Knicks-Cavs Official PG Thread

[god shammgod]

it could be that the team is not that great and the coach is not that great. you don't have to choose one.

[BBALLER4FR]

it could be that the team is not that great and the coach is not that great. you don't have to choose one.

I'll deal with that. But much like hating when the ref becomes part of the game, I DESPISE when the coach interferes with the outcomes. Let the players we acquired decide the game. 2nd unit was playing so well (it was our bread and butter to be honest). Suddenly, they are standing around doing nothing, as if they were instructed to run the offense instead of play ball. Calderon still starts and regardless if you think he's not hurting us, he is certainly not helping us. Gallow - less aggressive. DWill - less aggressive. Thomas and Amundson combinations. Key players on the bench at key moments in the game. KP not exploiting offensively despite being the biggest mismatch on any given night. These all sound like coaching issues.

[IllmaticHandler]

it could be that the team is not that great and the coach is not that great. you don't have to choose one.

thats the reality, but it seems you cant say fisher is weak around here. I think the foundation of any good team is the coaching. Its why I am more worried about coaching than the team. Good coaching will be the only thing that can take this team to the next level. Its not all that to begin with. Its obvious the Knicks are not that Good. Just like its obvious Fisher is not that Good.

[KnickswiththeKnack]

coaching cost us both Cleveland games and the Charlotte game.

I thought players not executing down the stretch cost us both games. Melo running out of gas last night cost us the Cle game more than any substitutions.

That's your opinion. Does that play a part, yes but I see dumb rotation and choices more than anything. One thing I learned is that very few teams, can out play bad coaching...but bad teams can RISE with Good coaching. I dont know what proof you need, other than fisher saying himself last night, he did NOT put the Guys in the best situation to win. If the coach takes the blame the way he did...he sees its HIS fault. The rotations were garbage last night and in CHA.

Only a bad coach would say that it wasn't his fault & start throwing guys under the bus.

Look I'm not saying Fish is a great coach or that he's the second coming of Red Auerbach or even Phil Jackson. What I'm saying is that he knows basketball. And the idea of throwing him out right this second to replace him with someone else, and again and again and again is just not the right move either. Right now, guys are playing hard for Fish, they're just coming up short. Perhaps some patience & they won't be coming up short for much longer.

[Thugger HBC]

Firstly, this team hasnt been together long enough to tout "home court advantage", they just moved in the house so to speak.

Secondly, any team with LeBron is a favorite to win most matches, so being competitive when they are short hand is still a plus, and the only player of note they are missing was Kyrie, everyone else of note played.

Same team minus Love and Kyrie played in the finals to game 6, but with one year of more experience, we're "supposed" to win?

We had a chance, thats enough for a rebuilding club. I really dont think folks realize what this squad really is...I really dont.

Fam I've given up.

I've said in 3 PG threads (this being the third) that basically people are really deluding themselves into how good they think this team is. I don't like repeating myself so I guess I'll just avoid the PG threads from now on.

And even with me saying 28-35 wins, at BEST this team could get 38 wins & that's me being delusional myself

I'm so shocked at how the chemistry of this team is being overlooked, you can't seriously expect a team that pretty much revamped their roster to play out their sets & late game situations to perfection. You also can't expect a 2nd year coach to not have issues while leading a bunch of rookies & role players.

We're a rebuilding team, that is what this board wanted right?

We aren't going to win every game, the fact we're close in damn near every game is by far exceeding my expectations. The fact we're 4-6 has me quietly wondering if maybe I downplayed Derek Fisher a bit.

I really, really believe people think this team is better than what the team really is & it has me so sad for them because the reality is gonna hit & it'll be a megaton bomb for them.

Give up if you want but for the last 3 coaches (minus Woodson) we've watched this same scenario play out.

1. The coach does mind numbingly unconventional things
2. The "level headed posters" point and laugh at discussion and point out how right they are
3. Ultimately it repeatedly ends in Knicks embarrassment.

Hey, maybe this is your time to be right (rooting for you man) but 3 out of the last four coaches have started awful, substituted poorly and inexplicable monkey-wrenched chemistry, a handful of fans keep preaching patience and how "pleased we are with the record despite..." and in the end the coach rams bull$hit down your throat en-route to history making laughability (and sometimes they win meaningless games to screw draft positioning...just saying). But again, I'm rooting for your theory because Knicks personnel have lost my benefit of doubt.

