We generally don't know in what context or for what reasons the rotations are being made. That's pretty important.
We also generally can't separate play calling from players' ability to execute that play.
So while overall results ignore the impact of the players on the record, picking apart most of his plays (unless he comes out and says he fucked up - ) suffers from the same problem. And rotations, I'd argue are even less clear.
I know the context of his rotations and play calling because I'm watching the games, that's the context. You're basically saying all of us fans are too fucking stupid to tell if a coach is doing well or not by watching the games, and all we should look at is the amount of wins.
Of course his record is a valid argument. It's one of many valid arguments.
If the basis of your distaste for Casey is simply that he messed up a few calls and rotations in a playoff series, than your argument it just as unsophisticated and myopic as anyone's.
I said that in-season success is no less valid than examining rotations, play calling and what not. I'm saying that by analysing every single one of these aspects, we're able to come to a somewhat more informed conclusion. I'm also arguing that when doing that, Casey looks like a pretty decent coach. Not in the top tier with Pop and Thibs, but somewhere in that next tier of "with the right guys, he's a successful coach."
And re:the bold, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. The fact that you think otherwise leads me to believe you are vastly overestimating your knowledge of the situation.
edit: especially since whatever stats we're basing our answers on are way, way less advanced than whatever proprietary stuff the team is producing
edit edit: also the context is so much more than what we see happening in the game. it involves what happened at practice the day before, how each player responds to certain situations in the long term and like a thousand other factors.
Last edited by stooley; Wed May 7th, 2014 at 03:27 PM.
For what its worth. Raptors re-sign Casey, so now I can say that 'I told you so'. Also, a Chicago fan said he would rather have Casey over thibs and a Dallas fan wants him back in big D. We continue to underrate him here and everywhere else they tend to overrate. That's just how it is.
-"You canít run from me. I mean, my heart donít bleed Kool-Aid."
-"ďI ainít no diva! I donít have no blond hair, red hair. Iím Reggie Evans.Ē
Thanks Stooley. That's the thing too many fans don't consider. Teams have analytic departments. I'm sure if Casey was ignoring the info provided, he would not have the positive relationship he seems to have with the FO, and probably would be looking for work.
If the info says player A is much worse (or much worse with extended minutes) than the average fan believes that player to be, Casey most likely adjusts playing time accordingly, unless there are legit reasons. Fans are scratching their heads or calling him an idiot for not giving their guy more minutes. The FO thinks he is doing the right thing by not ignoring the info they've provided, but they certainly aren't going to put that info out to the general public.
(Although if we really insist on calling it 'his' record, then we also have to note the fact that his career record is 153-193)
Tossing around ideas like profit, actual results and analytics doesn't mean anything unless you've established a crystal clear cause and effect relationship between the inputs and outputs involved. And the relationship between coaching and team success in NBA basketball is very, very unclear. There are many factors involved in a win-loss record, of which the coach is only one, and probably a relatively small one, when all things are said and done.
Trust me, I'm letting go of my Casey-hate, because it's just too stupid to be angry about something for which I have so little real understanding. But simply pointing to the team's results this year and then saying "Casey did that" isn't saying much of anything at all.
All i know right now is that I really want to see D'Antoni become the new head coach of the Warriors. What would they average? 120? 125 ppg?
There are so many terrible coaches who have had winning seasons. That should be evidence enough that winning does not equal good coach. You need to actually watch them.
Mike Woodson, Larry Drew, Mike Brown, Mike Dantoni, Avery Johnson, etc.... The list goes on and on.
People here like to shit on George Karl too, but he's accomplished way more than Casey ever will.
Last edited by Primer; Wed May 7th, 2014 at 05:17 PM.
I'll say this again though, there's a very large degree of uncertainty in any means by which we judge a coach, since the vast majority of his job either takes place entirely behind the scenes or is driven by factors that we don't have access too.
And I think it's totally unfair, given Casey's overall body of work to say that he's a terrible coach. I think that if you analysed every other coach in the league the way you have Casey, you'd find more that are worse than better.
- not finding out what side of the court the ball is being inbounded from, on the deciding play of a fantastic 7-game series
- not fouling while down, without the ball, with less time left in the game than on the shot-clock
- leaving guys on the court way to long (ie: entire quarter), when they were visibly gassed and unable to properly contribute
That's in addition to other questionable issues, which are at least debatable:
- not calling time-outs to kill momentum during a run being made against the Raptors (or waiting until the damage has been done)
- not having consistent lineups/rotations, which prevents guys from developing good on-court chemistry, be it for a 2-man game or 5-man play-calling
- letting other team/coach dictate matchups, by being far too reactive with lineups/substitutions
There are definitely lots of positives about DC's abilities as a coach, especially the connection/chemistry with his players (which is definitely underrated). I also trust what MU sees/hears behind the scenes. However, even a "good" coach can make some poor decisions, so I don't get the venom often spewed at posters who point out some weaknesses/flaws/errors with DC's coaching at times (not implying by you, but just in general).
Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Wed May 7th, 2014 at 05:47 PM.
Next season....BLAST THE ROCK!
No Ujiri thread so I'll just mention here that he finished 4th in Executive of the Year voting behind Buford (Spurs), McDonough (Suns) and Olshey (Blazers).
In terms of just this year I thought McDonough should have won it. Buford only brought in Belinelli and Jeff Ayres really, as well as resigning Splitter, but this is most likely a lifetime sort of award for him which is fine with me.
That level of of advocacy counts as supporting evidence. But the burden of proof isn't on me to prove that Casey's record is a non-factor. In fact, his record is the best empirical evidence of his coaching ability. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that another coach would have equal or greater success overall. You're the one arguing with imagined scenarios and hypotheticals.
You're also contradicting yourself when you say the coach is only one small factor in a teams success. In that case, what's the argument to replace one that has a winning record and complete-buy in from the players?
You have to actually consider what you're risking if you replace him. By keeping Casey, you're building the expectation that the entire team, including the coach, improves. By replacing him, you're giving players the excuse to underperform, because they can blame the coach.
I'm not disagreeing with you by the way. I definitely think you can point to specific instances where tactically, Casey failed. My counter-argument would be it's easier for a coach to improve his tactical decision-making than to find a coach that can build a winning culture, or reprogram their personality to become an effective leader. Butch Carter, Kevin O'Neill, and Jay Triano strike me as examples of assistant coaches that demonstrated great potential as tacticians but failed the test of leadership in their locker rooms.
Last edited by bryan colangelo; Wed May 7th, 2014 at 08:01 PM.
We could do better than Casey, but we could also do worse. If the goal is to gain more experience and contend for the division then Casey will do just fine.
But I won't counter with 105-159, because I don't believe that any of these numbers really matter. It's just too much of a players league.
Frankly, I don't believe that there's any empirical evidence that exists that tells you if a coach is good or not. Maybe that's why they're getting hired and fired so often.
Out of curiosity, do you feel George Karl is a gatekeeper? Or a victim of Jordan's prime? He had better talent in Seattle than the Raptors had this year, but couldn't take them over the top.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)