Everything Coach

[Raptorsss]

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.

[3inthekeon]

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.

[JimiCliff]

His record isn't a argument?

It isn't 'his' record. It's the teams.

(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)

His record isn't a argument? Are you daft? That's like saying profit, or actual results, or analytics isn't a argument.

Of course his record is a valid argument. It's one of many valid arguments.

All you did there is try and make your case with an insult, as opposed to offering a legit argument as to exactly why Casey himself was responsible for that record. Until anyone can offer up actual evidence as to precisely how he coached that team better than, say, a replacement level head coach, I don't accept pointing to this years record alone as a valid argument for whether or not he's a good coach. And unfortunately for us (or fortunately, depending on how much you like agruing ) that evidence probably doesn't exist anywhere.

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.

[Employee]

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?

[Primer]

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.

[Employee]

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.

Whoa now! I wouldn't say any of those guys are terrible. Well...maybe Mike Brown but even he put out some top defenses in the league before. A lot of them have flaws or worn out their welcome, but definitely not terrible.

[stooley]

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.

It isn't 'his' record. It's the teams.

(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)

All you did there is try and make your case with an insult, as opposed to offering a legit argument as to exactly why Casey himself was responsible for that record. Until anyone can offer up actual evidence as to precisely how he coached that team better than, say, a replacement level head coach, I don't accept pointing to this years record alone as a valid argument for whether or not he's a good coach. And unfortunately for us (or fortunately, depending on how much you like agruing ) that evidence probably doesn't exist anywhere.

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.

You're absolutely right here. Although intuition would indicate that he had some role in the success.

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.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

You're absolutely right here. Although intuition would indicate that he had some role in the success.

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.

I think a lot of the outrage directed towards DC stems from particular games/plays when even somebody with no coaching or basketball experience, can clearly see that a horrendous decision was being made (regardless of whether or not he's a "good" coach). It's these 'no brainer' instances that drove me nuts all season, in addition to the debatable methods for helping the sophomores develop.

- 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).

[Bendit]

Next season....BLAST THE ROCK!

[Raptorsnz]

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.

[bryan colangelo]

It isn't 'his' record. It's the teams.

(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)



All you did there is try and make your case with an insult, as opposed to offering a legit argument as to exactly why Casey himself was responsible for that record. Until anyone can offer up actual evidence as to precisely how he coached that team better than, say, a replacement level head coach, I don't accept pointing to this years record alone as a valid argument for whether or not he's a good coach. And unfortunately for us (or fortunately, depending on how much you like agruing ) that evidence probably doesn't exist anywhere.

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.

Even if YOU don't attribute the success of the team to Casey, the ACTUAL players do. They give him credit for his mentorship, discipline, and consistency, particularly when they were dealing with the Rudy Gay trade, his own lack of job security and other rough patches during the season.

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.

[Primer]

You're absolutely right here. Although intuition would indicate that he had some role in the success.

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.

Casey isn't terrible. He is what I'd call a gatekeeper, to borrow from MMA and Boxing terms. It's someone who will never win the championship, but will beat the lower half of the division, and is a good test to see if someone else is championship material or not. What being a gatekeeper translates to in the NBA is a mid playoff seed team. I don't want to be stuck there, but Casey's 2 year deal makes me confident we won't get stuck there.

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.

[JimiCliff]

Even if YOU don't attribute the success of the team to Casey, the ACTUAL players do. They give him credit for his mentorship, discipline, and consistency, particularly when they were dealing with the Rudy Gay trade, his own lack of job security and other rough patches during the season.

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.

If you're going to go that route, then I could easily counter with the fact that his career record is 153-193. Even worse, before this it was 105-159. Yikes. Going by that empirical evidence alone, you would have said before this season that he was an awful head coach, and you could've easily expected Masai to let him go before the season started.

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.

[007]

Casey isn't terrible. He is what I'd call a gatekeeper, to borrow from MMA and Boxing terms. It's someone who will never win the championship, but will beat the lower half of the division, and is a good test to see if someone else is championship material or not. What being a gatekeeper translates to in the NBA is a mid playoff seed team. I don't want to be stuck there, but Casey's 2 year deal makes me confident we won't get stuck there.

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.

He can lead to the playoffs for the next two years which will lead us to the end of the 2015-2016 season, so we don't have to pick up his team option when we get Durant.

[bryan colangelo]

Casey isn't terrible. He is what I'd call a gatekeeper, to borrow from MMA and Boxing terms. It's someone who will never win the championship, but will beat the lower half of the division, and is a good test to see if someone else is championship material or not. What being a gatekeeper translates to in the NBA is a mid playoff seed team. I don't want to be stuck there, but Casey's 2 year deal makes me confident we won't get stuck there.

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.

So you think Casey has hit or is close to his ceiling? Okay. But I definitely don't think we have the personnel (yet) to for that to be an issue.

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.