A simple look into the defensive rating of the Memphis team during the Hollins era and after it (even in the games where Marc Gasol played) shows up your poor argument. So does, a look into the win-loss record of the same team under Lionel Hollins over the years.
By no means, was Hollins a bad coach at all.
Considering it is just months since he lost his job and he has already refused decent assistant coach gigs, it is plain stupid to say that he is unemployed because he is incapable.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...-with-pistons/
No it doesn't. The sample size with a new coach this year isn't large enough to "show up any argument". I didn't say he didn't win games - he had a very talented team. One that had very good defensive players which will help you win games.
He was a bad coach. His own team didn't want him and there were plenty of HC vacancies this year. He turned down AC offer(s) to wait for a HC offer that never came, hence him being out of the NBA.
yeah, right. He was a bad coach and his team won a lot of games despite him. Just like your argument that you are correct despite the facts.
What facts? I say he's not good which is why he's out of a job and you post an article about DET wanting him as an assistant coach. Even that article states he turned it down to await a HC offer & it never came. That is a fact.
You trying to use this year's sample size as a means to make any sort of definitive argument is silly to me largely due to the fact the team has been injured for a long time. His team won games because they were a good team - plenty of teams win games (Clippers with VDN..) with average to bad coaches. There is a reason they went further when management stepped in and forced his hand vs what he was doing. The fact he complained about and still does complain about the trade that allowed the team to go further than before shows the depth of his inep ude.
Lol.. you say that the sample size of 35 odd games is small but you ignore the larger sample of 5 seasons, when the Grizz basically progressed into a very good defensive team, after being laughed off as a stupid team post the "laughable" Gasol trade.
You trying to use this year's sample size as a means to make any sort of definitive argument is silly to me largely due to the fact the team has been injured for a long time. His team won games because they were a good team - plenty of teams win games (Clippers with VDN..) with average to bad coaches. There is a reason they went further when management stepped in and forced his hand vs what he was doing. The fact he complained about and still does complain about the trade that allowed the team to go further than before shows the depth of his inep ude.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ollili01c.html (from 0.333 to .488 to .561 to .621 to .688).. Yeah, a "bad coach" indeed!.
And lol... that you say that he is without a job, because he was fired only a few months ago and clearly the only teams hiring coaches were mostly tanking.
Poor logic, again.
No - poor logic is not acknowledging how his reliance on Gay held the team back and only when Gay was moved did the team advance further in the playoffs than ever before.
Poor logic is claiming he turned down "good AC jobs" then posting one article about a DET AC job when DET is awful and has been for a while. Of course there is always an excuse for him to support your theory (MEM didn't agree with him, all the teams that needed a HC were tanking..) instead of realizing that a non-tanking team in MEM let him go while getting to see him for years and no one except a terrible DET team knocked on his door.
Tanking or not, great coaches, even average coaches that want to coach don't go without jobs in the NBA.Tanking or not, if you have a chance to get a "very good coach" you don't pass that up. It's just silly to sit there and act like a coach that held his team back (and by that I don't mean he made them bad, but kept them from realizing their true potential) and argued with the move that allowed them to flourish when it mattered is a good coach.
He's stubborn, not a very good adjustments/x's & o's guy and has a very old school mindset that doesn't sit well with people hence him being on Sirius XM radio vs with a team.
All you have is opinion and not facts.
The Gay trade helped them, definitely, but the lack of a perimeter player who could score hurt them against the Spurs who did a great job of bottling up Randolph and daring the perimeter guys like Allen & Prince, both of whom were flops offensively.
In essence, Hollins' point was right. The replacement they got for Gay wasn't good enough.
And you made the point that the league was shunning him because he was a "bad coach". No, that wasn't the case, he was indeed getting job offers from rebuilding teams who had already hired coaches. And he hasn't still got a job in *a few months* since his firing because there aren't any available for his profile as a veteran's coach. As simple as that.
Lastly, your argument that he is bad is based on his refusal to acknowledge the Gay trade.. thats all. Thats poor logic.
The larger body of his work of his transformation of the Grizzlies from pathetic losers to contenders - rejuvenation of Randolph, blossoming of Gasol & Conley, the strong defensive system, the "Grit & Grind" Fundamentals etc... had much to do with his coaching.. which you simply ignore, as behooves your stupid logic.
Love this tangential debate.
Hollins is a good coach. He coached a solid playoff team with the handicap of Gay there and then got them to the WCF without any decent offensive wing. Hollinger downplayed Hollins' hand in that, just like many posters on this site do. He gave the DC the job and is having a Raheem Morris--like effect.
Advanced stats suffer from being stats, meaning they follow the basic assumption of being IID (Individual and Independently Distributed). They assume a 45-percent three-point shooter is 45-percent likely to make any given three. But that's not true. There are tons of variables that haven't been accounted for. Stats can only tell you what has already happened. They are NOT designed to predict the future. That's why running an organization using stats will fail if there are no old-school people-people in the brain trust.
Great points on the "IID" thing.
How can he be right, when the move got them further than ever before and without that move they likely don't go that far?
