The Sky Is Not Falling

[TheSecretWeapon]

If this Wizards roster is a team that "should" win something in the mid-50s, then just about any team is REALLY a mid-50s win team if they just were healthier or got better coaching or got luckier or whatever.

But, the Wizards roster isn't that good. Their coaching isn't very good either. This isn't astonishing considering the record of the guy in charge of assembling the roster and hiring the coach. The Wizards roster is one that should win something in the mid-40s this season. Realistically speaking, they're basically a .500 team (average) that got to play in a weak conference so they'll get a few extra wins because of that.

If they were in the West, they probably would be in the lottery. If the conferences were more competitively balanced, they'd probably be in the hunt for a 7th or 8th seed.

And they're old.

But, all that's kinda beside the point. They've have 72 games so far and we have a very good read on how good they are. Sure, a little more health, a little more luck, and maybe even better coaching and they could have won a few more games. But, a little less health, a little less luck, and maybe even a little worse coaching and they could have lost a few more games too. This is true for every team. Even Golden State could have a better record if they'd just been healthier, luckier or gotten better coaching in a few games.

[hands11]

Roster moves matter more than coaches - and no, you couldn't suck 8 more wins out of this team - we were NEVER that good. Maybe if Beal takes a jump - but he really hasn't. Maybe if Porter will ready to take the reins from PP - but he isn't. Maybe if we had a real stretch 4, but we don't. Maybe if we had wings or a backup PG that could really break down the D - but we don't. Maybe if we had a rim protector other than Gortat - nope.

And you are telling me that this is a mid-50 win team? And we have had really good luck in the health area. We haven't missed that many games compared to the norm and especially the norm for the age of this team. And Temple and Butler have played out of their heads or we would be a 30 win team.

Let's face it - this GM got it right on Wall - and then not much else. The drafting, the rest of the roster, the front office, the coaching staff, the player development, the roster balance, the roster built for this coach

ALL STINK

[/RANT]

Yes, getting LeBron or KD would matter more.

But as I already pointed out, even when you have great players, coaching matters because now you have to mix together those great players. Look at OKC. Still waiting to see this KD and Westbrook thing done properly.

Now at the stage LeBron is at, he basically does it all. Player, GM, Coach. But he wasn't like that 6 years ago. So sure. Every team wants LeBron. News flash.

In this conference. This year. 8-10 wins could be done with a good coach.

This roster does not suck compared to the others in the conference. Not when you compare what they should have done this year. Now maybe some teams have better young talent that might work out down the road, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about this team, this year, this conference, this league.

52 wins should have been very doable. 50 wins should have been a lock. 54-56 wins if the coach was a really good coach.

46 wins. Thats a huge failure. Maybe 8-10 is to much for people because it comparing them to the optimal. which is what it was intended to do.

6 games is real easy to see. And make no mistake. 6 games is a ton in the NBA when you are at the stage of trying to get to the next level. The difference between 46 wins and 52 wins is pretty huge.

Its an entire tier.

[DCZards]

Roster moves matter more than coaches - and no, you couldn't suck 8 more wins out of this team - we were NEVER that good. Maybe if Beal takes a jump - but he really hasn't. Maybe if Porter will ready to take the reins from PP - but he isn't. Maybe if we had a real stretch 4, but we don't. Maybe if we had wings or a backup PG that could really break down the D - but we don't. Maybe if we had a rim protector other than Gortat - nope.

And you are telling me that this is a mid-50 win team? And we have had really good luck in the health area. We haven't missed that many games compared to the norm and especially the norm for the age of this team. And Temple and Butler have played out of their heads or we would be a 30 win team.

Let's face it - this GM got it right on Wall - and then not much else. The drafting, the rest of the roster, the front office, the coaching staff, the player development, the roster balance, the roster built for this coach

ALL STINK

[/RANT]

Gotta agree with this...pretty much right on target...although I'm still hoping that the GM might have gotten it right with Beal and Porter. We'll see.

[dckingsfan]

Roster moves matter more than coaches - and no, you couldn't suck 8 more wins out of this team - we were NEVER that good. Maybe if Beal takes a jump - but he really hasn't. Maybe if Porter will ready to take the reins from PP - but he isn't. Maybe if we had a real stretch 4, but we don't. Maybe if we had wings or a backup PG that could really break down the D - but we don't. Maybe if we had a rim protector other than Gortat - nope.

