Wizards @ Spurs 8:30PM

[hands11]

Inability to make the right line up changes and maximize the talent on the roster with the right style of play.

Temple is just the latest most obvious example.

They were winning games. They even beat good teams. You trying to tell me that the 19 year old Beal is the difference between that and this and that Temple was the answer to not having Beal?

In 3 games starting Temple has 8 pts and 3 rebounds.

And I liked Temple. But with the way Randy is using him, he makes you lose that excitement for a player. I liked him as a back up PG. I want to see him succeed. But he isn't a starting SG.

Starting him 1 game was dumb. Two in a row was incompetent. Three in a row ? I'm at a loss for the right word. Randy even brought him back to start the second half of the SA game. Its like he just get stuck on stupid.

That is the Canary in the coal mine. I could give a ton more examples but that would just complicate the issue. The fact that he would start Temple over Webster or Crawford says so much and it isn't good.

I also used to like Nene as well. Now, not as much. Nene was pure crap to start this game. 0-6 and hardly hitting the front of the rim on a FTA. Mostly because of the plays they call for him. I have grown very tired on watching his post game where he bangs and flails around and takes a crap shot or turns it over and gets no call. He looks much better going at the basket from the top down. That is when you see him dunk or maneuver around players for layups. And he even gets some fouls then as well. And it keep the offense moving and Wall involved. How can Randy not see this ?

I can deal with some losing, but its hard to stomach watching bad coaching where you watch players fail because they are no put in a position to succeed given their talents.

I guess as an assistant, you don't get to make these decisions. Not sure how a coach is supported to develop this skill. When he would take over for games he seems to do it well but that is just one game. He seemed to do it well last year but that was with Nene injured so he was coming off the bench.

Back then, he started the more young players and brought the vet off the bench.

http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=320418027

The younger guys ran and played scrappy defense and the older guys played more half court.

I not saying he should go all the way back to a pure young line up but he should copy that formula more. He just hasn't figured out how to maximize what he has offensively. At a very min, he needs to stop running those post plays for Nene and do a high pick and roll instead and he has to not start Temple again. Those are just stupid obvious.

Randy was a better coach last year but you know what. That was before he installed his offense. Last year he simplified things and ran more pick and rolls with John. Randy needs to do some soul searching. The All Star break my give him a chance to see what he is doing wrong.

[payitforward]

Sigh....

1. Why all the excuses? We are a very very bad team put together by a very very bad GM. Got nothing to do with coaching.

2. There isn't much evidence that coaching makes a significant difference in the numbers players put up in their careers. There are a few exceptions -- e.g. guys are somewhat more productive playing for Phil Jackson -- but they prove the rule. This isn't football.

3. There's no better way, order or combination of our guys on the floor that would make them better or create more wins. Your team is as good as the players on your team.

4. Respectfully, if there *were* some such better set of lineups, you wouldn't be the one to know what it was. I wouldn't either.

5. As they say: hindsight is 20-20. Means nothing.

We'll have more wins when we have more good players. Not until.

[payitforward]

The key to creating a good team is recognizing talent and knowing how to acquire it. Anyone can recognize the talent of e.g. Tim Duncan, and every GM would have drafted him first the year he came out. That part's easy.

Now look at the rest of the Spurs squad that dressed last night:

Of the 12 remaining Spurs 8 were either Round 2 picks or undrafted. 3 of the other 4 were taken near the bottom of round 1 in the draft, and 1 was taken 15th.

Had we drafted Leonard, Faried and Chandler Parsons in 2011, you'd be calling Randy a terrific coach. Had we bought out Rashard and wound up with e.g. Danny Green and Ryan Anderson... ditto. Had we traded for Harden....

Pointless to critique coaching -- bring in someone who knows how to acquire talent.

[hands11]

Sigh....

1. Why all the excuses? We are a very very bad team put together by a very very bad GM. Got nothing to do with coaching.

2. There isn't much evidence that coaching makes a significant difference in the numbers players put up in their careers. There are a few exceptions -- e.g. guys are somewhat more productive playing for Phil Jackson -- but they prove the rule. This isn't football.

3. There's no better way, order or combination of our guys on the floor that would make them better or create more wins. Your team is as good as the players on your team.

4. Respectfully, if there *were* some such better set of lineups, you wouldn't be the one to know what it was. I wouldn't either.