Wrong, before teams hired guys like Shaw or whatever, the Grizz gave him permission to speak to those teams. They all elected to pass on him. He's still without a job.And you made the point that the league was shunning him because he was a "bad coach". No, that wasn't the case, he was indeed getting job offers from rebuilding teams who had already hired coaches. And he hasn't still got a job in *a few months* since his firing because there aren't any available for his profile as a veteran's coach. As simple as that.
Lastly, your argument that he is bad is based on his refusal to acknowledge the Gay trade.. thats all. Thats poor logic.
The larger body of his work of his transformation of the Grizzlies from pathetic losers to contenders - rejuvenation of Randolph, blossoming of Gasol & Conley, the strong defensive system, the "Grit & Grind" Fundamentals etc... had much to do with his coaching.. which you simply ignore, as behooves your stupid logic.
You don't really have any facts outside of his win% (which got better with the trade he hated). You make wild assumptions to fit your theories (teams are tanking and don't have room for his greatnessor Memphis are big meanies so they let him go
The fact is he got an opportunity to speak to teams and no one so far has knocked down his door. We will see how long it takes for him to get a HC job and how he does when he gets it. To date, I have the scoreboard it seems because he's not coaching because he's stubborn and not a strong enough coach to make front offices deal with his antiquated antics.
Also, I thought that Spurs fans of all people will be scrutinizing of the likes of Hollinger after the Jackie Butler effect.
Lol for 4 months so far. Are you that dumb? And Phil Jackson, George Karl and the Van Gundys are also without jobs too. By your logic, they are bad coaches. Lol!
So, Conley & Gasol learnt defense on their own and despite Hollins' coaching. How much more stupid can you get?
You don't really have any facts outside of his win% (which got better with the trade he hated). You make wild assumptions to fit your theories (teams are tanking and don't have room for his greatness
The fact is he got an opportunity to speak to teams and no one so far has knocked down his door. We will see how long it takes for him to get a HC job and how he does when he gets it. To date, I have the scoreboard it seems because he's not coaching because he's stubborn and not a strong enough coach to make front offices deal with his antiquated antics.
By the way, which are the only teams that these two guys played for? Memphis Grizzlies... the only coach? Lionel Hollins. Is it even entering your head?
The jury is not out on Hollinger. Hollinger has nothing to do with Hollins. The only reason Hollinger is mentioned is because his move showed how Hollins lack of coaching (playing Gay, running offense through him) held the team back from achieving their full potential.
It caused Hollins to throw a fit too. He cried about not having a shooter in the WCF while failing to acknowledge he wouldn't be there if they kept Gay. It was sour grapes and big reason no one has hired him.
Ha haSo a coach lamented a trade and so he isn't a good coach. All his record with converting a bad team into a good one and a contender at that, be damned. Take your logic pills, pal.
Strawman argument from someone getting frustrated for no reason. Phil Jackson doesn't want to coach. I've also read reports of Van Gundy's turning down potential HC jobs. Hollins hasn't turned down any HC jobs that I have seen - he hasn't been offered any and he's made it very clear he still wants to coach. I don't believe JVG wants to coach, nor Phil. So that argument makes little sense to me.
So, Conley & Gasol learnt defense on their own and despite Hollins' coaching. How much more stupid can you get?
By the way, which are the only teams that these two guys played for? Memphis Grizzlies... the only coach? Lionel Hollins. Is it even entering your head?
Ha ha
He can't get credit for turning them into a contender when he before the trade played un-optimal lineups and then after the trade complained about it while the team was performing better
Well, the good thing is we will get a chance to see how this develops. We will see how long it takes for Hollins to get a HC job and how he does if he gets one. That's the beauty of this - we can see how it develops.
But I love the good logic of a great (or even good) coach not having a job because a) his team is dumb for letting him go & b) all other teams were tanking and couldn't use a good coach.
Yeah. we shall see..and we have already seen..
How the great defenders Conley and Allen have seen their defensive ratings drop heavily since Hollins left as a coach. Has to do with personnel, defensive system and coaching philosophy changes, perhaps?
Memphis Defensive rating in 2013-14: 107.4
Memphis Defensive rating in 2012-13: 100.3
A drop of 7 points because one player is injured? What does it say about the coaching change? And what more does it say about the hands that brought out the coaching change?
We shall see how it plays out in the longer run as well, as the Memphis tank from a contender to a bottom 5 team in the WC in the present.
To be fair, bigs have by far the biggest impact on DRtg. It's the opposite effect as the major boost Splitter's addition to the SL had last season.
Still, a good coach would be able to coach around that. Thibs manages to field a strong defense even when Noah is out. Joeger is not living up to his hype ao far.
IMO, the writing was on the wall about Gay after 8. But that series also shown Hollins being a coach that could get a lot of it's players and fairly solid at game-planning. He had guys like Sam Young and Darrell Arthur playing at a level you've never seen them play since. That said, he was stubborn at times, and that's why I think he wouldn't work for every group of players. He was a great fit there, and that's why it's still not clear to me why they let him walk.
Just would like to say once again that Minnesota is no worry for the Spurs even without Splitter. Diaw can handle him (Love) just fine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
