bhoyal

Bickerstaff's days are numbered...write it down

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Memphis Maverick said:

Ive been following this thread for awhile and watching the responses.

Honestly JB hasn’t been a bad coach. Limited in what players he’s had available to use for sure.

hes finally got a scoring/slashing pg in Delon and a consistent 20+ from Conley along with a big that now rebounds and does what Gasol did in much less time.

Noah has been put in the lineup and produced as well as the opportunity for Avery Bradley (can’t be discounted as I don’t think anyone thought Avery was thisntyoe of scorer) 

This trade definitely changed the dynamic and ability of JB to be able use players that actually produce.

justin holiday has been a waste, but I understand the trade was necessary to make the other one work.

Ivan has actually been playing well so long as he’s not forced to guard a solid big. 

It’s not like we have lost the games since he trade happened by a lot. It’s been competitive. Just have to work out kinks. 

I agree with DWash. 

while i understand that, chipc3 has been making that (coaches don't matter) argument for longer than jb has been the coach.

He does understand that:

While having better players, means your team will play better: that, in fact, does not equate to: coaches don't matter.

He doesn't understand that: a team with better players could be playing better than a team with worse players and still not be playing to their potential.

Their might be a point at which a team has so much talent that any coach could lead them to a championship: golden state warriors might fall into that category.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

while i understand that, chipc3 has been making that (coaches don't matter) argument for longer than jb has been the coach.

He does understand that:

While having better players, means your team will play better: that, in fact, does not equate to: coaches don't matter.

He doesn't understand that: a team with better players could be playing better than a team with worse players and still not be playing to their potential.

Their might be a point at which a team has so much talent that any coach could lead them to a championship: golden state warriors might fall into that category.

 

 

 

Coaching does matter for sure, but you have to have some form of talent. Honestly I think that Greg Popovich really did get lucky with his players. 

You see him struggling now with Derozan, Aldridge, White. Two former all stars and a really good up and coming player. 

Cant really discredit that he had Duncan, Ginobli,  Parker, Robinson, Leonard. Heck even Patty and Bowen. 

Lets not forget that his role players were always some of the best.

He never had to work with g league starting lineups and players that were fringe nba players as backups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coaching matters for sure. The clippers are maybe barely even a top 20 team in talent. They don't have anyone as good as Conley on their team, yet somehow sit 7th in the west at 38-29, and haven't missed a best after trading their best player. It would be hard to attribute that to anyone other than Doc. 

In the same point, JB has been way better post all star break, partially because we've gotten a little more talented, but mainly because we've completely changed what we are doing on offense. You have to give him his credit. Now, he still makes some obvious mistakes, but he's still a young HC slo that's forgivable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

while i understand that, chipc3 has been making that (coaches don't matter) argument for longer than jb has been the coach.

He does understand that:

While having better players, means your team will play better: that, in fact, does not equate to: coaches don't matter.

He doesn't understand that: a team with better players could be playing better than a team with worse players and still not be playing to their potential.

Their might be a point at which a team has so much talent that any coach could lead them to a championship: golden state warriors might fall into that category.

 

 

 

+100 well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rdk4121 said:

Coaching matters for sure. The clippers are maybe barely even a top 20 team in talent. They don't have anyone as good as Conley on their team, yet somehow sit 7th in the west at 38-29, and haven't missed a best after trading their best player. It would be hard to attribute that to anyone other than Doc. 

In the same point, JB has been way better post all star break, partially because we've gotten a little more talented, but mainly because we've completely changed what we are doing on offense. You have to give him his credit. Now, he still makes some obvious mistakes, but he's still a young HC slo that's forgivable. 

Yep another great point.     

It is possible that JB has improved a little as a coach too but i lean more towards your point.    JB finally has the talent in place that can run the type of offense he prefers.     I believe he prefers a guard dominated offense and he was forced to run a Big-centric one due to Marc's presence.   It makes sense because his first coaching stint was in HOU with James Harden.    

