Steve Kerr signs 2 yr extention, god help/s us.

[Onus]

No, you send the people who aren't doing a good job and tell Steph Curry that he's getting paid 50 million+ dollars to do his job. After he retires, he can try to become the GM and we can see how good he is in squad planning.

He’s seeing all the players in practice. Maybe he just doesn’t see a better option already on the roster, no matter how many times Moody stans will tout him to be starter.

Mate, it does not matter what he sees. He is not a GM, he has zero proof that he's an expert in talent evaluation or squad building. His job is to play basketball, others is to find the best pieces for him to compete. He doesn't know what's best. This is the same guy that wanted to keep MJ no matter what 9 years ago, the same great coach (according to the chef) that NOBODY has wanted to hire in nearly a decade in the NBA.

Steph just wants to win. He said he doesn't see himself without Klay or Dray but followed that up with he just wants to win. He's not going to pout if Klay is off the team next year. He just wants the best chance to win. He knows what's up which is why he wasn't more effusive in trying to keep Klay.

Dray on the other hand did seem more likely to throw a tantrum if Klay isn't brought back. He definitely went more into keeping Klay and if he wants to pout or throw a tantrum next year he can be moved as well.

[CDM_Stats]

He’s seeing all the players in practice. Maybe he just doesn’t see a better option already on the roster, no matter how many times Moody stans will tout him to be starter.

Mate, it does not matter what he sees. He is not a GM, he has zero proof that he's an expert in talent evaluation or squad building. His job is to play basketball, others is to find the best pieces for him to compete. He doesn't know what's best. This is the same guy that wanted to keep MJ no matter what 9 years ago, the same great coach (according to the chef) that NOBODY has wanted to hire in nearly a decade in the NBA.

Steph just wants to win. He said he doesn't see himself without Klay or Dray but followed that up with he just wants to win. He's not going to pout if Klay is off the team next year. He just wants the best chance to win. He knows what's up which is why he wasn't more effusive in trying to keep Klay.

Dray on the other hand did seem more likely to throw a tantrum if Klay isn't brought back. He definitely went more into keeping Klay and if he wants to pout or throw a tantrum next year he can be moved as well.

No one had more on-court, visceral reactions to Klay's 'effort' than Draymond this past season

They're clearly friends and I imagine Klay has a ton of respect from the locker room for overcoming 2 massive leg injuries, but Draymond in his truest voice has been frustrated with the guy a lot. Even Steph had some of those.. but saying anything negative in the after-season pressers does nothing for anyone. None of these things should ever be used as evidence.. it might be true, it might not, but there's almost no way to discern one from the other

[Onus]

Mate, it does not matter what he sees. He is not a GM, he has zero proof that he's an expert in talent evaluation or squad building. His job is to play basketball, others is to find the best pieces for him to compete. He doesn't know what's best. This is the same guy that wanted to keep MJ no matter what 9 years ago, the same great coach (according to the chef) that NOBODY has wanted to hire in nearly a decade in the NBA.

Steph just wants to win. He said he doesn't see himself without Klay or Dray but followed that up with he just wants to win. He's not going to pout if Klay is off the team next year. He just wants the best chance to win. He knows what's up which is why he wasn't more effusive in trying to keep Klay.

Dray on the other hand did seem more likely to throw a tantrum if Klay isn't brought back. He definitely went more into keeping Klay and if he wants to pout or throw a tantrum next year he can be moved as well.

No one had more on-court, visceral reactions to Klay's 'effort' than Draymond this past season

They're clearly friends and I imagine Klay has a ton of respect from the locker room for overcoming 2 massive leg injuries, but Draymond in his truest voice has been frustrated with the guy a lot. Even Steph had some of those.. but saying anything negative in the after-season pressers does nothing for anyone. None of these things should ever be used as evidence.. it might be true, it might not, but there's almost no way to discern one from the other

That's very true. All I'm pointing out is that Steph just said he can't see Klay and Dray not being on the same team. But quickly pivoted into I just want to win. Whereas Dray actually went into further detail. I highly doubt either throws a tantrum if Klay walks in the off season. But yea I don't expect either guy to throw Klay under the bus.

