Bulls considering Kenny Atkinson for HC

[othawhitemeat]

I’m finding it difficult to be swayed, not because I’m wedded you my ideas, but because you’ve stated high level points while suggesting youre not really across the situation or have all the information.

Because of this, and as I asked, I don’t see a reasonable conclusion that suggests Atkinson was a “pretty awful” coach.

I don't expect to sway you. You said you can't even see the argument.

I can see the argument of why he might be good. I'm also not swayed, because the argument is literally in the form of, even though he had bad results three times out of four, here's a bunch of reasons why that doesn't count, oh, and the one time in four he exceeded expectations, that was 100% him. Just find that not to be a compelling argument.

But you're really missing the context if you think those first two season were "bad". They weren't a playoff team and weren't supposed to be. Yet both seasons, within those seasons, they showed pretty valuable growth. Personally, I think the only season that really strikes me as a bad season is his last one.

I also think that is debatable. Durant will win games. Kyrie is a cancer unless he is a 2nd banana to a big time star. Kyrie hit the big shot in Clevelands chio but has brought more losses than wins to every team be has been on. He is a very talented, but selfish player with low bball IQ to get others involved.

[kingkirk]

I’m finding it difficult to be swayed, not because I’m wedded you my ideas, but because you’ve stated high level points while suggesting youre not really across the situation or have all the information.

Because of this, and as I asked, I don’t see a reasonable conclusion that suggests Atkinson was a “pretty awful” coach.

I don't expect to sway you. You said you can't even see the argument.

I can see the argument of why he might be good. I'm also not swayed, because the argument is literally in the form of, even though he had bad results three times out of four, here's a bunch of reasons why that doesn't count, oh, and the one time in four he exceeded expectations, that was 100% him. Just find that not to be a compelling argument.

I can't see your argument because I think you're omitting and/or ignoring the context of his team and the Nets situation. This was a team that should have been absolutely bodied given how poorly their previous management team and screwed the team.

They had virtually no actual good draft assets, or any young player assets. Guys like LeVert, Allen and RHJ were late first round picks because that's literally all they had, while watching Tatum and Brown grow in Boston, who both should be Nets if they had competent management.

They had to trade for Russell to bring in their first legitimate prospect.

They picked up Dinwiddie and Harris off the scrap heap, who both developed into quality players.

This isn't a situation like the Bulls where the Nets had several years worth of accumulated quality picks and prospects and became meh. The Nets were in a dire situation, and despite that, went past many other teams in part because of Atkinson and how he developed a team lowly prospects and cast offs into a playoff team.

You can say the Nets weren't tanking while other teams were. Fine. That is true. But it doesn't change the fact that their team was still very bad in terms of relative talent, yet still showed signs of progression and development, which was unexpected given the level of talent and assets they did have vs. the competition.

Like I said from the outset, I'm not here suggesting that Atkinson is a great coach. I did say he should only be considered good. However, I do find purely looking at record and comparing that to competition while completely ignoring the context of team, expectations, and assets as unreasonable, hence why I just don't see how you or anyone else can posit that he's actually possibly bad.

[The Evidence]

We don't deserve KA...

Why?

Apparently he hasn't won anything yet

[Payt10]

I'm about as open-minded as I've ever been when it comes to a new head coach. Just get rid of Boylen and you've instantly made your team better.

When Atkinson was originally let go, he was near the top of my wish list before any of these changes took place. I also like what I've heard about Adrian Griffin and Ime Udoka.

[dougthonus]

But you're really missing the context if you think those first two season were "bad". They weren't a playoff team and weren't supposed to be. Yet both seasons, within those seasons, they showed pretty valuable growth. Personally, I think the only season that really strikes me as a bad season is his last one.

I disagree with that assessment. I didn't expect them to be a playoff team, but they were no better than teams purposefully trying to lose that were trotting out similar or worse caliber talent. As I said, it isn't necessarily a bad season, but it is bad to neutral, it definitely isn't good.

[dougthonus]

I can't see your argument because I think you're omitting and/or ignoring the context of his team and the Nets situation.

I'm not ignoring the context though, I explicitly called out the context and why there is another version of the context which you are ignoring as a possibility.

Again, his teams were as bad as other teams that were playing similar caliber talent. Even though he had no expectations, his team was no better than teams purposefully trying to lose playing similar caliber talent that also had no expectations.

That is the result within the context. So you can keep saying I'm not looking at the context, but it simply isn't true.