Woodson had one bad year. Even Dantoni over achieved. Not sure who started bad.


Coaches make late game mistakes. Pop made one in the finals against Miami that led to ray Allen's three.

All coaches do something sometimes. Don't want Fisher here, but to think he's contributing to losses is silly. This group is competitive to be in those spots because of him.

[BBALLER4FR]

Fam I've given up.

I've said in 3 PG threads (this being the third) that basically people are really deluding themselves into how good they think this team is. I don't like repeating myself so I guess I'll just avoid the PG threads from now on.

And even with me saying 28-35 wins, at BEST this team could get 38 wins & that's me being delusional myself

I'm so shocked at how the chemistry of this team is being overlooked, you can't seriously expect a team that pretty much revamped their roster to play out their sets & late game situations to perfection. You also can't expect a 2nd year coach to not have issues while leading a bunch of rookies & role players.

We're a rebuilding team, that is what this board wanted right?

We aren't going to win every game, the fact we're close in damn near every game is by far exceeding my expectations. The fact we're 4-6 has me quietly wondering if maybe I downplayed Derek Fisher a bit.

I really, really believe people think this team is better than what the team really is & it has me so sad for them because the reality is gonna hit & it'll be a megaton bomb for them.

Give up if you want but for the last 3 coaches (minus Woodson) we've watched this same scenario play out.

1. The coach does mind numbingly unconventional things
2. The "level headed posters" point and laugh at discussion and point out how right they are
3. Ultimately it repeatedly ends in Knicks embarrassment.

Hey, maybe this is your time to be right (rooting for you man) but 3 out of the last four coaches have started awful, substituted poorly and inexplicable monkey-wrenched chemistry, a handful of fans keep preaching patience and how "pleased we are with the record despite..." and in the end the coach rams bull$hit down your throat en-route to history making laughability (and sometimes they win meaningless games to screw draft positioning...just saying). But again, I'm rooting for your theory because Knicks personnel have lost my benefit of doubt.

Woodson had one bad year. Even Dantoni over achieved. Not sure who started bad.


Coaches make late game mistakes. Pop made one in the finals against Miami that led to ray Allen's three.

All coaches do something sometimes. Don't want Fisher here, but to think he's contributing to losses is silly. This group is competitive to be in those spots because of him.

Larry Brown, Mike D'Antoni and now year one of Fisher is who I am speaking of. Woodson's one bad year followed his great year where he has inserted because D'Antoni was intentionally effing the team up. Woodson coached masterfully. Fisher got his mulligan last season where he looked like a reincarnation of D'Antoni with his constant lineup changes and baffling combinations. He's had an offseason, summer league and preseason to see what these guys can do. He's seen early success and yet he still moves away from it. It just urks me, again.

[Thugger HBC]

Give up if you want but for the last 3 coaches (minus Woodson) we've watched this same scenario play out.

1. The coach does mind numbingly unconventional things
2. The "level headed posters" point and laugh at discussion and point out how right they are
3. Ultimately it repeatedly ends in Knicks embarrassment.

Hey, maybe this is your time to be right (rooting for you man) but 3 out of the last four coaches have started awful, substituted poorly and inexplicable monkey-wrenched chemistry, a handful of fans keep preaching patience and how "pleased we are with the record despite..." and in the end the coach rams bull$hit down your throat en-route to history making laughability (and sometimes they win meaningless games to screw draft positioning...just saying). But again, I'm rooting for your theory because Knicks personnel have lost my benefit of doubt.

Woodson had one bad year. Even Dantoni over achieved. Not sure who started bad.


Coaches make late game mistakes. Pop made one in the finals against Miami that led to ray Allen's three.

All coaches do something sometimes. Don't want Fisher here, but to think he's contributing to losses is silly. This group is competitive to be in those spots because of him.

Larry Brown, Mike D'Antoni and now year one of Fisher is who I am speaking of. Woodson's one bad year followed his great year where he has inserted because D'Antoni was intentionally effing the team up. Woodson coached masterfully. Fisher got his mulligan last season where he looked like a reincarnation of D'Antoni with his constant lineup changes and baffling combinations. He's had an offseason, summer league and preseason to see what these guys can do. He's seen early success and yet he still moves away from it. It just urks me, again.

