I don't watch a lot of non Warriors games but caught the Bulls/Bucks OT and the refs missed 3 obvious calls in a row screwing the Bucks (who won anyway). I get reffing is hard but it is just abysmal now. So many bogus fouls, so many techs and ejections. There needs to be a systemic, structural change. Some rule changes and changes in how the game is called. The product is getting really bad.
I know nobody wants stoppage in plays but we have the technology to get a lot of this stuff right, especially out of bounds calls. The guys in the truck get the correct replay angle immediately. We can't just have a replay ref fix those right away? Why does it have to be a 5 minute experience with a challenge? Why do we need the refs on the floor to watch the replay?
And why the fuck are we relying on refs to manually count 5 seconds violations? Cost the Warriors the game the other day.
Personally, we find the idea of giving millions of dollars to players who are already each making over $20-$30 million a year, unimaginable. We therefore propose re-directing those monies to the new Center for Referee Excellence.. which Center will be dedicated to the improvement and refinement of referee observation skills. We further propose that the plenary session be opened by Scott Foster.
On the topic of dollars - shoehei ohtani signs a $700M /10 year contract with the LA dodgers but defers $680M to after 10 years. That is he will get only $2M per year for 10 years. Likely CA will get screwed of the taxes on $680M as he will very likely move to texas or other tax free state - can a structuring like this happen in the NBA?
Don't like the effects of this kind of tax evasion, but that's a crazy and seemingly smartish deal, and makes the deal more reasonable. With an inflation rate of 2.5% I calculated it out to be right about $520M. Still the largest contract by a lot, but not the trumping to Trout's deal in present value.
Edit:
I found the top income rate for CA is 13.3%. He'd need to be worried about something closer to twice that rate for deferring that much, that far into the future I think?
Of course that doesn't include endorsements, which will be huge in Japan as well as in the USA. After all, the poor man can't be expected to live on a measly $2M/yr (before state, U.S., and Japanese taxes).
I will prefer sending the moneys to the Center for Referees Who Can't See Good (and who wanna learn to do other stuff good too)... as long as it's large enough, and not, you know, a center for ants.
Part of humor is exaggeration. At its best there is Shakespeare’s “monstrously small”. Or when you mean a lot you over-emphasize it or make it sound silly, so you say a gazillion.
I was hoping the NBA could arrange trades with other leagues, including refs. They could trade Scott Foster to, say, China. Maybe get the loan of a panda in return. It would be an upgrade.
I was gonna say, what did the Mongolians ever do to you to wish him on them? Or the penguins in Antarctica? Although... the far southwestern part of the Gobi desert should be pretty safe. Not much there.
Oh gosh... now we got the "all tournament team" this is a lot, bro... the IST was fun to consider, and the actual tournament was probably fun for the teams involved, but all the rest is quite a bit much for me.
I am actually fine with the IST, a little fun never hurt anyone. But an all tournament team is taking this way too far and just opening themselves up for well-deserved mocking.
It feels like we've had a lot of close games including a ton of "random endings". For purposes of study, I'm defining a "Random Ending" as follows:
1. Any game that goes to OT is a random ending.
2. Any game with a final margin of victory of 3 points or less (i.e. one possession) is a random ending.
Now, I'm sure you could redefine it in a number of ways to include more games that seem like they should qualify, like ones that were within one possession in the final 24 seconds but ended up at 4-5 points after a missed shot and intentional foul, for example. But the definition above has the advantage of being easy to count from just looking at the final scores.
By my count, we have had 8 random endings in 22 games, which feels like a lot. I wasn't able to get reliable numbers for random endings league-wide, estimated ~6% of all games go to OT. Margin of victory data was a bit harder to find reliably, but based on what I can see, median is 9, average is ~11 pts, and probably less than 10% of games have a margin of victory of 4 points or less. So based on that, having 36% of our games be random endings is indeed a lot.
Here's the list:
Kings 11/1, W
Thunder 11/3, W
Nuggets 11/8, L
T-Wolves 11/14, L
Thunder, 11/18, L
Kings, 11/28, L
Clippers, 12/2, L
Thunder, 12/8, L
Which means we're 2-6 in random endings. If random endings are truly random, we should expect this outcome about ~11% of the time. So I'd say it's high time for the team to figure some things out and trend back toward the mean. We still have a positive net rating for the season and a better SRS than the Mavs, Lakers, Kings, Suns, and Pels. We still have some tough teams left in the schedule including both our games vs the Celtics and several vs the Nuggets, but at least we won't be seeing the Thunder again this regular season, so I'm hopeful.
The key of course as the 73 win team proved, is to not get to this point in a game in the first place. I personally am fine if there are no more 20-turnover second quarters. If by any chance the team has been doing things like that and telling themselves that I’d appreciate it, I’m here to clarify. I do not.
Good work! We seem to be trending in the wrong direction. That said, it felt like in years past we could mess around for 45 minutes only to scramble back to win it on a last second shot. It felt like anything but random at the time. Hopefully we can get back to that level of randomness soon.
OT: For those following, the WNBA draft lottery went about as poorly as it possibly could have from my own perspective. Almost chalk, with LA jumping Phoenix for the 2nd pick. I was hoping for Seattle and Phoenix to move up.
Notably, the WNBA bases lottery odds on the teams' records over the last two years, which really increases the likelihood of a team getting two #1 picks in a row, as Indiana now has. They were not the worst team in the league this year, but they'd sucked so badly the previous year (before drafting Boston) that they had the best odds in the lottery, regardless. This is essentially how the Aces were built, by getting three straight #1 picks.
I didn’t know the draft lottery worked like that for the WBNA. Think I like that better than the single season system, discourages just shutting down players for a higher draft pick for the year.
Yeah, I do think that's the intent, and it makes sense. On the other hand, for teams who know early on that they're unlikely to make the playoffs in a given year, it sort of increases the incentive to bottom out, since a really bad record could pay dividends in not one, but two drafts. It could also theoretically create a perverse incentive for a team to tank out of the last playoff spot, if their lottery position would be #1 (which comes with a 44% chance of winning). So there's probably no perfect system.
In Defense of Kerr (or rather, in criticism of those who criticize Kerr). Read at your own risk.
