The Official I Am Glad Flip Got Fired Thread

[Induveca]

Getting better players helped Indy. Indy got Collison and West, and George and Hibbert become more experienced.

Philly is benefiting from depth, improved players and a lockout shortened season. Collins also is probably one of those coaches in the NBA that makes a difference. Adelman's another example this year. I didn't say all coaches, just most coaches.

Agreed, but to be fair Wittman isn't exactly the ideal replacement. He is a continuation of Flip in most ways.

I'm excited to get a new coach in the offseason. This is the first year I'm actually avoiding watching these guys play. I can't find a reason to care.......zero connection with their attitudes/stupidity.

I feel bad for Wall, he has franchise talent and a superstar personality but he is surrounded by Blatche/McGee/Young. That trio strikes me as likely unable to answer questions such as "what's 8 x 8 ?", or "who is the vice president of the US?"

[Nivek]

The only thing that's surprising to me is that there are folks surprised the team still sucks after firing Flip. Saunders wasn't the solution, but he wasn't the problem either. The problem now is what the problem has been: lack of good players. The ONLY way this team gets better is if they get new players and/or the FEW guys they keep around improve by a lot.

Flip didn't prevent guys from improving. Wittman isn't preventing them from improving. The coaches are plenty competent to teach the aspects where the players are lacking. But, the way humans get good at something is by doing it repeatedly. And no coach is going to force players to go into a gym and do the same move exactly right a thousand times a day. Players have to do that on their own. For every one of these guys with HUGE athletic ability and limited games -- they'll be as good as the work they're willing to do. Simple as that. The coaches are more than competent enough and knowledgeable enough to identify player weaknesses and teach them what they need to know to fix those weaknesses. But, the players have to put in the work.

[closg00]

Getting better players helped Indy. Indy got Collison and West, and George and Hibbert become more experienced.

Philly is benefiting from depth, improved players and a lockout shortened season. Collins also is probably one of those coaches in the NBA that makes a difference. Adelman's another example this year. I didn't say all coaches, just most coaches.

You wrote that coaches " rarely make a difference" In the three examples that I gave, all-three teams did in-fact make big improvements after making a coaching change. Indiana improved BEFORE their off-season acquisitions. Last year when they were in a downward spiral, they fired coach O' Brian. Assistant coach Vogel turned the team around and they made it to the playoffs.

Philly was absymal under EJ, even a bad Wiz team beat Philly twice. The same exact team minus one player coached under Collins, is obviously doing quite well with no FA addition. They went to the playoffs the very next year with the same players and no shortened season. Better coaching.

Larry Brown had the Bobcats under-performing at 9-19 until he resigned. Silas took-over and went 15-12 with that roster until Jordan blew it up. Better coaching.

Three teams ^^ that Improved through coaching changes alone. Now in our case, it probably is t going to make a difference

[Zonkerbl]

The only thing that's surprising to me is that there are folks surprised the team still sucks after firing Flip. Saunders wasn't the solution, but he wasn't the problem either. The problem now is what the problem has been: lack of good players. The ONLY way this team gets better is if they get new players and/or the FEW guys they keep around improve by a lot.

Flip didn't prevent guys from improving. Wittman isn't preventing them from improving. The coaches are plenty competent to teach the aspects where the players are lacking. But, the way humans get good at something is by doing it repeatedly. And no coach is going to force players to go into a gym and do the same move exactly right a thousand times a day. Players have to do that on their own. For every one of these guys with HUGE athletic ability and limited games -- they'll be as good as the work they're willing to do. Simple as that. The coaches are more than competent enough and knowledgeable enough to identify player weaknesses and teach them what they need to know to fix those weaknesses. But, the players have to put in the work.

This is why your practices have to be 75% defense. You can't practice defense on your own. You can practice shooting and post moves on your own. I think the mistake NBA coaches make with young teams is focusing so much on offense because they assume the players learned defense in college. Not true anymore. Look at Thibodeau - why is he so successful? Because he focuses on defense.

[pancakes3]

from the looks of things it'd be surprising if we held practices focusing on either end of the court.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Coaches rarely make a difference. You have to be a really bad or really good coach to change the w/l column much, and Flip was clearly in the middle somewhere. I think you just credited him with more (bad) influence than he really had.

Coaching changes sure made a difference in Philly, Indiana, and Charlotte (before the salary dump)

Getting better players helped Indy. Indy got Collison and West, and George and Hibbert become more experienced.

