RealGM

Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm not a troll and I have come to this forum to learn and discuss my fav NBA team (which I assume all of us are here to do). I have revised opinions on EG that I wish to discuss but I'll start with something simpler. Irrespective of GM, if the wizards had a better coach would they be more successful this year? What would be like if we had a Popovich, a Stotz, a Budenholzer, a Dwayne Casey? And furthermore if we dumped Wittman and got Luke Walton next year, I believe that we would be fantastic and really reach our potential (ECF or perhaps finals appearance). Thoughts?

Might add 4-6 wins... can't mask mediocre talent with scheme alone. I do think Beal, Porter and Oubre will get better irrespective of coaching change... problem is asking a team contend for a playoff spot with average talent accross the board sans Wall and Gortat didn't work out the way they imagined (and honestly I thought Beal and Porter would make bigger jumps, but they didn't, my fault for overrating them as prospects).

Even then, we're still a treadmill team w/ 4-6 more wins... we just don't have a plethora of good players. That's on the FO.

I still think you are a troll.

Welcome! Not assuming that you're a troll.

One thing about the culture of this board, since it appears you are diving in without reading a lot of it, is that the mods try to avoid proliferating threads. So, for example, they would probably rather see discussion about the coaching in this existing thread on the first page than someone starting a new thread.

There are several existing threads where Ernie Grunfeld is being discussed.

jarlmaster47 wrote:Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm not a troll and I have come to this forum to learn and discuss my fav NBA team (which I assume all of us are here to do). I have revised opinions on EG that I wish to discuss but I'll start with something simpler. Irrespective of GM, if the wizards had a better coach would they be more successful this year? What would be like if we had a Popovich, a Stotz, a Budenholzer, a Dwayne Casey? And furthermore if we dumped Wittman and got Luke Walton next year, I believe that we would be fantastic and really reach our potential (ECF or perhaps finals appearance). Thoughts?

Wittman isn't that bad a coach. Not saying he's a good coach -- he's part of a broad group of competent professional coaches who are more or less interchangeable. The research into coaching indicates that coaches typically have little effect on the productivity of their players, and changing coaches usually doesn't have much discernible effect on the team's fortunes. There are exceptions -- guys like Popovich, Riley, Jackson, and (I think) Carlisle and Sloan. But most coaches seem to have little impact. Again, this isn't because they're bad coaches, but rather that they're "about the same" in terms of quality.

How does a team improve? By getting better players.

That said, I'm very much in favor of replacing Wittman. I KNOW he's not a good coach. I'd rather hire a successful minor league coach or a promising assistant in hopes of finding the next Popovich, Jackson, Riley, etc. But, a great coach isn't going to transmogrify the Wizards into a 55-60 win team. They have a mediocre roster that needs to be improved.

nuposse04 wrote:Might add 4-6 wins... can't mask mediocre talent with scheme alone. I do think Beal, Porter and Oubre will get better irrespective of coaching change... problem is asking a team contend for a playoff spot with average talent accross the board sans Wall and Gortat didn't work out the way they imagined (and honestly I thought Beal and Porter would make bigger jumps, but they didn't, my fault for overrating them as prospects).

Even then, we're still a treadmill team w/ 4-6 more wins... we just don't have a plethora of good players. That's on the FO.

I still think you are a troll.

I appreciate the response but don't be a child. I apologized so accept it and move on. No need to take digs at me. Anyway here is my response. Mediocre talent? I believe the wizards are supremely talented. One of the more talented teams in the league. Wall, Beal, and Gortat are all top 10 players in their respective positions (Wall top 5) Markieff could be top 10 with some work and as of right now is around middle of the pack. Porter has talent but is our weakest starter. He'll always be a utility player who occasionally goes off, but he plays good defense, excels in transition, and is a good teammate. As for our bench. Ramon Sessions is excellent. I would say he's the best backup PG in the league or at least he's playing like it this year. Thornton is decent. Solid enough and can get you some 3's when you need them. Oubre is raw and needs work but he'll be good too. He's very similar to porter. Nene still provides toughness and great defense. Good passing too. Dudley is smart and steady. Great shooter and good defender. Hickson is meh. Has potential. Gooden is old and pretty much finished. Temple is a role player and shouldn't start for long periods of time but injuries have hurt us there. Jarrell Eddie is trash.

