Clyde_Style wrote:Bill Pidto wrote:LMAO @ people wanting to replace Fisher with Luke Walton, who gets to coach Steph Curry and the reigning NBA champions this year. I guess GS is undefeated because Walton's rotations are great and the timing of his timeouts are impeccable.
You people are dumb as dirt. I can see why people make fun of Knicks fans and root against us.
What do you believe our record and average margin of victory should be right now sir? Cet par of course.
I'd like to understand how you quantify Fisher's negative impact, please? Sir?
Also as a follow up, what are your logical and discernable reasons for believing that Luke Walton has major positive effect on the Warriors aside from your mentioned time out management. Specifically, that they are less than a cohesive system with a winning formula and good internal (player to player) management and that without Luke Walton's input there would be appreciable negative effect on the team's performance.
Lastly, if the argument is cogent (which I hold it might be as you are very intelligent), what inference can we draw about the abilities of Steve Kerr and/or the importance of coaches in general? We would obviously logically agree that if there is huge affect in that playcalling by a coach and leadership by a coach are supremely important, the probability of two all time great single season coaching performances by two different men infers that they both have all time great level coaching ablility and that is highly unlikely. To help the excercise, would Derek Fisher prevent the GSW from winning with what in your opinion is a pronounced lack of coaching skill?
For full disclosure, I am of the opinion that it is very unlikely both Luke Walton and Steve Kerr are all-time great coaches and that its more likely that a successful system has been implemented. The importance of a coach is not in microcosmic scale as he doesn't control players from possession to possession as in football for instance. There are minor exceptions to this such as in deadball situations and in psychomanagement of individuals on a case by case basis during gameplay when necessary. The coach is responsible for institutional control and creating systematic modalities for his players to function within as players are largely autonomous once on the court.
In this regard, Derek Fisher is implementing the system of another's design with the tools of another choosing unlike for example Mike Budenholzer, Greg Popovich, or even to a lesser extent Jeff Hornacek. As such there are certain inherent limitations that he must learn to work within. This is not to say that he is capable of identifying talent nor in designing such a system in general. It is merely acknowledging that there are certain inefficiencies within the model that he must work within and as such, that there are more factors outside of his control that he must find ways to efficiently manage.
With that being said, I believe that he is at least adequate in regard to the two earlier referenced conditions; first, he clearly has institutional control within his specific sphere of influence. Secondly, the system he's using currently has yielded results above what was likely to be expected as the team is 4-6 thus far. If .500 is the standard for of mediocrity and we fell well short of that last year, I do not believe that its reasonable to expect much more positive variance all things considered but IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. Althought the sample size is likely insignificant, we seem to be trending in the right direction. I lack the quantitative proof of my assumption however without you providing any the exercise is rhetorical and merely opinionated conjecture.
I am wholeheartedly in agreement that his management of specific microcosmic scale is lacking and that it could cost a team in individual and specific instances leading to loss of wins ie; his inbound plays and his playcalling out of timeouts which at somepoint will be in game ending situations where his individual and specific play to play influence is greatest. These smaller decisions are cumulative however, and in that regard the summary effect of his decision making is currently positively influencing the Knicks as is evidenced in out record relative to my previously mentioned opinion of expected outcome.
To conclude; Derek Fishers general game management is ok in my opinion but his general gamesmanship seems to be greater than ok and getting better. A steep learning curve for a second year coach with absolutely no coaching experience is not abnormal and as fans who have patience to wait for specific players skills to develop, we should have the same patience to wait for specific coaches skills to develop in the interest of fairness. Replacing institution wide fixtures and procedure is not an easy or quick task. I do not believe that we have enough information to make proper judgement of Derek Fisher's ceiling as a coach as of yet and scuttling the progress made for replacement by an unknown quantity in a semi-familiar situation (Walton) or a known quantity in a completely foreign situation (Thibs) would not facilitate the quickening of our apparent turn around which seems to be the basic premise most's discontent. It's a process.