LB had an awful roster here, and this was way back in 2005, anything other than a bad start would have been a success with that group. Even D'antoni had his team playing .500 better ball before the roster was gutted by Walsh, and that squad he inherited was poop.

I'm really at a loss, are you saying we've had a coach recently that had a good team and held it back? I really hope not.

But the thing I see with Fisher is he is using the pieces that Phil built, so to criticize him is basically criticizing Phil since he built this team...all of it. Every piece on this roster is by Phil's choice.

Feel free to put the blame at the feet that it belongs.

[IllmaticHandler]

I just read this on Grant. Like I said earlier. Grant is the key to the offense moving better more than any other player. It always confuses me when people want Gallo to start over Grant. Gallo is not a true lead guard by no means. From my Eye the Knicks Offense is better,and this article confirms the Knicks are better when Grant is on the Floor. Fisher has a low key stud, who needs to be given more minutes, with the starters. Even Melo said it. He wants to run with Grant in the preseason.

Seeing Jerian Grant 3rd among all rookies in Net Rating however is a big surprise, especially considering the lack of buzz surrounding the 23-year old Notre Dame product. After diving into some more advanced stats, the reasons start to become clearer. The Knicks are scoring at their highest rate from paint, in transition, and the free throw line at their highest rate when Grant is in the game, more so than any of the Knicks’ other regular rotation players.2

Defensively, the Knicks are generating turnovers at their highest rate when Grant on the floor, at a rate of 15.7% with him on the floor versus 11.2% when he sits. Grant himself is scoring 45.2% of his points in the paint, and a further 27.4% from the free throw line. Those are the best shots in basketball, and as long as he continues to generate them, Grant has a good chance to replace Jose Calderon as the starting point guard.

http://nyloncalculus.com/2015/11/13/freelance-friday-rookie-watch/

[Capn'O]

I just find raggin on Fisher for the team losing to teams that have world champs on it is rather odd. So unless you think this team is a championship caliber, what are you personally expecting?

Being competitive against such clubs is more than solid from this squad, and as much as I don't like Fisher as a coach that is a great thing in his favor.

This squad is not a better coach away from being on their opponents level.

Totally agreed. I'd almost say he's overachieving relative to the competition.

He's not perfect, but neither is his personnel.

Yep, I could see if this squad had a secondary all-star on it like the Cavs do with Kevin Love. Fisher has done some head scratching maneuvers, but I also believe that Fisher is why these guys are even IN position to be able to lose such close games.

This team isnt competitive despite him, they are partly because of him. Not bad for this group.

Yeah - I agree. He's between a rock and a hard place because his tactics are what keep the group fighting like they do but he's sacrificing in-game management to get there. I do think he knows how to use his personnel better than he has but is establishing some other tenets first. Perhaps a more experienced/established coach could mix and match the short and long term goals but he's not yet that.

[Capn'O]

I noticed that as well, although I would say if those guys took those shots and missed, the narrative woulld have been as to why Melo isnt taking over a late game like LeBron was.

I'm all for players taking good/open shots but unless called upon, that's the stars moment normally. but the cast should be ready when called.

People can say what they want. They probably would have missed but those are shots KP especially ultimately needs to take. That makes Melo's job easier, make or miss. The fact that he recognizes this and is vocalizing it is huge, imo.

Idk fam, in the clutch I expect the stars to be such. Doesnt mean the cast get no chances, but the team is deferring because thats their role. They know it. But they dont defer to him nearly as much as some are making it to be, his usage is one of his lowest in his entire career.

Oan, I really have a hard time understanding this "making a players job easier". Melo has no issue getting his normally shots and looks regardless of cast of players around him and teams arent doubling or triple covering him in the clutch. His performance in such times is 100% on him. I will credit him for being vocal on the issue, I do question whether it is an issue.

I don't even agree with that in the final minutes, however in this case we're talking about a point where there were still 3-4 minutes left to play. You take the best shots you can as a team. You're still getting the other guys involved at that point. I've really never seen a good team do otherwise. Even with Jordan's Bulls you can remember guys like John Paxson, BJ, and Bill Wennington burying you. The star and cast emboldened each other.

