Clippers: clippers to offer doc rivers multi year extension

[baseline bum]

Reading is fundamental:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post9381495

Nothing I hate more than folks proclaiming something over a matter they haven't researched, in' herd mentality.

Mark Jackson's insistence on running 90's isoball was such a waste of his roster's talent, anyone could see that watching that 2014 team. LOL at their 2013 team "almost" beating the Spurs when the Spurs won three games in that series by double digit margins. Nothing I hate more than an ignoramus pushing some revisionist history that he apparently never researched.

[Kawhitstorm]

Mark Jackson's insistence on running 90's isoball was such a waste of his roster's talent, anyone could see that watching that 2014 team. LOL at their 2013 team "almost" beating the Spurs when the Spurs won three games in that series by double digit margins. Nothing I hate more than an ignoramus pushing some revisionist history that he apparently never researched.

You mean the same ISO ball OKC used to dominate the Spurs time & time again along the same ISO ball the Cavs used to beat a 73 win team

As far as the '13 series, that was a young team blowing a double digit lead in the 4th quarter in Gm 1 otherwise Spurs would have been down 2-0. Then Curry sprained his ankle in Gm 3 & was a s of himself but despite that Gm 4 went to OT....yeah, one of the double digit wins you referenced

The closeout game was a one point game late in the 4th quarter until TiaGOAT tookover the game after Tim got benched since he was getting torched by Curry on 1 leg. (Another dominant double digit win #bumsgonnabum)

All this with no Ezeil, David Lee/Bogut barely able to walk up & down the court.

[baseline bum]

You mean the same ISO ball OKC used to dominate the Spurs time & time again along the same ISO ball the Cavs used to beat a 73 win team

He didn't have LeBron on his team genius. Coaching the Warriors like you would coach the Cavs.

As far as the '13 series, that was a young team blowing a double digit lead in the 4th quarter in Gm 1 otherwise Spurs would have been down 2-0. Then Curry sprained his ankle in Gm 3 & was a s of himself but despite that Gm 4 went to OT....yeah, one of the double digit wins you referenced

Are you ing re ed? A Spurs loss in Game 4 was one of the double digit Spurs wins I referenced?

The closeout game was a one point game late in the 4th quarter until TiaGOAT tookover the game after Tim got benched since he was getting torched by Curry on 1 leg. (Another dominant double digit win #bumsgonnabum)

No it wasn't. Curry hit a shot with 4:52 left in the fourth as part of a 5-0 run to cut a 7 point Spurs lead to two. Holy cutting it to two with five minutes left in Game 6 is almost winning a series.

All this with no Ezeil, David Lee/Bogut barely able to walk up & down the court.

Oh no Ezeli, that changes everything.

[Kawhitstorm]

No it wasn't. Curry hit a shot with 4:52 left in the fourth as part of a 5-0 run to cut a 7 point Spurs lead to two. Holy cutting it to two with five minutes left in Game 6 is almost winning a series.

Yeah, that's Curry on one ankle forcing Tim to be benched.. We all know what happened to Kerr when Curry wasn't a 100%

I ain't Boxscore Bobbying so I'm not going to quote play-by-play analysis but what crystal clear is that the Spurs were outplayed in the 2 games that Curry finished the game healthy.

[baseline bum]

My bad it was the other OT game that you referenced as a double digit win....that changes everything

No, the other OT game in the series was Game 1, which was the one win the Spurs got in the series that wasn't by double digits.

[midnightpulp]

This.
Also agree with CN LeBron is an incredibly high standard ...
Even if you think MJ is the goat my guess is even Krause would have traded Mj for LeBron. Same with Celts with Bird or Red(unless race came i to play)and even Lakers with Magic and Riles. Heck, Spurs would have traded prime Duncan or David for Bron if they were not thinking with emotions ...
Of course you dont trade Bron for Stevens or Phil or Riles heck maybe not even prime Aldridge ...but a first round pick that more often than not gets you Kyle Anderson or Deontay Murray instead of Tony Parker? heck yes i trade that cuz I value a good coach.

My point mentioning Lebron is he himself, one of the greatest players of all-time, perhaps the greatest, and something of a player/coach himself, is responsible for adding "only" about 15 wins overall. Of course, 15 wins is a huge improvement in any case, but fans are under the belief that a Popovich/PJax, etc and their voodoo "systems" can have a similar impact. Not a chance in any coach in history is as valuable as Lebron or any 1st/2nd tier superstar. The report I linked backs that. The best coaches are only marginally better than the very worse coaches. And for every Brad Stevens, there's plenty of Tyron Lues and Doc Rivers, who people consider mediocre and/or inexperienced coaches, that win NBA les despite zero coaching experience (Kerr included and even Pat Riley following Westhead. Not saying they are/were bad coaches, but they inherited teams with loads of talent) and a lifetime of bad records and early playoff exits (Doc Rivers. But then Ray Allen and KG come on board and the Celtics have the biggest one year turnaround in NBA history).

