Is Earl Watson doing a good job?

[gaspar]

Someone want to explain what's wrong with what Watson said?

Duh. It's wrong because it was Earl Watson who said it.

[bwgood77]

Someone want to explain what's wrong with what Watson said? All he's saying is that players are evolving to be able to get it done in the post and out on the perimeter like Embiid and KAT do, not that post game is going to ever completely take over or 3 pointers will be obsolete. "It's not saying the 3-point shot will leave, you just seeing guys who are more hybrids of the game"

Looking at basketball from a pure analytics standpoint is stupid, the game is so much more than "Corner 3 = 1.27 points, Post up = .78 points, so shoot 3s all game." You telling me you'd rather have PJ Tucker shooting a wide open corner 3 than LaMarcus Aldridge, Joel Embiid, or KAT posting up Marquese Chriss and Bender? Because I wouldn't, even though the statistical expected value is higher. Calling a post up the worst shot in basketball is absolutely ridiculous. Post game isn't just turn and throw the ball up over your defender like D'Antoni makes it seem either, it's the ability to draw defenders in for kick outs to open shooters, abuse mismatches when guards get caught on switches, and keeping the defense off balance and moving. D'Antoni talks about spacing the floor out, and that's exactly what happens when you have a post presence, because when you have a guy that can score efficiently and pass out of the post like KAT, Embiid, Jokic, etc. do, the defense has to sink and commit to digging down into the post more and leaving shooters more space to get their shot off. It just so happens that the game is evolving to where those guys can all shoot out on the perimeter as well. That's exactly why OKC was able to give the Warriors so much trouble in the WCF, they were able to exploit the defense in ways that the Warriors weren't able to defend as well with Adams and Kanter down low, but their downfall came when they went away from their offense and just had Durant and Westbrook take turns isolating on the 3 point line. The game is never going to be pure analytics, these are just stats invented to attempt to describe the game, not dictate it.

Nowhere did Watson say we're going to be pounding it in the post, we haven't even done that at all this season. If anything, he's been saying all season that we need to be shooting the 3 more. He's just saying that we have 2 players that are versatile enough to be able to shoot 3's on the perimeter and get it done in the post.

I agree with what you say, though I don't know that I agree with him saying Chriss and Bender can get it done in the post. Perhaps in time, and likely not real soon. Also, Towns and Embiid are the two best bigs and highest rated bigs coming out of the draft in the past 5 years.

[darealjuice]

I agree with what you say, though I don't know that I agree with him saying Chriss and Bender can get it done in the post. Perhaps in time, and likely not real soon. Also, Towns and Embiid are the two best bigs and highest rated bigs coming out of the draft in the past 5 years.

They definitely aren't doing it at a high level right now, but they have good ground to build on down low with Bender's soft touch and passing ability and Chriss' ability to face up and spin dribble out of pressure. They still need polish of course, but we gotta remember that they're two of the youngest high ceiling project prospects in a draft that hasn't had anyone stand out as clearly ready for the league yet. They're going to take time to reach their peak if Watson, Triano, Corbin, Okur, and all of the other developmental guys we've brought in can develop them right, which I am confident they can.

You're right about them being the best bigs, and I think that's the caliber of players he's talking about being able to function like that, which is why we hardly go down into the post with guys like Chandler and Len there and use them more in utility roles. I don't think he's saying that the post game is going to take over, just that it can re-establish itself with talented young players like KAT and Embiid that were being heralded as the next edition of Duncan, Olajuwon, KG, etc. in an era where pace and space is the norm.

[GMATCallahan]

I agree with what you say, though I don't know that I agree with him saying Chriss and Bender can get it done in the post. Perhaps in time, and likely not real soon. Also, Towns and Embiid are the two best bigs and highest rated bigs coming out of the draft in the past 5 years.

Like most contemporary big men (and this trend goes back about two decades to a young Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki—Tom Chambers three decades ago was ahead of his time), Chriss and Bender profile more as face-up big men and pick-and-roll/pop big men than guys who will anchor an offense in the low post. If they can develop a post game to supplement their natural strengths, as Garnett and to some extent Nowitzki eventually did, they would obviously be even better.

