Bomani Jones just played race card on Steve Kerr hire

[Deleted User] · May 2014

doogsinparadise said:
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.

dnc · May 2014

allpurpleallgold said:
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.

RoadDawg55 · May 2014

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.

allpurpleallgold · May 2014

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.

allpurpleallgold · May 2014

dnc said:

allpurpleallgold said:
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.

[Deleted User] · May 2014

allpurpleallgold said:
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.

doogsinparadise · May 2014

Even if you're RC Buford, you're not going to make Clay BennettFS spend money that he doesn't want to spend.

RoadDawg55 · May 2014

doogsinparadise said:
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.

BennyBeaver · May 2014

Who's Dan? Does he post here?

TierbsHsotBoobs · May 2014

Tequilla said:

allpurpleallgold said:

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.
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.

BennyBeaver · May 2014

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Tequilla said:

allpurpleallgold said:

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.
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.

[Deleted User] · May 2014

TheGlove said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Tequilla said:

allpurpleallgold said:

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.
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.

CuntWaffle · May 2014

He_Needs_More_Time said:

TheGlove said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Tequilla said:

allpurpleallgold said:

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.
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.

[Deleted User] · May 2014

CuntWaffle said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

TheGlove said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Tequilla said:

allpurpleallgold said:

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.
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.

Fire_Marshall_Bill · May 2014

TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Flagged for watching ESPN talking head bullshit.

This. That Dan Leberetard show isn't good enough for Miami Public Access.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

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.

dnc · June 2014

He_Needs_More_Time said:
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.

Ray-cist!

RoadDawg55 · February 2015

RoadDawg55 said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.
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

Tequilla · February 2015

RoadDawg55 said:

RoadDawg55 said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.
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

RoadDawg55 · February 2015

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

RoadDawg55 said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.
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.

Tequilla · February 2015

RoadDawg55 said:

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

RoadDawg55 said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.
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.

RoadDawg55 · February 2015

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

RoadDawg55 said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.
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.

HeretoBeatmyChest · February 2015

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.

Tequilla · February 2015

RoadDawg55 said:

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

RoadDawg55 said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

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.
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.

Penace · February 2015

>
allpurpleallgold 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.

Dismissal is exactly what needs to be done.

dnc · May 2016

Bring Back Our Cockus bump. Also, props to @RoadDawg55 for having pretty much everything in this thread dialed in.

doogsinparadise · May 2016

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.

Lawrence_of_a_Labia · May 2016

HeretoBeatmyChest said:
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

TierbsHsotBoobs · May 2016

dnc said:
Bring Back Our Cockus bump. Also, props to @RoadDawg55 for having pretty much everything in this thread dialed in.

Except Scott Brooks.

RoadDawg55 · June 2016

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

dnc said:
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.

Bomani Jones just played race card on Steve Kerr hire

Comments