I don't understand why people think we don't have talent. We have tons of talent. If we are as mediocre as you suggest then how did we make the second round twice in the past two years? How did we sweep the raptors? I want to know where people get this idea. I, as well as most commentators/analysts, agree that the wizards have the talent to be a 50 win team and finals contender. What makes you think we couldn't with a better coach who handles rotations better and instills more consistency in us?

Finally I think Beal made a huge jump. He plays with incredible confidence now and his ability to go coast to coast and drive is impressive. If he could stay healthy he could be a superstar. When he plays he's incredible.

BigA wrote:Welcome! Not assuming that you're a troll.

One thing about the culture of this board, since it appears you are diving in without reading a lot of it, is that the mods try to avoid proliferating threads. So, for example, they would probably rather see discussion about the coaching in this existing thread on the first page than someone starting a new thread.

There are several existing threads where Ernie Grunfeld is being discussed.

My fault. I will refrain from starting new threads in the future and seek to post in existing ones.

No-worries and welcome back Hands.

closg00 wrote:No-worries and welcome back Hands.

Who is hands?

jarlmaster47 wrote:Mediocre talent? I believe the wizards are supremely talented. One of the more talented teams in the league. Wall, Beal, and Gortat are all top 10 players in their respective positions (Wall top 5) Markieff could be top 10 with some work and as of right now is around middle of the pack. Porter has talent but is our weakest starter. He'll always be a utility player who occasionally goes off, but he plays good defense, excels in transition, and is a good teammate. As for our bench. Ramon Sessions is excellent. I would say he's the best backup PG in the league or at least he's playing like it this year. Thornton is decent. Solid enough and can get you some 3's when you need them. Oubre is raw and needs work but he'll be good too. He's very similar to porter. Nene still provides toughness and great defense. Good passing too. Dudley is smart and steady. Great shooter and good defender. Hickson is meh. Has potential. Gooden is old and pretty much finished. Temple is a role player and shouldn't start for long periods of time but injuries have hurt us there. Jarrell Eddie is trash.

In my metric -- Player Production Average (PPA), which does an excellent job of explaining individual contributions to winning and losing in the NBA -- here's where the Wizards rank in per minute production at their positions:

PG
- Wall -- 11
- Sessions -- 33

SG
- Beal -- 24
- Neal -- 41
- Temple -- 50

SF
- Porter -- 8
- Oubre -- 56

PF
- Dudley -- 33
- Humphries -- 49 (WAS minutes only)
- Morris -- 65 (WAS minutes only)

C
- Gortat -- T10
- Nenê -- 48

I don't understand why people think we don't have talent. We have tons of talent. If we are as mediocre as you suggest then how did we make the second round twice in the past two years?

Luck, basically. The playoffs are a small sample size. The Wizards drew a good matchup both years against teams that weren't significantly better.

How did we sweep the raptors?

Hot shooting that lasted a series coupled with a debilitating injury to Toronto's best player. Plus, Toronto wasn't exactly a super team. They were 12th in strength of schedule adjusted scoring differential; the Wizards were 15th.

I want to know where people get this idea. I, as well as most commentators/analysts, agree that the wizards have the talent to be a 50 win team and finals contender. What makes you think we couldn't with a better coach who handles rotations better and instills more consistency in us?

Before the season, I wrote a Wizards preview for Vice in which I talked about the team's lack of overall talent, and predicted 42 wins. Other statistical analysts, including the guys at 538, made similar predictions. The 50+ win folks placed too much emphasis on the small sample size of the postseason, and not enough on the very mediocre regular seasons they've had. Also, you could read this piece I wrote about mediocrity and randomness.

