind the store until a long-term solution can be brought over for the Brooklyn move, then this is the time to do it, before this becomes an all-time awful season. I honestly think money and the desire to not pay two coaches at once is part of what's kept Frank in his job so long, and now that it looks like the Nets are officially going to be owned by a crazy Russian billionaire, it's probably worth some money to him to ensure that his team doesn't enter a crucial free-agency summer as a league-wide laughing stock which has just set records for futility.

Liverpool are out of the Champions’ League.

I TOLD YOU THEY SUCKED.

Seriously, this is just fucking appalling. Not surprising, but appalling.

Look…I’m not saying there should be a witch hunt on Hansson or that he should be driven out of the game or anything. But, the fact is that he made a mistake by not seeing Henry’s handball. Mistakes from referees are going to occur because they are human…that much we know. That said, mistakes come in degrees, and this is not a case where it was a 50/50 decision on whether a tackle was a penalty, or if a guy was millimeters onside or offside. This was an EGREGIOUS handball that directly prevented a match from going to penalty kicks.

Giving Hansson a high-profile assignment so soon after that mistake sends a succinct message to referees worldwide that abject failure will usually be tolerated. FIFA and UEFA are so fucking tone-deaf that it feels like a put-on sometimes. No one can be THAT stupid, right? RIGHT?

*sigh*

PS  - As a weekend-warrior goalkeeper myself, I co-sign Brendan’s post below a million times over.

“Manuel Almunia was not culpable for Darren Bent’s winner, though he was slow to react, but the fact remains that he conceded to the one and only shot on target Sunderland produced during the 90 minutes and that the number of games in which the Gunners have conceded to either their opposition’s only shot on target or first shot on target this season is already in double figures. In only one game this season, at Fulham when Vito Mannone was between the sticks, has Arsenal’s goalkeeper been a participant. In all the rest, he has been a passenger.”

- Football 365

The essence of why this is so obtuse lies in the way it ascribes magical powers to goaltenders- Almunia wasn’t culpable, but somehow is still responsible- and then blames them for their perceived failure to use them adequately. It’s not just a failure to understand the game, though it is that; it’s a basic failure of logical thinking, in that it demands that a nebulous, uncertain, unspecified and potentially impossible “something” be done to deal with a problem, whether or not that unspecified something would even address the concerns. The reality is that the way Arsenal play defense results in conceding few shots, but conceding very good opportunities on the ones which are allowed; that’s what happens when your biggest defensive issue is a literally world-renowned inability to defend set pieces, especially corners. There are times when Almunia has been responsible for those frailties, much as there have been times when Gallas/Vermaelen/Clichy/Mannone/etc. have been responsible; and when Almunia is the one who’s blown it, then it’s certainly reasonable to criticize or point that out- as has been done often enough in what’s been a shaky year for him. It is however wholly unreasonable to first notice that he had absolutely no chance to effect the play on a given goal, and then still demand that he somehow change the course of events. He’s not Mr. Fantastic, he doesn’t have go-go-Gadget extendo-arms, he’s not got telekinesis; if his positioning is good, and his reactions are good, and it’s still a goal- it’s not his fault or his responsibility. 11 men defend, not one.

While the players of Wigan Athletic deserve no credit at all for their hideous performance in shipping 9 goals to freaking Spurs, you have to admire the class they’re showing in the wake of the defeat. If you don’t clicky the link, the gist is that the players have banded together to refund everyone who travelled from Wigan to sit through that game. If I were Chris Kirkland in particular, I’d be doing the same thing (not that he was the only one at fault, but his angles were wrong the whole game and he got badly nutmegged once).

Kudos to the Latics players for doing the right thing for their fans, especially in these economic times.

I have more time for the Sports Guy than some others do, but this is among the more aggressively stupid things he’s written in fucking ages.

I’m at work and can’t give this the good old-fashioned rogering it deserves, but some quick points:

In football? Statistics can help. Absolutely. But you still need to watch games to have an educated opinion.

The sad part is that there are some lucid points later on that do address how one applies statistics to a given game situation…and it will be lost in the shuffle of shite like this. If someone cares enough about football to compile those statistics, you don’t think they’re watching games? Really? I know it’s easy to perpetuate the stereotype of statistics only falling under the jurisdiction of nerds in pocket protectors, but somehow I don’t get that sense from the Football Outsiders guys. Just throwing that out there.

And I certainly never expected statistics to back up what seemed to be an unforgivable decision.

Heh…are we going to believe you, or our lying eyes…right?

By this logic, Belichick also should have held a loaded pistol to his head on the sideline, spun the chamber and tried to shoot himself like Chris Walken in “The Deer Hunter.”