And you are telling me that this is a mid-50 win team? And we have had really good luck in the health area. We haven't missed that many games compared to the norm and especially the norm for the age of this team. And Temple and Butler have played out of their heads or we would be a 30 win team.

Let's face it - this GM got it right on Wall - and then not much else. The drafting, the rest of the roster, the front office, the coaching staff, the player development, the roster balance, the roster built for this coach

ALL STINK

[/RANT]

Yes, getting LeBron or KD would matter more.

But as I already pointed out, even when you have great players, coaching matters because now you have to mix together those great players. Look at OKC. Still waiting to see this KD and Westbrook thing done properly.

Now at the stage LeBron is at, he basically does it all. Player, GM, Coach. But he wasn't like that 6 years ago. So sure. Every team wants LeBron. News flash.

In this conference. This year. 8-10 wins could be done with a good coach.

This roster does not suck compared to the others in the conference. Not when you compare what they should have done this year. Now maybe some teams have better young talent that might work out down the road, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about this team, this year, this conference, this league.

52 wins should have been very doable. 50 wins should have been a lock. 54-56 wins if the coach was a really good coach.

46 wins. Thats a huge failure. Maybe 8-10 is to much for people because it comparing them to the optimal. which is what it was intended to do.

6 games is real easy to see. And make no mistake. 6 games is a ton in the NBA when you are at the stage of trying to get to the next level. The difference between 46 wins and 52 wins is pretty huge.

Its an entire tier.

You might want to start with "OPINION"

Edit: I assume you mean that mid-40s is because this is the worst coach we could get. And 50 wins if we have the Zen Master.

[gtn130]

But, all that's kinda beside the point. They've have 72 games so far and we have a very good read on how good they are. Sure, a little more health, a little more luck, and maybe even better coaching and they could have won a few more games. But, a little less health, a little less luck, and maybe even a little worse coaching and they could have lost a few more games too. This is true for every team. Even Golden State could have a better record if they'd just been healthier, luckier or gotten better coaching in a few games.

Don't think I agree with this. It's not that the Wizards have mediocre or below average coaching -- they have easily one of the 2-3 worst coaches in the league. Monty Williams is obviously the worst coach, but Wittman is probably #2. Replacing Wittman with an average coach would make a huge difference, and I don't understand how people don't see this.

We have one of the best creators of open 3 point shots in the league -- maybe the best, yet we take the 4th fewest. Yeah, our roster is old and Beal is far from a positive player at this point, but people are severely underestimating Wall. Everything he's done thus far is in spite of a strategy that directly conflicts with his strengths. Additionally, Wall and Beal being coached to take long 2s is such an obvious detriment to both their development and overall team success, that virtually any replacement level coach would be a significant upgrade.

What's interesting is that you mention Golden State when they took a massive leap after switching coaches. Bogut being healthy and the emergence of Draymond Green obviously help GSW, but reality is that if Jackson was still coach, David Lee would be playing 30+ minutes every night, and they'd be calling for postups every other possession on offense. GSW is completely different on both offense and defense this year, and that can really only be attributed to Kerr. Coaching matters a ton, and chalking everything up to variance is definitely incorrect.

[gtn130]

Yes, getting LeBron or KD would matter more.

But as I already pointed out, even when you have great players, coaching matters because now you have to mix together those great players. Look at OKC. Still waiting to see this KD and Westbrook thing done properly.

Now at the stage LeBron is at, he basically does it all. Player, GM, Coach. But he wasn't like that 6 years ago. So sure. Every team wants LeBron. News flash.

In this conference. This year. 8-10 wins could be done with a good coach.

This roster does not suck compared to the others in the conference. Not when you compare what they should have done this year. Now maybe some teams have better young talent that might work out down the road, but that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about this team, this year, this conference, this league.

52 wins should have been very doable. 50 wins should have been a lock. 54-56 wins if the coach was a really good coach.

46 wins. Thats a huge failure. Maybe 8-10 is to much for people because it comparing them to the optimal. which is what it was intended to do.

