Questions and Answers After Derrick White's Contract Extension

[TD 21]

I always lean towards being late than early on these things, so even though it's probably or about to be White, I still give it to Aldridge until proven otherwise.

DeRozan has never been better than Aldridge though. The latter accomodating the former/Murray midseason last year by turning into a floor spacer so that the starters could attempt to function, didn't change that.

Pffft, it's well known that the Beautiful Game ran just on luck and good players magically fitting together! Lucky passes, and the ones that weren't lucky, were magically performed by the high IQ of the players physically moving the ball to where it had to go. This is common knowledge, Chino, you're slippin'.....

More poor reading comprehension. It was on the unparalleled combination skill, collective genius basketball IQ (outside of S bag and Green, 7 of the 9 rotation players were good - historically great in this respect), continuity, chemistry, motivation and urgency. None of those had anything to do with coaching, you brainwashed fool and there nothing innovative about a motion offense.

[Chinook]

"It's not old-school thinking that you build a system that works with your best players. Throwing up your hands and going, "I have to get rid of LMA and DMDR because they don't fit" isn't doing anything, especially when you don't follow that up by getting rid of them."

I think the problem with this line of thinking is you're assuming LMA and DMDR will be the team's best players past this season. We're clearly in transition from that. They may be the team's best players, but it's obvious the team is preparing for a transition.

Chinook

I'm getting a bit off track. I like White, a lot. I think he can be the best player on the team this season, but if he is, it's likely a really bad thing. If the Spurs are serious about taking a swing at it this year, they should get Murray and Gay out of the SL and try to find a shooting four to put in there instead. I honestly think if they can find one in a DeRozan trade, that might work out really well. They need to establish a clear hierarchy of Aldridge inside, DeRozan/White driving and everybody shooting when they're open and in position. Put actual structure back into the offense so guys can find their roles. Run sets that take advantage of people's strengths (like why isn't DeRozan running the zipper series at all?). Focus on building young player's confidence. You know, coach a bit.

The post that started our conversation was mainly focused on this year. None of us knows if they will be on the team next year. Most of us don't really want them to be. But if Pop wants to win this year, and from everything I'm seeing, he does, then he needs to make this roster work. That's going to involved putting his best players in a position to succeed, and he hasn't been doing that.

I also think that only Murray is hurt by the team moving in the direction I recommended. DeRozan, Aldridge and even Gay had lower USG% last year than the Big Three did in 2012-2013 and comparable to 2013-2014. Guys like Leonard, Green, Splitter, Mills and Diaw managed to develop or solidify in that system. There's no reason why Johnson, Vassell or any of the other young guys couldn't do so as well. The key is that you need a structure that allows for those guys to get shots. That's a big reason why this "hydra" business doesn't really help develop anyone. Folks like Murray aren't learning to take a back seat. Walker isn't gaining any confidence and can often never see the ball unless he takes it and tries to force something. Samanic can't get on the floor because there's no simplified spot-up role anymore. I just don't see any excuse, present or future, for doing anything like they've been doing on offense long term.

[Chinook]

I always lean towards being late than early on these things, so even though it's probably or about to be White, I still give it to Aldridge until proven otherwise.

DeRozan has never been better than Aldridge though. The latter accomodating the former/Murray midseason last year by turning into a floor spacer so that the starters could attempt to function, didn't change that.

Yeah. Aldridge is clearly trying to do his part of make the SL work by shooting that many threes. He's going to look bad for weeks struggling to get into form and by the midpoint will probably be playing well because Pop lets him come back inside. He can shoot well enough for a big. That two of the starting smalls can't shoot well enough for their positions is the real problem.

More poor reading comprehension. It was on the unparalleled combination skill, collective genius basketball IQ (outside of S bag and Green, 7 of the 9 rotation players were good - historically great in this respect), continuity, chemistry, motivation and urgency. None of those had anything to do with coaching, you brainwashed fool.

