Bomani Jones just played race card on Steve Kerr hire
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
An ignorant statement to make and I doubt it's a big deal. Is Kerr overpaid? Yes he is but teams make dumb decisions all the time. Mike Brown has been fired three times in four years and there is an outcry. That's not being fired due to race that's being fired due to incompetence.
Comments
-
Yeah I just saw it too. Dan's facial expression after that was priceless.
-
Why are you so obsessed with the blacks? Every post about the blacks.
-
Black coaches always get jobs at downtrodden programs.
-
Flagged for watching ESPN talking head bullshit.
-
5 years for 25 million isn't outlandish compared to what most NBA coaches get paid.
You can argue whether or not Mark Jackson should have been fired. His performance on the court would suggest he shouldn't have been. His performance off the court is a bigger question mark.
Hard to argue the hiring of Steve Kerr though. He's one of the few "talking heads" that when he talks you tend to think "yep, he knows what he's talking about." If you're going to fire Mark Jackson, you better damn well hire someone the caliber of Steve Kerr to replace him.
Larry Drew got fired because he had a talented roster in Atlanta and basically kept them in neutral to going backwards (one first round win, two first round losses in three years).
Mike Brown is well established on the Mt. Rushmore of Shitty Ass Coaches.
Lionel Hollins should probably get another shot and the job he did in Memphis was solid. Who knows what the dynamic was between him and ownership. However, he did have a 4.5 year stint coaching them - which isn't a short stint for a coach.
I'm pretty sure that Mark Jackson will get another shot. That's not a question. -
He's the fourth highest paid coach in the NBA without ever coaching a game. What would constitute outlandish to you?Tequilla said:5 years for 25 million isn't outlandish compared to what most NBA coaches get paid.
You can argue whether or not Mark Jackson should have been fired. His performance on the court would suggest he shouldn't have been. His performance off the court is a bigger question mark.
Hard to argue the hiring of Steve Kerr though. He's one of the few "talking heads" that when he talks you tend to think "yep, he knows what he's talking about." If you're going to fire Mark Jackson, you better damn well hire someone the caliber of Steve Kerr to replace him.
Larry Drew got fired because he had a talented roster in Atlanta and basically kept them in neutral to going backwards (one first round win, two first round losses in three years).
Mike Brown is well established on the Mt. Rushmore of Shitty Ass Coaches.
Lionel Hollins should probably get another shot and the job he did in Memphis was solid. Who knows what the dynamic was between him and ownership. However, he did have a 4.5 year stint coaching them - which isn't a short stint for a coach.
I'm pretty sure that Mark Jackson will get another shot. That's not a question.
-
And how many guys are in $4-$5M range?
You know that you're going to have to overpay to get a guy like Steve Kerr. So that is what it is.
This isn't a case where most guys are making 50% of that. And the ones that do, are normally coaching for small market teams where the expectation for winning isn't there. -
-
Casey and Stevens are very close to that threshold.
Spoelstra should be in that range shortly.
-
I was counting on you giving me a flag for that. I was flipping by and yea I should light myself on fire for watching Espn during a non sporting event.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Flagged for watching ESPN talking head bullshit.
-
Oh and obligatory PLSS silence in this thread speaks volumes.
-
Highly Questionable is the only show on the station I can tolerate because it doesn't take itself as seriously as the other dreckfests. That's actually the first time I've heard Jones spew some drivel like that.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Flagged for watching ESPN talking head bullshit.
-
Bomanis question is worth asking.
If there's been a move away from black coaches it's because black coaches tend to be former players. Most front offices have moved towards using analytics and it seems like the "old school" former players fight it. Front offices don't want to have to fight to implement analytics.
Anyone with any percentage of brain agrees that Scott Brooks needs to be fired in OKC. So we all agree that winning regular season games and even deep playoff runs does not make you a good coach. The Hollins, Brown and Drew examples are sunk in that comparison.
The NBA has also been way out in front of every other sport in terms of minorities in coaching and front offices. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point.
In the end I think he's wrong. But let's not just cry race card and dismiss the question. -
Disagreeallpurpleallgold said:Bomanis question is worth asking.
If there's been a move away from black coaches it's because black coaches tend to be former players. Most front offices have moved towards using analytics and it seems like the "old school" former players fight it. Front offices don't want to have to fight to implement analytics.
Anyone with any percentage of brain agrees that Scott Brooks needs to be fired in OKC. So we all agree that winning regular season games and even deep playoff runs does not make you a good coach. The Hollins, Brown and Drew examples are sunk in that comparison.
The NBA has also been way out in front of every other sport in terms of minorities in coaching and front offices. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point.
In the end I think he's wrong. But let's not just cry race card and dismiss the question. -
Derek Fischer is a rumored candidate for the Knicks job, so there's that.
-
1) Anybody that wants to use the race card in 204 America needs to remember that the POTUS is an African American.