I'm not saying coaching is easy, or that any of us could lead a stacked roster to an NBA le doing nothing, just that basketball is a pretty old game (i.e. we know what works) and a game of "perfect information" where coaches can see what other coaches are doing at all times. As you know, some coaches will even run the exact same systems with only minor variations. My view is the most important trait a coach should have is on the psychological side of the equation and getting players to "buy in" into him and his philosophy. Word is, players hated playing for Mark Jackson and he clashed with the FO over coaching staff decisions. His fault wasn't necessarily on the tactics sides of things, but the personality side. As Kawhitstorm said, Golden State was the toughest test for the Spurs in the WC during the 2013 run. If not for a collapse and a tweaked Curry ankle, maybe that series goes differently. The leap from Jackson's 2014 Warriors to Kerr's 2015 Warriors has a lot to do with Curry and Klay entering their primes and Draymond evolving from a blue collar bench player to a top all around player in the league. There's where most of those 16 wins came from, not Kerr's tactical changes. Of course, Kerr gets credit for making Green a starter that year, but that's the area I feel where coaches have the most impact. Roster and lineup construction.

I just think this idea that a coach can come in with some magical system that confounds the league and turn a franchise's fortunes around is largely based in myth. The fate of a franchise is more determined during the draft and free agency than anywhere else.

[midnightpulp]

A bit more thoughts. For every Brad Stevens, there's also a Tyron Lue. Blatt was much more sophisticated tactically (on paper), but there was an obvious personality clash between him and Lebron. He gets the boot and they bring in the guy most famous for being humiliated by Iverson. Under Lue, the Cavs are an isolation heavy team. Every possession is basically a HORNS set with Lebron dictating the action off Korver/Love picks that forces defenses into a simple dilemma: Collapse, hedge on Lebron to take away the lane but risk him picking you apart with passes to shooters/cutters/trailers or stay home on the role players and risk him killing you with penetration. That's it. That's their whole "system." You know what's coming, opposing coaches know what's coming, but you can stop it, because you can't stop Lebron. 4-down Spurs were the same. 3 peat Lakers were the same (Triangle can be complex, but they went away from it a lot to forcefeed Shaq in simple postup sets). Simple, predictable "systems" that were impossible to counter because they had all-time players who are basically unstoppable.

I'm not saying coaching/systems adjustments don't matter, just that they're less of the equation than talent/execution. 2004 Spurs/Lakers comes to mind. Lakers could not defend the paint in that series. Phil countered with a desperation pack-the-paint move that the Spurs signed Horry, Turkeyglue, and Mercer specifically to protect against. Phil basically said, "Your stars aren't beating us." There's no tactical counter in this case for Pop to "draw up." Our shooters make shots, the series is over. They didn't. Yet I'm sure there was much hand-wringing about what Xs and Os tweaking Pop could've done and comments about how Phil always "out-thinks" Pop. Pop/Spurs FO already anticipated what adjustments teams would make to Duncan/Tony/Manu, which is exactly why they signed those players. Phil didn't "catch Pop off-guard" with some super-clever adjustment and then won some pseudo chess match. In the end, it came down to players not executing.

[Kawhitstorm]

The leap from Jackson's 2014 Warriors to Kerr's 2015 Warriors has a lot to do with Curry and Klay entering their primes and Draymond evolving from a blue collar bench player to a top all around player in the league. There's where most of those 16 wins came from, not Kerr's tactical changes. Of course, Kerr gets credit for making Green a starter that year, but that's the area I feel where coaches have the most impact. Roster and lineup construction.

2014 was the first summer Curry had time to fully dedicate himself to improving his game as his ankle problems weren't an issue in '13-'14. Klay/Barnes were also got better over the summer with more seasoning & it was actually Jackson that made Draymond a starter over Jermain O'Neal when Bogut got injured in '14. Gaymond lost weight & got in shape for the first time in his career that summer. It was only when Lee didn't recover in time for camp that Kerry made him a full-time starter.