[vvoland]

I think you don't know what a strawman is. The discussion is about replacing Kerr as coach, to discuss replacing Kerr as a coach you have to consider who might replace him. It is not trying to distract with a different argument, it's the same argument.

No no no no. Wrong on all 4 counts.

The discussion is whether or not to replace Kerr as a coach. When the subject changes to who exactly, as an argument *against* changing the coach - something that no one can give any credible argument on other than name recognition, that's a strawman via appeal to ignorance

I'll ask again since its being danced around, please answer:

- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job Steve Kerr is doing, with any semblance of accuracy? (yes, because they've seen it)
- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job any replacement might do, with any semblance of accuracy? (no, because they have no idea what that HC might do; have no idea who's good or not; etc)

So.. the part I've highlighted is when people ask for a *specific name* as an argument against it absolutely is a strawman (or, at best, a logical fallacy). It absolutely is trying to have a different discussion. And it is not the same argument. As I've said numerous times, a reasonable estimate is that the team hires an average HC, #15.5 in the league, as a replacement. Or a replacement level coach, though I doubt that can be quantified. Anyways, that's the consideration, not naming someone specific. Or I can just pull up a random AC's name, make some claims that wont be true... the afformentioned fanfic.

This is so wrong, on so many levels.

First, an NBA fan can absolutely estimate what a coach would do. I don't know what jordi fernandez will do with the nets but if I went back and looked at his work as the HC of Canada, I might have an idea. Since he wasn't hired for the Dubs, I do not need to do so but I'm sure Nets fans that are interested can find out a decent amount about his coaching philosophy and what he did as a HC. But that only applies to people we've never seen coach in the NBA.

Doc Rivers, Nick Nurse, & Ime Udoka were all hired last summer or this season. Are the 3 of them really a mystery as head coaches? Budenholzer is available. We've seen his work over a decade plus. This idea that fans can't discuss coaching candidates is asinine. None of us knew if CP3 would fit, accept a bench role, or be used a 3rd guard when we traded for him last summer. We def didn't know he'd lose the ability to bring the ball up or that he'd shoot 4% from 3 for the first 3 weeks. Didn't stop any of us from discussing that trade. It's just ducking the very real question of who you're replacing Kerr with. The answer matters. If your answer is, "anybody," then we can all see how much thought was put into this.

The idea that the 15.5th coach in the NBA is 'replacement level' is just a weird take. First, why 15.5? There are 30 NBA coaches, right? Also, this thinking seems to discount that the best coaches are there for decades (or at least many, many years) while the rest are cycled through every 2-3 years. The actual list of NBA coaches should probably be something like 50-60 names that have been hired (and most of those, subsequently fired) in the past decade, since Kerr's hiring, to find a median or average. All of a sudden, "replacement level" means something else entirely. I'm not married to this argument but I am much more confident in this take than the idea that coach #15 currently employed by an NBA team is what we'll get with a Kerr replacement. I've seen too many bad hires to think our next just has to be a winner. Maybe we hire the next nick nurse. Or maybe we hire the next jacque vaughn. This is why the names matter.

[CDM_Stats]

If the assumption is that coaches will coach the same way in each place, and not adapt to the roster they currently have, I cant help you. No one can, because its a terrible assumption. Especially considering I've known a former Warriors AC, who went on to become a HC somewhere else, and his styles couldn't have been more different. Because no sane coach is going to run the same system in 2 places, knowing that the roster is what dictates the playstyle, not the coach

15.5 is the exact halfway point

But what a great long post about how people dont know anything about coaches but we should pretend they do

[CDM_Stats]

Steph just wants to win. He said he doesn't see himself without Klay or Dray but followed that up with he just wants to win. He's not going to pout if Klay is off the team next year. He just wants the best chance to win. He knows what's up which is why he wasn't more effusive in trying to keep Klay.

Dray on the other hand did seem more likely to throw a tantrum if Klay isn't brought back. He definitely went more into keeping Klay and if he wants to pout or throw a tantrum next year he can be moved as well.