6 games is real easy to see. And make no mistake. 6 games is a ton in the NBA when you are at the stage of trying to get to the next level. The difference between 46 wins and 52 wins is pretty huge.

Its an entire tier.

Pretty much agree with all of this. OKC example is a great one, as Scott Brooks has probably already cost his team a championship by being an imbecile. The guy had no idea what his best lineup was in the finals and he butchered every match up.

Allowing Miami to play small with Battier in the corner while trotting Perkins out there was simply laughable. Playing Perkins at all in lieu of Collison was more or less a joke. Putting Harden on LeBron all game was a disaster -- especially when they had a better defender/less valuable offensive player in Thabo Sefolosha. Harden was needlessly worn out that series because Brooks was so clueless and unaware that he never even attempted to play small.

Seriously, coaching matters. People who think a bad coach can't cost a team 5+ wins are way off base.

[dckingsfan]

Not sure he is the worst coach in the NBA - especially if you consider what he has done with the defense:
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-bas ... -nba-coach

[dckingsfan]

I think we have the "this team should be at 55 wins if we had a good coach" argument.

And the "this team is performing to their personnel +/- 3 or 4 games" argument.

I think both arguments are opinions and are not really measurable. But both have their merits. Although Nivek may prove me wrong (I shouldn't challenge him )

I happen to be in the latter camp - I think a better offensive mind would help but... I think the personnel on this team isn't a 50 win team as it stands. Could a really good coach milk out some extra wins - yes. But I am guessing a really good coach wouldn't come here with EG as the GM - so that argument may be moot.

[gtn130]

Not sure he is the worst coach in the NBA - especially if you consider what he has done with the defense:
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-bas ... -nba-coach

I would definitely not appeal to these rankings -- they are horrendous.

-Anyone who believes Scott Brooks is a top-10 coach is clueless.
-Doc is a great players' coach but he's an embarrassment of a GM.
-Thibs at five is a joke. He grinds his players into the ground so that they're dead or injured come playoff time while smart coaches like Pop are resting their players at every turn.
-Casey is terrible
-Hollins is terrible
-Byron Scott is easily a bottom five coach. He didn't want the Lakers to take ANY 3 pointers in the preseason.
-Flip Saunders is Randy Wittman
-Brian Shaw was terrible and is now fired
-Jacque Vaughn was terrible and is now fired
-Brad Stevens near the bottom is obviously wrong. He's great.

These rankings are meaningless and were written by someone who doesn't watch basketball.

[gtn130]

Oh yeah and Monty is the worst coach in the league and it's not close. Try watching a game of his to see how dumb he is

[dckingsfan]

So Wittman isn't the worst coach and there are a lot of bad coaches in the L. And the coaching rankings are subjective.

[TheSecretWeapon]

But, all that's kinda beside the point. They've have 72 games so far and we have a very good read on how good they are. Sure, a little more health, a little more luck, and maybe even better coaching and they could have won a few more games. But, a little less health, a little less luck, and maybe even a little worse coaching and they could have lost a few more games too. This is true for every team. Even Golden State could have a better record if they'd just been healthier, luckier or gotten better coaching in a few games.

Don't think I agree with this. It's not that the Wizards have mediocre or below average coaching -- they have easily one of the 2-3 worst coaches in the league. Monty Williams is obviously the worst coach, but Wittman is probably #2. Replacing Wittman with an average coach would make a huge difference, and I don't understand how people don't see this.

We have one of the best creators of open 3 point shots in the league -- maybe the best, yet we take the 4th fewest. Yeah, our roster is old and Beal is far from a positive player at this point, but people are severely underestimating Wall. Everything he's done thus far is in spite of a strategy that directly conflicts with his strengths. Additionally, Wall and Beal being coached to take long 2s is such an obvious detriment to both their development and overall team success, that virtually any replacement level coach would be a significant upgrade.

What's interesting is that you mention Golden State when they took a massive leap after switching coaches. Bogut being healthy and the emergence of Draymond Green obviously help GSW, but reality is that if Jackson was still coach, David Lee would be playing 30+ minutes every night, and they'd be calling for postups every other possession on offense. GSW is completely different on both offense and defense this year, and that can really only be attributed to Kerr. Coaching matters a ton, and chalking everything up to variance is definitely incorrect.