[Thugger HBC]

People can say what they want. They probably would have missed but those are shots KP especially ultimately needs to take. That makes Melo's job easier, make or miss. The fact that he recognizes this and is vocalizing it is huge, imo.

Idk fam, in the clutch I expect the stars to be such. Doesnt mean the cast get no chances, but the team is deferring because thats their role. They know it. But they dont defer to him nearly as much as some are making it to be, his usage is one of his lowest in his entire career.

Oan, I really have a hard time understanding this "making a players job easier". Melo has no issue getting his normally shots and looks regardless of cast of players around him and teams arent doubling or triple covering him in the clutch. His performance in such times is 100% on him. I will credit him for being vocal on the issue, I do question whether it is an issue.

I don't even agree with that in the final minutes, however in this case we're talking about a point where there were still 3-4 minutes left to play. You take the best shots you can as a team. You're still getting the other guys involved at that point. I've really never seen a good team do otherwise. Even with Jordan's Bulls you can remember guys like John Paxson, BJ, and Bill Wennington burying you. The star and cast emboldened each other.

Those 3-4 minutes is considered the clutch moments, basically the takeover time. I do agree the cast should be ready when called, and certainly keep them engaged. yes, I certainly do recall the Bulls example. Those guys were ready for that moment and in some cases had years of experience to be ready for that moment, but it wasnt like Jordan was missing baskets in the clutch and needed his teammates to help carry the load. Not the case at all, those guys were just trusted to take and make clutch buckets here and there. This team is nowhere near that point of trust, and in a way I think it's rather unfair to chide them for deferring.

[Greenie]

I need a drink reading this thread...

[thebuzzardman]

Well, Fisher is still basically a neophyte coach. That said, I've seen enough written that the vast majority of coaches don't really move the needle that much either way in the NBA. A small few gain a team wins and a small few cause a team losses. Unfortunately, right now, at the least, Fisher is in the 2nd group.

Oi vey. The impact of a coach on a player's development and career can be immense. Don't minimize it that much

I never said that it didn't. The statement was on wins and losses. Personally I'm on the fence to just how much a coach adds or loses to the win total, but I have seen it quoted several times by NBA types, ex coaches, people who cover the game, that they are ultimately less impactful on W/L record than most fans realize, except for a few at each end.

[Moose]

Well, Fisher is still basically a neophyte coach. That said, I've seen enough written that the vast majority of coaches don't really move the needle that much either way in the NBA. A small few gain a team wins and a small few cause a team losses. Unfortunately, right now, at the least, Fisher is in the 2nd group.

Oi vey. The impact of a coach on a player's development and career can be immense. Don't minimize it that much

I never said that it didn't. The statement was on wins and losses. Personally I'm on the fence to just how much a coach adds or loses to the win total, but I have seen it quoted several times by NBA types, ex coaches, people who cover the game, that they are ultimately less impactful on W/L record than most fans realize, except for a few at each end.

Unfortunately, we are on the end where a coach costs the team wins.

[thebuzzardman]

Oi vey. The impact of a coach on a player's development and career can be immense. Don't minimize it that much

I never said that it didn't. The statement was on wins and losses. Personally I'm on the fence to just how much a coach adds or loses to the win total, but I have seen it quoted several times by NBA types, ex coaches, people who cover the game, that they are ultimately less impactful on W/L record than most fans realize, except for a few at each end.

Unfortunately, we are on the end where a coach costs the team wins.

Yup. That much seems obvious.

I mean, they are playing hard and competing for him. Right now. They played hard and competed for Woodson as well. For 1.5 seasons. After it collectively sunk in that his defensive schemes sucked, the team bagged it on him. I'm wondering if Fisher goes the same way, that he's a good motivator, but that only last so long in a professional league, where a coach gets tuned out when the players realize the coach is holding them back. Maybe Fisher acquires enough coaching skills by then. Who knows.

[NYKat]

http://nypost.com/2015/11/14/carmelo-anthony-at-center-of-knicks-endgame-meltdown-problem/

This article is code for "stop playing iso-ball, Melo"

Fisher is trying to passive aggressively call out Carmelo in this one.