I want to start by saying that this is not written to suggest that people should not criticize Kerr or any coach or authority figure, It is anyone’s right to do so and I am guilty of it myself. I digress, but I remember that Bruce Bochy used to drive me insane by not sac bunting in a runner from third in a game the Giants would inevitable lose 1-0.2-1, often in extra innings and I criticized him endlessly and he ended up with 3 Series rings. He was a pretty good coach, but I still think he was wrong, in those early years, with those pitching/defense heavy but offensively challenged teams, not to get a run in at the expense of an out. However, there seem to be some arguments leveled at Kerr based on fantasy or imagined motivations by entitled fans based on imagined motivations that ascribe to Kerr that is both pure speculation and also obviously wrong. These include that Kerr doesn’t like big men, that he doesn’t like rookies, that he prefers low draft picks because he was one and more. It feels like these critics have too much of their own self esteem wrapped up in the success of the Warriors and when they don’t win, they are so angry about feeling bad about the loss that they start spewing ridiculous vitriol at Kerr, the players or whomever. Now, this is the internet so, I guess, more power to them, but, as someone who coaches a high school varsity sport (not basketball) I would like to present some counter points:
Kerr wants to win. Period. He doesn’t want to win less because he wants to play some journeyman 2-way player or because he doesn’t want a competent big man or any other stupid motivation these keyboard psychiatrists come up with. Now he may not be making the most optimal choices in your opinion but ANY post suggesting he is not making a decision based on what he thinks will result in winning basketball is stupid, ignorant, self-centered and totally fabricated. Every time one of these posters/callers etc. criticize Kerr’s motivation they invalidate anything else they have to say.
Kerr is not afraid to play young players. They just have to be ready. In the 2020 draft redux post a poster claimed Kerr wouldn’t have played Halliburton if we’d sensibly drafted him. Then claimed that playing Podz this year was only a reaction to not playing Wiseman. The facts. Wiseman did play, even started, as a rookie. Now, 4 years later, he still isn’t a very good basketball player. Kuminga still makes weird annoying mistakes that make it hard to feel confident in him (I believe in growth and feel like, in combination with his obvious talent, JK’s BB IQ will grow and turn him into a really good, if not great player, but he’s not there yet). Moody is working his way into a defined role and, yeah, it may have taken too long in some people’s eyes, but that’s what happens when you have proven talent on the team. Poole got plenty of opportunity and leeway. All coaches are going to depend more on their proven players until the younger ones prove they can do it better. That Kerr hasn’t recognized exactly where that line is, is a legitimate criticism. That he hates rookies is not.
Kerr likes big men … who can contribute to warrior basketball. Bogut, Ezeli, Mo Buckets, West, JaVale, Pachulia, Cousins, Looney, not to mention all the ones we tried to develop that didn’t work like McAdoo, Damian Jones, Jordan Bell, etc. Remember when he got criticized for playing Varajao too much instead of going small? It’s hard to find good big men who can play in this system. Fair to say we might have missed on one or two that could have helped like, MAYBE, a Hartenstein or someone, but not sure you can lay that at Kerr’s feet.
So, In my opinion, you don’t like his rotations? Fair (but probably mostly wrong). Think he has some hidden agenda or has some psychological barrier to making winning decisions? You are <edited to remove offensive phrase> outside the bounds of reasonable discourse and are not contributing to meaningful dialog about the team or season.
</rant>
Tune in next time when I skewer “fans” demanding a trade without any understanding of current cap rules, future cap implications, trade value, resources, draft picks or really anything other than they think these players suck (they don’t) and they want to trade players they think suck for players that don’t (why would anyone do that from the other side?).
Here is the way the "debate" on Kerr has gone since the last title.
A) Kerr is making a mistake. He should _______________.
B) Who are YOU to question a man who has won . . . 9 rings?!?
A) I am a person who knows something about basketball and he is not perfect.
B) Another keyboard warrior. Are you saying he's incompetent? That's stupid.
A) No. He's just not great at handling a team like this one.
B) [Points at the rings]
A) Those were won with a different team, with different needs. This is a different situation.
B) He has the formula!
A) But the OG's are getting older. They need to rely more on the young.
B) If they are ready Kerr will play them.
A) In my view, there's not much evidence of that. He's benched JK for, what? Jaywalking?
B) You think he's not trying to win?
A) No. Trying to win is what every coach does. But they do it within the limits of their skills, knowledge, personality, and so forth.
B) Then why wouldn't he play them?
A) Kerr is human. I don't know. MAYBE he finds it easier to trust players like he was & harder to trust others.
B) GOTCHA. YOU ARE NOW PSYCHOLOGIZING, WHICH RENDERS ***EVERYTHING*** YOU HAVE SAID, NOW SAY, AND WILL EVER SAY ABSOLUTELY ILLEGITIMATE!!! YOU ARE $#^%#((^% OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLE DISCOURSE!!!
Sure, but I don't care about the rest. As I said: internet. Everyone can have their opinion. What I object to are your last 3 lines. You can try to soften it with "I don't know" and "maybe" but a) it doesn't really make it any less lame and b)I don't think people are softening it with such qualifiers very often.
Regardless MAYBE Kerr <insert stupid speculation here> ought to have some logic or evidence. Example: "MAYBE he finds it easier to trust players like he was & harder to trust others" Evidence? Not much. Counter-evidence? His most trusted players were drafted 7th, 11th, 1st, 30th (all first round picks) and 35th. He was drafted 50th. Even the argument that Draymond is like Kerr isn't that accurate unless you think everyone drafted in the 2nd round is like him. Dray became a starter and one of the best defenders ever to play the game.
Players Kerr trusted that do seem to be like him: #40 and ... who?
Also MAYBE you are a 50 year old recluse who lives in his parent's basement, I don't know (see the problem with those statements? I guess that argument will backfire if that does actually describe you :D)
> Regardless MAYBE Kerr <insert stupid speculation here> ought to have some logic or evidence. Example: "MAYBE he finds it easier to trust players like he was & harder to trust others" Evidence? Not much. Counter-evidence? His most trusted players were drafted 7th, 11th, 1st, 30th (all first round picks) and 35th. He was drafted 50th. Even the argument that Draymond is like Kerr isn't that accurate unless you think everyone drafted in the 2nd round is like him. Dray became a starter and one of the best defenders ever to play the game.
I just want to point out that this seems like willful misreading. The 7th, 11th, 1st, 30th, and 35th picks you mention were vets when Steve Kerr got them. In discussions the issue has always been about what does Kerr do when new players come into the league, not what does he do when vets join the team (or he joins a team that already has vets). Why the distinction? Because the discussion is about whether Kerr gives young players enough court time to develop. And some argue Kerr will give them time when he trusts them--which, by the way, sounds like a psychological explanation. And, once OTHERS make that psychological explanation, it is reasonable for someone to ask, well, "What leads Kerr to trust a young or rookie player?" The reason there are discussions of psychology is that Kerr apologists have invoked a psychological explanation for why JK is on the bench, why hot Moody was benched in Sacramento, and so on. NONE of that discussion has ever been about players that are already far along in their development by the time Kerr is in the picture. Thus, every one of those "examples" is irrelevant.