Philly is benefiting from depth, improved players and a lockout shortened season. Collins also is probably one of those coaches in the NBA that makes a difference. Adelman's another example this year. I didn't say all coaches, just most coaches.

willbcocks, you have articulated why I apologize to Flip. I credited him with more bad influence than he deserved. I take issue with the phrase coaches rarely make a difference, but I agree with how you qualified the differences on three teams. If you think about it, those were three of how many coaching changes? Might be more than rare that coaching can change things.

closg00, apparently Frank Vogel (Indiana) is also one of the coaches capable of making a difference.

The number one factor is obviously talent, by a lot. Coaches can play the wrong guys and make a team even worse or they can play the right guys and make the team better. Teams mirror the personality of their coach. During the Unseldian era of the Bullets, Big Wes IIRC was coach and GM. As a coach his teams didn't have much talent but they fought hard. Was the roster full of scrappers or was it coaching emphasis? It seemed to me Wes was a pretty good coach.

I don't know now. I'm really open-minded on this.

I am glad Flip is gone because he played soft and I just didn't like his style at all. Never really trusted/liked him, even if he was a knowledgeable guy. I respect his loyalty towards certain players. He just didn't seem flexible at all. I guess I should respect that, too.

If Wittman cannot get them to play hard, just move on down the line and let Sam coach.

We all have touched on Ernie. No need to add to that.

[Nivek]

The thing to look at is not 3 cases that prove your point, but LOTS of cases. Luckily, Kevin Pelton did just that at Basketball Prospectus back in 2008. He looked at data on coaching changes for a bunch of seasons and found this to be the effect of coaching changes:

Code: Select all

Type           Old%    New%    Diff

Playoff        .399    .487   +.088
Aspiring       .406    .402   -.004
Non-Playoff    .230    .255   +.025

Hollinger also found that the earlier a coaching change is made in the season, the more effect it has. Teams that change coaches in the first 25 games improve about 14% in winning percentage. Between 25 and the halfway point, the difference falls to 4%. After the halfway point, the difference is 0.4%

So, let's put some actual win numbers with these percentages.

+.088 over an 82-game schedule equals about 7 additional wins.
-.004 is basically unchanged (0.3 wins lost)
+.025 means 2 additional wins over an 82-game schedule

The trouble with this kind of analysis is that there are so many factors in play that it's almost impossible to know what changed because of the new coach and what changed because of other factors like injuries, scheduling, personnel changes, etc. I think the take-away from Pelton's analysis is that coaching can make a difference, but often does not. For a truly bad team (like the Wizards), the coach doesn't make much of a difference.

[montestewart]

Hollinger also found that the earlier a coaching change is made in the season, the more effect it has. Teams that change coaches in the first 25 games improve about 14% in winning percentage. Between 25 and the halfway point, the difference falls to 4%. After the halfway point, the difference is 0.4%

Every year we see teams that play well above or below expectations. Many of those teams fall or rise back to expected level as the season wears on. The teams that exceed expectations are not very likely to fire the coach, leaving the coaching changes largely to the pool of teams falling below expectations. The new coaches often get the benefit of the team eventually rising to expected level (sometimes with key players returning form injuries), regardless of coaching. Tapscott had a much better record than Jordan, but I don't think many around here thought he was a better coach.

[tontoz]

On a related note i noticed that the Wizards are now 2nd in pace of play. Playing at a faster pace isn't a cure for what ails this team. They still can't shoot or rebound.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The trouble with this kind of analysis is that there are so many factors in play that it's almost impossible to know what changed because of the new coach and what changed because of other factors like injuries, scheduling, personnel changes, etc. I think the take-away from Pelton's analysis is that coaching can make a difference, but often does not. For a truly bad team (like the Wizards), the coach doesn't make much of a difference.

I can accept this as true.

My problem was I overestimated the talent level of the Wizards. Coaching can make a difference but the players have to be coachable and capable of implementing lessons learned on the court. If they are not adaptable and do not possess required mental and physical capacity, the coach can't help that. Problems with Kevin Pelton's measurement of coaching success or failure is the quality of effort isn't measured. Wins and losses are the only measure. The character of the coach is not measured, either. Nor is the front office support or non support.

The good news is good character and a strong front office can rectify talent problems quickly.

There is a coach who went from 24-58 one season to 66-16 the next. In 2006-2007, Doc Rivers had rookies Rajon Rondo, Leon Powe, along with 2nd-year Tony Allen, and 3rd-year Kendrick Perkins. Those guys and Paul Pierce once lost 18 games in a row!!!