2) While I do think that there is value in basketball analytics, I also think that there's a risk of over thinking not only what the data is telling you, but in also trying to turn the game into a very robotic process.
Any sport is a series of events that require constant adjustments. You may have a report that says I go to my left 80% of the time, but if I know that you're cheating that way, maybe I'll go right 80% of the time.
At the end of the day, the only stat that really matters is winning or losing.
I laugh at the FS people that say that a corner 3 is easier than a normal 3 and they have the stats to back it up. No shit ... it's a shorter shot. I don't need to run stats to know that I should make a shorter shot more often than a longer shot. -
Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett. -
Christ.Tequilla said:1) Anybody that wants to use the race card in 204 America needs to remember that the POTUS is an African American.
2) While I do think that there is value in basketball analytics, I also think that there's a risk of over thinking not only what the data is telling you, but in also trying to turn the game into a very robotic process.
Any sport is a series of events that require constant adjustments. You may have a report that says I go to my left 80% of the time, but if I know that you're cheating that way, maybe I'll go right 80% of the time.
At the end of the day, the only stat that really matters is winning or losing.
I laugh at the FS people that say that a corner 3 is easier than a normal 3 and they have the stats to back it up. No shit ... it's a shorter shot. I don't need to run stats to know that I should make a shorter shot more often than a longer shot.
A president that millions and millions and millions of people did not vote for. A president that recieved millions and millions and millions of votes just because he's black. It is a terrific thing that we are at a point where a black person can be elected president. But you'd have to be a fucking simpleton to think that mean racism is no longer an issue.
Your points on analytics shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are.
First, almost no one thinks analytics are the only thing that should be used. The data is a tool not the be all end all. But it is an incredibly useful tool and coaches that want to go with their gut and ignore the data no matter what are going to find themselves out of the league.
Whether a player goes left or right isn't really analytics. That's something that's been scouted in basketball as long as basketball has been around.
The corner 3 idea is like 10 years old. But if it was such a no shit idea how come it took the Spurs coming along and using analytics to exploit it?
Analytics built the Bulls defense that has been so great. Analytics built the Spurs offense that has been so great. There's a general misunderstanding of them. When the Blazers were beating the Rockets a lot of people saw it as some defeat of analytics. But the Blazers are one the most analytic heavy teams. -
Any time you can replace an announcer who has never been a coach before with an announcer who has never been a coach before, you just have to do it.RoadDawg55 said:Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett. -
Maybe you're just being a twisterHe_Needs_More_Time said:Let me paraphrase what he said but he said "What does it say that Steve Kerr with no coaching experience got 5 years 25 million? Especially when Larry Drew is getting fired for making it to the 2nd round, a proven coach like Brown who improved the Cavs by 9 games is fired after one year? How Lionel Hollins was fired after making conference finals. Mark Jackson was unfairly fired. Kerr is the owner's golfing buddy is his only qualification. It's like the owners are trying to run all the black coaches out of the league."
An ignorant statement to make and I doubt it's a big deal. Is Kerr overpaid? Yes he is but teams make dumb decisions all the time. Mike Brown has been fired three times in four years and there is an outcry. That's not being fired due to race that's being fired due to incompetence.
-
Avery Johnson made the Finals in Dallas after only being an assistant for half a season. Larry Bird, like Kerr, only had front office experience before being named Indiana's coach. Both of those guys made the Finals. Kerr is a sharp guy who gets along with people. He's certainly a smarter guy than Mark Jackson and he certainly will get along with employees better than he did. If you are high on a guy, you hire him. It's a risk and he is getting a lot of money, but that's what happens when you have other suitors.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Any time you can replace an announcer who has never been a coach before with an announcer who has never been a coach before, you just have to do it.RoadDawg55 said:Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett.
I actually don't blame the Warriors for firing Jackson. He's getting too much credit for turning around the Warriors. Scott Brooks turned around the Thunder too. The Warriors got better because Steph Curry improved and stayed healthy. They have also improved the roster around him with Bogut, Thompson, Igudola, and Barnes. Any coach is taking the Warriors to the playoffs, so I don't understand why getting rid of Jackson is making people so upset. Jackson didn't get along with the front office or his assistant coaches. He also is a Bible thumper, yet had a stripper attempting to extort him. -
Agreed. Kerr was a hard working bring your lunch pale type of player who relied on his smart.RoadDawg55 said:
Avery Johnson made the Finals in Dallas after only being an assistant for half a season. Larry Bird, like Kerr, only had front office experience before being named Indiana's coach. Both of those guys made the Finals. Kerr is a sharp guy who gets along with people. He's certainly a smarter guy than Mark Jackson and he certainly will get along with employees better than he did. If you are high on a guy, you hire him. It's a risk and he is getting a lot of money, but that's what happens when you have other suitors.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Any time you can replace an announcer who has never been a coach before with an announcer who has never been a coach before, you just have to do it.RoadDawg55 said:Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett.