[Bill Pidto]

LMAO @ people wanting to replace Fisher with Luke Walton, who gets to coach Steph Curry and the reigning NBA champions this year. I guess GS is undefeated because Walton's rotations are great and the timing of his timeouts are impeccable.

You people are dumb as dirt. I can see why people make fun of Knicks fans and root against us.

What do you believe our record and average margin of victory should be right now sir? Cet par of course.

I'd like to understand how you quantify Fisher's negative impact, please? Sir?

Also as a follow up, what are your logical and discernable reasons for believing that Luke Walton has major positive effect on the Warriors aside from your mentioned time out management. Specifically, that they are less than a cohesive system with a winning formula and good internal (player to player) management and that without Luke Walton's input there would be appreciable negative effect on the team's performance.

Lastly, if the argument is cogent (which I hold it might be as you are very intelligent), what inference can we draw about the abilities of Steve Kerr and/or the importance of coaches in general? We would obviously logically agree that if there is huge affect in that playcalling by a coach and leadership by a coach are supremely important, the probability of two all time great single season coaching performances by two different men infers that they both have all time great level coaching ablility and that is highly unlikely. To help the excercise, would Derek Fisher prevent the GSW from winning with what in your opinion is a pronounced lack of coaching skill?

For full disclosure, I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely both Luke Walton and Steve Kerr are all-time great coaches and that its more likely that a successful system has been implemented. The importance of a coach is not in microcosmic scale as he doesn't control players from possession to possession as in football for instance. There are minor exceptions to this such as in deadball situations and in psychomanagement of individuals on a case by case basis during gameplay when necessary. The coach is responsible for institutional control and creating systematic modalities for his players to function within as players are largely autonomous once on the court.

In this regard, Derek Fisher is implementing the system of another's design with the tools of another choosing unlike for example Mike Budenholzer, Greg Popovich, or even to a lesser extent Jeff Hornacek. As such there are certain inherent limitations that he must learn to work within. This is not to say that he is capable of identifying talent nor in designing such a system in general. It is merely acknowledging that there are certain inefficiencies within the model that he must work within and as such, that there are more factors outside of his control that he must find ways to efficiently manage.

With that being said, I believe that he is at least adequate in regard to the two earlier referenced conditions; first, he clearly has institutional control within his specific sphere of influence. Secondly, the system he's using currently has yielded results above what was likely to be expected as the team is 4-6 thus far. If .500 is the standard for of mediocrity and we fell well short of that last year, I do not believe that its reasonable to expect much more positive variance all things considered but IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. Althought the sample size is likely insignificant, we seem to be trending in the right direction. I lack the quantitative proof of my assumption however without you providing any the exercise is rhetorical and merely opinionated conjecture.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement that his management of specific microcosmic scale is lacking and that it could cost a team in individual and specific instances leading to loss of wins ie; his inbound plays and his playcalling out of timeouts which at somepoint will be in game ending situations where his individual and specific play to play influence is greatest. These smaller decisions are cumulative however, and in that regard the summary effect of his decision making is currently positively influencing the Knicks as is evidenced in out record relative to my previously mentioned opinion of expected outcome.

To conclude; Derek Fishers general game management is ok in my opinion but his general gamesmanship seems to be greater than ok and getting better. A steep learning curve for a second year coach with absolutely no coaching experience is not abnormal and as fans who have patience to wait for specific players skills to develop, we should have the same patience to wait for specific coaches skills to develop in the interest of fairness. Replacing institution wide fixtures and procedure is not an easy or quick task. I do not believe that we have enough information to make proper judgement of Derek Fisher's ceiling as a coach as of yet and scuttling the progress made for replacement by an unknown quantity in a semi-familiar situation (Walton) or a known quantity in a completely foreign situation (Thibs) would not facilitate the quickening of our apparent turn around which seems to be the basic premise most's discontent. It's a process.

Awesome post. If you noticed, nobody really wanted to answer you. You were too thorough. Keep it up.

[Sprewell4Three]

The Knicks had a double digit leads going into the 4th against the Hornets and Cavs, yet they blew both games by sticking with below average offensive players in the 4th. The Hornets are not a championship team like the Cavs yet we still lost to them. So don't come at me with this BS that we should accept blowing a double digit lead to the Cavs. Fishers strange rotations at the end of the age has cost us, why can't you people acknowledge that?