When Kerr was first head coach, only Curry was established. Klay was a 3rd year and HB/ DG were both second years, and crucially they got minutes because they were consistently better than the vets they're playing over except for maybe Barnes, who was probably the player Andre would have played over if Kerr didn't put him in the bench to save some offensive juice. Kevon was drafted a year later and had to wait till his age 22 season to see minutes comparable to even JK's rookie season. Draymond literally took the starting job over Lee in Kerr's first year, how could he have been a vet lol
I think you miss the point. YOU may not care about anything else, but in a multi-person conversation different people care about different things. So after 2.5 years of dealing with dozens of people who claim ANY criticism of Kerr is "outside the bounds of rational discourse," ANY player not playing is because of the infinite wisdom of the coach, ANY suggestion a strategy was sub-optimal is arrogant, and ANYONE raising any doubt about the way things are going has no legitimacy unless they have 9 NBA rings--yes, it is quite possible I might SPECULATE on Kerr's conscious and unconscious motivations at some point.
But my view is those SPECULATIONS are IRRELEVANT and his motivations are IRRELEVANT. The fact is he is failing this team, whether fanbois are willing to accept that or not. He may still right the ship. But there's no way this team deserves to be 10-12 after running up multi-20pt leads with the roster they have. That is a failure of leadership, WHATEVER his motivation(s). And that is why I suspect he will be leaving at the end of the year, and should be leaving at the end of the year.
Leaving yourself lotsa wiggle room there, eh? Your "guarantee" doesn't count if there are serious injuries this year BUT you're gonna count it if there are serious injuries next year. How sporting! Also, what record are we talking about? Preseason? Regular season? Making/lasting in the playoffs?
I'll make no possibly testosterone-fueled ambiguous guarantee with a self-serving exclusion restriction. My sense is if they let Steve Kerr go, it will be about their long-term hopes, not short-term ones. Thus, how well they will do next year, should Kerr stop coaching the Dubs, is not likely to be their criterion, much as some fans may wish.
Regardless of their aims, how well they do next year depends on who they hire; whether they kick Kerr upstairs (my expectation is they'll make an offer) and, if so, in what capacity; whether the new coach elaborates the motion offense (more wins quicker) or completely replaces it (so a longer learning curve for what might work better in today's NBA may cost the team games at the outset), if the new coach wants personnel changes (Klay? Wigs? A more well-rounded center?) and more.
So, knowing many such factors will come into play and are impossible at this point to estimate, I'm not gonna make a prediction. A new coach could crash and burn in year 1, or lead the team to a title in year 1. God knows, Dubs fans have seen both.
Sorry, I should have known better than to disguise a point as a rhetorical wager. Let me make it clearer for you. Kerr is a better coach than 99% of the options out there. Eventually he will be done and when he is there will be better options, but as long as he still feels the fire inside 99% chance you don't find a better coach. THAT was my point and you should have understood that.
While I agree that Kerr's pretty awesome, and does love winning... there are absolutely fair complaints to be made about who gets to play through mistakes, whose skillset gets emphasized/de-emphasized in the system. I don't necessarily agree with those complaints, but they're not "<edited to remove offensive phrase> outside the bounds of reasonable discourse", imo
Sure, there’s just a difference between saying “Kerr doesn’t play Kuminga because he wasn’t a lottery pick so has a grudge and bias against him” and “Kerr should give Kuminga a longer leash, he adds an important dimension to our team”
I did say "Kerr should give Kuminga more minutes." And I never said "Kerr doesn't play Kuminga because he was a lottery pick so Kerr has a grudge against him." In fact, no one has said Kerr has a grudge against JK or anyone. The claim is Kerr is human. Come on. Anyone who has worked in a business knows that when 2 new people join the business, if New Hire A went to the boss' alma mater, and New Hire B did not, the boss MAY find it easier to trust NH-A than NH-B at the start. And this slight advantage in trust can end up in the boss giving NH-A more opportunities, more credit when they succeed with those opportunities (and thus more opportunities later), more chances to recover if the fail with those opportunities, and more. It's called being human. A person has to consciously understand this is possible and work hard to counter it. And when there's a lot of other stressful stuff going on--like in a place like the NBA--it can be hard to have the presence of mind to counter that tendency.
NOTE: For alma mater substitute anything--hometowns, hobbies, favorite teams, personality type, . . .
There's another possibility regarding Kerr's decisions, and it's pretty much the way I see it. Maybe he's a straight-shooter, and his reasons are exactly the reasons he publicly states. Maybe there are no hidden agendas or subtle psychological prejudices involved other than believing in playing the game a certain way because he thinks it works. That doesn't mean his decisions are always the right ones but then, he admits that too.
Of course that's possible. At the same time, there's patterns in his behavior, and the patterns don't always easily line up with the words. He has said "Player X will now play every game." And so on. These discrepancies lead people to ask questions. They wonder, "Well, there must be something else that explains why Coach did Z, because based on his words, he would not have done Z. But he did it. SO, why?" The answer doesn't have to be some deep psychological neurosis. But that doesn't mean its the surface stuff, either. Kerr apologists introduced psychology by saying he plays players he trusts. That's an interesting explanation. Mostly coaches play players who outperform their teammates. Those two categories (Coach trusts vs. Player outperforms) overlap but are not necessarily the same.
Regarding playing big men, knowing how to screen and willing to fight for rebounds is essential requisite given that the team is built around Steph (and Klay).
If you can't do that or at the very least try your hardest self to do it, Kerr is not gonna play you.
The reality is that just a little less TOVs or little less fouling, we are probably 13-10 or better. That bit of margin is on the players including Steph and Dray.
A recent ringer podcast made the following points about Kerr: 1) that he is better at the big picture philosophy than some of the tactical decision making within games, and 2) that even with his flaws, he's better than most of the coaches in the NBA. They decided that Spolstra is the only guy they felt was definitively better.
I haven't seen the pod, but at least in this summary form, this is what's known as bullcookies.
He's a guy that designs (or steals) some of the best ATO plays in basketball. Who throws a zone out there when there isn't necessarily a ton of call for it. A guy who is very conscious of player management, not just on the big picture level, but within games.
And, every time I've heard him talk for more than about a minute about a topic, I've heard him say something thoughtful, nuanced and on point. He's forgotten more basketball than 95% of us will ever know, and uses all of what he knows.
What he does do is delegate ... not just to coaches but to players. So, he allows a lot of improvisation by his players ... that may look like he's not involved in a detail level, but really it's just thinking that the rewards of that delegation will be positive. A conscious decision to not micromanage is not the same as not being able to manage details.
I don't think anyone is saying that he's hopeless when it comes to tactical decisions during a basketball game - just that this is also where his weaknesses lie.
I think that shortchanges his tactics tbh. I think it's more that Kerr treats the regular season distinctly where the primary goal isn't necessarily winning games, but playoff Kerr is the elite of the elite and has a strong resume of influential tactics over the last decade. It's splitting hairs when differentiating between him and someone like Spoelstra for laypeople like me who can't watch a series and see intricacies like this guy sees (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vInjDgfCvk), but the resume speaks for itself.