No one had more on-court, visceral reactions to Klay's 'effort' than Draymond this past season

They're clearly friends and I imagine Klay has a ton of respect from the locker room for overcoming 2 massive leg injuries, but Draymond in his truest voice has been frustrated with the guy a lot. Even Steph had some of those.. but saying anything negative in the after-season pressers does nothing for anyone. None of these things should ever be used as evidence.. it might be true, it might not, but there's almost no way to discern one from the other

That's very true. All I'm pointing out is that Steph just said he can't see Klay and Dray not being on the same team. But quickly pivoted into I just want to win. Whereas Dray actually went into further detail. I highly doubt either throws a tantrum if Klay walks in the off season. But yea I don't expect either guy to throw Klay under the bus.

Well I tend to think its just one guy being more saavy on the mic than the other. Dray gets his views by talking before finishing the thought. Steph has crafted an image for nearly 2 decades about being reserved and hard to rattle.. my guess is that both, and maybe even Kerr, are OK with the idea of Klay leaving if its his choice. But we really need another team to step up if thats the case. I remember the old days when we could just expect Milwaukee or Minnesota to jump on grenades for us. Dating all the way back to the Bucks taking Yi in front of us, taking Corey Maggette, passing on Steph Curry (2x!), taking on DLo.. they were so helpful back then

Maybe the Wizards will step up for us again?

[Onus]

No one had more on-court, visceral reactions to Klay's 'effort' than Draymond this past season

They're clearly friends and I imagine Klay has a ton of respect from the locker room for overcoming 2 massive leg injuries, but Draymond in his truest voice has been frustrated with the guy a lot. Even Steph had some of those.. but saying anything negative in the after-season pressers does nothing for anyone. None of these things should ever be used as evidence.. it might be true, it might not, but there's almost no way to discern one from the other

That's very true. All I'm pointing out is that Steph just said he can't see Klay and Dray not being on the same team. But quickly pivoted into I just want to win. Whereas Dray actually went into further detail. I highly doubt either throws a tantrum if Klay walks in the off season. But yea I don't expect either guy to throw Klay under the bus.

Well I tend to think its just one guy being more saavy on the mic than the other. Dray gets his views by talking before finishing the thought. Steph has crafted an image for nearly 2 decades about being reserved and hard to rattle.. my guess is that both, and maybe even Kerr, are OK with the idea of Klay leaving if its his choice. But we really need another team to step up if thats the case. I remember the old days when we could just expect Milwaukee or Minnesota to jump on grenades for us. Dating all the way back to the Bucks taking Yi in front of us, taking Corey Maggette, passing on Steph Curry (2x!), taking on DLo.. they were so helpful back then

Maybe the Wizards will step up for us again?

I'm hoping the Magic smoke is real.

[vvoland]

If the assumption is that coaches will coach the same way in each place, and not adapt to the roster they currently have, I cant help you. No one can, because its a terrible assumption. Especially considering I've known a former Warriors AC, who went on to become a HC somewhere else, and his styles couldn't have been more different. Because no sane coach is going to run the same system in 2 places, knowing that the roster is what dictates the playstyle, not the coach

15.5 is the exact halfway point

But what a great long post about how people dont know anything about coaches but we should pretend they do

Let's not go into strawman argument right off the bat, right? I certainly did NOT say "coaches will coach the same way in each place."

what I actually said was:

"First, an NBA fan can absolutely estimate what a coach would do. I don't know what jordi fernandez will do with the nets but if I went back and looked at his work as the HC of Canada, I might have an idea."

and

"... [fans] can find out a decent amount about his coaching philosophy and what he did as a HC." and


Jordi was my example but someone like Kokoskov would be another. Or Blatt before he came to the NBA. Assistant coaches are a black box and I'm not sure what your comment about the Warriors AC was about, other than to flex. Obviously when someone moves from AC to HC, it's going to be very different, especially if their coaching philosophy differs with the HC they work for.

Yes, personnel dictates good coaching. Bad coaches force their system on the personnel. The league has those, too. Other coaches, will rearrange the personnel to fit their scheme (like Thibs, for example). This is why the names matter. Do I trust Doc Rivers to make better decisions as the Warriors HC? No, I do not. Do I trust Joe Schmoe, the assistant from __ team? Not really, the track record for 1st time head coaches with veteran/title aspiring teams is pretty bad (kerr and lue being recent outliers).