I actually don't blame the Warriors for firing Jackson. He's getting too much credit for turning around the Warriors. Scott Brooks turned around the Thunder too. The Warriors got better because Steph Curry improved and stayed healthy. They have also improved the roster around him with Bogut, Thompson, Igudola, and Barnes. Any coach is taking the Warriors to the playoffs, so I don't understand why getting rid of Jackson is making people so upset. Jackson didn't get along with the front office or his assistant coaches. He also is a Bible thumper, yet had a stripper attempting to extort him.
While Mark Jackson relied too heavily on his athletic ability too much and just wasn't a smart player. -
Donald Sterling has clearly proven that there are racist people still in America. However, as a society, there's no question in my mind that your abilities, who you are, etc. rank far higher than what your skin color is.allpurpleallgold said:
Christ.Tequilla said:1) Anybody that wants to use the race card in 204 America needs to remember that the POTUS is an African American.
2) While I do think that there is value in basketball analytics, I also think that there's a risk of over thinking not only what the data is telling you, but in also trying to turn the game into a very robotic process.
Any sport is a series of events that require constant adjustments. You may have a report that says I go to my left 80% of the time, but if I know that you're cheating that way, maybe I'll go right 80% of the time.
At the end of the day, the only stat that really matters is winning or losing.
I laugh at the FS people that say that a corner 3 is easier than a normal 3 and they have the stats to back it up. No shit ... it's a shorter shot. I don't need to run stats to know that I should make a shorter shot more often than a longer shot.
A president that millions and millions and millions of people did not vote for. A president that recieved millions and millions and millions of votes just because he's black. It is a terrific thing that we are at a point where a black person can be elected president. But you'd have to be a fucking simpleton to think that mean racism is no longer an issue.
Your points on analytics shows a complete misunderstanding of what they are.
First, almost no one thinks analytics are the only thing that should be used. The data is a tool not the be all end all. But it is an incredibly useful tool and coaches that want to go with their gut and ignore the data no matter what are going to find themselves out of the league.
Whether a player goes left or right isn't really analytics. That's something that's been scouted in basketball as long as basketball has been around.
The corner 3 idea is like 10 years old. But if it was such a no shit idea how come it took the Spurs coming along and using analytics to exploit it?
Analytics built the Bulls defense that has been so great. Analytics built the Spurs offense that has been so great. There's a general misunderstanding of them. When the Blazers were beating the Rockets a lot of people saw it as some defeat of analytics. But the Blazers are one the most analytic heavy teams.
You can believe that Obama was elected because of his skin color. I tend to believe that Obama was elected POTUS because the voters of this country found him to be the best option presented. We all may agree or disagree whether he was the best option, but the reality is that he got elected. We're also 2 years away from what very likely may be the first female POTUS. Again, what it comes down to is can you do the job or can't you.
You claim that my comments show that I don't understand analytics. Nothing is further from the truth. The difference is that I don't consider them the end all to be all and in many cases many of those "truths" that come from the data are things that you intuitively know from playing the game.
You claim that the data isn't the end all to be all. But if you have a coach that coaches with his gut and doesn't embrace the data he's going to be a goner. Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?
People make basketball out to be this complicated game. In the end, it comes down to a desire by the offense to create an open, uncontested shot and a desire by the defense to end possessions with contested shots.
Were the Spurs the team that embraced it? Do you not think that the Suns under D'Antoni didn't have something to do with that as well?
You have to understand the historical evolution of the 3 point shot to understand how people view it and embrace it today. When it came into the league, not many could make it so nobody shot it. By the early 90s, it became a weapon for some specialists and a way to space the court. Then they moved the line in and then everybody thought that they could shoot a 3. When the moved the line back people started moving away from it a bit. Then you got the Suns coming through jacking up 3's all over the place and with the success that they had, people started reconsidering the notion that you couldn't win at a high level by shooting so many 3's. Now today, the level of efficiency that guys can shoot 3's at are not only resulting in defenses concentrating at running guys off the line, but also having teams using their D-League affiliate (see Houston) at testing out game theory strategies regarding shots to take (3's and layups) and avoid (anything in the mid range game).
You talk about the Spurs exploiting the 3's. Let me give you a different theory. Tony Parker is one of best PGs in the game at not only getting to the basket, but owning the mid range game. He's dangerous enough that he's really can't be stopped 1 on 1 by another PG. Ginobili is similar in that he creates havoc between the 3 point line and the basket. Then you have the best PF to ever play the game that demands attention. What the Spurs are exploiting is the fact that they have 3 future HOF players, all of whom demand extra attention, all of whom are also excellent passers that are all for creating shots for others. As a result, they always end up creating dilemmas for defenses because they have to surrender something as a good offense always has more options than a defense is able to stay with. It's a constant chess game of adjustments. Against Dallas, the Mavs decided that they were going to take away the 3 point game and basically boil the game down to a 2 on 2 game. Once the Spurs adjusted, the Mavs were done.
