Should John Hammond be fired? (WAUK- Homer update page 56)

[Sigra]

The good shots have been there all season.

You see? This is the problem with fans who don't focus and can't see big picture.

You saw some open shoots here and there and now you say "the good shots have been there all season". Sure. All NBA teams have some open shoots here and there. Good one have MORE open shoots.

I am not saying that we didn't have any open shoots all year. I feel stupid just because I need to point this out (just like I felt stupid that I had to point out that I knew that every man make mistake). Don't take things that literaly. We had open shoots here and there. Good teams have WAY more open shoots.

[AussieBuck]

You see? This is the problem with fans who don't focus and can't see big picture.

This is why you get picked on. The guy who is wrong more often than anyone in forum history is the most arrogant guy on the board. If you were a little more self aware you'd be upset a lot less often.

[LUKE23]

Re 1 & 2: We've already established our difference of opinion we have in credit for D for a team. We had a complete roster overhaul. I say GM, you say coach.

Re 3: Do you think CV could finish his career and become a defensive coach who could develop players to become great defensive players? Of course not. Bogut was a 23 year old international player surrounded by crappy me first offensive minded players. His development was a combination of getting older and stronger, learning the NBA game and having more support. The idea that Skiles developed his defensive game is ridiculous.

I don't even know how to respond to the lunacy of either of these comments. Do you honestly think how good a player is at something has anything to do with how good of a coach they will be? Coaching is about leadership/mentality/brains, not physical attributes. Skiles and CV couldn't be more different personality wise if you tried.

So the idea that Skiles developed Bogut's defensive game, when we went from 30th to 5th is "ridiculous".

Track record is on my side and not yours. Skiles has been a head coach that has been great defensively his entire career. JH has never been a head GM and is looking over his head so far. Skiles is one of the few things he got right.

[Sigra]

I said FEW TIMES already that Skiles has no idea what to run at offense exept one-on-one and pick&roll sometimes. So when he has better one-on-one players his offense is a little better. Last year he had better one on one players as Bogut was healthy and Salmons and Ridnour played for contract.

I am reading. You're not debating the point as usual. But thanks for confirming that it is on the players to make shots. That is all I wanted.

It's not a very hard concept at all. We ran the same offense as last year, and with good wing production, had a competent offense. Amazing that when Salmons is gutter trash we can't score. Salmons sucking is on Salmons and nobody else.

Ok is there somebody else here who can read and explain my point to Luke23? Serious question!

YES LUKE, IN SKILES OFFENSE IT IS ON THE PLAYERS TO DO SOMETHING ONE ON ONE. THIS YEAR HIS PLAYERS ARE NOT AS GOOD ONE ON ONE AS THEY WERE LAST YEAR. BUT IF HE IS BETTER OFFENSIVE COACH HE WOULD BE ABLE TO RUN SOME OTHER OFFENSE THAT IS NOT ONE ON ONE.

[LUKE23]

YES LUKE, IN SKILES OFFENSE IT IS ON THE PLAYERS TO DO SOMETHING ONE ON ONE. THIS YEAR HIS PLAYERS ARE NOT AS GOOD ONE ON ONE AS THEY WERE LAST YEAR. BUT IF HE IS BETTER OFFENSIVE COACH HE WOULD BE ABLE TO RUN SOME OTHER OFFENSE THAT IS NOT ONE ON ONE.

What offense would you have him run with no consistent perimeter shooters, no slashers, and no post players?

[Sigra]

Just to confirm: Skiles, a PG who was one of the worst defensive players in the league throughout his career, has developed Bogut's D to where it is today?

What in God's name does Skiles D as a player have to do with anything? If you're going to actually debate, debate the points. Here are the facts:

1. Skiles has never finished outside the top 10 in D for his career, outside of the one season Bogut missed 46 games.

2. Bucks were the worst defense in basketball before Skiles came in. They were 5th when Bogut went out in 2008-09, 2nd last year, and 4th this year.

3. If Bogut was already this stud defender before Skiles, how are we 30th in D? Hmmmmmmm.

Skiles as a player has nothing to do with anything.

Re 1 & 2: We've already established our difference of opinion we have in credit for D for a team. We had a complete roster overhaul. I say GM, you say coach.

Re 3: Do you think CV could finish his career and become a defensive coach who could develop players to become great defensive players? Of course not. Bogut was a 23 year old international player surrounded by crappy me first offensive minded players. His development was a combination of getting older and stronger, learning the NBA game and having more support. The idea that Skiles developed his defensive game is ridiculous.

