Clippers: clippers to offer doc rivers multi year extension

[RsxPiimp]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...505-story.html

the logo trading blake griffin for tobias harris, now he’s extending doc?

[Clipper Nation]

This isn't the Logo's doing, it's all Ballmer. Too stubborn and slow to make necessary changes, just like at Microsoft.

[Killakobe81]

This isn't the Logo's doing, it's all Ballmer. Too stubborn and slow to make necessary changes, just like at Microsoft.

That is worse ...just shows West is ceremonial ..if he cant pick his own headcoach then I am even less worried about Clips stealing away the "logo". Cant have it both ways ...either game has passed him so he thinks Doc is good ...or he is just a figurehead/PR stunt ...

[Clipper Nation]

That is worse ...just shows West is ceremonial ..if he cant pick his own headcoach then I am even less worried about Clips stealing away the "logo". Cant have it both ways ...either game has passed him so he thinks Doc is good ...or he is just a figurehead/PR stunt ...

I wouldn't say West is "ceremonial." He clearly has influence on the roster and the draft. Ballmer is just way too loyal to Doc.

[Killakobe81]

I wouldn't say West is "ceremonial." He clearly has influence on the roster and the draft. Ballmer is just way too loyal to Doc.

picking a HC is probably 2nd most important role for a Gm to deciding who to sign, extend, cut or trade. Scouts are vital to drafting and can handle that role bit wxtending a coach should be up to GM who knows hoops instead of the tech billionaire who shouldcjust sign checks.

[Killakobe81]

Btw celts dump doc get the top college coach ...while you have up a draft asset for the privledge.

[midnightpulp]

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

Our most surprising finding was that most of the coaches in our data set did not have a statistically significant impact on player performance relative to a generic coach. Even the most successful coaches by our metric—Jackson, Popovich, and Fitzsimmons— were statistically discernable only from the very worst-rated coaches.We therefore find little evidence that most coaches in the NBA are more than the “principal clerks” that Adam Smith claimed managers were more than 200 years ago.

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.

[Arcadian]

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.

That makes sense. There's only so much a coach can do to affect the game, especially in basketball. Usually the players on the court have to call their own plays based on game flow, and it often breaks down into freestyle improvisation anyway.

I always found it ridiculous how coaches are often the first to be blamed when a team performs poorly. That's obviously because they make easy scapegoats. Things aren't going well? Blame the coach. Easier to fire a coach than rebuild a roster.

[Killakobe81]

if u niglets cant see the difference Stevens is making ...wont lie huge assist to Ainge for fleecing, Nets, Clips, Cavs etc. but Stevens is making that talent work ...
Btw Ainge has to figure out, which assets to keep no way Will all those coexist for long once Kyrie and Hayward return ...but a lot if that falls on Stevens too ...i get your premise ...and see SOME of its merit but dont fully agree with your conclusion. Maybe because i used to coach AAU of course talent matters most whuch is why i said picking a coach is 2nd most important choice to roster construction. Plenty of talented teams dont win, underperform or are upset by lessor teams due to poor coaching. Its not just X's and O's, its, practice, culture building, managing tempo and egos. Developing rooks, not overworking vets etc.

Sure i concede coaching the best player on the planet in a weak East or the stacked Dubs makes coaching look easy..but what stevens has done with losing 3 of his top 5 and sometimes 4 out of top 6 this playoffs has been a coaching clinic and proves your premise is bull . i would give up a non lotto pick to get Stevens would not do that for any other coach not even Pop.

[midnightpulp]

if u niglets cant see the difference Stevens is making ...wont lie huge assist ti Ainge for fleecing, Nets, Clips, Cavs etc. but Stevens is making that talent work ...
Ainge has to figure,out ehich assets to keep no way Will all tjose coexist for long once Kyrie and Hayward return ...

You already answered your own question. Boston is talent rich. Now a coach can make a difference if the players didn't like playing for the previous coach and simply made the new hire look like a genius because they play harder for him, but at the NBA level, systems, Xs and Os, etc can't polish a turd of a roster or make missed shots go in. I honestly think Pop has always realized this, like when reporters grill him, expecting some Xs and Os breakdown of what went wrong, he'll often simply say, "They made more shots than us." And I agree, basketball is largely about that, as obvious as it sounds. Basketball's been around for a long time, coaches know what works and what doesn't. There's no magic sauce system or other secret "lore" a coach can employ to "outsmart" another coach. Again, Pop. When asked if he watches film of other teams, said no. He said every team knows what every one else is going to do, I'm concerned about making what we do the most effective as possible.

You see this a fan, too. I know what Golden State is going to do pretty much every possession, so do you. Stopping it is different. And no system can help a team that is outskilled and out matched athletically.