Finally I think Beal made a huge jump. He plays with incredible confidence now and his ability to go coast to coast and drive is impressive. If he could stay healthy he could be a superstar. When he plays he's incredible.

Unfortunately, this isn't borne out in the numbers. I was very much in favor of picking Beal when they drafted him. I still think he has the potential to be very good. But, he's been very average throughout his career, and that includes this season.

jarlmaster47 wrote:

closg00 wrote:No-worries and welcome back Hands.

Who is hands?

He is your soul brother.

TheSecretWeapon wrote:

jarlmaster47 wrote:Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm not a troll and I have come to this forum to learn and discuss my fav NBA team (which I assume all of us are here to do). I have revised opinions on EG that I wish to discuss but I'll start with something simpler. Irrespective of GM, if the wizards had a better coach would they be more successful this year? What would be like if we had a Popovich, a Stotz, a Budenholzer, a Dwayne Casey? And furthermore if we dumped Wittman and got Luke Walton next year, I believe that we would be fantastic and really reach our potential (ECF or perhaps finals appearance). Thoughts?

Wittman isn't that bad a coach. Not saying he's a good coach -- he's part of a broad group of competent professional coaches who are more or less interchangeable. The research into coaching indicates that coaches typically have little effect on the productivity of their players, and changing coaches usually doesn't have much discernible effect on the team's fortunes. There are exceptions -- guys like Popovich, Riley, Jackson, and (I think) Carlisle and Sloan. But most coaches seem to have little impact. Again, this isn't because they're bad coaches, but rather that they're "about the same" in terms of quality.

How does a team improve? By getting better players.

That said, I'm very much in favor of replacing Wittman. I KNOW he's not a good coach. I'd rather hire a successful minor league coach or a promising assistant in hopes of finding the next Popovich, Jackson, Riley, etc. But, a great coach isn't going to transmogrify the Wizards into a 55-60 win team. They have a mediocre roster that needs to be improved.

How is their roster mediocre and where does it need to be improved? I mean if we get KD its over. Championship if we stay healthy (and have a better coach because Wittman would still find a way to have that team underperform). But our roster is still more than good enough to make the ECF and/or finals. I just can't honestly see where it needs improving. The celtics have a far weaker roster and look where they are. That's because of chemistry and good coaching. I think you vastly underestimate the importance of a coach. All the best teams have the best coaches. Phil Jackson coached the bulls and lakers to several championships each. You think that if those teams had a **** coach they would have won those championships? Maybe a few thanks to talent but I guarantee it wouldn't be as many. What about Erik Spoelstra and the heat? Or Terry Stotz and the Blazers. Those teams are having success despite major injuries and mediocre talent (the Heat) and mediocre to little talent (the Blazers). Then you have the Bucks with a very talented roster (albeit one with holes in it) and look at their struggles. These are just some samples. I just disagree with the statement that the wizards don't have enough talent when 4 of our starting 5 (if we include Beal as our starting SG) are considered elite players. So I ask where you think we need improvement and where that improvement would come from. I think all we would really need is KD but I doubt he'll come so maybe Horford? Idk.

jarlmaster47 wrote:

closg00 wrote:No-worries and welcome back Hands.

Who is hands?

Hands11 -- used to part of this Board, but he got banned some months ago. Not for his opinions but for his way of posting. I agreed w/ next to nothing Hands wrote, but I miss him. He had a unique way of posting -- hard to describe.

You're not Hands11, and no one could mistake you for him -- for one thing, you can write successive grammatical sentences. For another, you can spell (Hands is dyslexic), and for a 3d... you haven't come up w/ the utterly whacky metaphors Hands used to confabulate.

You are free to hold any opinion you like, of course. Opinions are free. You may change some of yours when you start reading here, and especially when you start looking at the analysis here. And I do mean among a bunch of people who often disagree w/ one another!

