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.
Also, disagree.
Agree. If you look up "pressing" in the HH dictionary, there's picture of Tequilllla.
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.
Also, disagree.
Agree. If you look up "pressing" in the HH dictionary, there's picture of Tequilllla.
Disagree. The picture would be of Passion by a mile.
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.
Also, disagree.
Agree. If you look up "pressing" in the HH dictionary, there's picture of Tequilllla.
Disagree. The picture would be of Passion by a mile.
Yup. Tequilla is the picture of "tldr".
Although as of late he has gotten much more crisp.
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.
Also, disagree.
Agree. If you look up "pressing" in the HH dictionary, there's picture of Tequilllla.
Disagree. The picture would be of Passion by a mile.
Yup. Tequilla is the picture of "tldr".
Although as of late he has gotten much more crisp.
I find myself agreeing with Tequilla more than I disagree. I can't remember a time where I nodded my head thinking Passion made a good post.
So I wonder if Bomani Jones is bitching about race now that Derek Fisher who has never coached a game just signed a 5 year 25 million dollar contract. I'm guessing his silence on this issue speaks volumes.
So I wonder if Bomani Jones is bitching about race now that Derek Fisher who has never coached a game just signed a 5 year 25 million dollar contract. I'm guessing his silence on this issue speaks volumes.
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.
#dialed in
I like to go find dead threads that haven't been talked about for 8 months, pull and respond to my own quote, and go way past patting myself on the back and instead go straight to jerking myself off ... that's what I like to do.
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.
#dialed in
I like to go find dead threads that haven't been talked about for 8 months, pull and respond to my own quote, and go way past patting myself on the back and instead go straight to jerking myself off ... that's what I like to do.
#roaddiefullofhimself
Lol. I read an article about Steve Kerr this morning and googled Steve Kerr HardcoreHusky. I looked at some NBA threads from last year's playoffs. You weren't very dialed in. I didn't bump those.
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.
#dialed in
I like to go find dead threads that haven't been talked about for 8 months, pull and respond to my own quote, and go way past patting myself on the back and instead go straight to jerking myself off ... that's what I like to do.
#roaddiefullofhimself
Lol. I read an article about Steve Kerr this morning and googled Steve Kerr HardcoreHusky. I looked at some NBA threads from last year's playoffs. You weren't very dialed in. I didn't bump those.
My first comments in this thread:
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.
Don't sound very dialed in on this one ...
I definitely undersold the Warriors in the playoffs last year as I didn't think that they'd be able to stay with the Clippers given the front court injury issues the Warriors had going into the playoffs. Real strange series given that all of the Sterling came out at that point.
The one I was definitely off the mark on was what was going on with Indiana. In many ways I had already drawn a line in the sand on that one so I had to ride it out. I still think that the makeup of Indiana was worth giving Miami trouble but what was going on off the court was too big to get over. Half of my Indiana backing was as much about my lack of belief in Miami - which was proven in the Finals against San Antonio.
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.
#dialed in
I like to go find dead threads that haven't been talked about for 8 months, pull and respond to my own quote, and go way past patting myself on the back and instead go straight to jerking myself off ... that's what I like to do.
#roaddiefullofhimself
Lol. I read an article about Steve Kerr this morning and googled Steve Kerr HardcoreHusky. I looked at some NBA threads from last year's playoffs. You weren't very dialed in. I didn't bump those.
My first comments in this thread:
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.
Don't sound very dialed in on this one ...
I definitely undersold the Warriors in the playoffs last year as I didn't think that they'd be able to stay with the Clippers given the front court injury issues the Warriors had going into the playoffs. Real strange series given that all of the Sterling came out at that point.
The one I was definitely off the mark on was what was going on with Indiana. In many ways I had already drawn a line in the sand on that one so I had to ride it out. I still think that the makeup of Indiana was worth giving Miami trouble but what was going on off the court was too big to get over. Half of my Indiana backing was as much about my lack of belief in Miami - which was proven in the Finals against San Antonio.
You had a thread titled Joe LacobFS right after he fired Jackson. You weren't dialed in. No big deal. It's a new year. You picked the Clips to beat the Thunder in 5 and the Pacers.
