|
|
|
On June 30 2017 05:56 Elroi wrote:
On the rivers discussion from a page back. I have only followed the nba a couple of years, but I have always thought Doc looked incompetent because he never got his second line up to work. They tried different trades over and over, but the guys couldnt play as a team. Let jamal crawford do his thing and hope for the best seemed to be the only "strategy". I feel like a more competent coach would have gotten better synergy.
That has always been a headscrathcer. I'm sure Crawford is a good dude. Isiah Thomas, Grant Hill, and even most rookies speak highly of him, but he is the worst player to depend your offense on.
He is like the worst non-weed version of JR Smith. He may be flashy and my be deadly in stretches, but he is as likely to shoot and dribble his team out of games than win them. When he is on the floor with the second unit, the team automatically stagnates.
|
I'm interested to see where the Clippers go with their trade, especially now that they have Williams + Crawford...
As far as Doc goes, I really think him and Jackson are proving that great coaches aren't always great GMs. I don't know what it is, whether it's the stress of the two jobs put together or if its the decisions Doc is making, but in my opinion, I think coaches should just focus on coaching and trust the management to do their jobs.
|
|
|
On June 30 2017 07:03 imBLIND wrote:
I'm interested to see where the Clippers go with their trade, especially now that they have Williams + Crawford...
As far as Doc goes, I really think him and Jackson are proving that great coaches aren't always great GMs. I don't know what it is, whether it's the stress of the two jobs put together or if its the decisions Doc is making, but in my opinion, I think coaches should just focus on coaching and trust the management to do their jobs.
Rivers is not a great coach though
|
On June 30 2017 00:16 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote:
^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact. I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy.
Thanks for forcing me to think about this more.
I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned.
Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction.
As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent.
|
It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
|
On June 30 2017 13:46 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 00:16 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 29 2017 03:47 Jerubaal wrote:
^There's also the fact that short players are more skilled than tall players.
I don't think Ball is completely detestable, but I also don't think you should ascribe too much credit to him. Yes, there's a certain low cunning to him, but that's who he is. You don't turn that on and off. The problem with that strategy you're describing is that if it becomes disadvantageous, there's no guarantee he can shift tact. I think he can. IIRC, in one of his more sober interviews that I cannot remember where, certainly no Skip or SAS, he was asked how he would react if Lonzo wasnt chosen by the Lakers. He was level-headed enough to admit that Lakers was the goal, mostly because of the monetary opportunities it represents, but he added that Lonzo would play greatly with any team, and he would support it. And even if we assume it to be true that he cannot shift tact, so what? He has made it very clear plenty of times that he is doing it for money. You cannot hate a man for doing everything to market his assets, as long as he doesnt harm others. If he fails, the world will simply turn against him, which is the case anyway in our present liberal capitalist economy. Thanks for forcing me to think about this more. I'm sure many of you had an initial distaste for Ball's antics. Many also probably dismissed such revulsion as being irrational. It's become fashionable to poopoo the idea of social etiquette in the light of a rationalism. All these mores are just rules for transactions, ok. As quickly as you clarify the situation, though, you realize the futility of trying to get out from underneath it. If you reduce social behavior to mere transactionalism, you strip it of all other human affections. Thus, such behavior is usually shunned. Mr. Ball is essentially making the Transactional argument. He's trying to maximize his value and so is everyone else. It's really not the bombasticness of him that's questionable, it's his directness. It is true that everyone else is trying to maximize their value as well, but Markelle Fultz and De'aaron Fox are leaving open the possibility of being a human being beyond their market value. Ball is trying to strip his interaction to a transaction, but what he's done is make himself only a transaction. As for whether he can change, you're looking at the wrong thing. If I have some sort of value system, then I can pivot. I can say I've changed my mind or that I'm making a decision for practical reasons. If my only values are ego and money, people are going to assume that that's always my goal. If I'm loud, it's ego and money. If I'm quiet, probably money.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, let me repay in kind.
I agree with your framework of analysis but I disagree on the conclusion. If I understand you correctly, we both agree that Ball's modus operandi is excessive unabashed self-promotion for monetary gain. You then proceed by reducing this phenomenon to the fact that this is a product of his bankrupt moral system. (Please correct any misappropriations. Volumes upon volumes are written on this topic, and they barely cover it satisfactorily. I am sure with out limitation in time and space here, much will be lost in translation.)
