3rd Annual Fire Kidd Thread - Volume 2 (Horst Interview pg 14)

[sidney lanier]

My biggest fear is that somehow the Bucks get lucky and win a playoff series purely due to talent (Giannis/Midds gets hot etc) and they decide to keep him.Honestly i dont see what can change if he is fired now and someone from his staff takes over.If i could i would fire them all and bring in Fizdale.

Who knows what winning a playoff series would lead to? Maybe eventually the ECF, the Finals, a ring? The mental picture of Giannis and Kidd hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy must give you nightmares.

If the Kidd led Bucks go to the ECF or finals, all is forgiven in my book and I will eat all the fricasseed crow you can serve. Honestly, I do not expect that Kidd can get the Bucks to that outcome, even with more years allowed.

Spoken like a true Bucks fan, which I know you are.

Even though it took a long time, I'd say the anti-Kidd sentiment here has finally risen to the level of anti-Stotts sentiment at its peak. Now, as then, everybody is sure the coach is the problem and that he doesn't know what he's doing, makes bad scheme and rotation decisions, and is stupid. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Speaking of scheme, it's always puzzled me why some people believe that basketball offense is as schematic as football offense, as though every possession were planned in a huddle or templated to some secret sauce plan instead of essentially improvised on the court, on the fly. I remember hearing Jeff Van Gundy, who is pretty funny in a dry humor way, discussing the triangle offense run by the Phil Jackson Bulls. He said something to the effect that the triangle looked to him like "just pass the ball to Jordan," which of course it was.

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:

I think anybody confusing a system with a reason for success is making a huge mistake. Systems don’t win games. Players do. All you try to do in any system you incorporate is put players in their areas of strength and try to hide and minimize their weaknesses. The triangle for [Scottie] Pippen and [Michael] Jordan with a lot of shooting around them was a tremendous system. Same with [Kobe] Bryant and [Shaquille] O’Neal. Then [Pau] Gasol and Bryant. It can work and other systems would’ve worked and they would’ve won it.

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

[msiris]

ECF????? Laughable.

[KidA24]

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:

I think anybody confusing a system with a reason for success is making a huge mistake. Systems don’t win games. Players do. All you try to do in any system you incorporate is put players in their areas of strength and try to hide and minimize their weaknesses. The triangle for [Scottie] Pippen and [Michael] Jordan with a lot of shooting around them was a tremendous system. Same with [Kobe] Bryant and [Shaquille] O’Neal. Then [Pau] Gasol and Bryant. It can work and other systems would’ve worked and they would’ve won it.

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Jordan didn't win **** until he was put in a system and had a coach who forced him to trust his teammates.

[Je K]

Speaking of scheme, it's always puzzled me why some people believe that basketball offense is as schematic as football offense, as though every possession were planned in a huddle or templated to some secret sauce plan instead of essentially improvised on the court, on the fly. I remember hearing Jeff Van Gundy, who is pretty funny in a dry humor way, discussing the triangle offense run by the Phil Jackson Bulls. He said something to the effect that the triangle looked to him like "just pass the ball to Jordan," which of course it was.

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:

I think anybody confusing a system with a reason for success is making a huge mistake. Systems don’t win games. Players do. All you try to do in any system you incorporate is put players in their areas of strength and try to hide and minimize their weaknesses. The triangle for [Scottie] Pippen and [Michael] Jordan with a lot of shooting around them was a tremendous system. Same with [Kobe] Bryant and [Shaquille] O’Neal. Then [Pau] Gasol and Bryant. It can work and other systems would’ve worked and they would’ve won it.

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Schemes and systems are built to put players in the best possible situations to succeed. Our scheme doesn't maximize the potential of any of our players and that's a massive problem. Systems might not win games, but they can definitely lose them.

[chonestown]

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Begs the questions: What are the things that should be measured? What are the ways to measure them?

[ackypoo]

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Begs the questions: What are the things that should be measured? What are the ways to measure them?

heart

weight

[DingleJerry]

Speaking of scheme, it's always puzzled me why some people believe that basketball offense is as schematic as football offense, as though every possession were planned in a huddle or templated to some secret sauce plan instead of essentially improvised on the court, on the fly. I remember hearing Jeff Van Gundy, who is pretty funny in a dry humor way, discussing the triangle offense run by the Phil Jackson Bulls. He said something to the effect that the triangle looked to him like "just pass the ball to Jordan," which of course it was.

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:

I think anybody confusing a system with a reason for success is making a huge mistake. Systems don’t win games. Players do. All you try to do in any system you incorporate is put players in their areas of strength and try to hide and minimize their weaknesses. The triangle for [Scottie] Pippen and [Michael] Jordan with a lot of shooting around them was a tremendous system. Same with [Kobe] Bryant and [Shaquille] O’Neal. Then [Pau] Gasol and Bryant. It can work and other systems would’ve worked and they would’ve won it.