The stats would tell you that the mid-range game is a terrible shot. I'd tell you that it's the most forgotten part of the game and the greater opportunity for teams to exploit modern defenses in part because of how defenses view analytics.
Good defense starts with effort, contesting shots, and identifying who/what shots you want your opponent to take. Everything else with defense comes back to those 3 elements.
The one thing that is for sure is that there are many ways to win basketball games. The more we try to make games more complicated, the more you realize that the game still comes down to executing the fundamentals. -
I usually agree with Roaddawg, but saying that a guy that failed as a gm in his one legit nba front office job is worth $25 mil is crazy.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Any time you can replace an announcer who has never been a coach before with an announcer who has never been a coach before, you just have to do it.RoadDawg55 said:Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett.
Also, Okc is good because of two guys named Durant and Westbrook--and a pretty good gm,--not because of Scott Brooks.
Sounds like what happened was more rich guy nepotism than racism, imho. -
Kerr didn't fail at all as a GM. He led the Suns to the WCF where they lost to a pretty good Lakers team in 6 games. It was also a hard fought six games as well. He took over an aging roster and with some trades made them relevant.doogsinparadise said:
I usually agree with Roaddawg, but saying that a guy that failed as a gm in his one legit nba front office job is worth $25 mil is crazy.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Any time you can replace an announcer who has never been a coach before with an announcer who has never been a coach before, you just have to do it.RoadDawg55 said:Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett.
Also, Okc is good because of two guys named Durant and Westbrook--and a pretty good gm,--not because of Scott Brooks.
Sounds like what happened was more rich guy nepotism than racism, imho.
He also had one of the cheapest owners in the league to work with.
Also another point is Sam Presti a good GM? I mean he traded away Harden for nothing, still has kept Perkins this whole time, has failed to find anything resembling a quality bench since he's been there. He drafted Durant which was a no brainer move, gave away Ray Allen for basically Kendrick Perkins when you break it down, gave away Durant, hit on the Westbrook pick at #4, passed on Steph Curry for Harden who like I said gave him away.
I think people were quick to praise Presti. He's probably the most overrated GM in the NBA IMO. -
Sounds like you're saying he's the Phil Jackson of gms.
-
he also hired brooks and has kept him for 5 years or whatever. Totally overrated gm, only great moves he's made were ibaka and westbrook. Good GM, but not greatHe_Needs_More_Time said:
Kerr didn't fail at all as a GM. He led the Suns to the WCF where they lost to a pretty good Lakers team in 6 games. It was also a hard fought six games as well. He took over an aging roster and with some trades made them relevant.doogsinparadise said:
I usually agree with Roaddawg, but saying that a guy that failed as a gm in his one legit nba front office job is worth $25 mil is crazy.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Any time you can replace an announcer who has never been a coach before with an announcer who has never been a coach before, you just have to do it.RoadDawg55 said:Maybe Golden State didn't want to hire one of those retreads. Where is George Karl? George Karl's resume shits on any of those black coaches. Steve Kerr is more qualified than Jason Kidd was. Kerr has been a GM and announcer since he retired. He's always been around the league and had it dialed in.
They overpaid for Kerr because they had to due to New York courting him. I don't think it is outrageous, even if he is overpaid. These NBA teams are rolling in money. What is over paying by a million or 2 in the big scheme of things? Not every owner is a cheap bastard like Clay Bennett.
Also, Okc is good because of two guys named Durant and Westbrook--and a pretty good gm,--not because of Scott Brooks.
Sounds like what happened was more rich guy nepotism than racism, imho.
He also had one of the cheapest owners in the league to work with.
Also another point is Sam Presti a good GM? I mean he traded away Harden for nothing, still has kept Perkins this whole time, has failed to find anything resembling a quality bench since he's been there. He drafted Durant which was a no brainer move, gave away Ray Allen for basically Kendrick Perkins when you break it down, gave away Durant, hit on the Westbrook pick at #4, passed on Steph Curry for Harden who like I said gave him away.
I think people were quick to praise Presti. He's probably the most overrated GM in the NBA IMO. -
Presti is a terrible GM. He's a great scout though.
-
Pretty much THIS. He gave up on Ray Allen way too quickly and that roster could certainly use an Allen.allpurpleallgold said:Presti is a terrible GM. He's a great scout though.
He also gave away Harden and that doesn't need to be further explained. -
Initiation of the Harden trade is on ownership not wanting to pay the lux tax, and once that gets out you're shit out of leverage. Presti shouldve done better, but hard to dispute that KD isn't a better player since/because of the trade
