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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While Mark Jackson relied too heavily on his athletic ability too much and just wasn't a smart player.
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.
Christ.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 great
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
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
Pressing on the KD point.
Also the GM's job is to make the team better not one player.
Presti is a terrible GM. He's a great scout though.
Is he? I used to think this myself, but what was the last great pick he made, Harden? It's been awhile since he did anything impressive.
He gets no credit for Durant IMO, as any idiot would have made that pick. So he has two impressive draft picks on his whole roster, Westbrook and Ibaka. Is that the work of a great scout? I'm not saying he's a bad scout, but great seems a little much at this point.
Presti is not a bad GM. He might not be the very best, but he's damn good. You guys are forgetting that he's not allowed by ownership I use his mid level exception every year. They won't let him amnesty Perkins either because they don't want to pay Perkins to go away.
His hands are tied. The Harden trade was a disaster, but I'm sure Presti would have never got rid of him of it wa actually up to him. Still, he should have gotten a better return. When he bargain shops, very few guys want to come because it's Oklahoma City. He tried to get Mike Miller and Bellinelli, but they didn't come.
He's drafted great. Durant (easy pick, but still), Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka. All of those picks were gems. He couldn't have done any better. Steven Adams at #12 was a very good pick too. The rookie class was a dreckfest. Getting a guy who looks like a future starting center in the draft deserves a little praise.
Reggie Jackson in the late first round is another good pick. Other than the bad Harden trade, what has he done wrong? The Perkins deal didnt pan out, but Jeff Green sucks and gets 9 million just like Perkins. That one is a wash. You guys are sleeping on how well he has drafted.
I think OKC ownership is a complete joke and the league should be embarrassed by what's going on there. But, to me, it doesn't excuse Presti. His job is to make the team better and he has completely failed in free agency and through trades to do that.
The Perkins/Green trade isn't that simple because both players signed new deals while with these teams. Presti extended Perk, for 9 million a year, and he immediately became an albatross contract. Huge failure.
Scott Brooks is also still the coach even though everyone figured out he sucks two years ago. Huge failure.
Steven Adams is the only useful piece they have from the Harden trade. They could have kept Harden for the final year of his rookie contract, last season, and made another run at a title with those four. Then Harden enters restricted free agency where OKC has all the power. At that point a sign and trade should have easily netted them more than Steven Adams.
If ownership doesn't want to spend money then your job as GM is to convince them to spend money. Presti failed there. Once failing there his job was to make the team better with those restrictions and he failed at that. If OKC is better at all it's only because Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka have gotten better as they've gotten older.
Presti is a terrible GM. He's a great scout though.
Is he? I used to think this myself, but what was the last great pick he made, Harden? It's been awhile since he did anything impressive.
He gets no credit for Durant IMO, as any idiot would have made that pick. So he has two impressive draft picks on his whole roster, Westbrook and Ibaka. Is that the work of a great scout? I'm not saying he's a bad scout, but great seems a little much at this point.
I think RoadDawg pretty much covered it in his post. Jackson and Adams look like really good picks. He also gets credit for drafting Harden. Hasheem Thabeet went with the pick ahead of Harden.
It's important to remember just how hard drafting is. Even the top of the draft is filled with busts. Getting guys that can contribute outside of the lottery is great, imho.
I think OKC ownership is a complete joke and the league should be embarrassed by what's going on there. But, to me, it doesn't excuse Presti. His job is to make the team better and he has completely failed in free agency and through trades to do that.
The Perkins/Green trade isn't that simple because both players signed new deals while with these teams. Presti extended Perk, for 9 million a year, and he immediately became an albatross contract. Huge failure.
Scott Brooks is also still the coach even though everyone figured out he sucks two years ago. Huge failure.
Steven Adams is the only useful piece they have from the Harden trade. They could have kept Harden for the final year of his rookie contract, last season, and made another run at a title with those four. Then Harden enters restricted free agency where OKC has all the power. At that point a sign and trade should have easily netted them more than Steven Adams.
If ownership doesn't want to spend money then your job as GM is to convince them to spend money. Presti failed there. Once failing there his job was to make the team better with those restrictions and he failed at that. If OKC is better at all it's only because Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka have gotten better as they've gotten older.
This is why the Harden trade was a total disaster. You'd been better off keeping him for another year to go for a title run, then letting the market dictate his value so you can match it. At that point you can always do a sign and trade.
I mean if there was an offer you couldn't refuse for Harden like a proposed Klay Thompson for him which was the rumored or the Wizards draft pick which ended up being Bradley Beal I could stomach that. However, they gave Harden away to another Western Conference foe and brought back no blue chippers.
Even if you're RC Buford, you're not going to make Clay BennettFS spend money that he doesn't want to spend.
I agree with this. I don't agree with APAG that it's Presti's job to get the owners to stop being cheap, but the rest of the post was dead on. Presti has done horrible in trades and free agency. The Harden deal was a joke and has never made sense.
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.
Christ.
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.
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.
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 saw the wall of text, noticed it was from Tequilla, and stopped reading immediately.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
He also gave away Harden and that doesn't need to be further explained.
Also the GM's job is to make the team better not one player.
He gets no credit for Durant IMO, as any idiot would have made that pick. So he has two impressive draft picks on his whole roster, Westbrook and Ibaka. Is that the work of a great scout? I'm not saying he's a bad scout, but great seems a little much at this point.
His hands are tied. The Harden trade was a disaster, but I'm sure Presti would have never got rid of him of it wa actually up to him. Still, he should have gotten a better return. When he bargain shops, very few guys want to come because it's Oklahoma City. He tried to get Mike Miller and Bellinelli, but they didn't come.
He's drafted great. Durant (easy pick, but still), Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka. All of those picks were gems. He couldn't have done any better. Steven Adams at #12 was a very good pick too. The rookie class was a dreckfest. Getting a guy who looks like a future starting center in the draft deserves a little praise.
Reggie Jackson in the late first round is another good pick. Other than the bad Harden trade, what has he done wrong? The Perkins deal didnt pan out, but Jeff Green sucks and gets 9 million just like Perkins. That one is a wash. You guys are sleeping on how well he has drafted.
The Perkins/Green trade isn't that simple because both players signed new deals while with these teams. Presti extended Perk, for 9 million a year, and he immediately became an albatross contract. Huge failure.
Scott Brooks is also still the coach even though everyone figured out he sucks two years ago. Huge failure.
Steven Adams is the only useful piece they have from the Harden trade. They could have kept Harden for the final year of his rookie contract, last season, and made another run at a title with those four. Then Harden enters restricted free agency where OKC has all the power. At that point a sign and trade should have easily netted them more than Steven Adams.
If ownership doesn't want to spend money then your job as GM is to convince them to spend money. Presti failed there. Once failing there his job was to make the team better with those restrictions and he failed at that. If OKC is better at all it's only because Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka have gotten better as they've gotten older.
It's important to remember just how hard drafting is. Even the top of the draft is filled with busts. Getting guys that can contribute outside of the lottery is great, imho.
I mean if there was an offer you couldn't refuse for Harden like a proposed Klay Thompson for him which was the rumored or the Wizards draft pick which ended up being Bradley Beal I could stomach that. However, they gave Harden away to another Western Conference foe and brought back no blue chippers.
Also, disagree.