Well said and that's all I ask. Postulating opinions and theories on the wizards, analyzing games, etc. Intelligent and reasonable debate. I am open to changes of opinion. All I ask for is respect and consideration of my opinions. Disagree with them all you like but do it politely. It's just sports. At the end of the day none of the teams we support matter in our lives.

jarlmaster47 wrote:

TheSecretWeapon wrote:

jarlmaster47 wrote:Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm not a troll and I have come to this forum to learn and discuss my fav NBA team (which I assume all of us are here to do). I have revised opinions on EG that I wish to discuss but I'll start with something simpler. Irrespective of GM, if the wizards had a better coach would they be more successful this year? What would be like if we had a Popovich, a Stotz, a Budenholzer, a Dwayne Casey? And furthermore if we dumped Wittman and got Luke Walton next year, I believe that we would be fantastic and really reach our potential (ECF or perhaps finals appearance). Thoughts?

Wittman isn't that bad a coach. Not saying he's a good coach -- he's part of a broad group of competent professional coaches who are more or less interchangeable. The research into coaching indicates that coaches typically have little effect on the productivity of their players, and changing coaches usually doesn't have much discernible effect on the team's fortunes. There are exceptions -- guys like Popovich, Riley, Jackson, and (I think) Carlisle and Sloan. But most coaches seem to have little impact. Again, this isn't because they're bad coaches, but rather that they're "about the same" in terms of quality.

How does a team improve? By getting better players.

That said, I'm very much in favor of replacing Wittman. I KNOW he's not a good coach. I'd rather hire a successful minor league coach or a promising assistant in hopes of finding the next Popovich, Jackson, Riley, etc. But, a great coach isn't going to transmogrify the Wizards into a 55-60 win team. They have a mediocre roster that needs to be improved.

How is their roster mediocre and where does it need to be improved? I mean if we get KD its over. Championship if we stay healthy (and have a better coach because Wittman would still find a way to have that team underperform). But our roster is still more than good enough to make the ECF and/or finals. I just can't honestly see where it needs improving. The celtics have a far weaker roster and look where they are. That's because of chemistry and good coaching. I think you vastly underestimate the importance of a coach. All the best teams have the best coaches. Phil Jackson coached the bulls and lakers to several championships each. You think that if those teams had a **** coach they would have won those championships? Maybe a few thanks to talent but I guarantee it wouldn't be as many. What about Erik Spoelstra and the heat? Or Terry Stotz and the Blazers. Those teams are having success despite major injuries and mediocre talent (the Heat) and mediocre to little talent (the Blazers). Then you have the Bucks with a very talented roster (albeit one with holes in it) and look at their struggles. These are just some samples. I just disagree with the statement that the wizards don't have enough talent when 4 of our starting 5 (if we include Beal as our starting SG) are considered elite players. So I ask where you think we need improvement and where that improvement would come from. I think all we would really need is KD but I doubt he'll come so maybe Horford? Idk.

They're most likely going to miss the playoffs, and aside from the injuries to Beal, the injuries have been to mediocre players. And they should expect Beal to miss a good chunk of every season - since he's missed a chunk all 4 of his seasons. The Wiz are what their record is. They don't have any great players, and Wall is the only great talent on the team.

I do agree that Horford would make a big difference - and I'd be satisfied if they get him. Still, that likely wouldn't be enough to win a championship. And they would still need to add to their level of talent - particularly young cheap talent.

jarlmaster47 wrote:

TheSecretWeapon wrote:

jarlmaster47 wrote:Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. I'm not a troll and I have come to this forum to learn and discuss my fav NBA team (which I assume all of us are here to do). I have revised opinions on EG that I wish to discuss but I'll start with something simpler. Irrespective of GM, if the wizards had a better coach would they be more successful this year? What would be like if we had a Popovich, a Stotz, a Budenholzer, a Dwayne Casey? And furthermore if we dumped Wittman and got Luke Walton next year, I believe that we would be fantastic and really reach our potential (ECF or perhaps finals appearance). Thoughts?