Stuff like motivation and chemistry certainly has to do with coaching, and continuity falls within the parameters of a front office. The decisions Pop made back then played a big role. But you're also narrowing down the idea of the BG to the pure apotheosis that happened during the Finals. That didn't carry them through the 82-game season, let alone multiple. There are plenty of good free-flowing offenses in the league, currently and historically. They almost all rely on basic principles and pre-determined responses to situations combined with a good number of individual plays. The Spurs used to run plays all the time in that era and the one before it (The Prime Parker/Loop era). They could totally run them now too.

[TD 21]

Yeah. Aldridge is clearly trying to do his part of make the SL work by shooting that many threes. He's going to look bad for weeks struggling to get into form and by the midpoint will probably be playing well because Pop lets him come back inside. He can shoot well enough for a big. That two of the starting smalls can't shoot well enough for their positions is the real problem.



Stuff like motivation and chemistry certainly has to do with coaching, and continuity falls within the parameters of a front office. The decisions Pop made back then played a big role. But you're also narrowing down the idea of the BG to the pure apotheosis that happened during the Finals. That didn't carry them through the 82-game season, let alone multiple. There are plenty of good free-flowing offenses in the league, currently and historically. They almost all rely on basic principles and pre-determined responses to situations combined with a good number of individual plays. The Spurs used to run plays all the time in that era and the one before it (The Prime Parker/Loop era). They could totally run them now too.

No, they don't. Continuity could, but you don't get credit for not breaking up a dynasty, in a small market no less. I didn't say he didn't do his job about as well as possible, I'm just saying the job isn't nearly as important as so many have been brainwashed into believing.

I'm basing it on the entirety of the 3 year run from '12-'14.

[Chinook]

No, they don't. Continuity could, but you don't get credit for not breaking up a dynasty, in a small market no less. .

I can give you the Big Three, even though keeping three stars together wasn't a shoe-in then and certainly isn't now. But by your own words, four of the seven players were not in that group, and keeping them together deserves credit, as does even finding them.

I think insisting that coaching doesn't really matter to an offensive system is a hard sell. Ultimately winning is one thing. That's talent. How well an offense flows and how well a defense rotates is basically what coaching is. It's not being brainwashed to know that the Spurs had a number of really good offensive systems for years. It's just remembering history.

[Dejounte]

The post that started our conversation was mainly focused on this year. None of us knows if they will be on the team next year. Most of us don't really want them to be. But if Pop wants to win this year, and from everything I'm seeing, he does, then he needs to make this roster work. That's going to involved putting his best players in a position to succeed, and he hasn't been doing that.

I also think that only Murray is hurt by the team moving in the direction I recommended. DeRozan, Aldridge and even Gay had lower USG% last year than the Big Three did in 2012-2013 and comparable to 2013-2014. Guys like Leonard, Green, Splitter, Mills and Diaw managed to develop or solidify in that system. There's no reason why Johnson, Vassell or any of the other young guys couldn't do so as well. The key is that you need a structure that allows for those guys to get shots. That's a big reason why this "hydra" business doesn't really help develop anyone. Folks like Murray aren't learning to take a back seat. Walker isn't gaining any confidence and can often never see the ball unless he takes it and tries to force something. Samanic can't get on the floor because there's no simplified spot-up role anymore. I just don't see any excuse, present or future, for doing anything like they've been doing on offense long term.

The focus is putting the young guys in a position to succeed, whether or not they're recognized as the best or not. That's been do ented over and over. We don't read quotes like "we're going to get Aldridge his best spots" anymore. Those days are gone. It's been the opposite ever since the bubble.

[Chinook]

The focus is putting the young guys in a position to succeed, whether or not they're recognized as the best or not. That's been do ented over and over. We don't read quotes like "we're going to get Aldridge his best spots" anymore. Those days are gone. It's been the opposite ever since the bubble.

You never saw that quote get put into action. I don't know that the Spurs ever really worked Aldridge into his best. They either played away from him or let him ride uncontained.

I feel like you're really dug in at this point. Like I already said that I believe structure helps the young players too. So even if you want to disregard this year (which I don't believe the Spurs do), it's not enough to rebut what I said.