How I love people who know how to think. Spot on man. Spot on.

[LUKE23]

This is why you get picked on. The guy who is wrong more often than anyone in forum history is the most arrogant guy on the board. If you were a little more self aware you'd be upset a lot less often.

Yeah, it's getting worse. Sigra used to just be a delusional homer, now he's a delusional homer who gets personal on whoever doesn't agree. Time for the ignore button.

[rilamann]

The good shots have been there all season.

You see? This is the problem with fans who don't focus and can't see big picture.

You saw some open shoots here and there and now you say "the good shots have been there all season". Sure. All NBA teams have some open shoots here and there. Good one have MORE open shoots.

I am not saying that we didn't have any open shoots all year. I feel stupid just because I need to point this out (just like I felt stupid that I had to point out that I knew that every man make mistake). Don't take things that literaly. We had open shoots here and there. Good teams have WAY more open shoots.

The Bucks couldn't consistiently make their open shots all season but when I say good shots I'm not nessacarily just talking about ''open shots''


What's a good shot depends on the player and the context of the game.

But the bottomline is the Bucks couldn't consistiently make their good shots and then compounded that a lot of times by at the same time attempting too many bad shots.


If it wasn't Salmons bricking a wide open jumper or Jennings botching a lay up it was Gooden or Magette forcing up a bad shot.

[Sigra]

What offense would you have him run with no consistent perimeter shooters, no slashers, and no post players?

Ok, are you troll? You can tell me. It will stay between us

I just talked about how bad offensive sets efect shooting percentages and slashing and then you say "no consistent perimeter shooters, no slashers". What the hell man? What the hell?

I will give you "no post players" this year because with that arm Bogut was not that. But so many good offensive teams are there who have no post players. There are so many ways to score. So many combinations of screens and w/o ball movement. So many tricky plays that fool defenses. So many options to open your players. Skiles has one-on-one and pick and roll/pop. That's all.

[emunney]

That's not true. He's also got the one where he curls three guys off a baseline screen, which almost always results in Salmons catching from the elbow and shooting a fadeaway.

[rrravenred]

The problem is that one bad "anomaly" results in contracts that cripple us for multiple seasons.

The anomaly was the performance of the team this season, not Hammond's performance this season. Apologies if I was unclear.

Redd is the wildcard here. Top 5 salary in the NBA. The CBA negotiations could still stab us in the back, but I don't think we're quite as financially inflexible as has been painted. Moute is a question mark. Whether we offer him a deal (and the parameters of that deal) will be an interesting indicator in terms of which way the franchise goes.

In reference to your last sentence, I'd say tearing it down doesn't have a sure fire success rate, however, it definitely has better odds of working than trying to either develop or trade to a contending core out of our current roster. Look at our trade assets. There are zero.

Once again, once players are healthy and (hopefully) in sync, their tradable value will rise somewhat.

And I disagree on our current roster. There's stlll significant improvement / rebound potential there. You've had a reasonably fixed view on this for a while though, so we'll probably just agree to disagree.

Again, if the goal is contention, and not just being first round fodder, it's going to take drastic, tear it down type changes. If the goal is just to make the playoffs, then this core is fine.

Unless you're LA, San Antonio or Boston, it's damn difficult to actually build deliberately for contention. And even so... LA got the gift of Pau, Kevin McHale gave a reasonably soft deal to his old team for KG, MIiami fluked it with the personal relationship between the big three.

Chcago is another model we could consider, of course, and when they lucked into Rose, they finished 33-49 (in the East). OF course, we'd have to tank for the next two games before we could reach that level of "contention". Get a team in the area, and hope for a lucky break. Yeah, that's basically it.

[Sigra]

But the bottomline is the Bucks couldn't consistiently make their good shots and then compounded that a lot of times by at the same time attempting too many bad shots

If it wasn't Salmons bricking a wide open jumper or Jennings botching a lay up it was Gooden or Magette forcing up a bad shot.

Bucks made their good shoots just as much as anybody else. The problem is that they didn't have as much good shoots as other teams.

I have proof for that:
When we can get more good shoots (against bad defensive teams) we score more points and with good shooting %s. See games against Knicks or Raptors or Cavs.

So our players can shoot and can score when they have oportunity. When they have to force (and they have against good defenses) then they don't get enough good shoots (Skiles' terrible offensive sets) and then they miss off course.