Who knows, maybe if Spo would have recognized in time that the Celtics couldn't dribble with their left hands (just kidding, it was impressive to go to 7 games), it would have been Warriors/Heat in the 2022 Finals and we would have gotten the ultimate coaching faceoff.
I guess I would call game planning around the Celtics not being able to dribble a ... well, gameplay, and not a tactic. But I haven't really be viewing the Warriors in the postseason through the lens of "Is Kerr fucking this up" so I'm open to the idea that he hits another level there.
I agree with that and would go deeper and say the reasons that both 1) and 2) are true is because he is quite willing to accept ideas/suggestions from others, is willing to hire others who have strong coaching chops and is willing to share/give credit where credit is due to those of any rank in the organization who contribute.
(Incidentally when people claim speak in favor of Mark Jackson's contributions to the team, I agree that he did good things but that he had hit his ceiling due to not being willing to do all of the above - actually doing the opposite - and the Warrior had to make a change to keep their upward trajectory)
I was with you completely until you said "off the reservation." If you trace its roots, it originally was a slur against Native Americans who had become "unruly." Many find it offensive, including me, the father of two Ndn children. Please don't use that phrase. Otherwise great analysis!
(sigh) so many things we say that have antiquated meaning we don't consider. Edited.
No offense was intended to you, your children or anyone else (except people who think Kerr isn't trying to win for ... reasons). I am not quite old enough to have considered the (obvious in retrospect) origins of such a phrase.
Here's an NPR article on the subject for those, like me, who need to consider the point made above by G&B.
I really appreciate the respectful back and forth on this. If only the world always worked so respectfully and with openess we’d have a lot more healing and peace 🙏
I'm hoping if Brad plays, he'll be rusty and still figuring out how to play with the Suns, but he will probably go out and score 40, the way this season has gone.
Listening to the latest podcast from the Light Years boys last night with friend of DNhQ Ethan Sherwood Strauss (shoutout Duby Dub Dubs) and ESS made some interesting observations in regards to the 2020 Draft. Stated that the pick was in lockstep with Myers and Lacob (for those that keep trying to pin blame directly on Lacob). Also stated that the whiff was justifiable due to Covid restrictions and lack of scouting which I don’t necessarily agree with.
Finally ESS made the point that I continually keep harping on and its not that the Warriors missed on Halliburton. Its that they drafted a player in a draft full of players that could br adequately compared to drafting Darko Milicic or Hasheem Thabeet thats how badly they whiffed and he contrasted that with drafting Jonathan Kuminga in which the better player was Wagner but Kuminga will still be a solid rotation piece for years to come.
I dunno, I feel like the delta between a franchise player like Haliburton and “decent” guys like Patrick Williams, Okoro and Hayes is much more significant in the scheme of things than the delta between the decent guys and Wiseman.
Not that it's any comfort but Wiseman wasn't our worst high draft pick. Remember 1987 #3 pick Chris Washburn? If not, well, no reason you should because it was long ago, a different Dubs era, and he didn't contribute anything. We dumped him to the Hawks 8 games into his second season, and that second season was all he got. He got a lifetime ban for repeatedly failing drug tests.
Hell of a litany, isn't it? I forgot about a few of those clowns, like Russell Cross. Ironic that the saga ends with the Bogut deal, which he sees as one more mistake but which in fact helped turn around the franchise. Thanks for helping me revisit that long awful nightmare.
Yeah - the Kuminga/Wagner thing doesn't hurt that much - teams make mistakes like that all the time, and sometimes they aren't even really mistakes. The Wiseman-Darko comparisons are apt, but also show that teams make even these level of mistakes relatively frequently.
This entire notion that Myers was forced into doing things he didn't like is absolutely baffling. Myers was fully aboard with the two timelines and probably even more radical about it than Lacob. As soon as the 2022 title was accomplished and the vets were shut up, he doubled and tripled down on it. If anything, he probably needed to be coerced into trading Wiseman away. The fact that MDJ got to immediately trade Poole away upon taking the job should point towards Lacob maintaining his policy of letting the GMs do their thing.
I don't watch a lot of non Warriors games but caught the Bulls/Bucks OT and the refs missed 3 obvious calls in a row screwing the Bucks (who won anyway). I get reffing is hard but it is just abysmal now. So many bogus fouls, so many techs and ejections. There needs to be a systemic, structural change. Some rule changes and changes in how the game is called. The product is getting really bad.
I know nobody wants stoppage in plays but we have the technology to get a lot of this stuff right, especially out of bounds calls. The guys in the truck get the correct replay angle immediately. We can't just have a replay ref fix those right away? Why does it have to be a 5 minute experience with a challenge? Why do we need the refs on the floor to watch the replay?
And why the fuck are we relying on refs to manually count 5 seconds violations? Cost the Warriors the game the other day.
Preach! How does this feedback (which I unequivocally and wholeheartedly endorse) get to the people in power?
Pistons, Spurs, and Wizards all lose again. Worst part is there isn't even a great draft class this year.
**1-51** combined streaks now, with the one win coming when the Wiz beat the Pistons a couple weeks ago.
Before the next thread from Timpf:
- Juminga is our #1 Trade bait asset.
- Siakim is his best bet to move the needle (Wiggs/Dray/Siakim all switchable "bigs") and would be 2nd best Warrior overnight.
- Warriors have played 3 teams under .500 so far this season... Phoenix has played 13.
https://youtu.be/JI9caW5d2Pc?si=48KGsDlyq-9NdQjQ&t=381
Siakam is better than Draymond? By 2023 BPM he'd be our 7th best player
#smokingasplimff
:) LOL
Siakam can't shoot from outside. His three pointer's worse than Kuminga and Wiggin's three point %age this season. I would rather get Jerami Grant.
Siakam has no outside shot. I do not understand the obsession. It's going to be the same 2-3 non shooter issue they already have.
Pels beat the Wolves without Edwards 121-107. Pels move to 13-11 and 9-4 at home while the Wolves fall to 17-5 and 7-4 on the road.
Personally, we find the idea of giving millions of dollars to players who are already each making over $20-$30 million a year, unimaginable. We therefore propose re-directing those monies to the new Center for Referee Excellence.. which Center will be dedicated to the improvement and refinement of referee observation skills. We further propose that the plenary session be opened by Scott Foster.
On the topic of dollars - shoehei ohtani signs a $700M /10 year contract with the LA dodgers but defers $680M to after 10 years. That is he will get only $2M per year for 10 years. Likely CA will get screwed of the taxes on $680M as he will very likely move to texas or other tax free state - can a structuring like this happen in the NBA?
:( ugh dodgers transferring CA money elsewhere :(
No, this can never happen in the NBA. The yearly raises are carefully controlled to avoid exactly this kind of tax dodging situation.