[midnightpulp]

That makes sense. There's only so much a coach can do to affect the game, especially in basketball. Usually the players on the court have to call their own plays based on game flow, and it often breaks down into freestyle improvisation anyway.

I always found it ridiculous how coaches are often the first to be blamed when a team performs poorly. That's obviously because they make easy scapegoats. Things aren't going well? Blame the coach. Easier to fire a coach than rebuild a roster.

Yep. As an aside, soccer managers feel the same way, and I cite this every time a soccer fan talks about a soccer being some kind of chess match between the Klopp's and Mourinho's of the world, with hipster bloggers writing 3000 word breakdowns of seeing patterns that simply don't exist and were a result of improvisation rather than any kind of planned execution. I used to do the same with basketball, breaking down the minutiae like that, but it really is an illusion.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/germany/s...t-dfb-director

He said: "I read one of those pieces following a Wolfsburg match [where he coached until late 2016], and asked myself, 'They say I came up with those highly complex things?'"

This is the thing. You don't want "complexity" in a gameplan. Too many moving parts, too much for players to remember and simultaneously execute. Every coach on Earth would love a simple, single play that works 100% of the time over a 1000 page playbook. And the best teams, even NFL teams, (despite the 300 page playbooks) usually run just a handful of plays, plays that are the most effective and can be repeatedly executed precisely. A pro sports team simply won't have the time to practice hundreds of plays to the point where they can execute them efficiently, even NFL teams.

[Kawhitstorm]

You see this a fan, too. I know what Golden State is going to do pretty much every possession, so do you. Stopping it is different. And no system can help a team that is outskilled and out matched athletically.

Coaches can hold back players & up rotations. Stevens puts his players in the best position to succeed, he empowers them rather than discourage them......just look at Isaiah who was like a fat kids in a candy store.

Poop turned into an enigmatic scrooge who refused to evolve after '14.........dude has been resting on his laurels ever since but then he had a terminally ill wife.

[midnightpulp]

Coaches can hold back players & up rotations. Stevens puts his players in the best position to succeed, he empowers them rather than discourage them......just look at Isaiah who was like a fat kids in a candy store.

Poop turned into an enigmatic scrooge who refused to evolve after '14.........dude has been resting on his laurels ever since but then he had a terminally ill wife.

Yeah, I alluded to that. Coaches are basically baby sitters. It's just the belief that a coach is going to come in with a magic playbook and take a 52 win team to an NBA le is based on myth. Pop's big problem is that he sometimes overthinks the game, which is ironic, since he'll be the first to say he's only a "genius" because he was lucky enough to have Timmy, David, Manu, Tony, Kawhi etc. He doesn't necessarily overthink on the Xs and 0s part, but the lineup part. What really lost the 2013 Finals was sticking with that ty lineup headed by Splitter (who was having a dreadful series) far too long in the 4th, when the Spurs were up 10 and Miami was in desperation mode. He tried to get cute, thinking the Heat would tire by sticking with their big guns while he stole a couple extra minutes of "rest" for our big guns, and it bit him in the ass. Any other coach starts the 4th with his top players.

[midnightpulp]

Here's that lineup change in question. Heat are down 12 and look dead in the water, and you sub out Duncan and Leonard for in' Splitter and D-League, whose hot 3 point hand died by that point. Every coach on the planet closes the entire 4th with his two best players (in that series, obviously Duncan and Leonard) that got the 12 point lead.



12 point lead cut down to 4 in about 2 minutes. Of course that's going to happen, Pop

[Killakobe81]

if u niglets cant see the difference Stevens is making ...wont lie huge assist to Ainge for fleecing, Nets, Clips, Cavs etc. but Stevens is making that talent work ...
Btw Ainge has to figure out, which assets to keep no way Will all those coexist for long once Kyrie and Hayward return ...but a lot if that falls on Stevens too ...i get your premise ...and see SOME of its merit but dont fully agree with your conclusion. Maybe because i used to coach AAU of course talent matters most whuch is why i said picking a coach is 2nd most important choice to roster construction. Plenty of talented teams dont win, underperform or are upset by lessor teams due to poor coaching. Its not just X's and O's, its, practice, culture building, managing tempo and egos. Developing rooks, not overworking vets etc.

Sure i concede coaching the best player on the planet in a weak East or the stacked Dubs makes coaching look easy..but what stevens has done with losing 3 of his top 5 and sometimes 4 out of top 6 this playoffs has been a coaching clinic and proves your premise is bull . i would give up a non lotto pick to get Stevens would not do that for any other coach not even Pop.

bump with added content its a interesting debate...

[baseline bum]

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.

If you don't think coaching tactics matter explain the 2014 Warriors vs the 2015 Warriors.