Skiles offense doesn't provide enough good shoots. That is only true in this debate. Bad shoots = bad %

[lawrybeard]

Re 1 & 2: We've already established our difference of opinion we have in credit for D for a team. We had a complete roster overhaul. I say GM, you say coach.

Re 3: Do you think CV could finish his career and become a defensive coach who could develop players to become great defensive players? Of course not. Bogut was a 23 year old international player surrounded by crappy me first offensive minded players. His development was a combination of getting older and stronger, learning the NBA game and having more support. The idea that Skiles developed his defensive game is ridiculous.

LMAO. I don't even know how to respond to the lunacy of either of these comments. Do you honestly think how good a player is at something has anything to do with how good of a coach they will be? Coaching is about leadership/mentality/brains, not physical attributes. Skiles and CV couldn't be more different personality wise if you tried.

So the idea that Skiles developed Bogut's defensive game, when we went from 30th to 5th is "ridiculous". You don't believe the stuff you type.

Track record is on my side and not yours. Skiles has been a head coach that has been great defensively his entire career. JH has never been a head GM and is looking over his head so far. Skiles is one of the few things he got right.

Defense is mostly about physical attributes, athletic ability, instincts/ability to read the play, reaction time/foot speed - all of which cannot be coached. The rest is coaching, of which all players receive well before they reach the NBA. I have no doubt Skiles held Bogut accountable, but wth is he going to develop? If it was someone like Sidney Moncrief then it might be plausible, but Skiles - give me a @#$#ing break...

I say Bogut's improvement defensively was a combination of him getting older and stronger, learning the NBA game and being surrounded by better defensive players. If you think it was Skiles then good luck to you. Hopefully Skiles will turn all of our players into elite defensive players and we will prosper.

[Sigra]

That's not true. He's also got the one where he curls three guys off a baseline screen, which almost always results in Salmons catching from the elbow and shooting a fadeaway.

Again, please don't be so literaly. Yes he has few more plays. Still not nearly as much as other teams. And that has been true wherever he was and who ever played for him.

[LUKE23]

Defense is mostly about physical attributes, athletic ability, instincts/ability to read the play, reaction time/foot speed - all of which cannot be coached. The rest is coaching, of which all players receive well before they reach the NBA. I have no doubt Skiles held Bogut accountable, but wth is he going to develop? If it was someone like Sidney Moncrief then it might be plausible, but Skiles - give me a @#$#ing break...

I say Bogut's improvement defensively was a combination of him getting older and stronger, learning the NBA game and being surrounded by better defensive players. If you think it was Skiles then good luck to you. Hopefully Skiles will turn all of our players into elite defensive players and we will prosper.

Okay, so we're 30th in D with Bogut in year 3. We're 5th in D when Bogut goes down in year 4. The coach gets no credit for that. It's just a MAJOR maturity coincidence in Bogut's game. Who cares if it was scheme, accountability, teaching, or whatever? The results are what matter.

So you believe defense is physical attributes and offense is more coaching huh? It's amazing that a team like Miami, which is almost exclusively isolation and kick or isolation pick and roll, is 3rd in the league in offense with absolutely no depth. Spoelstra must be a magician. Has nothing to do with the players added in the offseason.

I'm not arguing that defense is all coaching, but it is far more coaching than offense. Effort and accountability do matter on that side of the ball.

[emunney]

I was joking, foreigner. I don't want to play the head games.

[smooth 'lil balla]

Okay, so we're 30th in D with Bogut in year 3. We're 5th in D when Bogut goes down in year 4. The coach gets no credit for that. It's just a MAJOR maturity coincidence in Bogut's game.

The GM gets no credit either huh? I believe they came in together. So isn't it reasonable to say it could be 50-50? I mean, if it were all the coach shouldn't he have been able to coach Bogut's replacement to keep our overall D from being just as effective?

[LUKE23]

Yes, I do believe Hammond gets credit for hiring Skiles. I'm not sure how much over another GM though, since Harris was never given the funding to hire a legitimate coach. That is, unless you believe Porter, Stotts, and LK were his top choices.

[BC_]

I suppose the jump Chicago made from 13th to 2nd in D was due to Noah making a maturity jump as well?

[Newz]

I suppose the jump Chicago made from 13th to 2nd in D was due to Noah making a maturity jump as well?

Yeah, that pretty much means you should just give DPOY to whoever the best defender is on the best defensive team.