Also, folks forget how much Livingston/Barbosa made a difference by replacing scrub ass Steve Blake/Jordan Crawford

[LkrFan]

***BUMP***

[LkrFan]

2014 was the first summer Curry had time to fully dedicate himself to improving his game as his ankle problems weren't an issue in '13-'14. Klay/Barnes were also got better over the summer with more seasoning & it was actually Jackson that made Draymond a starter over Jermain O'Neal when Bogut got injured in '14. Gaymond lost weight & got in shape for the first time in his career that summer. It was only when Lee didn't recover in time for camp that Kerry made him a full-time starter.

Also, folks forget how much Livingston/Barbosa made a difference by replacing scrub ass Steve Blake/Jordan Crawford

"Gaymond" 2, Kiwi 1

Let us proceed

[Killakobe81]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5...celtics-sixers

Continuing the debate ...
Highlight:

The playoffs reveal players and teams for what they really are, and Stevens pulled back the curtain on the Sixers by thoroughly out-coaching Brett Brown and by exploiting Embiid and Simmons. Depending on whom you ask, Stevens is considered the best or second-best coach in the NBA. But at age 41, he certainly has more future value than 69-year-old Gregg Popovich, who is the best coach of this century.

and ...
There’s not a single general manager that would seriously take Stevens over Giannis Antetokounmpo in a draft that includes both players and coaches. But Stevens is not that far off. He’s undoubtedly entered the top tier of coaches across all of sports. So what would his value be in a hypothetical draft that included players, coaches, and general managers, with all salaries falling under the same salary cap?

I’d take Stevens over impressive young players like Jaylen Brown and Brandon Ingram, which means he’s ahead of high lottery picks. I’d take Stevens over the Jrue Holidays and Steven Adamses of the world, which automatically puts his value in the $20 million range. I’d take Stevens over aging stars like Chris Paul and injured ones like DeMarcus Cousins.

Obviously, players like LeBron James, Steph Curry, James Harden, Giannis, Anthony Davis, and Kevin Durant would be selected first. And rising stars like Embiid, Karl-Anthony Towns, and Simmons would go ahead of Stevens, too. But are you really taking DeMar DeRozan ahead of Stevens? I don’t think so.

It’s tough to know where to draw the line, but there’s no doubt Stevens has proved himself to be one of the most valuable commodities in the NBA. No matter whom the Celtics put on the floor, Stevens puts his team in positions to succeed. It’s why the Celtics, despite all the injuries they’ve suffered, are one win away from another conference finals. It’s why a series that once seemed like it would be another stepping stone for the up-and-coming Sixers hasn’t felt like much of a compe ion at all. Celtics-Sixers is officially a classic rivalry renewed, only right now Stevens gives the Celtics the upper hand.


He goes further than I would ...but this writer refutes Mid's theory on the value of coaches.

[Killakobe81]

BTW some other thoughts ...
What about Riles replacing SVG on the Wade/Shaq/Zo heat? Not saying Rlies was the better strategist, but Shaq infamously called SVG Capt panic. in fact he implied SVG overcoached which makes sense coming from Phil jackson's more hands off style. Point is a coach's value is not just X's and O's; their value includes knowing when to push, prod, etc. A "feel" for the game when to use timeouts, mangaing rest, developing a bench etc.
Blatt was brought up earlier but Lue despite his crtics here has outcoached Casey including changing lineups and initating offense through Kevin Love. sure it helps to have a Mt. Rushmore type star but for examples listed here

[Ice009]

Meh, multiple studies have shown that head coaches really don't move the needle as much as perceived.



I've done a 180 on this over-the-years. I used to fetishize head coaching and really thought Pop vs. D'Antoni or some other "schmuck" was the difference maker in those series. What actually matters, as shown in that report, is talent (obviously). Roster building, roster building, roster building. It's more important than systems, Xs and Os, tactics, and strategy. That's not to say head coaches can't things up, but where they usually do so is not necessarily on the Xs and Os side, but the lineup side of things, like Pop's infatuation with certain "character" guys who he overplays (Michael Finley, Keith Bogans, Jacque Vaughan, etc) and going small at stupid times because he wants to look clever.

Where is that quote from? I'd like to read the article.

[Killakobe81]

Where is that quote from? I'd like to read the article.

yeah, cite your sources ...

[midnightpulp]

yeah, cite your sources ...

Where is that quote from? I'd like to read the article.

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpre...chingpaper.pdf

Keep in mind this at the professional level, dealing with experienced basketball players (even rookies are experienced, given how much basketball they've played and studied over the years) who are already familiar with a variety of different systems and Xs and Os nuances. At Killa's level (the youth level), coaching certainly does matter. A lesser talented and skilled age-12-14 AAU team would beat a more talented team if the former's system was superior. Though, the relative talent levels have be somewhat close. At the youth level, a superfreak kid could beat a team by himself, even if the overmatched team was running a system while the freak kid's team was predictably giving him the ball every possession.