I'm not saying that coaches make zero difference. I think Wittman is probably a net negative for the Wizards. But, not to the tune of 10 games or five or even three.

As for Wall's ability to "create" 3pt shots...I guess I have a different view. Teammates work together to create shots. Wall's vision and pass is important, but so is having teammates who get to the right spots.

I do agree with your player development comments. Wittman's emphasis on 2pt jumpers may be damaging long-term to young players who entered the league not knowing any better. For more established players, he's probably not making much difference. Ariza, for example, set personal highs in 3pt attempts (as a percentage of FGA) his two years in DC (before going even more 3pt heavy in Houston). On the other hand, there's Nenê, who's attempting more long twos than at any point in his career.

As for Kerr and Golden State -- he may be one of the rare coaches who has a positive effect on his players' production. However, the research is clear that few coaches have a measurable effect on their players' productivity, either good or bad.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I think we have the "this team should be at 55 wins if we had a good coach" argument.

And the "this team is performing to their personnel +/- 3 or 4 games" argument.

I think both arguments are opinions and are not really measurable. But both have their merits. Although Nivek may prove me wrong (I shouldn't challenge him )

I happen to be in the latter camp - I think a better offensive mind would help but... I think the personnel on this team isn't a 50 win team as it stands. Could a really good coach milk out some extra wins - yes. But I am guessing a really good coach wouldn't come here with EG as the GM - so that argument may be moot.

The only thing we KNOW is what's actually happened, of course. The conversation about what they MIGHT have done with a different coach is pure conjecture.

That said, very much the same group won 44 last season. And, in the preseason, I projected they'd win 45 this year. Both with Wittman as coach, though.

Hmm. Might be a way to estimate what the Wizards could be with a different shot selection. I won't have time to look at that for a couple weeks probably. Could be interesting, though.

[nuposse04]

I don't know, that may have been true of old coaching styles, but I wonder, when "analytical" coaches take over regimes that well...not so crazy about the numbers, what degree of improvement is seen. I see good stuff i Utah, GSW, Phx, Bos, PHI and ATL. I think some of teams aren't at where they need to be but, I guess my question is, are those franchises better or further along their rebuilds/contendership (although PHI is in a perpetual state of rebuild) then they would be with coaches that don't promote smart basketball?

I just get the feeling more ownership groups realize top end talent is hard to come by so they are going to look to coaches who know how to squeeze a lot out of a little in order to contend. Would a coach at Joeger's level give us 10 more wins? Probably not, but I think between 3-5 may be reasonable, still doesn't change the fact even with those wins we won't be able to contend, but at least good habits would be built with our players of consequence.

[dckingsfan]

Here is a list you will like better:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12561 ... op-coaches

[gtn130]

I'm not saying that coaches make zero difference. I think Wittman is probably a net negative for the Wizards. But, not to the tune of 10 games or five or even three.

As for Wall's ability to "create" 3pt shots...I guess I have a different view. Teammates work together to create shots. Wall's vision and pass is important, but so is having teammates who get to the right spots.

I do agree with your player development comments. Wittman's emphasis on 2pt jumpers may be damaging long-term to young players who entered the league not knowing any better. For more established players, he's probably not making much difference. Ariza, for example, set personal highs in 3pt attempts (as a percentage of FGA) his two years in DC (before going even more 3pt heavy in Houston). On the other hand, there's Nenê, who's attempting more long twos than at any point in his career.

As for Kerr and Golden State -- he may be one of the rare coaches who has a positive effect on his players' production. However, the research is clear that few coaches have a measurable effect on their players' productivity, either good or bad.

Yeah, I guess we just don't agree because I think you're still severely underestimating the impact coaches can have.I'd like to see the research you're alluding to because I tend to doubt its validity.

When it comes to evaluating coaches, anecdotal examples/watching the games is really the only way to go. You have to account for things like substitution patterns and late game/quarter decision making -- things that coaches like Monty Williams botch every single night. Those things aren't going to show up in any meaningful way statistically, but they certainly can cost teams win equity that will add up over the course of the season. And coaches who butcher late game/quarter decisions, substitutions and matchups -- are they ever going to be masterminds in other facets of basketball like offensive and defensive strategy? It's possible, but very rarely is it the case. You need smart, analytical people running your team.