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Schemes and systems are built to put players in the best possible situations to succeed. Our scheme doesn't maximize the potential of any of our players and that's a massive problem. Systems might not win games, but they can definitely lose them.

yup, tell the Spurs winning without Kawhi that system doesn't matter. Celtics only returned 4 players and are playing several new young guys and they keep winning. Mavs have overachieved pretty much every year as their talent has dwindled since 2010ish. Portland lost their whole team except Lillard yet keep making the playoffs in spite of several horrible FA signings. Jordan didn't win until put in a system that didn't let him ballhog. GSW didn't win until they switched coaches. MIA keeps winning with a lack of top end talent. KD played all iso ball in OKC and they said it was becasue that's how he and Russ are, goes to GSW and he doesn't play that way anymore. The list goes on...

[emunney]

Speaking of scheme, it's always puzzled me why some people believe that basketball offense is as schematic as football offense, as though every possession were planned in a huddle or templated to some secret sauce plan instead of essentially improvised on the court, on the fly. I remember hearing Jeff Van Gundy, who is pretty funny in a dry humor way, discussing the triangle offense run by the Phil Jackson Bulls. He said something to the effect that the triangle looked to him like "just pass the ball to Jordan," which of course it was.

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:

I think anybody confusing a system with a reason for success is making a huge mistake. Systems don’t win games. Players do. All you try to do in any system you incorporate is put players in their areas of strength and try to hide and minimize their weaknesses. The triangle for [Scottie] Pippen and [Michael] Jordan with a lot of shooting around them was a tremendous system. Same with [Kobe] Bryant and [Shaquille] O’Neal. Then [Pau] Gasol and Bryant. It can work and other systems would’ve worked and they would’ve won it.

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Schemes and systems are built to put players in the best possible situations to succeed. Our scheme doesn't maximize the potential of any of our players and that's a massive problem. Systems might not win games, but they can definitely lose them.

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

Defensively, we have a scheme, and we occasionally do something else just long enough to realize that doing something else is better before we go back to trapping Elfrid Payton.

As an aside, if the draft were held today, Phoenix would be making our pick.

[M-C-G]

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Sid, I mean analytics do not support Kidd's system, biology does not support Kidd's assertion that these guys are young as basketball players, and the eye test gives fans more than enough reason to justifiably place accountability on the coach.

You don't need to measure things the wrong way, this defense is among the worst in the league despite having a roster of players that should be at least average defenders, this team wanted to win 50 games, which you don't need a monocle to look at our winning percentage and you don't need a replay booth to look at the oddball rotations and bizarre coaching strategies (and I being kind) to see that we consistently do the wrong things in the wrong ways and the staff hasn't been able to correct that.

You don't even need the analytics at this point to draw this conclusion, we have a top 5 coach in name recognition but a bottom 5 coach in Xs and Os, and that couldn't be more evident then just watching this team play like we they are running in mud.

[0BobLobLaw0]

Who knows what winning a playoff series would lead to? Maybe eventually the ECF, the Finals, a ring? The mental picture of Giannis and Kidd hoisting the Larry O'Brien trophy must give you nightmares.

If the Kidd led Bucks go to the ECF or finals, all is forgiven in my book and I will eat all the fricasseed crow you can serve. Honestly, I do not expect that Kidd can get the Bucks to that outcome, even with more years allowed.

Spoken like a true Bucks fan, which I know you are.

Even though it took a long time, I'd say the anti-Kidd sentiment here has finally risen to the level of anti-Stotts sentiment at its peak. Now, as then, everybody is sure the coach is the problem and that he doesn't know what he's doing, makes bad scheme and rotation decisions, and is stupid. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Speaking of scheme, it's always puzzled me why some people believe that basketball offense is as schematic as football offense, as though every possession were planned in a huddle or templated to some secret sauce plan instead of essentially improvised on the court, on the fly. I remember hearing Jeff Van Gundy, who is pretty funny in a dry humor way, discussing the triangle offense run by the Phil Jackson Bulls. He said something to the effect that the triangle looked to him like "just pass the ball to Jordan," which of course it was.

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:

I think anybody confusing a system with a reason for success is making a huge mistake. Systems don’t win games. Players do. All you try to do in any system you incorporate is put players in their areas of strength and try to hide and minimize their weaknesses. The triangle for [Scottie] Pippen and [Michael] Jordan with a lot of shooting around them was a tremendous system. Same with [Kobe] Bryant and [Shaquille] O’Neal. Then [Pau] Gasol and Bryant. It can work and other systems would’ve worked and they would’ve won it.

A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

He was replaced with Larry K. Of course it wasn't going to work for the better.

[econniption]

Spoiler:

Speaking of scheme, it's always puzzled me why some people believe that basketball offense is as schematic as football offense, as though every possession were planned in a huddle or templated to some secret sauce plan instead of essentially improvised on the court, on the fly. I remember hearing Jeff Van Gundy, who is pretty funny in a dry humor way, discussing the triangle offense run by the Phil Jackson Bulls. He said something to the effect that the triangle looked to him like "just pass the ball to Jordan," which of course it was.

He had something interesting to say on the subject of scheme generally that's pertinent to the comments in this thread:



A lot of young folks here confuse the living breathing NBA with something on a spreadsheet produced by one of the tiny-necked analytics guys. I think this confusion has fostered a lot of misplaced hatred of Kidd. When you're measuring the wrong things in the wrong ways, and think you're measuring the right things in the right ways, you're bound to be led astray.