[midnightpulp]

BTW some other thoughts ...
What about Riles replacing SVG on the Wade/Shaq/Zo heat? Not saying Rlies was the better strategist, but Shaq infamously called SVG Capt panic. in fact he implied SVG overcoached which makes sense coming from Phil jackson's more hands off style. Point is a coach's value is not just X's and O's; their value includes knowing when to push, prod, etc. A "feel" for the game when to use timeouts, mangaing rest, developing a bench etc.
Blatt was brought up earlier but Lue despite his crtics here has outcoached Casey including changing lineups and initating offense through Kevin Love. sure it helps to have a Mt. Rushmore type star but for examples listed here

That's been my point here. The way a coach handles personalities, roster and lineup changes, and other such psychological facets is more important than which system he chooses to run. That said, there's systems that won't "work" today, so choosing the right system is still important. A coach is unlikely to have any success running a big man centric, low post oriented system, the Triangle, the Princeton offense, etc. But it would take a major idiot to do that in today's game.

On your last sentence. I think declaring coaching moves post-hoc as clever or terrible is being results oriented. Kevin Love is a known choker, and if Lue's move of running the offense through him to give the Raps defense a different look backfired, we'd be sitting here calling him an idiot for not just going through Lebron each and every possession. And as I stated in my 2004 Lakers/Spurs example. No in game adjustment will take an NBA coach by surprise, even the bad ones. There really isn't the "chess match" going on in game as perceived. The chess match happens in the off-season. Like I said, Spurs in 04 signed shooters specifically to counter what Phil did in that series. They knew it was coming. Phil knew that they knew it. So like most basketball games, it came down to making shots.

[midnightpulp]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5...celtics-sixers

Continuing the debate ...
Highlight:

The playoffs reveal players and teams for what they really are, and Stevens pulled back the curtain on the Sixers by thoroughly out-coaching Brett Brown and by exploiting Embiid and Simmons. Depending on whom you ask, Stevens is considered the best or second-best coach in the NBA. But at age 41, he certainly has more future value than 69-year-old Gregg Popovich, who is the best coach of this century.

and ...
There’s not a single general manager that would seriously take Stevens over Giannis Antetokounmpo in a draft that includes both players and coaches. But Stevens is not that far off. He’s undoubtedly entered the top tier of coaches across all of sports. So what would his value be in a hypothetical draft that included players, coaches, and general managers, with all salaries falling under the same salary cap?

I’d take Stevens over impressive young players like Jaylen Brown and Brandon Ingram, which means he’s ahead of high lottery picks. I’d take Stevens over the Jrue Holidays and Steven Adamses of the world, which automatically puts his value in the $20 million range. I’d take Stevens over aging stars like Chris Paul and injured ones like DeMarcus Cousins.

Obviously, players like LeBron James, Steph Curry, James Harden, Giannis, Anthony Davis, and Kevin Durant would be selected first. And rising stars like Embiid, Karl-Anthony Towns, and Simmons would go ahead of Stevens, too. But are you really taking DeMar DeRozan ahead of Stevens? I don’t think so.

It’s tough to know where to draw the line, but there’s no doubt Stevens has proved himself to be one of the most valuable commodities in the NBA. No matter whom the Celtics put on the floor, Stevens puts his team in positions to succeed. It’s why the Celtics, despite all the injuries they’ve suffered, are one win away from another conference finals. It’s why a series that once seemed like it would be another stepping stone for the up-and-coming Sixers hasn’t felt like much of a compe ion at all. Celtics-Sixers is officially a classic rivalry renewed, only right now Stevens gives the Celtics the upper hand.


He goes further than I would ...but this writer refutes Mid's theory on the value of coaches.

Nothing in that breakdown is necessarily a brilliant nor clever move by Stevens that would catch Brett Brown "off guard." I had a debate with Rsxpimp during the 2016 draft that Ingram was the better pick for the Lakers over Simmons because Ingram has the potential to be a Kevin Durant type player, a deadly shooter who can drain off the dribble from downtown, which is a style that flourishes in the modern. Simmons is an abysmal shooter, and if you watched him at LSU, he's one of those players that needs the ball in hands to excel, meaning he's an iso centric player (an an hetical style to today's game). Cutting off Simmons driving lanes with bigs is not some deep tactical move that Brown wouldn't have seen coming. Until Simmons learns to shoot, he'll be easily exploitable by good teams.