[Clyde_Style]

What do you believe our record and average margin of victory should be right now sir? Cet par of course.

I'd like to understand how you quantify Fisher's negative impact, please? Sir?

Also as a follow up, what are your logical and discernable reasons for believing that Luke Walton has major positive effect on the Warriors aside from your mentioned time out management. Specifically, that they are less than a cohesive system with a winning formula and good internal (player to player) management and that without Luke Walton's input there would be appreciable negative effect on the team's performance.

Lastly, if the argument is cogent (which I hold it might be as you are very intelligent), what inference can we draw about the abilities of Steve Kerr and/or the importance of coaches in general? We would obviously logically agree that if there is huge affect in that playcalling by a coach and leadership by a coach are supremely important, the probability of two all time great single season coaching performances by two different men infers that they both have all time great level coaching ablility and that is highly unlikely. To help the excercise, would Derek Fisher prevent the GSW from winning with what in your opinion is a pronounced lack of coaching skill?

For full disclosure, I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely both Luke Walton and Steve Kerr are all-time great coaches and that its more likely that a successful system has been implemented. The importance of a coach is not in microcosmic scale as he doesn't control players from possession to possession as in football for instance. There are minor exceptions to this such as in deadball situations and in psychomanagement of individuals on a case by case basis during gameplay when necessary. The coach is responsible for institutional control and creating systematic modalities for his players to function within as players are largely autonomous once on the court.

In this regard, Derek Fisher is implementing the system of another's design with the tools of another choosing unlike for example Mike Budenholzer, Greg Popovich, or even to a lesser extent Jeff Hornacek. As such there are certain inherent limitations that he must learn to work within. This is not to say that he is capable of identifying talent nor in designing such a system in general. It is merely acknowledging that there are certain inefficiencies within the model that he must work within and as such, that there are more factors outside of his control that he must find ways to efficiently manage.

With that being said, I believe that he is at least adequate in regard to the two earlier referenced conditions; first, he clearly has institutional control within his specific sphere of influence. Secondly, the system he's using currently has yielded results above what was likely to be expected as the team is 4-6 thus far. If .500 is the standard for of mediocrity and we fell well short of that last year, I do not believe that its reasonable to expect much more positive variance all things considered but IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. Althought the sample size is likely insignificant, we seem to be trending in the right direction. I lack the quantitative proof of my assumption however without you providing any the exercise is rhetorical and merely opinionated conjecture.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement that his management of specific microcosmic scale is lacking and that it could cost a team in individual and specific instances leading to loss of wins ie; his inbound plays and his playcalling out of timeouts which at somepoint will be in game ending situations where his individual and specific play to play influence is greatest. These smaller decisions are cumulative however, and in that regard the summary effect of his decision making is currently positively influencing the Knicks as is evidenced in out record relative to my previously mentioned opinion of expected outcome.

To conclude; Derek Fishers general game management is ok in my opinion but his general gamesmanship seems to be greater than ok and getting better. A steep learning curve for a second year coach with absolutely no coaching experience is not abnormal and as fans who have patience to wait for specific players skills to develop, we should have the same patience to wait for specific coaches skills to develop in the interest of fairness. Replacing institution wide fixtures and procedure is not an easy or quick task. I do not believe that we have enough information to make proper judgement of Derek Fisher's ceiling as a coach as of yet and scuttling the progress made for replacement by an unknown quantity in a semi-familiar situation (Walton) or a known quantity in a completely foreign situation (Thibs) would not facilitate the quickening of our apparent turn around which seems to be the basic premise most's discontent. It's a process.

Awesome post. If you noticed, nobody really wanted to answer you. You were too thorough. Keep it up.

That's because everyone who doesn't have your viewpoint is obviously dumb as dirt Bill. We simply lack the brain cells that would equip us with the ability to answer. Pray for us hillbillies. Have mercy on us. We are too stupid to be taken seriously and unworthy of your exalted company. Now back to my regularly scheduled banjo picking session.

[Bill Pidto]

What do you believe our record and average margin of victory should be right now sir? Cet par of course.