Like most teams, the Suns—outside of some flashes from a usually too passive Boris Diaw—basically have not featured good post-up players since the 1990s, and I doubt that we will see major changes in that regard any time soon.

[GMATCallahan]

They definitely aren't doing it at a high level right now, but they have good ground to build on down low with Bender's soft touch and passing ability and Chriss' ability to face up and spin dribble out of pressure. They still need polish of course, but we gotta remember that they're two of the youngest high ceiling project prospects in a draft that hasn't had anyone stand out as clearly ready for the league yet. They're going to take time to reach their peak if Watson, Triano, Corbin, Okur, and all of the other developmental guys we've brought in can develop them right, which I am confident they can.

You're right about them being the best bigs, and I think that's the caliber of players he's talking about being able to function like that, which is why we hardly go down into the post with guys like Chandler and Len there and use them more in utility roles. I don't think he's saying that the post game is going to take over, just that it can re-establish itself with talented young players like KAT and Embiid that were being heralded as the next edition of Duncan, Olajuwon, KG, etc. in an era where pace and space is the norm.

Even Garnett, though, was not a great or dominant post-up player, in my judgment. He did develop a very good turnaround jumper from the left baseline (mildly reminiscent of Olajuwon) and a solid jump-hook to the middle from the left block. Overall, though, Garnett constituted more of a pick-and-pop shooter (just not from three). He did not really enter the NBA as a post-up player and he did not leave the league as one, either. As for Duncan and Olajuwon, three or four years of college tend to make a big difference in terms of post-up play and footwork. That is not to say that Anthony-Towns and Embiid cannot be really good in that regard (the former shows especially strong potential), but when players began leaving college prematurely (or skipping it altogether) in the mid-to-late nineties, footwork and post-up play really started declining. (Of course, there were other reasons for the decline.) Now the few good post-up players and guys with strong footwork tend to be foreign-born (although certainly not in every case, as proved by Alex Len, who came to America for college and then left prematurely).

One exception is Al Jefferson, who entered the league out of high school. Another, in terms of footwork, is Kobe Bryant, but he spent part of his childhood playing soccer in Italy and his father played in the NBA. Overall, chances are that a guy like Chriss will never be what he could have been in the post had he spent two or three more years in college (not that I blame him or any of them for taking the money while it is there).

Footwork and moves aside, whether Chriss and Bender will develop the kinds of bodies, bases, and mentalities that you need to really establish yourself in the post is yet another question.

Certainly, I concur that players are idiosyncratic and how they play needs to be determined by their own abilities and progressions, not by numbers that indicate generic abilities and generic trends. For instance, the twenty-foot jumper (give or take) is now frowned upon by many in the "analytics" community, but the quality of the shot is determined by a particular player and how he develops. Garnett proved outstanding at that shot (off the catch), which meant that there was less (if any) point in him stepping back and shooting threes. With the Suns twenty-five years ago, starting guards Kevin Johnson (historically good at it off the dribble) and Jeff Hornacek (exceptional off the catch, good off the dribble) were both deadly with that shot, and Tom Chambers could be lethal with it too (off the catch). The same was true of a prime Grant Hill (especially off the dribble) or someone named Michael Jordan (exquisite both off the dribble and off the catch). For those players and many others from earlier decades, that shot was often a great shot, not a bad one.

In any sport, metrics often present a paradox because in attempting to account for contingency, they often annihilate nuance. As you indicate, analytics are essentially there to gauge performance, not to predicate it. Some predication can occur with analytics, but only if they are tailored to visual observation and technical analysis of particular players.

Just remember that San Antonio won four championships with Tim Duncan and Tony Parker shooting how many threes? Guys around them shot threes, often off open opportunities created by Duncan and Parker, but Popovich did not say, "These guys need to shoot threes because lots of other guys are doing it." Those guys did not need threes because of how many high-quality two-pointers they could efficiently score, and Popovich did not try to detract from their strengths or turn them into something that they were not. Indeed, Miami won three championships with Dwyane Wade in much the same way.