The only problem there is that should the 1-in-6 happen, you’re quite dead. The Colts still had to move down the field to score, and some of this is on the Pats’ defense.

There are also times when statistics make that same discussion dumber. For instance, a former Mavericks statistician named Wayne Winston recently debuted a complicated plus-minus statistic…

A one-off instance of some wingnut coming up with a kooky theory does not in any way disprove the work of the serious research currently being done on football statistics today. Seriously, this sounds like something Brian Sabean would come up with to justify his penchant for old, injury-prone guys who wouldn’t take a pitch if it would save a relative’s life. Also, anything having to do with Tim Thomas being awful – while true (I write this in the sincere hope that Brendan’s head doesn’t explode upon mentioning Thomas’ name) has a dubious-at-best correlation to a discussion on what to do on 4th-and-2 in a close game.

I cannot remember another team doing on the road in the last three minutes of a close game, that’s not “gutsy.” It’s not a “gamble.” It’s not “believing we can get that two yards.” It’s not “revolutionary.” It’s not “statistically smart.”

I hate to say it, but the fact that coaches haven’t tended to go for it in this situation in the 80s and 90s (when there was no available research of this sort, I might add) is also not a significant proof that it doesn’t work most of the time. A steadfast resistance to change is not always a good thing…actually, it’s rarely a good thing. Seriously, by this logic, all I have to do is hope that Tom Coughlin finds Vince Lombardi’s magical playbook - we’ll definitely win the Super Bowl now.

So we’re saying 55.7 percent, huh? That’s the success rate for a road team playing its biggest rival, in a deafeningly loud dome, coming out of a timeout — a timeout that allowed the defense to get a breather and determine exactly how to stop the obvious five-receiver spread that was coming because the offense’s running game sucked — along with that same defense getting extra fired up because it was being disrespected so egregiously/willfully/blatantly/incomprehensibly. I say lower. By a lot. 

OK, when is a defense NOT fired up? Seriously? Maybe when it’s 34-7 and there’s no prayer of a comeback…that I’ll grant you. But in a big game, you’re going to make the argument that the defense has a better chance of stopping a play because they feel disrespected? By this point, wouldn’t you say that the Detroit and Cleveland defenses feel disrespected…you know, on account of being national laughingstocks and all? Of course, it’s a silly argument to compare that to this situation because DETROIT AND CLEVELAND AREN’T ANY SODDING GOOD. Likewise, taking Indy’s feelings into account is clown shoes and deep down, Simmons has to know that.

That’s what I was saying before about how the tragedy of this piece is that there are solid points adrift amongst the white noise. I wonder myself how the percentages change when you factor in the strength of the opponent’s defense. Does a run succeed more than a pass? What formations work? On 4th-and-2, why DID they go to a spread-five WR set? I’m no football tactician by any stretch of the imagination, but doesn’t that formation take away the possibility of a play-action pass? What I’m getting at is that I absolutely imagine that applying strength of defense and the formation of both sides is eminently useful in this discussion. If they haven’t already, the stats types should be figuring out how to factor that information in. I’d have more time for this piece if I felt like that was the overall point that Simmons was driving towards, but in honesty it’s more like scattershot sour grapes because the Pats lost a game.

By all means, question Belicheck’s play-calling. To me, that seems to have been what lost the game, not the fact that they went for it.

Insane Angle No. 2: “If they punted, Manning would have rolled down the field and scored, anyway.”

The only thing I’ll give Simmons here is that the Pats’ field position at the time has to be taken into account. On their own 29, it’s infinitely more dangerous to go for it on 4th than it would be on the 50 or in Indy territory. He cites that Hanson tends to get 44 yards on a punt – assuming a minimal return, that puts the Colts on about their 30 with two minutes to play. It’s not a certainty by any stretch that Manning would have marched down the field anyway, but the possibility does remain.

Still, they would have had to go for lower-percentage plays had the Patriots punted. That said, for Simmons to say that the Colts “weren’t exactly lighting it up” in the air is laughable – Manning had already thrown for 3 TDs and finished with 327 passing yards. Trust me, there’s some lights glowing once you hit 300 yards, never mind the three scores.

The rest of it is along the same lines – you have to give Simmons a partial pass for being devastated at the loss, but he maybe should have given this one a second look before submitting it.

“There were four refs on the ice and they didn’t call anything”- Georges Laraque, on an incident in which collided knee-on-knee with Niklas Kronwall

“It was a pure accident, that’s why they called it tripping”- Laraque, same interview, about the same incident.

Dallas Cowboys: 7
Washington Redskins: 6
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 7
Seattle Seahawks: 9
Tottenham Hotspur: 9

Denver Broncos: 3
Jermaine Defoe: 5

Remarkable.