Don't like the effects of this kind of tax evasion, but that's a crazy and seemingly smartish deal, and makes the deal more reasonable. With an inflation rate of 2.5% I calculated it out to be right about $520M. Still the largest contract by a lot, but not the trumping to Trout's deal in present value.
Edit:
I found the top income rate for CA is 13.3%. He'd need to be worried about something closer to twice that rate for deferring that much, that far into the future I think?
I read he took the deferrals so the Dodgers could afford a more competitive team around him.
Yea insane the MLB CBA allows for this kind of deferral. The Athletic article estimated his deal to be worth 450-500m in net present value.
And also that he brings in 50m/year off the field in endorsements, etc!
Of course that doesn't include endorsements, which will be huge in Japan as well as in the USA. After all, the poor man can't be expected to live on a measly $2M/yr (before state, U.S., and Japanese taxes).
It’s not “giving”… it’s just party of their comp package…
I am sorry the humor was not enjoyable.
I will prefer sending the moneys to the Center for Referees Who Can't See Good (and who wanna learn to do other stuff good too)... as long as it's large enough, and not, you know, a center for ants.
This sounds like it was written by someone other than defib.
That too!
9 current Warriors are making a fraction of “$20-30 million a year”.
For each of them $500K would be a nice-to-huge bonus.
Yes, I am aware that several of the younger millionaires will enjoy $500,000 more.
“… each making over $20-$30 million a year…”
I wasn’t sure.
Part of humor is exaggeration. At its best there is Shakespeare’s “monstrously small”. Or when you mean a lot you over-emphasize it or make it sound silly, so you say a gazillion.
I was hoping the NBA could arrange trades with other leagues, including refs. They could trade Scott Foster to, say, China. Maybe get the loan of a panda in return. It would be an upgrade.
Perfect. Perhaps to that part of China they call lowermost Mongolia. Or the Antarctic might be good.
No criticism of anyone in lower Mongolia intended.
I was gonna say, what did the Mongolians ever do to you to wish him on them? Or the penguins in Antarctica? Although... the far southwestern part of the Gobi desert should be pretty safe. Not much there.
What's the over/under on how many days Foster could spend in Antarctica before having an altercation with a son-of-a penguin?
I don't know but rumor has it that if Foster goes to Antarctica, CP3 will get the penguins a great deal on disaster insurance from State Farm.
Perfect
He might be a very good referee for the IST Gobi Games .
Oh gosh... now we got the "all tournament team" this is a lot, bro... the IST was fun to consider, and the actual tournament was probably fun for the teams involved, but all the rest is quite a bit much for me.
I am actually fine with the IST, a little fun never hurt anyone. But an all tournament team is taking this way too far and just opening themselves up for well-deserved mocking.
New player contracts will probably have some IST incentives built-in
If Asher's not on the all-star team, then it's bogus.
They keep hyping it and I always thought it was a big MEH.
Sometimes throwing crap on the wall and seeing what sticks can be effective, even if inelegant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIX9BMHZ4VQ
Sometimes that crap just doesn't end up smelling that good...
😅 classic
So much too much
It feels like we've had a lot of close games including a ton of "random endings". For purposes of study, I'm defining a "Random Ending" as follows:
1. Any game that goes to OT is a random ending.
2. Any game with a final margin of victory of 3 points or less (i.e. one possession) is a random ending.
Now, I'm sure you could redefine it in a number of ways to include more games that seem like they should qualify, like ones that were within one possession in the final 24 seconds but ended up at 4-5 points after a missed shot and intentional foul, for example. But the definition above has the advantage of being easy to count from just looking at the final scores.
By my count, we have had 8 random endings in 22 games, which feels like a lot. I wasn't able to get reliable numbers for random endings league-wide, estimated ~6% of all games go to OT. Margin of victory data was a bit harder to find reliably, but based on what I can see, median is 9, average is ~11 pts, and probably less than 10% of games have a margin of victory of 4 points or less. So based on that, having 36% of our games be random endings is indeed a lot.
Here's the list:
Kings 11/1, W
Thunder 11/3, W
Nuggets 11/8, L
T-Wolves 11/14, L
Thunder, 11/18, L
Kings, 11/28, L
Clippers, 12/2, L
Thunder, 12/8, L
Which means we're 2-6 in random endings. If random endings are truly random, we should expect this outcome about ~11% of the time. So I'd say it's high time for the team to figure some things out and trend back toward the mean. We still have a positive net rating for the season and a better SRS than the Mavs, Lakers, Kings, Suns, and Pels. We still have some tough teams left in the schedule including both our games vs the Celtics and several vs the Nuggets, but at least we won't be seeing the Thunder again this regular season, so I'm hopeful.
I thougt Eric had a very specific simple definition for “random ending”… like “two posession game - or less - at the two minute mark.
That’s roughly my definition, but I don’t feel a need to have other people use that definition…
The Blazers game absolutely belongs in this list... was a 1 point game with 10 seconds left when Steph made a tough shot to get it to 4...
The key of course as the 73 win team proved, is to not get to this point in a game in the first place. I personally am fine if there are no more 20-turnover second quarters. If by any chance the team has been doing things like that and telling themselves that I’d appreciate it, I’m here to clarify. I do not.
I wish I were as smart as you sometimes
Good work! We seem to be trending in the wrong direction. That said, it felt like in years past we could mess around for 45 minutes only to scramble back to win it on a last second shot. It felt like anything but random at the time. Hopefully we can get back to that level of randomness soon.
OT: For those following, the WNBA draft lottery went about as poorly as it possibly could have from my own perspective. Almost chalk, with LA jumping Phoenix for the 2nd pick. I was hoping for Seattle and Phoenix to move up.
Notably, the WNBA bases lottery odds on the teams' records over the last two years, which really increases the likelihood of a team getting two #1 picks in a row, as Indiana now has. They were not the worst team in the league this year, but they'd sucked so badly the previous year (before drafting Boston) that they had the best odds in the lottery, regardless. This is essentially how the Aces were built, by getting three straight #1 picks.
I didn’t know the draft lottery worked like that for the WBNA. Think I like that better than the single season system, discourages just shutting down players for a higher draft pick for the year.
Yeah, I do think that's the intent, and it makes sense. On the other hand, for teams who know early on that they're unlikely to make the playoffs in a given year, it sort of increases the incentive to bottom out, since a really bad record could pay dividends in not one, but two drafts. It could also theoretically create a perverse incentive for a team to tank out of the last playoff spot, if their lottery position would be #1 (which comes with a 44% chance of winning). So there's probably no perfect system.
Thats fair. I guess the counter would just be to flatten lottery odds further, finding the balance would be tough though.
<rant>
In Defense of Kerr (or rather, in criticism of those who criticize Kerr). Read at your own risk.