[The Truth #6]

DMDR is the most skilled but it doesn't lead to winning basketball typically, so it's sort of a mute point to me. He isn't a player to build around. Neither is White arguably, but he can fit into any system and so I would prioritize him over LA or DMDR who play a style of basketball that is difficult to win with and difficult to build around.

[Dejounte]

You never saw that quote get put into action. I don't know that the Spurs ever really worked Aldridge into his best. They either played away from him or let him ride uncontained.

I feel like you're really dug in at this point. Like I already said that I believe structure helps the young players too. So even if you want to disregard this year (which I don't believe the Spurs do), it's not enough to rebut what I said.

Sorry, man. I'm grilling right now and just reading and writing as quick as I can.

There was definitely a scheme to fit Aldridge in after he complained about his touches a few years ago.

DJ is the only one you can really attest to as to whether the structure helps or not. He's the only one who had meaningful minutes up until the bubble.

It did not help DJ. Slow pace really hurts DJ.

[Chinook]

Sorry, man. I'm grilling right now and just reading and writing as quick as I can.

Have fun.

There was definitely a scheme to fit Aldridge in after he complained about his touches a few years ago

I don't think that's a sign of putting Aldridge into a good scheme. There are touches and there are good touches. Aldridge got the former, but the offense didn't focus on the latter. I think he would've complained about it a bit, but it's still Pop's job to convince him rather than giving up.

DJ is the only one you can really attest to as to whether the structure helps or not. He's the only one who had meaningful minutes up until the bubble.

It did not help DJ. Slow pace really hurts DJ.

Murray got hurt because he can't shoot and makes horrible decisions. He had good stretches and bad in both the bubble and outside it. That happens when you take a lot of bad shots but also practice taking them.

You can never know for sure how well guys will develop, but it's clear that players can become superstars within a structure, so the basic idea that freedom means better development shouldn't be taken as self-evident. I definitely wouldn't call the non-bubble offense structured last year or even the year before. Having a slow pace is not the same time as having a defined series of plays with roles and contingencies.

[Dejounte]

Have fun.



I don't think that's a sign of putting Aldridge into a good scheme. There are touches and there are good touches. Aldridge got the former, but the offense didn't focus on the latter. I think he would've complained about it a bit, but it's still Pop's job to convince him rather than giving up.



Murray got hurt because he can't shoot and makes horrible decisions. He had good stretches and bad in both the bubble and outside it. That happens when you take a lot of bad shots but also practice taking them.

You can never know for sure how well guys will develop, but it's clear that players can become superstars within a structure, so the basic idea that freedom means better development shouldn't be taken as self-evident. I definitely wouldn't call the non-bubble offense structured last year or even the year before. Having a slow pace is not the same time as having a defined series of plays with roles and contingencies.

My really quick response:

Is it possible the limitations of finding a suitable scheme for Aldridge are due to him as a player rather than the system?

Aldridge has never been quick, he's never had great passing skills.

You can argue we could have ran a supercharged version of the team he had with the Blazers, but then we run into the problem of personnel-- that Blazers team had a star PG, we had a (upcoming) star in Leonard. We could not run the same plays if we wanted to.

[Capt Bringdown]

Murray is a born leader who has been vocal from Day 1.

Name one way Murray can make his teammates better, besides sitting on the bench.

[Chinook]

Aldridge has never been quick, he's never had great passing skills.

Aldridge has always been quick, and he doesn't need great passing skills. Danny Green isn't a great passer, and he played for years in a good offensive system.

You can argue we could have ran a supercharged version of the team he had with the Blazers, but then we run into the problem of personnel-- that Blazers team had a star PG, we had a (upcoming) star in Leonard. We could not run the same plays if we wanted to.

I don't think the Spurs needed to run the same system the Blazers had. I don't even that that system was best for Aldridge. But that it had to be an all-or-nothing thing with Aldridge, Leonard, DeRozan and such is a huge problem. Either guys are role-players who they dribble out the clock. There's very little leverage in the Spurs' recent offenses.

[look_at_g_shred]

Name one way Murray can make his teammates better, besides sitting on the bench.

Defend. Rebound. Bring the ball up. Give it up. Run to the corner 3.