I like Embiid's game from an aesthetic perspective since he's a more of a classic big, but again, no surprise a good team is shutting down his post=play. We've known for that past 3 seasons since the advent of "space and pace" and Moreyball that post-ups are inefficient. Embiid isn't a particularly valuable offensive player per RPM, and his size and frame will be easily exploited on defense by teams who spam pick and rolls and force him to switch. Nothing Stevens did to limit those two players was some "secret lore" tactical voodoo that blew the mind of Brett Brown. Why can't Brett Brown counter? He doesn't have the roster to. If the primary ball handler on your team isn't a shooting threat (Simmons ranks 4th in the NBA in time of possession), it's a death sentence. You cut off Simmons penetration, he can't suck in the defense, and generate open shots for Re , Covington, Belinelli, Saric, the last three of whom are having a terrible shooting series.

Philly is flawed from a roster standpoint until Simmons can develop a shot. I like Embiid for the old school feel, but his game is also flawed. Yes, Philly had a nice regular season, but we're kind of in the reverse of where we were in the 00s. Remember how jump shooting teams used to rack up wins in the regular season only to flame out in the post season, because jump shooting didn't win in the post-season back then? Now teams that are built like Philly, Utah, Minnesota, Milwaukee - big man and penetration oriented teams, will excel somewhat during the regular season only to lose in the playoffs to teams built for this era.

[Clipper Nation]

That's been my point here. The way a coach handles personalities, roster and lineup changes, and other such psychological facets is more important than which system he chooses to run.

Doc doesn't have a system at all, reportedly gave up on last year's Clippers because their personalities were too hard for him to manage, and plays his scrub son and washed vets over deserving players, and you're still caping for him.

[midnightpulp]

Doc doesn't have a system at all, reportedly gave up on last year's Clippers because their personalities were too hard for him to manage, and plays his scrub son and washed vets over deserving players, and you're still caping for him.

I'm not backing him at all. And the bolded is precisely why he's a bad "coach." If you lose the players, that's it. I just think NBA fans (and sports fans in general) fetishize Xs and Os too much, thinking they're a magic cure-all or a primary culprit. Remember KD? "Kawhi is a system player." Since Kawhi emerged, the Spurs run a more mid-range/post centric offense, which is relatively easy to defend, and Kawhi is just as good (better) under it than he was under the "Beautiful Game," which was supposedly Pop's magic system that could transform anyone into an All-Star.

Talent makes the system, and talent can thrive under any system. A great player is a great player.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

Meh, multiple studies have shown that head coaches really don't move the needle as much as perceived.



I've done a 180 on this over-the-years. I used to fetishize head coaching and really thought Pop vs. D'Antoni or some other "schmuck" was the difference maker in those series. What actually matters, as shown in that report, is talent (obviously). Roster building, roster building, roster building. It's more important than systems, Xs and Os, tactics, and strategy. That's not to say head coaches can't things up, but where they usually do so is not necessarily on the Xs and Os side, but the lineup side of things, like Pop's infatuation with certain "character" guys who he overplays (Michael Finley, Keith Bogans, Jacque Vaughan, etc) and going small at stupid times because he wants to look clever.

Makes sense. Look at Cleveland as a prime example. Half the morons on Spurstalk could “coach” that team to the Finals.

[Killakobe81]

I'm not backing him at all. And the bolded is precisely why he's a bad "coach." If you lose the players, that's it. I just think NBA fans (and sports fans in general) fetishize Xs and Os too much, thinking they're a magic cure-all or a primary culprit. Remember KD? "Kawhi is a system player." Since Kawhi emerged, the Spurs run a more mid-range/post centric offense, which is relatively easy to defend, and Kawhi is just as good (better) under it than he was under the "Beautiful Game," which was supposedly Pop's magic system that could transform anyone into an All-Star.

Talent makes the system, and talent can thrive under any system. A great player is a great player.

sure a great player is a great player but systems and coaching do matter D'antoni got the most out of Harden lots of that is Harden's hard work to maximize his own talents but Dantoni is far superior to mchale and has been so at every stop. Sure he needs talent which is why he ultimately failed in NY but everywhere he goes he gets career years from his stars and even his role players. again not some x and o genius but his syatem and principles built around a great ball handle/ scorers surrounded by shooters has worked and was thevl impetus for the modern space and pace era. Sure nellie and doug moe did this in the 80s too but Dantoni, morey, pop kerr etc made it chic in this current era ...(but pop reversed course).