5. As they say: hindsight is 20-20. Means nothing.

We'll have more wins when we have more good players. Not until.

wow.

If that was the case, then why not just get any ol coach out of HS and pay him 60K a year.

And are you honestly arguing that it doesn't matter which combination of players you put out there and what offense you run for them ?

Hell, why have a coach at all. Just let the player work it out by themselves. Like a game of pick up ball.

[hands11]

The key to creating a good team is recognizing talent and knowing how to acquire it. Anyone can recognize the talent of e.g. Tim Duncan, and every GM would have drafted him first the year he came out. That part's easy.

Now look at the rest of the Spurs squad that dressed last night:

Of the 12 remaining Spurs 8 were either Round 2 picks or undrafted. 3 of the other 4 were taken near the bottom of round 1 in the draft, and 1 was taken 15th.

Had we drafted Leonard, Faried and Chandler Parsons in 2011, you'd be calling Randy a terrific coach. Had we bought out Rashard and wound up with e.g. Danny Green and Ryan Anderson... ditto. Had we traded for Harden....

Pointless to critique coaching -- bring in someone who knows how to acquire talent.

Wrong. That would not have me calling him a good coach.

What makes me call someone a good coach is when I see that person maximize the skills of the players he has by putting them in the best combinations and running an offense that maximizes then skills. Win or lose, you can see when a coach does that. It also their ability to adjust to what is happening in the game and recognizing who is hot and how is not. Its their ability to try to get a player going that isn't and to ride them when they are. Its their ability to adjust quickly to injuries. Coaching is about motivation and strategy.

That is a good coach. Better talent only makes the job easier and usually present different challenges like, how do I get multiple star to share the ball and manage their egos. When do I just let them go and when to I try to rain them in.

Good coaching is good coaching and it makes a difference.

[montestewart]

I know we don't have shooters, but losing so many close games is a sign of bad coaching.

How so? Say a close game is one decied by 4 points are less. If you include OT games (4 points or less at end of regulation) the Wizards record in such games is 4-12, which is about the same as their overall record. Maybe they just don't have enough talent. Maybe they just suck. Maybe that's what losing so many close games means.

I really don't get your point. I consider a close game losing by 10 pts or less. What I've noticed is that these guys can play hard and cut the lead down to like 4 pts or so, but when they have to make a play to take the lead and grab the game by the scruff of it's neck, Randy just can't call an effective play. That and going through long spells in a game where they can't hit a shot.

I chose 4 points at random. In games decided by 10 points or less (including all OT games) their record is 9-28, which is also quite similar to their overall record. Why would their record in games decided by 10 points or less, or in games decided by 4 points or less, be better or worse than their overall record, and how is that difference connected to coaching, versus the quality of the players? I really don't get your point.

Maybe the Wizards so often fall short when they're within 4 points because they're not good enough. Most of the time, that's what it looks like to me. Maybe Wittman calls effective plays that would work with better, smarter, more motivated and disciplined players. I don't care if they replace Wittman, just as I didn't care that they replaced Saunders. Unless Leonsis fires EG and replaces him with an innovative, gutsy, and savvy GM and lets him run the show, it's not going to matter too much who the coach is.

[hands11]

Could both be true ? GMs matter and coaching matters ?

Both make a difference.

I want to see good sound brilliant coaching no matter what I believe the talent level is. Its a different debate if you are saying they don't have the level of talent that even good coaching could get to win.

But that would admit, there is such as thing as good coaching and that it does make a difference. Some of us want to see that level of coaching. It doesn't mean we don't want to see good GMing as well.

They are two separate conversations.

[Dat2U]

Losing is a product of the talent. Teams play down to us. We don't win close games because opponents focus enough in the last two minutes to get the stops they need to get.

Last night was a perfect example. Spurs were eating high off the hog and got sloppy and lazy. They thought the game was over as much as the fans did. They didn't wake up until they actually needed to get some stops. Veteran teams can do that. Turn it on and off, especially against the inferior skill & talent were putting out there.

[hands11]

Well those of us who believe coaching is a skill that some do better then others will just have to carry on our conversation about couching without you then.

[tontoz]

Changing lineups/coaches would be like putting a bandaid on a compound fracture.

[montestewart]

Well those of us who believe coaching is a skill that some do better then others will just have to carry on our conversation about couching without you then.