[TDMVPDPOY]

remember when he was going h2h with nuggets murray in that series, then a year later murray explodes onto the scene with improvements out of nowhere

yet to see his from any of the spurs younger players, or is pops system and vets in the way of younger players developing quicker

[Kurgan]

Name one way Murray can make his teammates better, besides sitting on the bench.

Murray has the personality of an alpha leader with none of the skills to back it up. He's like a chihuahua that barks a lot

[Sugus]

More poor reading comprehension.

You didn't write anything, old man, might want to get those eyes checked.

It was on the unparalleled combination skill, collective genius basketball IQ (outside of S bag and Green, 7 of the 9 rotation players were good - historically great in this respect), continuity, chemistry, motivation and urgency. None of those had anything to do with coaching, you brainwashed fool and there nothing innovative about a motion offense.

Lol, what's the part where I'm supposedly brainwashed? Thinking a coach has input on a team and deserves praise for its success? It's funny that you're so far removed from reality that you're seriously calling people brainwashed for a widely-held and commonly known truth. You look just as dumb as someone calling me brainwashed for saying the sky's blue, tbh.

Green and Nephew, no matter how much we might dislike him, have way above average BBIQ, why the would you single them out? Also, as my guy Chino told you, chemistry, motivation and urgency are most certainly coaching related. You seriously think any coach could lift that team up after the '13 back-breaking loss, and get them to play even better the next year? You think someone like Luke Walton could've coached that team? Lmao.... And I'm the brainwashed fella . Also, why do you keep talking about TBG like it was "just" a motion offense? There were a lot of set plays, DHOs, a perfect implementation of passing bigs from the high post, and a culture setting of "making the extra pass"... All of which - you guessed it! - also fall under coaching.

No, they don't. Continuity could, but you don't get credit for not breaking up a dynasty, in a small market no less. I didn't say he didn't do his job about as well as possible, I'm just saying the job isn't nearly as important as so many have been brainwashed into believing.

I'm basing it on the entirety of the 3 year run from '12-'14.

I couldn't resist quoting this as well. Tell me, how's that dynasty working out for OKC? Maybe it's not so simple keeping a dynasty together after all... Or maybe the Thunder were "unlucky" to have to trade away Harden? . Also funny that you single out "in a small market no less", when keeping players together, content and above all, well-paid, is much more of a challenge in a small market. Or would a dynasty be harder to maintain in Los Angeles? Just a wacky mindset all-around, my guy.

[Chinook]

I like Murray as an energy, garbage, put-back and deflection player. The issue for Pop has always been working that into a structure. Instead, Pop's tried to build a structure around him, and he's not good enough for that. It's a shame that Murray isn't the rookie now with guys like White, Johnson and the like as tenured vets. I think he'd fit in much better if he didn't have to protect his lead-dog rep.

[Sugus]

Actually, TD 21, why don't we go the other way around? Since you keep believing everyone but you is brainwashed... Can you tell me explicitly what coaching actually does or actually affects? Because if I were to just go off your writings, there shouldn't be too much of a difference having Spolestra coaching a team rather than Luke Walton... And yet reality doesn't agree with this, and Walton is consistently trash, while Spo keeps defying expectations and overachieving with his rosters. Or someone like Boylen, whomever coach you like that is renowned for not being good. Why is there such a difference, to you, and why do you consistently underrate a coach's job? Is it a past trauma thing? Did Pop make a naughty face at you on your first trip to the Alamodome or something? I'm curious at this point, tbh...

[Sugus]

I can give you the Big Three, even though keeping three stars together wasn't a shoe-in then and certainly isn't now. But by your own words, four of the seven players were not in that group, and keeping them together deserves credit, as does even finding them.

I think insisting that coaching doesn't really matter to an offensive system is a hard sell. Ultimately winning is one thing. That's talent. How well an offense flows and how well a defense rotates is basically what coaching is. It's not being brainwashed to know that the Spurs had a number of really good offensive systems for years. It's just remembering history.