Year four he was fired, presumably, because he didn't get along with his star talent and they didn't want him as coach. The context of it being Irving/Durant being whiny isn't sufficient for that not to be valid as a red flag given that to my knowledge neither has ever tried to get a coach fired in the past and management of star players is a pretty critical function of a coach.

I did say he should only be considered good. However, I do find purely looking at record and comparing that to competition while completely ignoring the context of team, expectations, and assets as unreasonable, hence why I just don't see how you or anyone else can posit that he's actually possibly bad.

Just to be clear, I'm mostly neutral on Atkinson. I see no way to spin year 1, 2, or 4 into good years for him. I can understand why context may not make them bad years, but I see no way to make them good years. His results aren't compelling to me, but coaches are hard to judge.

I just think you could look at Scott Skiles, as an example, or dozens of other coaches, and paint a similar picture if you wanted to. Atkinson is frequently talked about as a stand out coach and great candidate, and that is what I don't see. I think he's viable, I wouldn't be upset if the Bulls interviewed him and hired him afterwards. He just doesn't stand out to me, but he does for lots of others.

[dice]

let's get down to what was expected from the nets heading into each of atkinson's seasons there:

2016-2017 over/under 20.5 wins, result 20 wins. everybody knew their talent was terrible and nobody expected a rookie head coach to make much of an impact. he didn't

2017-2018 over/under 27.5 wins, result 28 wins. improvement was expected based on personnel changes, presumably. again the unproven coach would not have been expected to make much of an impact (he hadn't the previous season). and again atkinson didn't disappoint the oddsmakers

2018-2019 over/under 32 wins, result 42 wins. so why did they exceed expectations? first and foremost, the defense improved. the main personnel reason would be replacing tyler zeller with ed davis. but oddsmakers should have factored that in. RHJ and crabbe declined significantly. given that both were in their mid-20s that doesn't reflect well on atkinson's supposed developmental prowess. team was a tad deeper w/ addition of credible 3rd point guard shabazz napier. and, of course, d'angelo russell was not only healthy for the full season but significantly improved. russell has given atkinson SOME credit publicly. those were the only significant changes from the prior season, yet the team record somehow improved substantially. so basically what that season boils down to coaching-wise is...how much did atkinson impact the defensive improvement?! given that he talks defense a lot in the media i would assume that he places emphasis on it when he's with his team, but really i have no idea

2019-2020 over/under 43.5, result atkinson on track for 37 wins when fired. kyrie's injury obviously impacted that. defense jumps into top 10, but promising new signing taurean waller-prince deteriorates substantially offensively compared to his play in atlanta. another veteran in his mid-20s fairing poorly under atkinson

on balance i think the resume suggests a very modest positive coaching impact. but his players have almost uniformly had good things to say about him publicly. then again, apparently superstars don't much care for his coaching style. so we're left with his good reputation for developing young players and probably an ability to improve a defense. worth a look, but nothing to get excited about if we're looking to contend any time soon. we can't find a similarly qualified or high potential black candidate?

[HomoSapien]

Even with that first 20-win season, it's worth noting that Lin who was arguably their second-best player had a season-ending injury 33 games into the season and Bogdanovic also got traded at the deadline. I think he wins more games if he had both those players for a full season.

All that said, I feel like I'm overly defending him. Overall, I agree with Dice's assessment of him.

[kingkirk]

I can't see your argument because I think you're omitting and/or ignoring the context of his team and the Nets situation.

I'm not ignoring the context though, I explicitly called out the context and why there is another version of the context which you are ignoring as a possibility.

Again, his teams were as bad as other teams that were playing similar caliber talent. Even though he had no expectations, his team was no better than teams purposefully trying to lose playing similar caliber talent that also had no expectations.

That is the result within the context. So you can keep saying I'm not looking at the context, but it simply isn't true.

Year four he was fired, presumably, because he didn't get along with his star talent and they didn't want him as coach. The context of it being Irving/Durant being whiny isn't sufficient for that not to be valid as a red flag given that to my knowledge neither has ever tried to get a coach fired in the past and management of star players is a pretty critical function of a coach.

I did say he should only be considered good. However, I do find purely looking at record and comparing that to competition while completely ignoring the context of team, expectations, and assets as unreasonable, hence why I just don't see how you or anyone else can posit that he's actually possibly bad.

Just to be clear, I'm mostly neutral on Atkinson. I see no way to spin year 1, 2, or 4 into good years for him. I can understand why context may not make them bad years, but I see no way to make them good years. His results aren't compelling to me, but coaches are hard to judge.