[RsxPiimp]

probably not in situations where a team has a superstar(s) at his disposal -that can easily change the dynamics of the game- but for the less fortunate, effective coaching can be a difference maker.

ty lue wouldn’t be able to bring the celtics this far.

[Clipper Nation]

picking a HC is probably 2nd most important role for a Gm to deciding who to sign, extend, cut or trade. Scouts are vital to drafting and can handle that role bit wxtending a coach should be up to GM who knows hoops instead of the tech billionaire who shouldcjust sign checks.

West isn't the GM. He has the same advisory role that he had with the Warriors.

Again, this is a Ballmer move more than anything else. At Microsoft, he was notorious for refusing to make tough decisions, such as firing people who needed to be fired. The same thing is playing out with the Clippers.

[lefty]

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.

This.

Krause was belittled, but Phil and DK should be sucking his for bringing in the right pieces

[midnightpulp]

bump with added content its a interesting debate...

The fact you would only give up a non-lotto pick shows you intuitively grasp my point. MVP level players add about 10-15 wins over the season. No coach is worth trading LeBron for. That proves my point that a coach's impact isn't as large as perceived. It's not that NBA coaching is easy, it's that the book is out so to speak. There's no more tactical voodoo that will take the league by surprise. Coaches know what the other teams are going to do. So with that being equal, talent Is the deciding factor.

[HarlemHeat37]

I agree to an extent, but not entirely..

I think fans blame coaches way too much when their stars fail or have painfully obvious flaws..people blaming Brett Brown yesterday, for example..you can nitpick flaws in his plan, but what are you supposed to do when Simmons can't and won't shoot? And Embiid is overrated and inefficient, especially in clutch time..

Thibs(the coach, not the GM) is the same, as his impact is capped when his best players are Towns and Wiggins..

In-game coaching is also very overrated..game plans and systems are rarely adjusted during a game, it's not a coincidence that every fanbase complains about their coach's "lack of adjustments" during a game..

I disagree about system coaching, though..can't ignore what somebody like Stevens has done or how Kerr took a 1st round roster and turned them into a legendary team..

Overall, though, Brad Stevens is the only coach that I would trade for a secondary star caliber of player..

[Clipper Nation]

No coach is worth trading LeBron for. That proves my point that a coach's impact isn't as large as perceived.

This argument makes no sense. There is nothing at all in this league worth trading LeGOAT for. By your logic, all owners, all GMs, all coaches and all other players in the league are overrated and don't make much of an impact.

It's not that NBA coaching is easy, it's that the book is out so to speak. There's no more tactical voodoo that will take the league by surprise. Coaches know what the other teams are going to do.

I've seen enough of Doc's "coaching" to know this isn't true. He doesn't have a clue about anything. There are still plenty of dumbass coaches in this league. Guys like Stevens, Snyder, and Spo are the exception, not the rule.

So with that being equal, talent Is the deciding factor.

If that's the case, then how did Curry, Klay and Draymond suddenly look so much better under Kerr than they ever did under Mark Jackass? Same talent, different coach, better results. You do the math.

[Kawhitstorm]

I disagree about system coaching, though..can't ignore what somebody like Stevens has done or how Kerr took a 1st round roster and turned them into a legendary team..

1st rd roster?

They almost beat the '13 Spurs with Bogut having to drink pain killers to step on the court & Curry playing on one ankle. (Ezeli/Iggy/Livingston weren't on the roster & Lee was injured)

In '14 they would have beaten the Clippers if Lee didn't have to guard DeAndre (Bogut/Ezeli were both injured) who was putting up Bill Russell like numbers. (Barnes was also in a major sophmore slump & Draymond only became a starter in the postseason + Livingston wasn't on the roster)

Let's also ignore Curry/Klay/Draymond improving over the summer at the same pace as they had been under Jackson. (Curry's ankle problems also went away)

[Kawhitstorm]

If you don't think coaching tactics matter explain the 2014 Warriors vs the 2015 Warriors.

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.

[Killakobe81]

I agree to an extent, but not entirely..

I think fans blame coaches way too much when their stars fail or have painfully obvious flaws..people blaming Brett Brown yesterday, for example..you can nitpick flaws in his plan, but what are you supposed to do when Simmons can't and won't shoot? And Embiid is overrated and inefficient, especially in clutch time..

Thibs(the coach, not the GM) is the same, as his impact is capped when his best players are Towns and Wiggins..

In-game coaching is also very overrated..game plans and systems are rarely adjusted during a game, it's not a coincidence that every fanbase complains about their coach's "lack of adjustments" during a game..

I disagree about system coaching, though..can't ignore what somebody like Stevens has done or how Kerr took a 1st round roster and turned them into a legendary team..

Overall, though, Brad Stevens is the only coach that I would trade for a secondary star caliber of player..

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.