Wish I could double-like a post. You speak the truth, Chino. My guy TD, who allegedly watches other teams in the league besides the Spurs, seemingly cannot tell the difference between a well-ran offense (and defense) and a good one... Tbh, it's actually a bit sad, to have spent so many years basking on the glory that is Spurs O&D, whilst never understanding nor appreciating how hard to replicate it is, how rare and special, how good of a coaching (and playing, of course) job it was. Oh well, lucky for us brainwashed folks, I guess.

[rankingtear]

I like Murray as an energy, garbage, put-back and deflection player. The issue for Pop has always been working that into a structure. Instead, Pop's tried to build a structure around him, and he's not good enough for that. It's a shame that Murray isn't the rookie now with guys like White, Johnson and the like as tenured vets. I think he'd fit in much better if he didn't have to protect his lead-dog rep.

I don't think it's for Murray specifically, when the offense requires multiple ball handlers how can you build it around anyone? Keldon is the most familiar with this offense , Kentucky is the team most famous for running dribble drive motion.

[TD 21]

I can give you the Big Three, even though keeping three stars together wasn't a shoe-in then and certainly isn't now. But by your own words, four of the seven players were not in that group, and keeping them together deserves credit, as does even finding them.

I think insisting that coaching doesn't really matter to an offensive system is a hard sell. Ultimately winning is one thing. That's talent. How well an offense flows and how well a defense rotates is basically what coaching is. It's not being brainwashed to know that the Spurs had a number of really good offensive systems for years. It's just remembering history.

They wanted to stay because they saw the opportunity to contend long term and seemingly had the same or at least similar values. The others were all obvious pickups. The only I'll give credit for is Diaw. There was a Turiaf or Diaw debate at the time and in one of my (rare) bad takes, I actually thought the former would be a better fit.

You guys are not getting this. It's not about coaching altogether, it's about among coaches. As in anyone could have "taught" a motion offense. There's nothing innovative or unique about it. That's not what coaching is; that's the brainwashed part. That's what all those adjectives I used about the players is. They made it look like that (particularly defensively, because that part didn't really change through eras).

You didn't write anything, old man, might want to get those eyes checked.



Lol, what's the part where I'm supposedly brainwashed? Thinking a coach has input on a team and deserves praise for its success? It's funny that you're so far removed from reality that you're seriously calling people brainwashed for a widely-held and commonly known truth. You look just as dumb as someone calling me brainwashed for saying the sky's blue, tbh.

Green and Nephew, no matter how much we might dislike him, have way above average BBIQ, why the would you single them out? Also, as my guy Chino told you, chemistry, motivation and urgency are most certainly coaching related. You seriously think any coach could lift that team up after the '13 back-breaking loss, and get them to play even better the next year? You think someone like Luke Walton could've coached that team? Lmao.... And I'm the brainwashed fella . Also, why do you keep talking about TBG like it was "just" a motion offense? There were a lot of set plays, DHOs, a perfect implementation of passing bigs from the high post, and a culture setting of "making the extra pass"... All of which - you guessed it! - also fall under coaching.



I couldn't resist quoting this as well. Tell me, how's that dynasty working out for OKC? Maybe it's not so simple keeping a dynasty together after all... Or maybe the Thunder were "unlucky" to have to trade away Harden? . Also funny that you single out "in a small market no less", when keeping players together, content and above all, well-paid, is much more of a challenge in a small market. Or would a dynasty be harder to maintain in Los Angeles? Just a wacky mindset all-around, my guy.

I may not be snotnosed brat young like you anymore, but I'm still young, genius.

More goal post moving. Of course they have input, but they're largely at the mercy (good or bad) or their personnel. The second the so called genius here didn't have all time great defenders anymore, he no longer had so much as a competent defense. Didn't matter how much he "demanded" or stressed it.

I could care less about "widely held" or "common", that's for hipster idiots like you who are still living with a high school mindset, worried about being one of the cool kids.

S bag and Green have way below average feel offensively.

This isn't the movies. These are highly paid professionals. They're either self and sometimes collectively motivated or they're not. Either way, some coach screaming cliches and pla udes at them isn't changing that.

It is simple when by far the 3 most important members wanted to stay together, even taking less money at various points to make it happen.