I'd like to understand how you quantify Fisher's negative impact, please? Sir?

Also as a follow up, what are your logical and discernable reasons for believing that Luke Walton has major positive effect on the Warriors aside from your mentioned time out management. Specifically, that they are less than a cohesive system with a winning formula and good internal (player to player) management and that without Luke Walton's input there would be appreciable negative effect on the team's performance.

Lastly, if the argument is cogent (which I hold it might be as you are very intelligent), what inference can we draw about the abilities of Steve Kerr and/or the importance of coaches in general? We would obviously logically agree that if there is huge affect in that playcalling by a coach and leadership by a coach are supremely important, the probability of two all time great single season coaching performances by two different men infers that they both have all time great level coaching ablility and that is highly unlikely. To help the excercise, would Derek Fisher prevent the GSW from winning with what in your opinion is a pronounced lack of coaching skill?

For full disclosure, I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely both Luke Walton and Steve Kerr are all-time great coaches and that its more likely that a successful system has been implemented. The importance of a coach is not in microcosmic scale as he doesn't control players from possession to possession as in football for instance. There are minor exceptions to this such as in deadball situations and in psychomanagement of individuals on a case by case basis during gameplay when necessary. The coach is responsible for institutional control and creating systematic modalities for his players to function within as players are largely autonomous once on the court.

In this regard, Derek Fisher is implementing the system of another's design with the tools of another choosing unlike for example Mike Budenholzer, Greg Popovich, or even to a lesser extent Jeff Hornacek. As such there are certain inherent limitations that he must learn to work within. This is not to say that he is capable of identifying talent nor in designing such a system in general. It is merely acknowledging that there are certain inefficiencies within the model that he must work within and as such, that there are more factors outside of his control that he must find ways to efficiently manage.

With that being said, I believe that he is at least adequate in regard to the two earlier referenced conditions; first, he clearly has institutional control within his specific sphere of influence. Secondly, the system he's using currently has yielded results above what was likely to be expected as the team is 4-6 thus far. If .500 is the standard for of mediocrity and we fell well short of that last year, I do not believe that its reasonable to expect much more positive variance all things considered but IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. Althought the sample size is likely insignificant, we seem to be trending in the right direction. I lack the quantitative proof of my assumption however without you providing any the exercise is rhetorical and merely opinionated conjecture.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement that his management of specific microcosmic scale is lacking and that it could cost a team in individual and specific instances leading to loss of wins ie; his inbound plays and his playcalling out of timeouts which at somepoint will be in game ending situations where his individual and specific play to play influence is greatest. These smaller decisions are cumulative however, and in that regard the summary effect of his decision making is currently positively influencing the Knicks as is evidenced in out record relative to my previously mentioned opinion of expected outcome.

To conclude; Derek Fishers general game management is ok in my opinion but his general gamesmanship seems to be greater than ok and getting better. A steep learning curve for a second year coach with absolutely no coaching experience is not abnormal and as fans who have patience to wait for specific players skills to develop, we should have the same patience to wait for specific coaches skills to develop in the interest of fairness. Replacing institution wide fixtures and procedure is not an easy or quick task. I do not believe that we have enough information to make proper judgement of Derek Fisher's ceiling as a coach as of yet and scuttling the progress made for replacement by an unknown quantity in a semi-familiar situation (Walton) or a known quantity in a completely foreign situation (Thibs) would not facilitate the quickening of our apparent turn around which seems to be the basic premise most's discontent. It's a process.

Awesome post. If you noticed, nobody really wanted to answer you. You were too thorough. Keep it up.

That's because everyone who doesn't have your viewpoint is obviously dumb as dirt Bill. We simply lack the brain cells that would equip us with the ability to answer. Pray for us hillbillies. Have mercy on us. We are too stupid to be taken seriously and unworthy of your exalted company. Now back to my regularly scheduled banjo picking session.

Oh, come on, Clyde. You really think I think you're stupid??

Even when it's one of your posts that ignites one of my pro-Knicks rants, if I ever use the word dumb or stupid or troll or sexually undesirable, you can rest assured I'm not talking about you.

We clearly disagree on Fisher. That's okay. You're still my favorite. If I wasn't on my phone, id dedicate a 1980s music video to you right now.