When watching the games notice how much freedom the 2 guard has to make plays with the ball.   Problem was pre-trade that 2 guard was guys like Shelvin, Temple, and Justin those dudes aren't capable thus offense was bad.   Which is why he would play Mike mainly there.   Now post-trade you have guys like Avery and Delon in those roles along with Mike, which automatically makes offense look better.   

So yes talent improved so he looks like a better coach.    However, the counter to that is.   That he should've known Mack, Temple and Holiday were incapable of running that type of offense instead of continuing to push it.   He should've crafted an offense to maximize his personnel but he didn't.    That's why he was labeled as a bad coach.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rdk4121 said:

Coaching matters for sure. The clippers are maybe barely even a top 20 team in talent. They don't have anyone as good as Conley on their team, yet somehow sit 7th in the west at 38-29, and haven't missed a best after trading their best player. It would be hard to attribute that to anyone other than Doc. 

In the same point, JB has been way better post all star break, partially because we've gotten a little more talented, but mainly because we've completely changed what we are doing on offense. You have to give him his credit. Now, he still makes some obvious mistakes, but he's still a young HC slo that's forgivable. 

Cant do much of anything with a 270  pound big who got the last coach fired insists on standing in the middle of every play like a statue and never gets dirty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dwash said:

Cant do much of anything with a 270  pound big who got the last coach fired insists on standing in the middle of every play like a statue and never gets dirty.

Yep so much truth in this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

You consistently refuse to understand the basic concept of your argument. Sure the grizzlies are winning more games with better players regardless of the coach, that's a no-brainer.

You can't judge it that way.

The point is this: if greg popovich would have had JB's group before the trades that you have pointed-out so diligently allowed him to magically become a better coach (laughing all the while at your own clever argument, like we are dummies for not seeing the plain logic, hehe), stop laughing for a minute and ask yourself this: would that group have won more games? If the answer is yes, or most likely, then coaches matter.

Your fundamental problem is that you don't understand scientific method, or the concept of a control. Once jb got new players, the control on your argument was forever broken. 

I have always said some coaches do make a difference. I have also said most don’t and therefore get too much credit when the team is winning and too much blame when they are losing overall. Popovich is a coach who makes a difference. Hollins, Joerger, Fizdale and JB don’t so the front office is making them scapegoats for the team’s failures in the past instead of admitting it was their lack of skill in acquiring talent that held the franchise back. 

The sad thing is how many fans fall for the same excuses over and over instead of pointing the blame where it belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

I have always said some coaches do make a difference. I have also said most don’t and therefore get too much credit when the team is winning and too much blame when they are losing overall. Popovich is a coach who makes a difference. Hollins, Joerger, Fizdale and JB don’t so the front office is making them scapegoats for the team’s failures in the past instead of admitting it was their lack of skill in acquiring talent that held the franchise back. 

The sad thing is how many fans fall for the same excuses over and over instead of pointing the blame where it belongs.

The problem is you don't have any facts to back it up except for a flawed theory about different players making a difference in wins and losses, more than other players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

The problem is you don't have any facts to back it up except for a flawed theory about different players making a difference in wins and losses, more than other players.

You don’t even have a theory. I have a scientific paper that statistically showed most coaches don’t make a difference. 

http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

https://bballbreakdown.com/2014/10/27/does-coaching-experience-in-the-nba-matter/

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but the facts you are what they are. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To show you being good coach, you need coachable squad. + this squad has to like playing together or even better, being together. In his Houston days, JB looked helpless while having Harden, Dwight, J-Smoove, Lawson, Brewer and Beasley on the payroll. In Memphis, he inherited some mess after beef with Fizdale, which really did not help in establishing nice team atmosphere. Now, Grizz groomed quite new staff that seems willing to make some noise and not considering Memphis as an interim stop in their careers. I dare to guess that even Isiah Thomas could coach actual Grizzlies these days. And if you are a tiny bit better  than IT, which, I believe is valid for JB, you can start thriving as a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chipc3 said:

You don’t even have a theory. I have a scientific paper that statistically showed most coaches don’t make a difference. 

http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

https://bballbreakdown.com/2014/10/27/does-coaching-experience-in-the-nba-matter/

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but the facts you are what they are. 