[Ugly0598]

I wasn't a fan of some of his rotations tonight.

[GMATCallahan]

That's exactly why OKC was able to give the Warriors so much trouble in the WCF, they were able to exploit the defense in ways that the Warriors weren't able to defend as well with Adams and Kanter down low, but their downfall came when they went away from their offense and just had Durant and Westbrook take turns isolating on the 3 point line.

I would not say that the Thunder's post up game (such that there was one) constituted a major factor in Oklahoma City assuming a 3-1 lead in that series and nearly winning the West. Kanter shows some good moves and footwork on the block (among the best in the NBA these days), but he is a pick-and-pop player as much as a post up player and he usually was not even on the court in that series, because he lacked the quickness and defensive acumen to switch out on Curry and Thompson. As for Adams, he offers some strength in the post and a jump-hook, but his game down there is mechanical, limited, and minor.

In the 2016 Western Conference Finals, Kanter averaged 6.0 points per game, played less than 11:00 minutes in each of the final four contests, and twice scored 1 point—including in a 24-point Thunder victory in Game Four. When Oklahoma City won Games Three and Four by a total of 52 points, Kanter combined to shoot 3-11 from the field, scoring 11 points. The defensively superior Adams was on the court much more and proved more productive, but he averaged a modest 10.0 points in the series and in those home blowouts in Games Three and Four, he shot 2-4 from the field both times. He did total 14 free throw attempts in those contests, but overall, most of Adams' points probably came courtesy of hustle plays, offensive rebounds, and proverbial "garbage buckets."

The Thunder fell apart late in the fourth quarter of Game Six when Durant and Westbrook indeed just played one-on-one rather than running a real offense, but their offense in that series was not a post up offense. Late in Game Six, Oklahoma City could have run Westbrook-Durant pick-and-rolls, or run Durant (or even Westbrook) off down screens, or put the ball in Dion Waiters' hands and had him run a pick-and-roll or two. Instead, the Thunder just isolated Durant on the wings against an elite defender in Andre Iguodala while the weak-side Warriors loaded up, shrinking the court and allowing Iguodala to aggressively crowd Durant. Durant ended up holding the ball and then forcing low-percentage shots. Following a few poor possessions in that mold, the Thunder tried to isolate Westbrook from the top of the floor, with the results being similar or worse. Make no mistake, Oklahoma City's offense involved a ton of shots for both Durant and Westbrook and not many post ups, but the Thunder handled those last several possessions of Game Six as if Durant and Westbrook enjoyed glaring mismatches that they could easily exploit, which was not the case.

You do want the option of post ups, certainly (see what happened to Golden State late in Game Seven of the NBA Finals last year), but the personnel has to be right. When the Suns tried to force feed Len in the post during the second half of last season and the preseason this year, we saw what happened.

[TeamTragic]

Someone want to explain what's wrong with what Watson said?

Duh. It's wrong because it was Earl Watson who said it.

It's wrong because Watson is not a coach.

[darealjuice]

Someone want to explain what's wrong with what Watson said?

Duh. It's wrong because it was Earl Watson who said it.

It's wrong because Watson is not a coach.

Then everything you say is wrong too.

[jcsunsfan]

I don not demand wins but:

1. I want to see a young team improve. They are regressing.
2. I want to see young stars developing. Booker has regressed big time, Bender is not getting minutes. Len is our best center (yes) and not starting. Warren is progressing though.

I gave Watson the benefit of the doubt, but I am not seeing what I want from his team.

So no. Not yet at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GMATCallahan]

I don not demand wins but:

1. I want to see a young team improve. They are regressing.
2. I want to see young stars developing. Booker has regressed big time, Bender is not getting minutes. Len is our best center (yes) and not starting. Warren is progressing though.

I gave Watson the benefit of the doubt, but I am not seeing what I want from his team.

So no. Not yet at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based on the statistics (as a starter), Booker has not really regressed from last season to this season. However, he has not really progressed, either; see some of the recent posts in the "Devin Booker" thread.