I want to start by saying that this is not written to suggest that people should not criticize Kerr or any coach or authority figure, It is anyone’s right to do so and I am guilty of it myself. I digress, but I remember that Bruce Bochy used to drive me insane by not sac bunting in a runner from third in a game the Giants would inevitable lose 1-0.2-1, often in extra innings and I criticized him endlessly and he ended up with 3 Series rings. He was a pretty good coach, but I still think he was wrong, in those early years, with those pitching/defense heavy but offensively challenged teams, not to get a run in at the expense of an out. However, there seem to be some arguments leveled at Kerr based on fantasy or imagined motivations by entitled fans based on imagined motivations that ascribe to Kerr that is both pure speculation and also obviously wrong. These include that Kerr doesn’t like big men, that he doesn’t like rookies, that he prefers low draft picks because he was one and more. It feels like these critics have too much of their own self esteem wrapped up in the success of the Warriors and when they don’t win, they are so angry about feeling bad about the loss that they start spewing ridiculous vitriol at Kerr, the players or whomever. Now, this is the internet so, I guess, more power to them, but, as someone who coaches a high school varsity sport (not basketball) I would like to present some counter points:
Kerr wants to win. Period. He doesn’t want to win less because he wants to play some journeyman 2-way player or because he doesn’t want a competent big man or any other stupid motivation these keyboard psychiatrists come up with. Now he may not be making the most optimal choices in your opinion but ANY post suggesting he is not making a decision based on what he thinks will result in winning basketball is stupid, ignorant, self-centered and totally fabricated. Every time one of these posters/callers etc. criticize Kerr’s motivation they invalidate anything else they have to say.
Kerr is not afraid to play young players. They just have to be ready. In the 2020 draft redux post a poster claimed Kerr wouldn’t have played Halliburton if we’d sensibly drafted him. Then claimed that playing Podz this year was only a reaction to not playing Wiseman. The facts. Wiseman did play, even started, as a rookie. Now, 4 years later, he still isn’t a very good basketball player. Kuminga still makes weird annoying mistakes that make it hard to feel confident in him (I believe in growth and feel like, in combination with his obvious talent, JK’s BB IQ will grow and turn him into a really good, if not great player, but he’s not there yet). Moody is working his way into a defined role and, yeah, it may have taken too long in some people’s eyes, but that’s what happens when you have proven talent on the team. Poole got plenty of opportunity and leeway. All coaches are going to depend more on their proven players until the younger ones prove they can do it better. That Kerr hasn’t recognized exactly where that line is, is a legitimate criticism. That he hates rookies is not.
Kerr likes big men … who can contribute to warrior basketball. Bogut, Ezeli, Mo Buckets, West, JaVale, Pachulia, Cousins, Looney, not to mention all the ones we tried to develop that didn’t work like McAdoo, Damian Jones, Jordan Bell, etc. Remember when he got criticized for playing Varajao too much instead of going small? It’s hard to find good big men who can play in this system. Fair to say we might have missed on one or two that could have helped like, MAYBE, a Hartenstein or someone, but not sure you can lay that at Kerr’s feet.
So, In my opinion, you don’t like his rotations? Fair (but probably mostly wrong). Think he has some hidden agenda or has some psychological barrier to making winning decisions? You are <edited to remove offensive phrase> outside the bounds of reasonable discourse and are not contributing to meaningful dialog about the team or season.
</rant>
Tune in next time when I skewer “fans” demanding a trade without any understanding of current cap rules, future cap implications, trade value, resources, draft picks or really anything other than they think these players suck (they don’t) and they want to trade players they think suck for players that don’t (why would anyone do that from the other side?).
Here is the way the "debate" on Kerr has gone since the last title.
A) Kerr is making a mistake. He should _______________.
B) Who are YOU to question a man who has won . . . 9 rings?!?
A) I am a person who knows something about basketball and he is not perfect.
B) Another keyboard warrior. Are you saying he's incompetent? That's stupid.
A) No. He's just not great at handling a team like this one.
B) [Points at the rings]
A) Those were won with a different team, with different needs. This is a different situation.
B) He has the formula!
A) But the OG's are getting older. They need to rely more on the young.
B) If they are ready Kerr will play them.
A) In my view, there's not much evidence of that. He's benched JK for, what? Jaywalking?
B) You think he's not trying to win?
A) No. Trying to win is what every coach does. But they do it within the limits of their skills, knowledge, personality, and so forth.
B) Then why wouldn't he play them?
A) Kerr is human. I don't know. MAYBE he finds it easier to trust players like he was & harder to trust others.
B) GOTCHA. YOU ARE NOW PSYCHOLOGIZING, WHICH RENDERS ***EVERYTHING*** YOU HAVE SAID, NOW SAY, AND WILL EVER SAY ABSOLUTELY ILLEGITIMATE!!! YOU ARE $#^%#((^% OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLE DISCOURSE!!!
A) I did say "I don't know" and "MAYBE".
Sure, but I don't care about the rest. As I said: internet. Everyone can have their opinion. What I object to are your last 3 lines. You can try to soften it with "I don't know" and "maybe" but a) it doesn't really make it any less lame and b)I don't think people are softening it with such qualifiers very often.
Regardless MAYBE Kerr <insert stupid speculation here> ought to have some logic or evidence. Example: "MAYBE he finds it easier to trust players like he was & harder to trust others" Evidence? Not much. Counter-evidence? His most trusted players were drafted 7th, 11th, 1st, 30th (all first round picks) and 35th. He was drafted 50th. Even the argument that Draymond is like Kerr isn't that accurate unless you think everyone drafted in the 2nd round is like him. Dray became a starter and one of the best defenders ever to play the game.
Players Kerr trusted that do seem to be like him: #40 and ... who?
Also MAYBE you are a 50 year old recluse who lives in his parent's basement, I don't know (see the problem with those statements? I guess that argument will backfire if that does actually describe you :D)
> Regardless MAYBE Kerr <insert stupid speculation here> ought to have some logic or evidence. Example: "MAYBE he finds it easier to trust players like he was & harder to trust others" Evidence? Not much. Counter-evidence? His most trusted players were drafted 7th, 11th, 1st, 30th (all first round picks) and 35th. He was drafted 50th. Even the argument that Draymond is like Kerr isn't that accurate unless you think everyone drafted in the 2nd round is like him. Dray became a starter and one of the best defenders ever to play the game.
I just want to point out that this seems like willful misreading. The 7th, 11th, 1st, 30th, and 35th picks you mention were vets when Steve Kerr got them. In discussions the issue has always been about what does Kerr do when new players come into the league, not what does he do when vets join the team (or he joins a team that already has vets). Why the distinction? Because the discussion is about whether Kerr gives young players enough court time to develop. And some argue Kerr will give them time when he trusts them--which, by the way, sounds like a psychological explanation. And, once OTHERS make that psychological explanation, it is reasonable for someone to ask, well, "What leads Kerr to trust a young or rookie player?" The reason there are discussions of psychology is that Kerr apologists have invoked a psychological explanation for why JK is on the bench, why hot Moody was benched in Sacramento, and so on. NONE of that discussion has ever been about players that are already far along in their development by the time Kerr is in the picture. Thus, every one of those "examples" is irrelevant.