I just think you could look at Scott Skiles, as an example, or dozens of other coaches, and paint a similar picture if you wanted to. Atkinson is frequently talked about as a stand out coach and great candidate, and that is what I don't see. I think he's viable, I wouldn't be upset if the Bulls interviewed him and hired him afterwards. He just doesn't stand out to me, but he does for lots of others.

I just really think its flawed to grade a coach and the work he does based on record. That is more so a general statement about how I feel about things.

I think a coach can do a really good job while only having his team win 20-ish games. I think Brett Brown did exactly that during his initial years in Philadelphia.

A W/L record isn't equal when considering expectation and context. So I don't agree that there's no way to spin years 1 and 2 as positive seasons for Atkinson and the Nets. I think you easily can do this if you solely focus on player development and improvement relative to expectation, irrespective of win/loss ratio.

[dice]

A W/L record isn't equal when considering expectation and context. So I don't agree that there's no way to spin years 1 and 2 as positive seasons for Atkinson and the Nets. I think you easily can do this if you solely focus on player development and improvement relative to expectation, irrespective of win/loss ratio.

you can probably spin it that way. but it would be just that: spin

how do you improve players in excess of expectations and not have it show up in team results?

[dougthonus]

I just really think its flawed to grade a coach and the work he does based on record. That is more so a general statement about how I feel about things.

I'm not judging him based on record.

So I don't agree that there's no way to spin years 1 and 2 as positive seasons for Atkinson and the Nets. I think you easily can do this if you solely focus on player development and improvement relative to expectation, irrespective of win/loss ratio.

Fair enough.

[kingkirk]

A W/L record isn't equal when considering expectation and context. So I don't agree that there's no way to spin years 1 and 2 as positive seasons for Atkinson and the Nets. I think you easily can do this if you solely focus on player development and improvement relative to expectation, irrespective of win/loss ratio.

you can probably spin it that way. but it would be just that: spin

how do you improve players in excess of expectations and not have it show up in team results?

I would say a Nets team winning 28 games despite having any premier talent and getting real growth from cast offs and late first round picks is growth that shows signs in W/L.

But not all wins are equal. The Bulls winning 48 games in 2014 isn't the same as the Raptors winning 48 games in 2014. There's context to everything. This same logic is applicable to lesser teams with losing records.

So you can call it spin if you like. I will call it the truth of the matter.

[HomoSapien]

A W/L record isn't equal when considering expectation and context. So I don't agree that there's no way to spin years 1 and 2 as positive seasons for Atkinson and the Nets. I think you easily can do this if you solely focus on player development and improvement relative to expectation, irrespective of win/loss ratio.

you can probably spin it that way. but it would be just that: spin

how do you improve players in excess of expectations and not have it show up in team results?

I would say a Nets team winning 28 games despite having any premier talent and getting real growth from cast offs and late first round picks is growth that shows signs in W/L.

But not all wins are equal. The Bulls winning 48 games in 2014 isn't the same as the Raptors winning 48 games in 2014. There's context to everything. This same logic is applicable to lesser teams with losing records.

So you can call it spin if you like. I will call it the truth of the matter.

Bill Cartwright had a season where he won 30 games. If you looked at just the record, it'd seem like a pretty awful season but if you asked most Bulls fan about that season they'd tell you that guys like Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, and Tyson Chandler all started showing positive signs and that the team was gelling. Obviously it ended up being false hope but I agree that not all wins and losses are equal.

[dice]

A W/L record isn't equal when considering expectation and context. So I don't agree that there's no way to spin years 1 and 2 as positive seasons for Atkinson and the Nets. I think you easily can do this if you solely focus on player development and improvement relative to expectation, irrespective of win/loss ratio.

you can probably spin it that way. but it would be just that: spin

how do you improve players in excess of expectations and not have it show up in team results?

I would say a Nets team winning 28 games despite having any premier talent and getting real growth from cast offs and late first round picks is growth that shows signs in W/L.

as i already noted, that improvement to 28 games was predicted by vegas before the season started, with atkinson being a good coach surely not factored into that, as he had shown no signs of being a good coach the prior year when they also performed to expectations

So you can call it spin if you like. I will call it the truth of the matter.

if it's the truth, it lacks any reasonable evidence

[dice]

you can probably spin it that way. but it would be just that: spin

how do you improve players in excess of expectations and not have it show up in team results?

I would say a Nets team winning 28 games despite having any premier talent and getting real growth from cast offs and late first round picks is growth that shows signs in W/L.