Presti is a very good GM….ownership there sucks dick. If they weren't cheap fucks they could build a long-term contender. Maybe ownership decided to get rid of Harden a year before he had to be signed, which resulted in poor trade options.
Re Tequillas posts, simple guide for following…if they are short, he's right. If they are long, he's wrong.
Kanter move is interesting.
Mark Jackson is a bible thumping clown who spouts stupid platitudes all the time. Kerr hire was a great move, obviously.
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.
#dialed in
I like to go find dead threads that haven't been talked about for 8 months, pull and respond to my own quote, and go way past patting myself on the back and instead go straight to jerking myself off ... that's what I like to do.
#roaddiefullofhimself
Lol. I read an article about Steve Kerr this morning and googled Steve Kerr HardcoreHusky. I looked at some NBA threads from last year's playoffs. You weren't very dialed in. I didn't bump those.
My first comments in this thread:
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.
Don't sound very dialed in on this one ...
I definitely undersold the Warriors in the playoffs last year as I didn't think that they'd be able to stay with the Clippers given the front court injury issues the Warriors had going into the playoffs. Real strange series given that all of the Sterling came out at that point.
The one I was definitely off the mark on was what was going on with Indiana. In many ways I had already drawn a line in the sand on that one so I had to ride it out. I still think that the makeup of Indiana was worth giving Miami trouble but what was going on off the court was too big to get over. Half of my Indiana backing was as much about my lack of belief in Miami - which was proven in the Finals against San Antonio.
You had a thread titled Joe LacobFS right after he fired Jackson. You weren't dialed in. No big deal. It's a new year. You picked the Clips to beat the Thunder in 5 and the Pacers.
Lacob definitely needed a home run hire for firing Jackson. Had he replaced Jackson with someone like Tyrone Corbin, then I would think both of us would agree that that was FS.
I was definitely wrong about the Clippers beating the Thunder. That was a series that could have gone either direction but ultimately the inability for the Clippers to slow down KD was the biggest advantage in the series - which was greater than the Clippers ability to dominate the interior.
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.
APAG made a good poont, there's a problematic lack of black quants in front offices because of the structural racism in public schools that privileges kids whose parents are already highly educated.
Presti is a very good GM….ownership there sucks dick. If they weren't cheap fucks they could build a long-term contender. Maybe ownership decided to get rid of Harden a year before he had to be signed, which resulted in poor trade options.
Re Tequillas posts, simple guide for following…if they are short, he's right. If they are long, he's wrong.
Kanter move is interesting.
Mark Jackson is a bible thumping clown who spouts stupid platitudes all the time. Kerr hire was a great move, obviously.
Obviously no Oklahoma City front office to coattail to
Bring Back Our Cockus bump. Also, props to @RoadDawg55 for having pretty much everything in this thread dialed in.
Except Scott Brooks.
Never thought Scott Brooks was a really good coach. He's average, maybe a little above average. OKC was the same with Billy Donovan. Donovan was better at managing line ups (save giving Waiters 30+ minutes), but the crunch time offense has always been terrible in OKC. Durant and Westbrook are bascially anti-clutch. Their crunch time numbers are terrible. Part of what makes Curry so great is how clutch he is. I don't know how much of that falls on the coach.
Comments
Although as of late he has gotten much more crisp.
#roaddiefullofhimself
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.
Don't sound very dialed in on this one ...
I definitely undersold the Warriors in the playoffs last year as I didn't think that they'd be able to stay with the Clippers given the front court injury issues the Warriors had going into the playoffs. Real strange series given that all of the Sterling came out at that point.
The one I was definitely off the mark on was what was going on with Indiana. In many ways I had already drawn a line in the sand on that one so I had to ride it out. I still think that the makeup of Indiana was worth giving Miami trouble but what was going on off the court was too big to get over. Half of my Indiana backing was as much about my lack of belief in Miami - which was proven in the Finals against San Antonio.
Re Tequillas posts, simple guide for following…if they are short, he's right. If they are long, he's wrong.
Kanter move is interesting.
Mark Jackson is a bible thumping clown who spouts stupid platitudes all the time. Kerr hire was a great move, obviously.
I was definitely wrong about the Clippers beating the Thunder. That was a series that could have gone either direction but ultimately the inability for the Clippers to slow down KD was the biggest advantage in the series - which was greater than the Clippers ability to dominate the interior.