clippers to offer doc rivers multi year extension

[RsxPiimp]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-clippers-rivers-plaschke-20180505-story.html

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

[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 fuck 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 fuck 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 bullshit. 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 shit with basketball, breaking down the minutiae like that, but it really is an illusion.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/germany/story/3066461/tactics-are-overrated-quality-of-players-more-important-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 & fuck 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 & fuck 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 title 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 shitty 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 fuckin' 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.

http://i68.tinypic.com/zv2btc.jpg

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

[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 bullshit. 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 fuck 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 fuck 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 dick 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?:lmao

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/showthread.php?t=273677&p=9381495&viewfull=1#post9381495

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

[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.

[baseline bum]

Reading is fundamental:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=273677&p=9381495&viewfull=1#post9381495

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

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:lmao

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 shell of himself but despite that Gm 4 went to OT....yeah, one of the double digit wins you referenced:lmao

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.:lol (Another dominant double digit win:lmao #bumsgonnabum)

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

[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:lmao


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



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 shell of himself but despite that Gm 4 went to OT....yeah, one of the double digit wins you referenced:lmao


Are you fucking retarded? 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.:lol (Another dominant double digit win:lmao #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 shit cutting it to two with five minutes left in Game 6 is almost winning a series. :rollin



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

Oh shit 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 shit 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%:wakeup

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:lmao

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 Hell 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 titles despite zero coaching experience (Kerr included and even Pat Riley following Westhead. Not saying they are/were bad coaches, but they inherited teams with shitloads 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 title 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 :lolSteve Blake/Jordan Crawford:lol

[LkrFan]

***BUMP***


:lmao

[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 :lolSteve Blake/Jordan Crawford:lol

"Gaymond" 2, Kiwi 1

Let us proceed :lol

[Killakobe81]

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/7/17326080/brad-stevens-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 competition 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 (https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/4/17318860/raptors-dwane-casey-cavs-losing)

[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 fuck 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.wordpress.com/2013/06/ijsf4-2coachingpaper.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 (https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/4/17318860/raptors-dwane-casey-cavs-losing)

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/2018/5/7/17326080/brad-stevens-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 competition 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 antithetical 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 Redick, 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.
:lol 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]

:lol 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 fuck 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).