I assume everyone here thinks that. I think you're missing the point. Witt should never have been the coach and will be gone soon enough. If EG stays, firing Witt is just a CYA move.

[DANNYLANDOVER]

Well those of us who believe coaching is a skill that some do better then others will just have to carry on our conversation about couching without you then.

I assume everyone here thinks that. I think you're missing the point. Witt should never have been the coach and will be gone soon enough. If EG stays, firing Witt is just a CYA move.

This is exactly my point. Witt is not a good coach. However, it makes no sense to fire him now, while EG still runs the team.

[hands11]

Well those of us who believe coaching is a skill that some do better then others will just have to carry on our conversation about couching without you then.

I assume everyone here thinks that. I think you're missing the point. Witt should never have been the coach and will be gone soon enough. If EG stays, firing Witt is just a CYA move.

Have you been reading. Clearly everyone doesn't think that.

And how exactly does the idea that you think Whittman shouldn't have been the head coach equal me not getting some point? That wasn't the topic.

He was brought back because he did well with the young players last year. Key players asked management to bring him back and they are already paying Flip.

Seems the topics keep rolling.

We went from Randys coaching skills to if coaching matters to, did it make sense that they brought back Randy. I was talking about Randys coaching skills.

[montestewart]

My mistake hands11. Carry on. Go Ravens!

[Nivek]

The point payitforward was making (previous page) was NOT that coaching doesn't matter, but rather that the marginal difference between NBA-level coaches is small. In a study on NBA coaches, David Berri compared coaches to "principal clerks" in Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations."

...Why do "principal clerks" and coaches appear to be the same? Essentially, coaches appear to receive similar training, face similar information sets, and ultimately make similar decisions. The results -- perhaps not surprising when you consider these similarities -- are that outcomes with different coaches are quite similar.

Berri's 2009 paper on NBA coaches is here.

[DaRealHibachi]

The point payitforward was making (previous page) was NOT that coaching doesn't matter, but rather that the marginal difference between NBA-level coaches is small. In a study on NBA coaches, David Berri compared coaches to "principal clerks" in Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations."

...Why do "principal clerks" and coaches appear to be the same? Essentially, coaches appear to receive similar training, face similar information sets, and ultimately make similar decisions. The results -- perhaps not surprising when you consider these similarities -- are that outcomes with different coaches are quite similar.

Berri's 2009 paper on NBA coaches is here.

Good stuff Kev, thanks for the read...

[BruceO]

The point payitforward
was making (previous page) was NOT that coaching doesn't matter, but
rather that the marginal difference between NBA-level coaches is small.
In a study on NBA coaches, David Berri compared coaches to "principal
clerks" in Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations."

...Why do "principal clerks" and coaches appear to
be the same? Essentially, coaches appear to receive similar training,
face similar information sets, and ultimately make similar decisions.
The results -- perhaps not surprising when you consider these
similarities -- are that outcomes with different coaches are quite
similar.

Berri's 2009 paper on NBA coaches is
here.

interesting..will be watching the new jersey situation with interest hoping they got the memo

[Dat2U]

I think just like everything there's some outliers out there when it comes to a coach's real impact.

If anyone doesn't think the Lakers situation is highly influenced by their coaching situation, then your not paying attention.

But for the most part I think coaches don't have a major impact unless their really bad or really good.

I think the Wizards had a bad coach in Eddie... But Gil's star was bright enough to overcome his coaches' faults.

I don't think Wittman is very good either, but honestly he may have only cost the team a game or two over the course of the season because the talent level dictates that were pretty bad.

[montestewart]

I don't think Wittman is very good either, but honestly he may have only cost the team a game or two over the course of the season because the talent level dictates that were pretty bad.

What Dat2U says much more concisely is pretty much what I was poorly saying, hands11 (hard to write clearly on my little cellphone). Many (most?) didn't like Wittman as a coach to begin with, seeming to be a no-cost holdover from a bad past (sound familiar EG?) and hired without talking with any other candidates. I often don't understand Wittman's lineups and substitution patterns, and yes, he's probably cost the team a few games, but I just don't see it making a big difference when compared to the elephant in the room: this team has a big talent deficiency. When the owner finally starts addressing that, I'll become more interested in who the coach is, because then the difference between a stiff and a smart two-way tactician, teacher, communicator and leader might actually make a crucial difference.

[AFM]

Monte stop posting on your phone while driving. It's dangerous.