 

😁💨

 

RECEIPTS !!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chipc3 said:

You don’t even have a theory. I have a scientific paper that statistically showed most coaches don’t make a difference. 

http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/

https://bballbreakdown.com/2014/10/27/does-coaching-experience-in-the-nba-matter/

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but the facts you are what they are. 

 

LOL: this is some contradictory , if you are of the opinion coaches don't matter. So, according to this, coaches only matter if you aren't a bad team, otherwise they don't matter.

So these authors find that if you are a bad team, changing your coach didn’t make a difference.  And if you are “not bad,” a new coach makes it worse.

Explain to me, based on this "scientific paper" chip, how changing a coach can both not impact a team and impact a team, all at the same time.

Another example: if a coach says Delon I want you to shoot 25 shots a game. If you don't shoot 25 shots a game, you are benched. This WILL effect Delon's production.

Similarly, if pop tells Tim Duncan, I'm benching you every game this year and you are only playing spot minutes and they sign him for a 7 year deal, this WOULD affect Tim Duncan.

Again, the theory you and that paper have is flawed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

LOL: this is some contradictory ****, if you are of the opinion coaches don't matter. So, according to this, coaches only matter if you aren't a bad team, otherwise they don't matter.

So these authors find that if you are a bad team, changing your coach didn’t make a difference.  And if you are “not bad,” a new coach makes it worse.

Explain to me, based on this "scientific paper" chip, how changing a coach can both not impact a team and impact a team, all at the same time.

Another example: if a coach says Delon I want you to shoot 25 shots a game. If you don't shoot 25 shots a game, you are benched. This WILL effect Delon's production.

Similarly, if pop tells Tim Duncan, I'm benching you every game this year and you are only playing spot minutes and they sign him for a 7 year deal, this WOULD affect Tim Duncan.

Again, the theory you and that paper have is flawed. 

If the team is already bad, it’s difficult to make them worse. If they aren’t bad there is a lot of room to get worse.

And you may disrespect my science but where is your proof of the opposite?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chipc3 said:

If the team is already bad, it’s difficult to make them worse. If they aren’t bad there is a lot of room to get worse.

And you may disrespect my science but where is your proof of the opposite?

 

It's your science?

So a coach can make a player worse, but he can't make him better? Is that it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the question is : What is coaching job in NBA? 

Is the coach  the guy who make the job in pre-season, build a team spirit, try different option before season start, work individually with guys to improve their weak point? If those tasks are done by assistant, physical trainer.... and the coach just here to deal at games, the coaching job is not that important.

Almost most coaches in NBA almost use the same player, make change at the same time ( unless fault issue) and this is an easy job. Even JB can make it well   😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 11:30 AM, Memphis Maverick said:

Coaching does matter for sure, but you have to have some form of talent. Honestly I think that Greg Popovich really did get lucky with his players. 

You see him struggling now with Derozan, Aldridge, White. Two former all stars and a really good up and coming player. 

Cant really discredit that he had Duncan, Ginobli,  Parker, Robinson, Leonard. Heck even Patty and Bowen. 

Lets not forget that his role players were always some of the best.

He never had to work with g league starting lineups and players that were fringe nba players as backups.

Phil Jackson too,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

It's your science?

So a coach can make a player worse, but he can't make him better? Is that it?

Give it up KBM. You can’t show anything that proves your position and your desperate attempts at discrediting the science I have shown sounds more pathetic all the time. 

Once again, I have said there are a few coaches who have made teams better. I’m not making absolute statements.

I have repeatedly said that the majority of coaches at this level don’t make a difference. The idea that you only need to change a coach to make a talent deficient team better is a false premise. Coaches can’t overcome a lack of talented players.