I'm not sure why, in your mind, it's ok to project what a player will do on the warriors, but not ok to project what a coach might do? Especially, when you consider how much control a coach has to do what he wants vs what a player can. Talking about draft prospects would be ridiculous under these standards. Yet, I've seen you discuss both but refusing to discuss coaching alternatives beyond stating, with ultimate confidence, that an alternative is needed, regardless of who that is.

[vvoland]

That's very true. All I'm pointing out is that Steph just said he can't see Klay and Dray not being on the same team. But quickly pivoted into I just want to win. Whereas Dray actually went into further detail. I highly doubt either throws a tantrum if Klay walks in the off season. But yea I don't expect either guy to throw Klay under the bus.

Well I tend to think its just one guy being more saavy on the mic than the other. Dray gets his views by talking before finishing the thought. Steph has crafted an image for nearly 2 decades about being reserved and hard to rattle.. my guess is that both, and maybe even Kerr, are OK with the idea of Klay leaving if its his choice. But we really need another team to step up if thats the case. I remember the old days when we could just expect Milwaukee or Minnesota to jump on grenades for us. Dating all the way back to the Bucks taking Yi in front of us, taking Corey Maggette, passing on Steph Curry (2x!), taking on DLo.. they were so helpful back then

Maybe the Wizards will step up for us again?

I'm hoping the Magic smoke is real.

If it wasn't before that game 1 offensive performance, it will be now. If we thought the warriors didn't have enough shooting, Orl looks like a team built in 1985

[Onus]

Well I tend to think its just one guy being more saavy on the mic than the other. Dray gets his views by talking before finishing the thought. Steph has crafted an image for nearly 2 decades about being reserved and hard to rattle.. my guess is that both, and maybe even Kerr, are OK with the idea of Klay leaving if its his choice. But we really need another team to step up if thats the case. I remember the old days when we could just expect Milwaukee or Minnesota to jump on grenades for us. Dating all the way back to the Bucks taking Yi in front of us, taking Corey Maggette, passing on Steph Curry (2x!), taking on DLo.. they were so helpful back then

Maybe the Wizards will step up for us again?

I'm hoping the Magic smoke is real.

If it wasn't before that game 1 offensive performance, it will be now. If we thought the warriors didn't have enough shooting, Orl looks like a team built in 1985

It's actually a really good fit for him. They need his shooting desperately and they have the defenders to cover for him. I think he would actually do really well there.

[vvoland]

I'm hoping the Magic smoke is real.

If it wasn't before that game 1 offensive performance, it will be now. If we thought the warriors didn't have enough shooting, Orl looks like a team built in 1985

It's actually a really good fit for him. They need his shooting desperately and they have the defenders to cover for him. I think he would actually do really well there.

It might be. Could be a ton of pressure and the first place where the organization doesn't cuddle him and he gets the same treatment most non-stars would get. Basketball wise, seems like a great fit. Age and role may not be great. If he's their big money contract this summer and those fans view him as THE Klay Thompson, coming in to save a broken offense, it might be a long season.

[CDM_Stats]

If the assumption is that coaches will coach the same way in each place, and not adapt to the roster they currently have, I cant help you. No one can, because its a terrible assumption. Especially considering I've known a former Warriors AC, who went on to become a HC somewhere else, and his styles couldn't have been more different. Because no sane coach is going to run the same system in 2 places, knowing that the roster is what dictates the playstyle, not the coach

15.5 is the exact halfway point

But what a great long post about how people dont know anything about coaches but we should pretend they do

Let's not go into strawman argument right off the bat, right? I certainly did NOT say "coaches will coach the same way in each place."

what I actually said was:

"First, an NBA fan can absolutely estimate what a coach would do. I don't know what jordi fernandez will do with the nets but if I went back and looked at his work as the HC of Canada, I might have an idea."

and

"... [fans] can find out a decent amount about his coaching philosophy and what he did as a HC." and


Jordi was my example but someone like Kokoskov would be another. Or Blatt before he came to the NBA. Assistant coaches are a black box and I'm not sure what your comment about the Warriors AC was about, other than to flex. Obviously when someone moves from AC to HC, it's going to be very different, especially if their coaching philosophy differs with the HC they work for.