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2007.html

In 2007-2008, the Celtics won the NBA title.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2007.html

Washington didn't afford Flip the equivalent of acquiring a KG and Ray Allen. Ernie Grunfeld has not done what Danny Ainge did. He has not done what Mitch Kupchak did. Those guys traded young talent for old, added to what they already had, and they won championships. Their coach went from losing 18 (Flip lost 16 IIRC) then to be considered HOF-worthy now. Boston got Thibodeau after Washington ran him off.

What Ted Leonsis needs to do is look closely for lessons learned. I know I am doing so.

[Nivek]

Here's a four-factors comparison of the team under Flip and the team under Wittman:

Code: Select all

STAT    Flip    Witt
pace    93.3    92.7
ortg    94.4    99.9
drtg    105.3   112.0
efg     .438    .467
defg    .497    .521
orb%    26%     28%
drb%    72%     63%
tov%    16%     15%
dtov%   16%     18%
ft      0.19    0.16
dft     0.22    0.24
Pyt82   14.7    13.7


The team has been a bit better offensively, but the offensive improvement has been offset by worse defense. Under Wittman (only a handful of games, so nothing definitive yet), they're fouling a bit more, rebounding worse, and defending worse. They're forcing more turnovers, but allowing opponents to shoot a much higher percentage. As I've pointed out many times, NBA defense is mostly about forcing the other guy to miss and then getting the rebound. Turnovers are nice to get, but don't really make that big a difference.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Nivek, perhaps it is time to play the lineup that forces the other guys to miss the most.

I think the Wizards really should try Wall, Mack, Vesely, Booker, and Seraphin.

That team might not score at all. It might be like one of my kids' games this weekend. The score was 6-4 going into the fourth quarter. (There was an offensive explosion in the fourth and the teams tied 16-16, thanks in part to a huge three by my son. Proud dad actually went Flava Flav. I said "Yeah, Boyyyy". Didn't know that was in me. I might need more counseling. I digress ...)

Any how, Nivek, since defense needs to improve I would like to see the guys who do think defense first. I think Young and Crawford could come in and jack shots, along with angry McGee off the bench. Might be shuffling the Titanic deck chairs but why not try Shelvin with Wall? Mack is the anti-Wall. He's a little gun shy when he needs to shoot, but otherwise, Shelvin is really fundamentally sound and a good decision maker.

That's what I'd try if I were coaching. Play the guys who will get after it defensively and encourage them to really be forceful. Let Wall go Allen Iverson. That guy missed a lot but his team went to the finals. The rest just have to hustle, defend, rebound.

[Nivek]

I kinda think the Wizards coaching staff needs to almost just go purely by effort and coachability. Play the guys who are working hard and will do what the coaches are asking them to do. If that means playing weird or quirky lineups -- so what? The team's getting its ass kicked anyway.

[nate33]

It is time to play the lineup that forces the other guys to miss the most.

I think the Wizards really should try Wall, Mack, Vesely, Booker, and Seraphin.

If you are going to do that, at least play Young in place of Mack. If nothing else, we wouldn't really need to try and run an offense. Just give ball to Young for 1-on-5 isolation plays while the bigs crash the offensive glass. It would probably end up being a more efficient way to score than any other offense they could run with that group.

Also, Young is a better defender than Mack.

That strategy reminds me of what John Lucas once did as coach of the Sixers. He had a terrible offensive unit featuring Shawn Bradley, a young Clarence Weatherspoon, Scott Williams, Willie Burton and Derrick Alston; so he just gave the ball to Dana Barros every play and ran screens for him. Barros had a crazy "one hit wonder" season posting 20 points and 8 assists with a .630 TS% (he never scored more than 13 points a game in any other season of his career). The team still sucked, going 24-58, but they at least beat two other teams in offensive rating and managed a middle-of-the pack (17th) defensive rating.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Here's a four-factors comparison of the team under Flip and the team under Wittman:

Code: Select all

STAT    Flip    Witt
pace    93.3    92.7
ortg    94.4    99.9
drtg    105.3   112.0
efg     .438    .467
defg    .497    .521
orb%    26%     28%
drb%    72%     63%
tov%    16%     15%
dtov%   16%     18%
ft      0.19    0.16
dft     0.22    0.24
Pyt82   14.7    13.7


The team has been a bit better offensively, but the offensive improvement has been offset by worse defense. Under Wittman (only a handful of games, so nothing definitive yet), they're fouling a bit more, rebounding worse, and defending worse. They're forcing more turnovers, but allowing opponents to shoot a much higher percentage. As I've pointed out many times, NBA defense is mostly about forcing the other guy to miss and then getting the rebound. Turnovers are nice to get, but don't really make that big a difference.