Bender has been receiving more minutes lately (not last night). However, while Warren enjoyed a good game last night and has progressed in some skill areas and to some extent on defense, his field goal percentage, two-point field goal percentage, and True Shooting Percentage have all plummeted, turning him from an efficient scorer to an inefficient one as he has become a 15-points per game player. His assists and assists-to-turnover ratio have not improved, either.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/warretj01.html

T.J. Warren is a natural scorer—not a natural "go-to" type of scorer or a natural shooter or a natural all-around player, but a natural scorer. If he is barely posting a .500 True Shooting Percentage, he is not going to provide much value.

[Saberestar]

"You have to play nasty,'' Watson said.

"I think sometimes younger players feel like that's not a cool way to play. There's no cool way to play in the NBA. You can't be cool and win games. So whether you're the Cavs or San Antonio or Golden State, whenever they play each other it's always a nasty game. It's always a scrap. It's always edgy. It's always elbows. Someone's always falling. Our team did a great job in the second half of creating a style of basketball defensively that created an edge."

The next step: Making that attitude a part of their basketball DNA, a process that continues in Mexico City, where the Suns will face the Dallas Mavericks on Thursday and San Antonio on Saturday.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2017/01/09/phoenix-suns-youngsters-next-step-playing-edge/96362526/

[DRK]

This screencap was taken from the Cavs game. Down 4, 12 seconds to go, floor spread. Little chance of winning the game here, but that's not the point of this post.

Multiple times in the game, PJ gets blown past by LeBron. now, I know we are talking about LeBron James here, a superstar. The usually way to defend LeBron is to try to force him to shoot. The last thing you want him to do is blow past the defender, where help defence is required, because he is such as strong finisher and has elite court vision to find open teammates on the weak side when the help does arrive.

We also know in recent interviews how Earl Watson is preaching "ball pressure," where he wants the defender to pressure the ball to try and force turnovers. Fine, no problem with that..... Except when you PJ Tucker and defending LeBron James almost at halfcourt, with 12 seconds on the shot clock. I have a problem with this.

1. PJ is not a quick player, LeBron is. One quick dribble move, and LeBron will have an open lane to the bucket.
1b. Once LeBron has an open lane to the bucket, it is game over. Literally.
2. Is this an example of lack of understanding of the game? There is no reason to pressure LeBron when he will obviously try to milk the clock and make a move with <5 seconds to go.


Im not sure who is at fault here. Is PJ Tucker all muscle and no brain on the court? Or is Earl Watson the mastermind behind this madness?

I would like to hear some thoughts on this

[darealjuice]

Spoiler:

This screencap was taken from the Cavs game. Down 4, 12 seconds to go, floor spread. Little chance of winning the game here, but that's not the point of this post.

Multiple times in the game, PJ gets blown past by LeBron. now, I know we are talking about LeBron James here, a superstar. The usually way to defend LeBron is to try to force him to shoot. The last thing you want him to do is blow past the defender, where help defence is required, because he is such as strong finisher and has elite court vision to find open teammates on the weak side when the help does arrive.

We also know in recent interviews how Earl Watson is preaching "ball pressure," where he wants the defender to pressure the ball to try and force turnovers. Fine, no problem with that..... Except when you PJ Tucker and defending LeBron James almost at halfcourt, with 12 seconds on the shot clock. I have a problem with this.

1. PJ is not a quick player, LeBron is. One quick dribble move, and LeBron will have an open lane to the bucket.
1b. Once LeBron has an open lane to the bucket, it is game over. Literally.
2. Is this an example of lack of understanding of the game? There is no reason to pressure LeBron when he will obviously try to milk the clock and make a move with <5 seconds to go.


Im not sure who is at fault here. Is PJ Tucker all muscle and no brain on the court? Or is Earl Watson the mastermind behind this madness?