Wittman isn't that bad a coach. Not saying he's a good coach -- he's part of a broad group of competent professional coaches who are more or less interchangeable. The research into coaching indicates that coaches typically have little effect on the productivity of their players, and changing coaches usually doesn't have much discernible effect on the team's fortunes. There are exceptions -- guys like Popovich, Riley, Jackson, and (I think) Carlisle and Sloan. But most coaches seem to have little impact. Again, this isn't because they're bad coaches, but rather that they're "about the same" in terms of quality.

How does a team improve? By getting better players.

That said, I'm very much in favor of replacing Wittman. I KNOW he's not a good coach. I'd rather hire a successful minor league coach or a promising assistant in hopes of finding the next Popovich, Jackson, Riley, etc. But, a great coach isn't going to transmogrify the Wizards into a 55-60 win team. They have a mediocre roster that needs to be improved.

How is their roster mediocre and where does it need to be improved? I mean if we get KD its over. Championship if we stay healthy (and have a better coach because Wittman would still find a way to have that team underperform). But our roster is still more than good enough to make the ECF and/or finals. I just can't honestly see where it needs improving. The celtics have a far weaker roster and look where they are. That's because of chemistry and good coaching. I think you vastly underestimate the importance of a coach. All the best teams have the best coaches. Phil Jackson coached the bulls and lakers to several championships each. You think that if those teams had a **** coach they would have won those championships? Maybe a few thanks to talent but I guarantee it wouldn't be as many. What about Erik Spoelstra and the heat? Or Terry Stotz and the Blazers. Those teams are having success despite major injuries and mediocre talent (the Heat) and mediocre to little talent (the Blazers). Then you have the Bucks with a very talented roster (albeit one with holes in it) and look at their struggles. These are just some samples. I just disagree with the statement that the wizards don't have enough talent when 4 of our starting 5 (if we include Beal as our starting SG) are considered elite players. So I ask where you think we need improvement and where that improvement would come from. I think all we would really need is KD but I doubt he'll come so maybe Horford? Idk.

Jarl... -- did you read the following sentences from TSW's post?

1. "The research into coaching indicates that coaches typically have little effect on the productivity of their players, and changing coaches usually doesn't have much discernible effect on the team's fortunes." and

2. "There are exceptions -- guys like Popovich, Riley, Jackson, and (I think) Carlisle and Sloan."

And, if you read them, did you think about *asking about that research*? As opposed to running your series of unsupported opinions? And even mentioning a coach whom research shows *is* one of those a cut above of the mass of coaches -- i.e. one of the few who do make a difference?

As to "4 of our starting 5 are considered elite players" -- not exactly, no. John Wall is an extremely good point guard, but there are @1/2 dozen who are better. Gortat is likely among the top 10-15 Centers in the league, but that doesn't make him "elite."

Beal -- whom I strongly supported us drafting -- isn't even especially good at this point. And as to Markieff Morris... you have to be kidding. He's a way below average PF in the NBA. Way below, as in waaaaay below. Doesn't rebound. Doesn't shoot a high %. Doesn't do anything else particularly well either.

Funnily enough, the guy you want to leave out, Otto Porter, is a terrific young player, on the way up and already one of the better SFs in the league.

All the claims I just made are no more than what the numbers say, and numbers are what make a player good, what determine wins and losses, and what make teams good, bad or indifferent. In other words, they're not my opinions. They are analysis. Of course I might be wrong, but you'd have to look at and talk about the numbers to show that I'm wrong. You dig?