Likewise, a different coach won’t have “much” effect on a talented roster to the negative. There have been a few bad coaches just like there have been a few good ones. However for the most part head coaches don’t make a difference. It has been shown that changing coaches has a negative effect in fact not a positive one.

I have shown you numerous studies to back up this belief. You have shown nothing. Either bring some studies or let’s agree to disagree. I’ll stay on the side of science and you can stay with the flat earth types denying reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chipc3 said:

Give it up KBM. You can’t show anything that proves your position and your desperate attempts at discrediting the science I have shown sounds more pathetic all the time. 

Once again, I have said there are a few coaches who have made teams better. I’m not making absolute statements.

I have repeatedly said that the majority of coaches at this level don’t make a difference. The idea that you only need to change a coach to make a talent deficient team better is a false premise. Coaches can’t overcome a lack of talented players.

Likewise, a different coach won’t have “much” effect on a talented roster to the negative. There have been a few bad coaches just like there have been a few good ones. However for the most part head coaches don’t make a difference. It has been shown that changing coaches has a negative effect in fact not a positive one.

I have shown you numerous studies to back up this belief. You have shown nothing. Either bring some studies or let’s agree to disagree. I’ll stay on the side of science and you can stay with the flat earth types denying reality.

 

Last year the orlando magic were 18th in defense rating under frank vogel, this year under steve clifford they are 8th. steve clifford is known as a defensive coach. Likewise, last year charlotte hornets were 16th defensively under clifford, and this year under borrego they are 21st in defensive rating. Coincidence? hmmmmm

I don't need a dumb article to tell me that clifford teams are obviously going to be better defensively than before he arrived.

Likewise, you can look at mike d'antonio's career and see teams that are always better offensively than they are defensively. The idea of SSOL is a clear indication of what I was talking about with the coach's influence on players and the game. You either shot the ball within SSOL or you are benched.

Houston's personal philosophy about the game is shooting 3s or a layup, and never shooting midrange jumpers. This has an effect on players weather you believe it or not.

But you continue to conflate wins and loses to some stupid idea that coaches don't matter. Again, I think I'm done with this, you are just being extremely dense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kevin B Moses said:

Last year the orlando magic were 18th in defense rating under frank vogel, this year under steve clifford they are 8th. steve clifford is known as a defensive coach. Likewise, last year charlotte hornets were 16th defensively under clifford, and this year under borrego they are 21st in defensive rating. Coincidence? hmmmmm

I don't need a dumb article to tell me that clifford teams are obviously going to be better defensively than before he arrived.

Likewise, you can look at mike d'antonio's career and see teams that are always better offensively than they are defensively. The idea of SSOL is a clear indication of what I was talking about with the coach's influence on players and the game. You either shot the ball within SSOL or you are benched.

Houston's personal philosophy about the game is shooting 3s or a layup, and never shooting midrange jumpers. This has an effect on players weather you believe it or not.

But you continue to conflate wins and loses to some stupid idea that coaches don't matter. Again, I think I'm done with this, you are just being extremely dense.  

KBM is right.   +1000.   Coaches determine strategy and lineups.    Chip are you trying to say that strategy and rotations don't have a direct effect on the outcome of games?         You know it is possible Chip that GM,  Coach, and Players all have effect on outcome of game.      They may not all share the same level of blame but they ALL are important and matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzTigerFan said:

KBM is right.   +1000.   Coaches determine strategy and lineups.    Chip are you trying to say that strategy and rotations don't have a direct effect on the outcome of games?         You know it is possible Chip that GM,  Coach, and Players all have effect on outcome of game.      They may not all share the same level of blame but they ALL are important and matter. 

I wonder what chip would say about the Ray Allen three point shot in game 6 of the finals against San Antonio Spurs, when Gregg popovich took Tim Duncan out of the game and Chris Bosh secured the rebound that was able to send the pass to Ray Allen for his series saving 3 pointer.