Fair. Doesnt take anything away from the point. If Jordi came here, what would he do? Do you know? Do you have any idea? No, you just have prior jobs, and then you will arbitrarily assess value to Jordi (if you like him, or none at all if you dont) and then that will color your answer. So its just guesswork, and not even the most dedicated fan could have any level of accuracy at that unless they were literally in the building with them. Which is why I talked about the former Warriors HC, who was a defense first guy all the way, and then got his own job and their defense sucked so..

And yes, pointing out names to disqualify.. sure, that's reasonable. But that's not whats being asked. So if I said I want a new HC, but I dont want one that's going to force their own preferred system, like Thibs, onto the roster.. that's an answer right? What good is me throwing out a name with no basis behind it? Like I said... Paul Pressey. Or Joe Schmoe! Love him. He's all about motion offense and switch defense.. trust me. He's also a good developer. Trust me there too. See what I'm saying?

I'm not sure why, in your mind, it's ok to project what a player will do on the warriors, but not ok to project what a coach might do? Especially, when you consider how much control a coach has to do what he wants vs what a player can. Talking about draft prospects would be ridiculous under these standards. Yet, I've seen you discuss both but refusing to discuss coaching alternatives beyond stating, with ultimate confidence, that an alternative is needed, regardless of who that is.

Because there's tons and tons of data? Like actual data to make an actual educated guess based on their actual skills we can see and turn into values. I dont understand how that's not clear. I can tell you, with high accuracy, how good of a man defender people are at X Y and Z on the court. I can tell you what a team's strengths and weaknesses are, and if the play style of a draftee would fit with what they are trying to do

Tell me how you can have any data whatsoever on what a coach does with an entirely different roster. Or who's actually responsible for a player's growth/development, or lack thereof. You can't. One has reliable data, one doesn't. Because we know what the player can do. We don't know what the coaches do. And anyone claiming they do is either super well-connected, or full of ****

[vvoland]

If the assumption is that coaches will coach the same way in each place, and not adapt to the roster they currently have, I cant help you. No one can, because its a terrible assumption. Especially considering I've known a former Warriors AC, who went on to become a HC somewhere else, and his styles couldn't have been more different. Because no sane coach is going to run the same system in 2 places, knowing that the roster is what dictates the playstyle, not the coach

15.5 is the exact halfway point

But what a great long post about how people dont know anything about coaches but we should pretend they do

Let's not go into strawman argument right off the bat, right? I certainly did NOT say "coaches will coach the same way in each place."

what I actually said was:

"First, an NBA fan can absolutely estimate what a coach would do. I don't know what jordi fernandez will do with the nets but if I went back and looked at his work as the HC of Canada, I might have an idea."

and

"... [fans] can find out a decent amount about his coaching philosophy and what he did as a HC." and


Jordi was my example but someone like Kokoskov would be another. Or Blatt before he came to the NBA. Assistant coaches are a black box and I'm not sure what your comment about the Warriors AC was about, other than to flex. Obviously when someone moves from AC to HC, it's going to be very different, especially if their coaching philosophy differs with the HC they work for.

Fair. Doesnt take anything away from the point. If Jordi came here, what would he do? Do you know? Do you have any idea? No, you just have prior jobs, and then you will arbitrarily assess value to Jordi (if you like him, or none at all if you dont) and then that will color your answer. So its just guesswork, and not even the most dedicated fan could have any level of accuracy at that unless they were literally in the building with them. Which is why I talked about the former Warriors HC, who was a defense first guy all the way, and then got his own job and their defense sucked so..

And yes, pointing out names to disqualify.. sure, that's reasonable. But that's not whats being asked. So if I said I want a new HC, but I dont want one that's going to force their own preferred system, like Thibs, onto the roster.. that's an answer right? What good is me throwing out a name with no basis behind it? Like I said... Paul Pressey. Or Joe Schmoe! Love him. He's all about motion offense and switch defense.. trust me. He's also a good developer. Trust me there too. See what I'm saying?

I'm not sure why, in your mind, it's ok to project what a player will do on the warriors, but not ok to project what a coach might do? Especially, when you consider how much control a coach has to do what he wants vs what a player can. Talking about draft prospects would be ridiculous under these standards. Yet, I've seen you discuss both but refusing to discuss coaching alternatives beyond stating, with ultimate confidence, that an alternative is needed, regardless of who that is.