But not all wins are equal. The Bulls winning 48 games in 2014 isn't the same as the Raptors winning 48 games in 2014. There's context to everything. This same logic is applicable to lesser teams with losing records.

So you can call it spin if you like. I will call it the truth of the matter.

Bill Cartwright had a season where he won 30 games. If you looked at just the record, it'd seem like a pretty awful season but if you asked most Bulls fan about that season they'd tell you that guys like Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry, and Tyson Chandler all started showing positive signs and that the team was gelling. Obviously it ended up being false hope but I agree that not all wins and losses are equal.

those bulls fans would have been irrationally optimistic. all three of those guys were high draft picks going into their 2nd full seasons, all showed modest and expected improvement, and the team won exactly the number of games it was expected to. as for gelling, they were 15-26 in the first half of the season and...15-26 in the latter half

at least atkinson stans can point to unheralded guys like dinwiddie, harris and levert getting their first significant playing time under atkinson and showing that they belong in the league. again, there's no evidence that atkinson did anything other than give them an opportunity due to a garbage roster, but a person can choose to be optimistic about his ability to develop talent

[MrFortune3]

I swear we are all defending Atkinson too much at this point

I think Doug is just too dug in on his opinion of him. Atkinson is a solid coach at worst, nobody is saying he's elite, just that he helped the Nets.

[dougthonus]

I swear we are all defending Atkinson too much at this point

I think Doug is just too dug in on his opinion of him. Atkinson is a solid coach at worst, nobody is saying he's elite, just that he helped the Nets.

Here's 10 quoted pieces where I acknowledge that I might be wrong or leave room for the opinion that he is a good coach. There are zero quotes in this thread where you, Mark, or Homo acknowledge that anything I've written as a possibility has merit.

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

That is certainly the absolutely most positive, optimistic take on the situation, which is the one the majority of people seem to be taking. Maybe it's a realistic take, but as I noted, if you look at the overall results, there's a lot of room for a very reasonable negative take that says he's really pretty awful.

That very well may be the correct take. As I've said, I don't know much about Atkinson really (or any of these guys)

Wouldn't shock me if he ends up being a good coach, but I'm surprised at how convinced people are that he's a good coach based on what has happened.

As I noted, you're attributing everything positive that happened to Atkinson and nothing negative that happened to him. That could be the correct thing to do, but it's very infrequent in life that it is and there is quite a bit of very direct evidence against that in this specific case.

I think either side is plausible and I know I don't have enough information.

When I add those things up, I think he's a reasonable candidate

I can see the argument of why he might be good.

Just to be clear, I'm mostly neutral on Atkinson.

[drosereturn]

I swear we are all defending Atkinson too much at this point

I think Doug is just too dug in on his opinion of him. Atkinson is a solid coach at worst, nobody is saying he's elite, just that he helped the Nets.

Because KA is at worst a top 10 coach and Bulls are one of the worst teams? Why should a top 10 candidate forced to take one of the lowest paid/insecure jobs when he could continue his career on a playoff bound team and become the next Spolestra?
Literally, every Bulls fan would have to beg on their knees if I were KA.

[dougthonus]

Because KA is at worst a top 10 coach and Bulls are one of the worst teams? Why should a top 10 candidate forced to take one of the lowest paid/insecure jobs when he could continue his career on a playoff bound team and become the next Spolestra?
Literally, every Bulls fan would have to beg on their knees if I were KA.

At worst a top 10 coach? That's literally the worst case scenario? A guy whom, in four seasons, has finished over .500 one time with only 42 wins and never won a playoff series in his life has absolutely no possibility of being the 11th or 12th best coach in the NBA?

Popovich
Kerr
Nurse
Spoelstra
Rivers
Carlisle
Budenholzer
Stevens
Vogel
Brown
Snyder
McMillon
D'Antoni

Like he's absolutely better than at a minimum of four of those guys? No possible argument otherwise? That's the floor?

[MrFortune3]

I swear we are all defending Atkinson too much at this point

I think Doug is just too dug in on his opinion of him. Atkinson is a solid coach at worst, nobody is saying he's elite, just that he helped the Nets.

Because KA is at worst a top 10 coach and Bulls are one of the worst teams? Why should a top 10 candidate forced to take one of the lowest paid/insecure jobs when he could continue his career on a playoff bound team and become the next Spolestra?
Literally, every Bulls fan would have to beg on their knees if I were KA.

The top 10 is a little crazy. But I do agree he's a good coach.