It's ridiculous this stupid argument

of course he'll probably say that he already said Gregg popovich had an effect, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chipc3 said:

Give it up KBM. You can’t show anything that proves your position and your desperate attempts at discrediting the science I have shown sounds more pathetic all the time. 

Once again, I have said there are a few coaches who have made teams better. I’m not making absolute statements.

I have repeatedly said that the majority of coaches at this level don’t make a difference. The idea that you only need to change a coach to make a talent deficient team better is a false premise. Coaches can’t overcome a lack of talented players.

Likewise, a different coach won’t have “much” effect on a talented roster to the negative. There have been a few bad coaches just like there have been a few good ones. However for the most part head coaches don’t make a difference. It has been shown that changing coaches has a negative effect in fact not a positive one.

I have shown you numerous studies to back up this belief. You have shown nothing. Either bring some studies or let’s agree to disagree. I’ll stay on the side of science and you can stay with the flat earth types denying reality.

 

Let me ask you something, do you not think starting Noah against Utah did not make a difference? You think if he had started Rabb the outcome would have been the same? I don't, I think Noah nullified Favors which Rabb couldn't have done. Is this not just what everyone here is talking about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had an argument once on the Yahoo boards, there was me an a couple of other guys and a lot of females and we got into a discussion about when did life begin in a fetus and whether a fetus was indeed a living being. Me and 1 other guy were arguing against the women who said life did begin when the female became pregnant. We had bantered it back and forth for a couple of days nobody giving an inch and I came up with the answer, people who think a miscarried baby is a live being will pay for funeral for that baby but the 1s who don't will not pay, and I asked, do you know anyone who has paid for a funeral for a miscarried baby and no one said yes, 1 woman who staunchly defended it being a live baby said she had had a miscarriage but they didn't have a funeral for her baby.

And that up there is just like this, it is foolish to think that coaches can't lose games by the subbing of players during a game. I don't think the Grizz would have won if JB had started Rabb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GrizzTigerFan said:

KBM is right.   +1000.   Coaches determine strategy and lineups.    Chip are you trying to say that strategy and rotations don't have a direct effect on the outcome of games?         You know it is possible Chip that GM,  Coach, and Players all have effect on outcome of game.      They may not all share the same level of blame but they ALL are important and matter. 

I am saying that in general coaches don’t make a difference in wins and losses. They don’t make players better or worse either.

The style of play may change from one coach to another but the ultimate effect of those changes means very little to the team’s performance overall unless you upgrade the talent of the roster. In the end it matters little who the coach is or the style of play until the rosters are improved.

Without better players coaches don’t make a difference. I have shown three different studies that have come to the same conclusion. The opposing side has not shown one single study to prove their point. 

Youa re welcome to your opinions but the facts are behind me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

I am saying that in general coaches don’t make a difference in wins and losses. They don’t make players better or worse either.

The style of play may change from one coach to another but the ultimate effect of those changes means very little to the team’s performance overall unless you upgrade the talent of the roster. In the end it matters little who the coach is or the style of play until the rosters are improved.

Without better players coaches don’t make a difference. I have shown three different studies that have come to the same conclusion. The opposing side has not shown one single study to prove their point. 

Youa re welcome to your opinions but the facts are behind me.

Well you are ignoring the biggest fact.   Which are the games themselves.   Poor timeout management and lineups have literally cost us wins.   You can pick any game on any night and see examples of coaching affecting games for good or for bad.   Heck some effective coaches weren't even that great at strategy but they understood how to deal with player ego's and foster team chemistry to positive effect. 

when the talent is the same - edge goes to which coach who has the best strategy.     Explain the MIA Heat loss to Dallas Mavericks in 2011?  Wasn't MIA the clearly more talented team?  

If Coaching doesn't make a difference in wins or losses then why are there 30 HC in the NBA?  Surely all those teams would save a ton of money on payroll not giving them millions.    Those big billionaire dummies aren't as smart as you and those analytics guys apparently.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now