Because there's tons and tons of data? Like actual data to make an actual educated guess based on their actual skills we can see and turn into values. I dont understand how that's not clear. I can tell you, with high accuracy, how good of a man defender people are at X Y and Z on the court. I can tell you what a team's strengths and weaknesses are, and if the play style of a draftee would fit with what they are trying to do

Tell me how you can have any data whatsoever on what a coach does with an entirely different roster. Or who's actually responsible for a player's growth/development, or lack thereof. You can't. One has reliable data, one doesn't. Because we know what the player can do. We don't know what the coaches do. And anyone claiming they do is either super well-connected, or full of ****

Looking at a player's data and making projections as to what they'll do next year, on the same team, is still guessing or, extrapolation, if you'd prefer. I'm not sure how projecting what some 19 year old out of Arkansas will do on the warriors where we've never even seen him come off the bench or play against professionals is any less guesswork than projecting what an established NBA head coach will do in a new job. Look, I agree that projecting coaches is harder than projecting players. Mostly because we don't know the schemes, what the coach's responsibilities are, etc. I agree that assistant coaches are, basically, impossible to project even if you knew that Mike Brown was the defensive coordinator with the dubs. Most people were like "he's going to turn the Sac defense around" before they realized Sac's defense has a lot more to do with Sabonis and co than it does with their coach. But Mike Brown also had HC experience and I don't see why Sac's fans had to accept Mike's hiring without weighing in with their opinions.

That's what we're all doing here, though. Guessing and shooting the proverbial feces. You're saying your guesswork that Moody can step into Klay's role and succeed is more valid than your guesswork that Budenholzer would be an upgrade over Kerr. Ok, I can agree with that idea even if I disagree with both positions (and I'm not even saying you hold either of those positions). The idea that fans can't discuss coaching candidates because some of them have never been head coaches and others will be different head coaches if they are in GS seems counterintuitive to everything else done on a fan forum.

[CDM_Stats]

That's what we're all doing here, though. Guessing and shooting the proverbial feces. You're saying your guesswork that Moody can step into Klay's role and succeed is more valid than your guesswork that Budenholzer would be an upgrade over Kerr. Ok, I can agree with that idea even if I disagree with both positions (and I'm not even saying you hold either of those positions). The idea that fans can't discuss coaching candidates because some of them have never been head coaches and others will be different head coaches if they are in GS seems counterintuitive to everything else done on a fan forum.

Its not the same, its hard data vs soft data

Fans can discuss whatever they want, I'm saying that when someone is trying to use soft-data arguments (Oh yeah? Which coach then?) when there's absolutely nothing either of them can point to with any objectivity, then its not a good argument. And it is borderline insulting to equivocate that to looking at players, with whom we have hard data (both their college data and the league they are joining), because they arent the same. And also to add-on - we can get limited hard data on current coaches as well. Its based on assembling the hard-data of individual players and requires either a lot of legwork or a program that can do a lot of said legwork for you.. but it is possible, as long as certain variables are relatively consistent. For example, if Kerr was just in year 2, it would be a lot harder evaluating his work than if he was in year 10, because you have less hard data to back up an argument

Its the equivalent of saying every opinion on RGM is equal. Do you want to be equivocated with the guy who just cited PPG as the reason Jordan Poole was better than Chris Paul? It's insulting..

And so is the idea that there has to be a name replacement for a coach who one thinks is doing a bad job, and looking at that as the same as evaluating a prospect. Its like right on the fringes of Dunning-Kruger.. or like I said about coach Schmoe, I can just grab a few of his last team's stats, attribute to him the successes and attribute to others the failures, and make that my preferred choice. People can go to any sports radio station for that nonsense

[Scoots1994]

I think you don't know what a strawman is. The discussion is about replacing Kerr as coach, to discuss replacing Kerr as a coach you have to consider who might replace him. It is not trying to distract with a different argument, it's the same argument.

No no no no. Wrong on all 4 counts.