Gortat isn't a great player? Morris isn't a great player (remember he's still new to the team but we all know how good he can be)? Beal isn't? Dudley, Sessions, and Anderson are better than mediocre. Porter is too (sometimes). He's not great but he does what needs to be done. I'd call him good but not great. Injuries hurt no matter who they happen to and when you have Wittman bungling your rotations it's even worse. With a better coach we'd be in the playoffs this year. I don't doubt that for a second, injuries and all. It's been an off year and that happens. I just don't understand what you all constitute as great players. The warriors have Curry, Thompson, and Green. Bogut isn't great. Iggy.... well iggy might be great. Barnes isn't great. What about the cavs? The only great person on their team is Lebron. Without Lebron that team is awful. We absolutely **** on them just a week or so back when they didn't play Lebron. When he came back they looked like all stars. The point is that the difference between the wizards and the best teams in the league isn't talent. It's coaching and consistency (which stems from the coach or in the case of the cavs lebron).

No horford wouldn't win us a chip. But I contend that he help us get to the finals. But I still go back to coaching being the primary concern. I truly disagree with the wiz being what their record is when I see countless games lost because of preventable mistakes in play calling or player usage, etc.

jarlmaster47 wrote:
How is their roster mediocre and where does it need to be improved?

I refer you to my previous post, which shows the relative quality of the players on the roster.

I mean if we get KD its over. Championship if we stay healthy (and have a better coach because Wittman would still find a way to have that team underperform). But our roster is still more than good enough to make the ECF and/or finals.

Durant definitely would make them better. How many wins is he worth? My metric says 12-13 per 82 games. Let's say he's better than that in Washington, and is actually worth 15 wins. So, they're probably going to win 39 or 40 this year -- +15 means WOW 55 wins, right? Well, to sign Durant they'll have to part ways with guys who have been playing and producing for them. Say they let Dudley go. He's been worth about 5 wins per 82 games. So, they're a net +10 wins by swapping out Dudley for Durant. That's a 49-50 win team, which is good, but not a title contender.

I just can't honestly see where it needs improving.

PF and SG are the most obvious spots. And they don't have an elite producer at any position. Wall and Gortat are both very good; Porter is decent. The rest of the team is average and worse than average.

The celtics have a far weaker roster and look where they are. That's because of chemistry and good coaching.

This is incorrect. The Celtics have a less celebrated roster, but the players are quite good. Thomas is more productive than anyone on Washington's roster. Crowder is a very good player who's signed to a bargain contract. Sullinger is significantly better than any PF Washington has on the roster. So is Amir Johnson.

Crowder was someone a bunch of us wanted the Wizards to draft in the 2nd round. In my stat-based draft analysis, Thomas rated as a 1st round pick. Sullinger rated much higher than he was picked as well. Those are the guys driving Boston's record.

I think you vastly underestimate the importance of a coach. All the best teams have the best coaches.

A) Maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote. There are great coaches, and those coaches make a difference. There are few great coaches, however.

B) The best teams may have the best coaches, but they also have the best players.

Phil Jackson coached the bulls and lakers to several championships each. You think that if those teams had a **** coach they would have won those championships? Maybe a few thanks to talent but I guarantee it wouldn't be as many. What about Erik Spoelstra and the heat? Or Terry Stotz and the Blazers. Those teams are having success despite major injuries and mediocre talent (the Heat) and mediocre to little talent (the Blazers). Then you have the Bucks with a very talented roster (albeit one with holes in it) and look at their struggles. These are just some samples. I just disagree with the statement that the wizards don't have enough talent when 4 of our starting 5 (if we include Beal as our starting SG) are considered elite players.