Actually, TD 21, why don't we go the other way around? Since you keep believing everyone but you is brainwashed... Can you tell me explicitly what coaching actually does or actually affects? Because if I were to just go off your writings, there shouldn't be too much of a difference having Spolestra coaching a team rather than Luke Walton... And yet reality doesn't agree with this, and Walton is consistently trash, while Spo keeps defying expectations and overachieving with his rosters. Or someone like Boylen, whomever coach you like that is renowned for not being good. Why is there such a difference, to you, and why do you consistently underrate a coach's job? Is it a past trauma thing? Did Pop make a naughty face at you on your first trip to the Alamodome or something? I'm curious at this point, tbh...

I do think having stage presence matters and being able to command a room. But it's also easier for guys like Spoelstra to have authority and autonomy when he has rare job security. Most can't get away with what he does.

[Sugus]

You guys are not getting this. It's not about coaching altogether, it's about among coaches. As in anyone could have "taught" a motion offense. There's nothing innovative or unique about it. That's not what coaching is; that's the brainwashed part. That's what all those adjectives I used about the players is. They made it look like that (particularly defensively, because that part didn't really change through eras).

I definitely disagree that "any coach could've "taught" (it's not even something you teach, as if players don't know what a motion offense is....) a motion offense". Because not a lot of coaches can design the plays around it, utilize them effectively, get the personnel to buy in, motivate them into performing at a consistently high level (ESPECIALLY after '13 and that back-breaking, which you again ignored), and have such a fluid and high-level playing on both ends of the court. Tell me, unequivocally: could Luke Walton have been behind '14, given the same group of players? Walton definitely knows what a motion offense is, so it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Additionally, you're just plain missing a big part of what makes Pop great: his adaptiveness. He coached the Twin Towers to a ring, then drew up entirely new perimeter-heavy offenses to favor Manu and Tony, then switched it up to a motion offense to make best use of his personnel, in each instance managing to win it all. Most coaches are entirely fixated on a single style (cough, Phil Jackson) and can't really adapt out of it - or worse, they can't even get one coaching style that's championship-caliber. But I guess Luke Walton could coach the Twin Towers to a ring, easy-peasy, huh?

I may not be snotnosed brat young like you anymore, but I'm still young, genius.

Do tell, how old are you? I'm confident you're above 35 and maybe even 40. Not to disrespect the rest of the ST forum, but that's old, tbh.

More goal post moving. Of course they have input, but they're largely at the mercy (good or bad) or their personnel. The second the so called genius here didn't have all time great defenders anymore, he no longer had so much as a competent defense. Didn't matter how much he "demanded" or stressed it.

I could care less about "widely held" or "common", that's for hipster idiots like you who are still living with a high school mindset, worried about being one of the cool kids.

S bag and Green have way below average feel offensively.

This isn't the movies. These are highly paid professionals. They're either self and sometimes collectively motivated or they're not. Either way, some coach screaming cliches and pla udes at them isn't changing that.

It is simple when by far the 3 most important members wanted to stay together, even taking less money at various points to make it happen.

A load of bull here. Coaches have the ability to make the best use of their personnel, or not - they're not at the "mercy" of their personnel any more than the personnel is at the coach's mercy. Taking Timmy out for that one rebound, for example, was making bad use of the personnel: thankfully a rare blemish in an otherwise great coaching career. Also, hard to tell how Pop fares without HoF talent, when he's always had one or the other up until '17-'18, when the Spurs were/are actively rebuilding. Hard to have elite defense with that personnel.

at the high school mindset thing. Seriously, dude, you're no younger than 40, you just can't be. Lame attempt at an insult, I liked the other ones better. Anyways, there is a dissonance there: how can players "either be motivated, or not" when they're highly paid professionals? Shouldn't they always be motivated, since it's their job? No, they aren't, and a good coach can absolutely motivate a team. Question: have you ever played organized basketball? There's a lot more to coaching than "cliches and pla udes" . Maybe you haven't ever been in a locker room to know that, though, which would be understandable I guess...