When Kerr was first head coach, only Curry was established. Klay was a 3rd year and HB/ DG were both second years, and crucially they got minutes because they were consistently better than the vets they're playing over except for maybe Barnes, who was probably the player Andre would have played over if Kerr didn't put him in the bench to save some offensive juice. Kevon was drafted a year later and had to wait till his age 22 season to see minutes comparable to even JK's rookie season. Draymond literally took the starting job over Lee in Kerr's first year, how could he have been a vet lol
I think you miss the point. YOU may not care about anything else, but in a multi-person conversation different people care about different things. So after 2.5 years of dealing with dozens of people who claim ANY criticism of Kerr is "outside the bounds of rational discourse," ANY player not playing is because of the infinite wisdom of the coach, ANY suggestion a strategy was sub-optimal is arrogant, and ANYONE raising any doubt about the way things are going has no legitimacy unless they have 9 NBA rings--yes, it is quite possible I might SPECULATE on Kerr's conscious and unconscious motivations at some point.
But my view is those SPECULATIONS are IRRELEVANT and his motivations are IRRELEVANT. The fact is he is failing this team, whether fanbois are willing to accept that or not. He may still right the ship. But there's no way this team deserves to be 10-12 after running up multi-20pt leads with the roster they have. That is a failure of leadership, WHATEVER his motivation(s). And that is why I suspect he will be leaving at the end of the year, and should be leaving at the end of the year.
If he leaves at the end of the year, i guarantee a worse record next season than this season (barring more serious injuries this season).
Leaving yourself lotsa wiggle room there, eh? Your "guarantee" doesn't count if there are serious injuries this year BUT you're gonna count it if there are serious injuries next year. How sporting! Also, what record are we talking about? Preseason? Regular season? Making/lasting in the playoffs?
I'll make no possibly testosterone-fueled ambiguous guarantee with a self-serving exclusion restriction. My sense is if they let Steve Kerr go, it will be about their long-term hopes, not short-term ones. Thus, how well they will do next year, should Kerr stop coaching the Dubs, is not likely to be their criterion, much as some fans may wish.
Regardless of their aims, how well they do next year depends on who they hire; whether they kick Kerr upstairs (my expectation is they'll make an offer) and, if so, in what capacity; whether the new coach elaborates the motion offense (more wins quicker) or completely replaces it (so a longer learning curve for what might work better in today's NBA may cost the team games at the outset), if the new coach wants personnel changes (Klay? Wigs? A more well-rounded center?) and more.
So, knowing many such factors will come into play and are impossible at this point to estimate, I'm not gonna make a prediction. A new coach could crash and burn in year 1, or lead the team to a title in year 1. God knows, Dubs fans have seen both.
Sorry, I should have known better than to disguise a point as a rhetorical wager. Let me make it clearer for you. Kerr is a better coach than 99% of the options out there. Eventually he will be done and when he is there will be better options, but as long as he still feels the fire inside 99% chance you don't find a better coach. THAT was my point and you should have understood that.
Wait… pointgawd is a 50 year old recluse who lives in his parents basement?
Did someone mention Hartenstein? My boy just had 4 pts/16 rbds/5 asts/2 blk's in 30 minutes . . . nice!!
So much this.
While I agree that Kerr's pretty awesome, and does love winning... there are absolutely fair complaints to be made about who gets to play through mistakes, whose skillset gets emphasized/de-emphasized in the system. I don't necessarily agree with those complaints, but they're not "<edited to remove offensive phrase> outside the bounds of reasonable discourse", imo
Sure, there’s just a difference between saying “Kerr doesn’t play Kuminga because he wasn’t a lottery pick so has a grudge and bias against him” and “Kerr should give Kuminga a longer leash, he adds an important dimension to our team”
I did say "Kerr should give Kuminga more minutes." And I never said "Kerr doesn't play Kuminga because he was a lottery pick so Kerr has a grudge against him." In fact, no one has said Kerr has a grudge against JK or anyone. The claim is Kerr is human. Come on. Anyone who has worked in a business knows that when 2 new people join the business, if New Hire A went to the boss' alma mater, and New Hire B did not, the boss MAY find it easier to trust NH-A than NH-B at the start. And this slight advantage in trust can end up in the boss giving NH-A more opportunities, more credit when they succeed with those opportunities (and thus more opportunities later), more chances to recover if the fail with those opportunities, and more. It's called being human. A person has to consciously understand this is possible and work hard to counter it. And when there's a lot of other stressful stuff going on--like in a place like the NBA--it can be hard to have the presence of mind to counter that tendency.
NOTE: For alma mater substitute anything--hometowns, hobbies, favorite teams, personality type, . . .
There's another possibility regarding Kerr's decisions, and it's pretty much the way I see it. Maybe he's a straight-shooter, and his reasons are exactly the reasons he publicly states. Maybe there are no hidden agendas or subtle psychological prejudices involved other than believing in playing the game a certain way because he thinks it works. That doesn't mean his decisions are always the right ones but then, he admits that too.
Of course that's possible. At the same time, there's patterns in his behavior, and the patterns don't always easily line up with the words. He has said "Player X will now play every game." And so on. These discrepancies lead people to ask questions. They wonder, "Well, there must be something else that explains why Coach did Z, because based on his words, he would not have done Z. But he did it. SO, why?" The answer doesn't have to be some deep psychological neurosis. But that doesn't mean its the surface stuff, either. Kerr apologists introduced psychology by saying he plays players he trusts. That's an interesting explanation. Mostly coaches play players who outperform their teammates. Those two categories (Coach trusts vs. Player outperforms) overlap but are not necessarily the same.
❤️ 🙌 🎉
Bravo!
Regarding playing big men, knowing how to screen and willing to fight for rebounds is essential requisite given that the team is built around Steph (and Klay).
If you can't do that or at the very least try your hardest self to do it, Kerr is not gonna play you.
The reality is that just a little less TOVs or little less fouling, we are probably 13-10 or better. That bit of margin is on the players including Steph and Dray.
Ah hell yeah! Bravo! (Anxiously waiting for the following rant...)
A recent ringer podcast made the following points about Kerr: 1) that he is better at the big picture philosophy than some of the tactical decision making within games, and 2) that even with his flaws, he's better than most of the coaches in the NBA. They decided that Spolstra is the only guy they felt was definitively better.
Wait hol up, that fucking Ringer Podcast copied me!! I said that same exact thing!!
I haven't seen the pod, but at least in this summary form, this is what's known as bullcookies.