The discussion is whether or not to replace Kerr as a coach. When the subject changes to who exactly, as an argument *against* changing the coach - something that no one can give any credible argument on other than name recognition, that's a strawman via appeal to ignorance

I'll ask again since its being danced around, please answer:

- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job Steve Kerr is doing, with any semblance of accuracy? (yes, because they've seen it)
- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job any replacement might do, with any semblance of accuracy? (no, because they have no idea what that HC might do; have no idea who's good or not; etc)

So.. the part I've highlighted is when people ask for a *specific name* as an argument against it absolutely is a strawman (or, at best, a logical fallacy). It absolutely is trying to have a different discussion. And it is not the same argument. As I've said numerous times, a reasonable estimate is that the team hires an average HC, #15.5 in the league, as a replacement. Or a replacement level coach, though I doubt that can be quantified. Anyways, that's the consideration, not naming someone specific. Or I can just pull up a random AC's name, make some claims that wont be true... the afformentioned fanfic.

There were not 4 counts.

If fans can evaluate the job he's doing they can also speculate on who might replace him. For example, do you want Doc Rivers to replace Kerr? I certainly do not. See?

[CDM_Stats]

I think you don't know what a strawman is. The discussion is about replacing Kerr as coach, to discuss replacing Kerr as a coach you have to consider who might replace him. It is not trying to distract with a different argument, it's the same argument.

No no no no. Wrong on all 4 counts.

The discussion is whether or not to replace Kerr as a coach. When the subject changes to who exactly, as an argument *against* changing the coach - something that no one can give any credible argument on other than name recognition, that's a strawman via appeal to ignorance

I'll ask again since its being danced around, please answer:

- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job Steve Kerr is doing, with any semblance of accuracy? (yes, because they've seen it)
- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job any replacement might do, with any semblance of accuracy? (no, because they have no idea what that HC might do; have no idea who's good or not; etc)

So.. the part I've highlighted is when people ask for a *specific name* as an argument against it absolutely is a strawman (or, at best, a logical fallacy). It absolutely is trying to have a different discussion. And it is not the same argument. As I've said numerous times, a reasonable estimate is that the team hires an average HC, #15.5 in the league, as a replacement. Or a replacement level coach, though I doubt that can be quantified. Anyways, that's the consideration, not naming someone specific. Or I can just pull up a random AC's name, make some claims that wont be true... the afformentioned fanfic.

There were not 4 counts.

If fans can evaluate the job he's doing they can also speculate on who might replace him. For example, do you want Doc Rivers to replace Kerr? I certainly do not. See?

Ok but you see how that can only work in one direction? If I name a random AC from some winning team, where do we go from there?

[michaelm]

No no no no. Wrong on all 4 counts.

The discussion is whether or not to replace Kerr as a coach. When the subject changes to who exactly, as an argument *against* changing the coach - something that no one can give any credible argument on other than name recognition, that's a strawman via appeal to ignorance

I'll ask again since its being danced around, please answer:

- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job Steve Kerr is doing, with any semblance of accuracy? (yes, because they've seen it)
- Can Warriors fans evaluate the job any replacement might do, with any semblance of accuracy? (no, because they have no idea what that HC might do; have no idea who's good or not; etc)

So.. the part I've highlighted is when people ask for a *specific name* as an argument against it absolutely is a strawman (or, at best, a logical fallacy). It absolutely is trying to have a different discussion. And it is not the same argument. As I've said numerous times, a reasonable estimate is that the team hires an average HC, #15.5 in the league, as a replacement. Or a replacement level coach, though I doubt that can be quantified. Anyways, that's the consideration, not naming someone specific. Or I can just pull up a random AC's name, make some claims that wont be true... the afformentioned fanfic.

There were not 4 counts.

If fans can evaluate the job he's doing they can also speculate on who might replace him. For example, do you want Doc Rivers to replace Kerr? I certainly do not. See?

Ok but you see how that can only work in one direction? If I name a random AC from some winning team, where do we go from there?

I agree with you I believe (EDIT having not read your last post but two which I now have done) as I often do. However great Kerr has been, and he was great for most of a decade, the team finished 10th in the West this season, and some of his coaching decisions and approaches this year were bewildering, and have not been and can’t imo be defended. And no coach is infallible/not open to questioning by any fan because of professional expertise greater than that possessed by fans right up until he is sacked as many if not most eventually are. There is no need for fans to have watched practice to know that the 3 old slow guard line-up doesn’t work when the crunch comes, or that Klay Thompson post his injuries gets tired late in games and becomes less effective, particularly defensively.