Schemes and systems are built to put players in the best possible situations to succeed. Our scheme doesn't maximize the potential of any of our players and that's a massive problem. Systems might not win games, but they can definitely lose them.

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

Defensively, we have a scheme, and we occasionally do something else just long enough to realize that doing something else is better before we go back to trapping Elfrid Payton.

As an aside, if the draft were held today, Phoenix would be making our pick.

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

[DingleJerry]

Spoiler:

Schemes and systems are built to put players in the best possible situations to succeed. Our scheme doesn't maximize the potential of any of our players and that's a massive problem. Systems might not win games, but they can definitely lose them.

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

Defensively, we have a scheme, and we occasionally do something else just long enough to realize that doing something else is better before we go back to trapping Elfrid Payton.

As an aside, if the draft were held today, Phoenix would be making our pick.

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

I know they need the pick asap for depth. However, it might not be the worst thing to convert it right away this year so they're more able to use 1sts in any trade scenarios going forward rather than the unknown that it is now.

2nd rounders should be available to buy as a few teams have multiple this year

[Jimmmycrackcorn]

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

is it bad that i would miss the second round pick more than the first?

this franchise would screw up that first rounder anyway.

[emunney]

Spoiler:

Schemes and systems are built to put players in the best possible situations to succeed. Our scheme doesn't maximize the potential of any of our players and that's a massive problem. Systems might not win games, but they can definitely lose them.

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

Defensively, we have a scheme, and we occasionally do something else just long enough to realize that doing something else is better before we go back to trapping Elfrid Payton.

As an aside, if the draft were held today, Phoenix would be making our pick.

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

So good! I really like this draft, too.

[DingleJerry]

Spoiler:

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

Defensively, we have a scheme, and we occasionally do something else just long enough to realize that doing something else is better before we go back to trapping Elfrid Payton.

As an aside, if the draft were held today, Phoenix would be making our pick.

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

So good! I really like this draft, too.

If I remember they're protected to 17. So all they have to do is get the 7 seed, it really shouldn't be that hard.

[emunney]

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

So good! I really like this draft, too.

If I remember they're protected to 17. So all they have to do is get the 7 seed, it really shouldn't be that hard.

We have a terrible relationship with the subjunctive.

[sidney lanier]

Jordan didn't win **** until he was put in a system and had a coach who forced him to trust his teammates.

That's a pippin of an argument.

[sidney lanier]

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

I'm not sure I would say there's a clearly obvious scheme on most possessions, either. Or if we have a scheme on offense, it's about as recognizable as Hamlet would be if you cast a kindergarten class to play all the parts.

Your observations are not incompatible with my point that it's the players, stupid. Or that fixing the "scheme" by dint of a coaching change, however emotionally satisfying it would be to some, is not the answer.

[sidney lanier]

You don't even need the analytics at this point to draw this conclusion, we have a top 5 coach in name recognition but a bottom 5 coach in Xs and Os, and that couldn't be more evident then just watching this team play like we they are running in mud.

We sure seem to be mired in the Slough of Despond now, I agree, but I think better days are coming once we get past the Valley of Humiliation.

[econniption]

Spoiler:

I don't know that I'd say we have an offensive scheme.

We have a handful of plays, often we'll run the exact same play 5-10 times in a row, and we are always eager to dump it into the post (where we have always done a good job under Kidd, just so this post isn't entirely negative, of timing hard dives to the rim to suck in the defense and open our shooters). Our half court offense is about as stagnant as NBA offenses get -- there is not much motion to it the vast majority of the time, and half our plays have these incredibly tortured initial actions where we have to get the ball to, for instance, Khris 30 feet from the basket facing the wrong damn way, or please somebody explain to me the play where we have to throw the ball in to the elbow and then move it to the OTHER ELBOW. It's like we think we get points for running clock.

But is it a scheme? That implies a combination of sophistication and consistency that I don't see.

Defensively, we have a scheme, and we occasionally do something else just long enough to realize that doing something else is better before we go back to trapping Elfrid Payton.

As an aside, if the draft were held today, Phoenix would be making our pick.

Picks. PHX would also have our 2nd round pick. Good stuff, huh?

I know they need the pick asap for depth. However, it might not be the worst thing to convert it right away this year so they're more able to use 1sts in any trade scenarios going forward rather than the unknown that it is now.

2nd rounders should be available to buy as a few teams have multiple this year

I think most, if not all, would agree that the Bledsoe trade was a win-now trade. You give up 2 draft picks (and Monroe), regardless of protections, for a veteran. This means the front office and owners view, or at least viewed, the team as on the precipice. This is in direct contrast to Jason Kidd's view that the team is still "young" and "developing." Teams ready to compete make win-now trades, not young and developing teams. The front office also flat-out cut Liggins and GP2, two players that were spot-starting and were regular rotation players for Kidd. These instances are examples of the disconnect that Kidd has with the front office. I think we can add this to the growing pile of reasons that Kidd does not belong with this organization.