He's a guy that designs (or steals) some of the best ATO plays in basketball. Who throws a zone out there when there isn't necessarily a ton of call for it. A guy who is very conscious of player management, not just on the big picture level, but within games.
And, every time I've heard him talk for more than about a minute about a topic, I've heard him say something thoughtful, nuanced and on point. He's forgotten more basketball than 95% of us will ever know, and uses all of what he knows.
What he does do is delegate ... not just to coaches but to players. So, he allows a lot of improvisation by his players ... that may look like he's not involved in a detail level, but really it's just thinking that the rewards of that delegation will be positive. A conscious decision to not micromanage is not the same as not being able to manage details.
I don't think anyone is saying that he's hopeless when it comes to tactical decisions during a basketball game - just that this is also where his weaknesses lie.
I think that shortchanges his tactics tbh. I think it's more that Kerr treats the regular season distinctly where the primary goal isn't necessarily winning games, but playoff Kerr is the elite of the elite and has a strong resume of influential tactics over the last decade. It's splitting hairs when differentiating between him and someone like Spoelstra for laypeople like me who can't watch a series and see intricacies like this guy sees (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vInjDgfCvk), but the resume speaks for itself.
Who knows, maybe if Spo would have recognized in time that the Celtics couldn't dribble with their left hands (just kidding, it was impressive to go to 7 games), it would have been Warriors/Heat in the 2022 Finals and we would have gotten the ultimate coaching faceoff.
I guess I would call game planning around the Celtics not being able to dribble a ... well, gameplay, and not a tactic. But I haven't really be viewing the Warriors in the postseason through the lens of "Is Kerr fucking this up" so I'm open to the idea that he hits another level there.
I agree with that and would go deeper and say the reasons that both 1) and 2) are true is because he is quite willing to accept ideas/suggestions from others, is willing to hire others who have strong coaching chops and is willing to share/give credit where credit is due to those of any rank in the organization who contribute.
(Incidentally when people claim speak in favor of Mark Jackson's contributions to the team, I agree that he did good things but that he had hit his ceiling due to not being willing to do all of the above - actually doing the opposite - and the Warrior had to make a change to keep their upward trajectory)
I was with you completely until you said "off the reservation." If you trace its roots, it originally was a slur against Native Americans who had become "unruly." Many find it offensive, including me, the father of two Ndn children. Please don't use that phrase. Otherwise great analysis!
(sigh) so many things we say that have antiquated meaning we don't consider. Edited.
No offense was intended to you, your children or anyone else (except people who think Kerr isn't trying to win for ... reasons). I am not quite old enough to have considered the (obvious in retrospect) origins of such a phrase.
Here's an NPR article on the subject for those, like me, who need to consider the point made above by G&B.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/29/326690947/should-saying-someone-is-off-the-reservation-be-off-limits
Thanks!
NP. Sorry I didn't see your reply sooner and left it out there in the world so long (in my defense I'm supposed to be working).
All good!
I really appreciate the respectful back and forth on this. If only the world always worked so respectfully and with openess we’d have a lot more healing and peace 🙏
Thank you, very well stated.
Kerr also came out and said "I have to do a better job coaching". So, I guess he agrees with some of the Kerr sceptics here :)
Here's more from Steve:
https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nba/golden-state-warriors/steve-kerr-turnovers-finger-pointing/1680551/
> "I have to do a better job coaching"
He probably does feel that way but at the same time, it's coaching 101 to say stuff like that regardless of if you feel that way.
Yeah, but even so not all coaches do it. Not sure I ever heard Belichick blame himself.
He would usually say stuff like "we got outplayed, we got out coached" in losses.
Agreed. Kerr, like everyone else is allowed to criticize his coaching :D
(I would also concede that Kerr - and Kerr alone - is allowed to question his motivations)
Saw a few reports that:
Klay did not practice, sick
KD did not practice, ankle
Beale is now expected to play against the Dubs
I'm hoping if Brad plays, he'll be rusty and still figuring out how to play with the Suns, but he will probably go out and score 40, the way this season has gone.
Beal, not Beale.
Beel
He may go 1/15 through the first 47 minutes of the game, but we all know h'll at least hit a go ahead 4 point play to win the game!
Sounds right
Listening to the latest podcast from the Light Years boys last night with friend of DNhQ Ethan Sherwood Strauss (shoutout Duby Dub Dubs) and ESS made some interesting observations in regards to the 2020 Draft. Stated that the pick was in lockstep with Myers and Lacob (for those that keep trying to pin blame directly on Lacob). Also stated that the whiff was justifiable due to Covid restrictions and lack of scouting which I don’t necessarily agree with.
Finally ESS made the point that I continually keep harping on and its not that the Warriors missed on Halliburton. Its that they drafted a player in a draft full of players that could br adequately compared to drafting Darko Milicic or Hasheem Thabeet thats how badly they whiffed and he contrasted that with drafting Jonathan Kuminga in which the better player was Wagner but Kuminga will still be a solid rotation piece for years to come.
I dunno, I feel like the delta between a franchise player like Haliburton and “decent” guys like Patrick Williams, Okoro and Hayes is much more significant in the scheme of things than the delta between the decent guys and Wiseman.
Not that it's any comfort but Wiseman wasn't our worst high draft pick. Remember 1987 #3 pick Chris Washburn? If not, well, no reason you should because it was long ago, a different Dubs era, and he didn't contribute anything. We dumped him to the Hawks 8 games into his second season, and that second season was all he got. He got a lifetime ban for repeatedly failing drug tests.
https://grantland.com/features/how-annoy-fan-base-60-easy-steps/
Hell of a litany, isn't it? I forgot about a few of those clowns, like Russell Cross. Ironic that the saga ends with the Bogut deal, which he sees as one more mistake but which in fact helped turn around the franchise. Thanks for helping me revisit that long awful nightmare.
Yeah - the Kuminga/Wagner thing doesn't hurt that much - teams make mistakes like that all the time, and sometimes they aren't even really mistakes. The Wiseman-Darko comparisons are apt, but also show that teams make even these level of mistakes relatively frequently.
This entire notion that Myers was forced into doing things he didn't like is absolutely baffling. Myers was fully aboard with the two timelines and probably even more radical about it than Lacob. As soon as the 2022 title was accomplished and the vets were shut up, he doubled and tripled down on it. If anything, he probably needed to be coerced into trading Wiseman away. The fact that MDJ got to immediately trade Poole away upon taking the job should point towards Lacob maintaining his policy of letting the GMs do their thing.
And the funny thing is, the Dubs haven't won a title since the end of "Two Timelines" with the Wiseman trade. Hmm.
If this is trying to be a serious comment, it's failing miserably.
If this tries to take my earlier comment seriously, it is a sad sign of people's tendency to project their inability to laugh at themselves on others.
Touche
I should have made it clearer with a laughing face emoji. My bad.