People can of course have an opinion on how other coaches might go, but there are many factors which come into appointing a new coach which are not really knowable to fans, and I with you (I think) don’t believe anyone has to come up with a definite name to replace Kerr to have an opinion that he is no longer cutting it. Appointing Kerr to replace MJ which turned out to be a brilliant move was both not entirely obvious and definitely not evidence based at the time.

[vvoland]

There were not 4 counts.

If fans can evaluate the job he's doing they can also speculate on who might replace him. For example, do you want Doc Rivers to replace Kerr? I certainly do not. See?

Ok but you see how that can only work in one direction? If I name a random AC from some winning team, where do we go from there?

I agree with you I believe (EDIT having not read your last post but two which I now have done) as I often do. However great Kerr has been, and he was great for most of a decade, the team finished 10th in the West this season, and some of his coaching decisions and approaches this year were bewildering, and have not been and can’t imo be defended. And no coach is infallible/not open to questioning by any fan because of professional expertise greater than that possessed by fans right up until he is sacked as many if not most eventually are. There is no need for fans to have watched practice to know that the 3 old slow guard line-up doesn’t work when the crunch comes, or that Klay Thompson post his injuries gets tired late in games and becomes less effective, particularly defensively.

People can of course have an opinion on how other coaches might go, but there are many factors which come into appointing a new coach which are not really knowable to fans, and I with you (I think) don’t believe anyone has to come up with a definite name to replace Kerr to have an opinion that he is no longer cutting it. Appointing Kerr to replace MJ which turned out to be a brilliant move was both not entirely obvious and definitely not evidence based at the time.

Most of the time, when a coach is fired/let go, there's already a list of candidates the teams go for. Usually, it's a combo of who's available plus who they have in-house. I think it's been reported by the +/- podcast guys (Slater and Thompson seem like they have sources in the org) that if Kerr was let go, Kenny Atkinson would be the likely replacement. Likely isn't 'probable' or 'certain' or 'next in line' but I gotta pass on Kenny, to be honest. I think, with the extension, our best bet is a complete overhaul of the coaching staff, not the HC. We lost a bunch of very good assistants (willie green and mike brown are just the ones that became HCs) and between Atkinson and Rubin, we have some low hanging fruit.

If the shortlist is, JJ, Budz, and Kenny Atkinson, I'll stick with Kerr. If it's some assistant that's never been a HC before, I'd stick with Kerr. That said, I can see being so upset at Kerr that I would prefer Big Bird to Kerr, I'm just not there.... yet.

[cdubbz]

Frank Vogel id like to see coach this team

[CDM_Stats]

There were not 4 counts.

If fans can evaluate the job he's doing they can also speculate on who might replace him. For example, do you want Doc Rivers to replace Kerr? I certainly do not. See?

Ok but you see how that can only work in one direction? If I name a random AC from some winning team, where do we go from there?

I agree with you I believe (EDIT having not read your last post but two which I now have done) as I often do. However great Kerr has been, and he was great for most of a decade, the team finished 10th in the West this season, and some of his coaching decisions and approaches this year were bewildering, and have not been and can’t imo be defended. And no coach is infallible/not open to questioning by any fan because of professional expertise greater than that possessed by fans right up until he is sacked as many if not most eventually are. There is no need for fans to have watched practice to know that the 3 old slow guard line-up doesn’t work when the crunch comes, or that Klay Thompson post his injuries gets tired late in games and becomes less effective, particularly defensively.

People can of course have an opinion on how other coaches might go, but there are many factors which come into appointing a new coach which are not really knowable to fans, and I with you (I think) don’t believe anyone has to come up with a definite name to replace Kerr to have an opinion that he is no longer cutting it. Appointing Kerr to replace MJ which turned out to be a brilliant move was both not entirely obvious and definitely not evidence based at the time.

10000%

Like we can have a discussion about why or why not we want Kerr to be replaced that is based in reality. We cannot have one about the great majority of coaching candidates. So if people ask for a name.. unless me saying "not Doc Rivers" is an acceptable answer, we're just getting into story time, or fan-fic, or whatever people want to call it, but ultimately its a story that was made up by someone.. and that has no place in that kind of discussion

If we're just **** around and throwing out a few names for **** and giggles, thats a whole different thing