The Wizards have ZERO elite players. No one on the roster is an elite producer.

jarlmaster47 wrote:Gortat isn't a great player? Morris isn't a great player (remember he's still new to the team but we all know how good he can be)? Beal isn't? Dudley, Sessions, and Anderson are better than mediocre. Porter is too (sometimes). He's not great but he does what needs to be done. I'd call him good but not great. Injuries hurt no matter who they happen to and when you have Wittman bungling your rotations it's even worse. With a better coach we'd be in the playoffs this year. I don't doubt that for a second, injuries and all. It's been an off year and that happens. I just don't understand what you all constitute as great players. The warriors have Curry, Thompson, and Green. Bogut isn't great. Iggy.... well iggy might be great. Barnes isn't great. What about the cavs? The only great person on their team is Lebron. Without Lebron that team is awful. We absolutely **** on them just a week or so back when they didn't play Lebron. When he came back they looked like all stars. The point is that the difference between the wizards and the best teams in the league isn't talent. It's coaching and consistency (which stems from the coach or in the case of the cavs lebron).

No horford wouldn't win us a chip. But I contend that he help us get to the finals. But I still go back to coaching being the primary concern. I truly disagree with the wiz being what their record is when I see countless games lost because of preventable mistakes in play calling or player usage, etc.

jarl -- you may want to reassess how you evaluate players.

payitforward wrote:
1. "The research into coaching indicates that coaches typically have little effect on the productivity of their players, and changing coaches usually doesn't have much discernible effect on the team's fortunes." and

2. "There are exceptions -- guys like Popovich, Riley, Jackson, and (I think) Carlisle and Sloan."

And, if you read them, did you think about *asking about that research*? As opposed to running your series of unsupported opinions? And even mentioning a coach whom research shows *is* one of those a cut above of the mass of coaches -- i.e. one of the few who do make a difference?

As to "4 of our starting 5 are considered elite players" -- not exactly, no. John Wall is an extremely good point guard, but there are @1/2 dozen who are better. Gortat is likely among the top 10-15 Centers in the league, but that doesn't make him "elite."

Beal -- whom I strongly supported us drafting -- isn't even especially good at this point. And as to Markieff Morris... you have to be kidding. He's a way below average PF in the NBA. Way below, as in waaaaay below. Doesn't rebound. Doesn't shoot a high %. Doesn't do anything else particularly well either.

Funnily enough, the guy you want to leave out, Otto Porter, is a terrific young player, on the way up and already one of the better SFs in the league.

All the claims I just made are no more than what the numbers say, and numbers are what make a player good, what determine wins and losses, and what make teams good, bad or indifferent. In other words, they're not my opinions. They are analysis. Of course I might be wrong, but you'd have to look at and talk about the numbers to show that I'm wrong. You dig?

I dig and I read it all. Fine I'll ask about the research. What research? I don't believe for a second that coaches make a minimal difference and I don't know how you would confirm how much of an impact they make or don't make for that matter. Scientifically improbable. Too many factors. But from the plethora of anecdotal evidence, one can see that the best teams over the years in ALL sports, have had coaches who most would agree are great. So my opinions are unsupported in so far as they have no scientific data behind them because there wouldn't be any. I read the whole exceptions thing but it goes beyond that. I mentioned teams like the celtics and blazers who are successful despite weak to pretty good but unimpressive rosters. Why are they successful then? That can only be attributed to coaching or chance and I'm going with coaching.

I'll live with your assessment of Wall and Gortat. I think its fair. Beal I totally disagree. He's been dominant in the games he's played this year. Stats can back that up. Morris is absolutely NOT a below average PF. I watched the guy. He may not be the BEST shooter ever but he definitely can shoot well. He's been rebounding with authority I feel. Gotten a lot of tough rebounds. He's physical. Great defender. Most of all he fits with our style. When the trade was made I read "expert analysis" and the consensus was it's a great trade if Morris keeps a good attitude. So far so good on that front. Give the guy an offseason with us and we'll see where we're at next year. Markieff has a high ceiling. You and a few other people here are the first people who've said he isn't good.

I actually think you give Porter too much credit. I love the guy and he really works for us but I don't think he's one of the better SF's (an average one) and I don't think he'll ever be better than what he displayed in last year's playoffs, which was plenty good but not superstar level.

TheSecretWeapon wrote:jarl -- you may want to reassess how you evaluate players.

Then please enlighten me.