I would like to hear some thoughts on this

This is pretty similar to the question of whether or not you foul when you're up 3 and your opponent has the last possession of the game, it's all depending on the coaches' philosophy. This is a situation where you have to foul early in the clock and trust your offense, or trust your defense to pressure the ball, not allow uncontested 3's, and make him do something with the ball. Otherwise, he's just going to dribble out the clock out to 10 seconds and have a 3 possession lead if he hits the 3 that you "want" him to take. The clock was running out, and in the end you'd prefer him attempting/scoring a contested 2 point shot, which only requires a max of 2 3's and 2 missed free throws by the Cavs for us to to tie it up, rather than make an under contested 3, which would require us to score at least 3 times in a row while they miss 4 free throws in a row in just 10 seconds, a.k.a. a miracle.

Unfortunately, Lebron is strong enough to hold off PJs pressure and still dribbled out the clock, but we forced him into a missed heavily contested 3 instead of giving him space to step into the shot in rhythm or barrel his way to the basket for an easy shot, we just couldn't get a good shot up to force another possession.

If I were the coach, I probably would have fouled LeBron early in the shot clock instead, as he's shooting under 70% from the line this year and worst case you go down 6 points with 30+ seconds left, 2 time outs, and possession of the ball, which is a bit more manageable than 4/6/7 points in 10 seconds and is still a 2 possession game, but I can understand trying to force a tough a shot and hoping to get a quick shot in transition to bring it within 1 with <10 seconds left.

[gaspar]

Read on Twitter

[MrMiyagi]

Read on Twitter

That's a confusing-ass chart.

[DaleyBlind]

Dont know what it is exactly, but i just don't like the guy at at all. Also getting sick of his family/love nonsense

[gaspar]

Are people still convinced that Luke Walton is gonna be so much better as a coach than Earl Watson?

"Always proud of their fight," Watson said. "I'm proud of the fact that they stood up for each other. There's no doubt with this young team."

Added Washington coach Scott Brooks: "We had a good rhythm going and they changed that by being physical. ... They're not going to give in; they're going to keep playing. That's what Coach Watson's teams do."

LINK

"Teams feel like when they play us right now, we're kind of a soft team that they can come in to get their offensive numbers against," Walton said after the game.

LINK

[MrMiyagi]

Are people still convinced that Luke Walton is gonna be so much better as a coach than Earl Watson?

"Always proud of their fight," Watson said. "I'm proud of the fact that they stood up for each other. There's no doubt with this young team."

Added Washington coach Scott Brooks: "We had a good rhythm going and they changed that by being physical. ... They're not going to give in; they're going to keep playing. That's what Coach Watson's teams do."

LINK

"Teams feel like when they play us right now, we're kind of a soft team that they can come in to get their offensive numbers against," Walton said after the game.

LINK

The thing about Earl is, he may not be a great Xs and Os guy like Brad Stevens, Gregg Popovich, Rick Carlisle, and Steve Kerr, but he seems to be very good at managing personalities and creating a good group dynamic. It may seem corny or whatever, but you can't knock him for getting his guys to give effort. It's game 64 and this team has the third worst record in the NBA, but they haven't checked out mentally. Props to Earl on that.

[MathiasPW]

Are people still convinced that Luke Walton is gonna be so much better as a coach than Earl Watson?

"Always proud of their fight," Watson said. "I'm proud of the fact that they stood up for each other. There's no doubt with this young team."

Added Washington coach Scott Brooks: "We had a good rhythm going and they changed that by being physical. ... They're not going to give in; they're going to keep playing. That's what Coach Watson's teams do."

LINK

"Teams feel like when they play us right now, we're kind of a soft team that they can come in to get their offensive numbers against," Walton said after the game.

LINK

The thing about Earl is, he may not be a great Xs and Os guy like Brad Stevens, Gregg Popovich, Rick Carlisle, and Steve Kerr, but he seems to be very good at managing personalities and creating a good group dynamic. It may seem corny or whatever, but you can't knock him for getting his guys to give effort. It's game 64 and this team has the third worst record in the NBA, but they haven't checked out mentally. Props to Earl on that.

And he has surrounded himself with experienced coaches who can help with the X and O's. Knowing your shortcomings and being able to search help to overcome them shows quite some wisdom.