I do think having stage presence matters and being able to command a room. But it's also easier for guys like Spoelstra to have authority and autonomy when he has rare job security. Most can't get away with what he does.

thinking "stage presence and being able to command a room" separates Spolestra from Walton and I can already hear you typing "more bad reading comprehension", when it's you who didn't answer my question in the first place. Don't beat around the bush: Can you tell me explicitly what coaching actually does or actually affects? Because seriously, teams are paying millions of dollars to these guys. There's gotta be something other than commanding a room and lmao at job security. Spo got that job security by being a great coach....

[TD 21]

I definitely disagree that "any coach could've "taught" (it's not even something you teach, as if players don't know what a motion offense is....) a motion offense". Because not a lot of coaches can design the plays around it, utilize them effectively, get the personnel to buy in, motivate them into performing at a consistently high level (ESPECIALLY after '13 and that back-breaking, which you again ignored), and have such a fluid and high-level playing on both ends of the court. Tell me, unequivocally: could Luke Walton have been behind '14, given the same group of players? Walton definitely knows what a motion offense is, so it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Additionally, you're just plain missing a big part of what makes Pop great: his adaptiveness. He coached the Twin Towers to a ring, then drew up entirely new perimeter-heavy offenses to favor Manu and Tony, then switched it up to a motion offense to make best use of his personnel, in each instance managing to win it all. Most coaches are entirely fixated on a single style (cough, Phil Jackson) and can't really adapt out of it - or worse, they can't even get one coaching style that's championship-caliber. But I guess Luke Walton could coach the Twin Towers to a ring, easy-peasy, huh?



Do tell, how old are you? I'm confident you're above 35 and maybe even 40. Not to disrespect the rest of the ST forum, but that's old, tbh.



A load of bull here. Coaches have the ability to make the best use of their personnel, or not - they're not at the "mercy" of their personnel any more than the personnel is at the coach's mercy. Taking Timmy out for that one rebound, for example, was making bad use of the personnel: thankfully a rare blemish in an otherwise great coaching career. Also, hard to tell how Pop fares without HoF talent, when he's always had one or the other up until '17-'18, when the Spurs were/are actively rebuilding. Hard to have elite defense with that personnel.

at the high school mindset thing. Seriously, dude, you're no younger than 40, you just can't be. Lame attempt at an insult, I liked the other ones better. Anyways, there is a dissonance there: how can players "either be motivated, or not" when they're highly paid professionals? Shouldn't they always be motivated, since it's their job? No, they aren't, and a good coach can absolutely motivate a team. Question: have you ever played organized basketball? There's a lot more to coaching than "cliches and pla udes" . Maybe you haven't ever been in a locker room to know that, though, which would be understandable I guess...



thinking "stage presence and being able to command a room" separates Spolestra from Walton and I can already hear you typing "more bad reading comprehension", when it's you who didn't answer my question in the first place. Don't beat around the bush: Can you tell me explicitly what coaching actually does or actually affects? Because seriously, teams are paying millions of dollars to these guys. There's gotta be something other than commanding a room and lmao at job security. Spo got that job security by being a great coach....

"Culture" and "system" are defined by your best player(s), so all this talk of "buy in" and the like can be attributed to Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Ginobili.

More vanilla nonsense. As if it takes a genius to play through the post when your best players are Robinson and Duncan, to become more pick-and-roll oriented when Ginobili and Parker emerged and ISO oriented with S bag, Aldridge, DeRozan.

Wrong again. I'm nowhere near 40, but thinking that it's old is a surefire sign of being a snot nosed brat.

Best use or not, if your talent is lacking and/or fit and chemistry, you lose. Look no further than Kerr, the latest golden boy to be exposed.

Oh, so now the personnel matters when it comes to the defense. Which one is it?

In theory, players "should" always be motivated, but anyone who's followed professional sports for more than five minutes knows it's not always the case for a myriad of reasons. I played organized basketball for years and never said there wasn't more to coaching than cliches and pla udes, I said that nonsense isn't what motivates athletes.

Coaches making as much as they do is a function of the business being as successful as it is. As such, everyone's salaries have grown significantly over time and a big part of coaching professionals, especially these days, is being able to command a room and forge relationships. It isn't Xs and Os, which are largely genized.