There isn't going to be any conclusive data about coaching since Ws/Ls from season-to-season will always involve so many different variables -- different players, injuries, strength of schedule, general basketball variance etc etc. The GSW example is as clean as it gets, but it's still entirely imperfect, and conclusions can't be drawn from Ws/Ls alone.

The only way to perfectly measure the job the coach is doing would be to have other coaches operate under that identical scenario -- it's impossible. And that's why coaching evaluations are a subjective process and always will be (unless you're in a position where you're an owner/GM and you have to be results-oriented).

[gtn130]

Here is a list you will like better:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12561 ... op-coaches

That list is way better. Don't agree with all of it, obviously, but it's still much better than the other one.

[TheSecretWeapon]

I'm not saying that coaches make zero difference. I think Wittman is probably a net negative for the Wizards. But, not to the tune of 10 games or five or even three.

As for Wall's ability to "create" 3pt shots...I guess I have a different view. Teammates work together to create shots. Wall's vision and pass is important, but so is having teammates who get to the right spots.

I do agree with your player development comments. Wittman's emphasis on 2pt jumpers may be damaging long-term to young players who entered the league not knowing any better. For more established players, he's probably not making much difference. Ariza, for example, set personal highs in 3pt attempts (as a percentage of FGA) his two years in DC (before going even more 3pt heavy in Houston). On the other hand, there's Nenê, who's attempting more long twos than at any point in his career.

As for Kerr and Golden State -- he may be one of the rare coaches who has a positive effect on his players' production. However, the research is clear that few coaches have a measurable effect on their players' productivity, either good or bad.

Yeah, I guess we just don't agree because I think you're still severely underestimating the impact coaches can have.I'd like to see the research you're alluding to because I tend to doubt its validity.

When it comes to evaluating coaches, anecdotal examples/watching the games is really the only way to go. You have to account for things like substitution patterns and late game/quarter decision making -- things that coaches like Monty Williams botch every single night. Those things aren't going to show up in any meaningful way statistically, but they certainly can cost teams win equity that will add up over the course of the season. And coaches who butcher late game/quarter decisions, substitutions and matchups -- are they ever going to be masterminds in other facets of basketball like offensive and defensive strategy? It's possible, but very rarely is it the case. You need smart, analytical people running your team.

There isn't going to be any conclusive data about coaching since Ws/Ls from season-to-season will always involve so many different variables -- different players, injuries, strength of schedule, general basketball variance etc etc. The GSW example is as clean as it gets, but it's still entirely imperfect, and conclusions can't be drawn from Ws/Ls alone.

The only way to perfectly measure the job the coach is doing would be to have other coaches operate under that identical scenario -- it's impossible. And that's why coaching evaluations are a subjective process and always will be (unless you're in a position where you're an owner/GM and you have to be results-oriented).

I hear ya. For what it's worth, Wittman wouldn't have been my choice. I liked Joerger. And, I'd love to replace Wittman with one of the coaches I've talked about in other threads. But, the most important factor is getting better players.

As for the research, look for stuff by David Berri.

[dckingsfan]

Here is a list you will like better:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12561 ... op-coaches

That list is way better. Don't agree with all of it, obviously, but it's still much better than the other one.

And of course it is a bit subjective - so it depends on where you think he should land to which list you prefer

I happen to think Wittman needs to go - but I also want Grunfeld gone at the same time or before.

[gtn130]

Here is a list you will like better:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12561 ... op-coaches

That list is way better. Don't agree with all of it, obviously, but it's still much better than the other one.

And of course it is a bit subjective - so it depends on where you think he should land to which list you prefer

I happen to think Wittman needs to go - but I also want Grunfeld gone at the same time or before.

Yeah, I agree it's a matter of opinion when comparing two good coaches or two bad coaches or two mediocre coaches. It's not so subjective when comparing Wittman to Pop or Monty to Carlisle. It's a fact that Pop and Carlisle are light years ahead of the bad coaches.