Since Wittman took over there have only been a few games. I can't help but think the real difference is the absence of Andray Blatche. They are shooting better with Booker in and Blatche out, but McGee's defense against big bodies has fallen off a cliff. Also, more of Lewis does mean better offense and worse defense.

Not sure what the guards are doing, but I think they're gambling for steals and spending too much time trying to help inside while opponents are flaring out for wide open shots.

[Illuminaire]

I'd reckon that Lewis actually makes things worse on both ends.

He is definitely hurting the defense though. McGee looks lost and Lewis can't guard a pineapple... it's pretty sad right now.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

It is time to play the lineup that forces the other guys to miss the most.

I think the Wizards really should try Wall, Mack, Vesely, Booker, and Seraphin.

If you are going to do that, at least play Young in place of Mack. If nothing else, we wouldn't really need to try and run an offense. Just give ball to Young for 1-on-5 isolation plays while the bigs crash the offensive glass. It would probably end up being a more efficient way to score than any other offense they could run with that group.

Also, Young is a better defender than Mack.

That strategy reminds me of what John Lucas once did as coach of the Sixers. He had a terrible offensive unit featuring Shawn Bradley, a young Clarence Weatherspoon, Scott Williams, Willie Burton and Derrick Alston; so he just gave the ball to Dana Barros every play and ran screens for him. Barros had a crazy "one hit wonder" season posting 20 points and 8 assists with a .630 TS% (he never scored more than 13 points a game in any other season of his career). The team still sucked, going 24-58, but they at least beat two other teams in offensive rating and managed a middle-of-the pack (17th) defensive rating.

I thought about Nick at first, nate. But he's a chucker and he takes shots that hurt the team at times. He runs hot and cold, and his misses often lead to fast breaks the other way as the rest of the team doesn't defend as well. Honestly, Young might be a better choice than Mack but Nick might not be the future. I know what Nick can do but I think it is worth investing minutes to get a look at what Shelvin might do with Wall. By all means if Shelton falters put Nick in there. I just wanted to get the team playing smarter. nate, the balance of Mack for Nick is that on offense Shelvin can distribute at a high assist rate. He passes and can do so to Wall, unlike Nick. Shelvin won't always shoot it like Crawford.

I really prefer Shelvin for BBIQ and the fact the dude won in college playing PG, SG, and SF. Nick is better physically but Shelvin is better mentally. Shelvin would not lose sight of the team being JOHN WALL'S. Nick gets his shots, regardless.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I'd reckon that Lewis actually makes things worse on both ends.

He is definitely hurting the defense though. McGee looks lost and Lewis can't guard a pineapple... it's pretty sad right now.

Speaking of guarding a pineapple, I used to wonder that same thing literally, Illuminaire.

A few years back, whenever I drove to the North Shore the pineapple fields on the side of the road seemed so inviting. I am not a thief, but I do have a real healthy appetite. Never stopped the car and snatched and grabbed a pineapple, but I sure thought about it. Those pineapple fields are mostly gone now, replaced by coffee plants when Dole closed their local plantation. (Wouldn't even know how to ...) Looking back, I used to love the smell of the pineapples.

Who does guard those pineapples? I didn't see a wire by the field. No surveillance equipment, either. I really was more curious than tempted.

[Zonkerbl]

The few minutes of the games I could stand to watch, it looks like the Zards are GREAT at forcing misses. They just work so hard on defense they're all out of position for the defensive rebound. Somehow they have to figure that out -- it's the ONLY part of their game that looks good. Booker needs to take it personally every time an opposing player gets an offensive rebound. McGee has to guard the basket -- getting the defensive rebound is primarily Booker's responsibility. Would help if they got some help rebounding from the SF position.

On offense they have to move, move, move, and pass the ball vertically as well as horizontally. Backdoor cuts for layups and lobs is basically the only way they are going to score. The ball sticks, they play hero ball, miss... It's really painful to watch. My girlfriend complains that watching the zards play depresses her and it's hard to disagree.

[Nivek]

Wiz are 25th in opponent efg. Doesn't seem like they're great at forcing misses. Yes, their poor offensive rebounding surely contributes to a high efg, but not that much. In terms of defensive priorities it's:

1. challenge shots/force misses





2. defensive rebounding


3. force turnovers
4. don't foul so much