The question to mind, assuming all of this as true, is so what?! What you see as an irredeemable flaw, I see as a mere wrinkle in the face of modern civilizarion, no more threatening or significant than all the other things modern media and society in general churns out on a daily basis. In cultural theory, we learn of the power of agency. The degrees of this power range the full spectrum, from Foucault's dispersion of (non)centric power, to Deleuze and Guattari's rhizomatic revolution, and even to Feyerabend's disavowal of structure. Let me emphasize once again the question of "so what?". The flaw in your analysis is you fail to account for the power of agency. You, me, and anybody else are not passive subjects that absorb and emulate whatever is out there. The effects of such external stimuli vary greatly, mostly as an indication of educational and socioeconomic status, but the fact of the matter is that it is not a simple equation of cause and effect, stimulus and response. Ball can talk and act all crazy as he wants, it does not mean that you or me or anybody else should normalize or be affected by such behavior.
Which brings me to a more important point. Ball is nothing more than what and where we are as a society right now. We live in the era of Kardashians, fake tv dramas, alternative facts, pictures of breakfast on instragram, memes, covfefes, and selfies. Ball fits perfectly right in. We may all frown upon the brashness, indiscretion, bombasticness, egotism, and stupidity of it all, but it's all on him, and not on us.
Warhol once said, in defense of the Campbell Soup: "If you want to make great art, you must first have a great society". We live in a shitty society, hence we have shitty people and stunts like these. The real question is, which side of the equation are you?
With all this in mind, we really cannot begrudge Ball for doing what he thinks is best for his interest. At the very least, we have for ourselves live and ongoing entertainment.
And to respond to your question about Nony's post, it's important for no other reason than that if people see it, they will imitate it. The reason cultures tend to get more polite is because, as much handwringing as there is about "honesty" and "being real", life is generally better when everyone isn't an abrasive blowhard.
Again, you are subscribing to the magic bullet theory. I have touched on this above, but let me summarize once more:.Ball may be shitty, we do not have to imitate him.
As for Coach Pop: I I hope I'm not being too self serving, but I'd like to think that the Spurs are a product of good team building while most of the other champions are simply an overwhelming accumulation of talent. It's kind of depressing really to think that the champion is pretty predictable most years and only the paragon of teamwork Spurs have stood up to them most years. The Mavericks are really the only blip in the last few years. The interesting thing about it is that even as good as they have been, there's a ton of luck involved...unless you're one of the aforementioned overwhelming collections of talent. To add to this, the Spurs have two decades of excellence, with a consistent batch of always classy and anti-ego.players. JVG summed up Manu perfectly, saying something like "in all his years, Manu has never cheated the game. He has always come out to give it his all." I almost cried listening to the truth of this statement. Good thing though, reports indicate Manu may still be on for a year.
|
On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league.
Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complement the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who fill the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA, all playing as a coherent efficient whole.
Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 30 2017 23:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 23:36 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league. Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complemented the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who filled the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA (you know who) who all play as a coherent efficient whole. Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to. I think the most (one of) impressive thing is the lack of ego. All willing to share ball, share glory, do little things on d to win. Most people you give them this amount of money fame coddling, they dont tend to do Great at taking the backseat or teamwork in general.
Very true. Although I think Klay and Iggy are the ones most likely to leave first, if ever. Klay because I assume he would want some spotlight all by himself. And Iggy because I think he is in the old mature statesman phase and he has done more than he should have for the Warriors, and in the twilight of his career, he might want to help another team get a championship.
|
On June 30 2017 23:36 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league. Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complement the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who fill the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA, all playing as a coherent efficient whole. Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to.
Hmm, your assessment of their talent now is quite higher than a few pages ago iirc. Weren't you arguing that the Cavs were more talented, and by a good margin? Or was that someone else?
|
|
|
On July 01 2017 00:06 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2017 23:36 Twinkle Toes wrote:On June 30 2017 22:33 ZenithM wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Kerr is viewed in the future. Just in this thread I've seen claims at both extremes: that GSW stands on mediocre talent thriving due to good teamwork and coaching (I think Twinkle Toes leans more toward that side?), and that GSW is just filled with talent of a quality that's unmatchable at the moment (which I'm personally leaning toward). Obviously the reality isn't as clear cut, but history will likely favor one of these sides and Kerr will either be viewed as a great coach or just a lucky one.
I personally think he didn't really have to do too much to push the Warriors over the top. He started 19-2 in his HC carreer? The team clicking that fast is to me an indication that the players were doing most of the breakthrough. And even if I'm wrong, whatever his impact may have been to kickstart the team when he arrived in 2015, I think it's pretty clear that the players can atm basically run themselves to a championship (which they mostly did this season).
Edit: Also, I found the team more impressive when they didn't have Durant. Getting Durant on an already nice team is to me the epitome of "out-talenting" the league. Not mediocre. Above average talent (Green, Klay) + transcendental talent who skyrocketed at his peak (Curry) + acquisition of significant talents who complement the core (Shaun, Iggy) + players who fill the gaps, + currently #1 player in the NBA, all playing as a coherent efficient whole. Kerr himself credits M.Jackson as the one who got the team going, Kerr's contribution is that he provided the sane voice and leadership that the players could subscribe to. Hmm, your assessment of their talent now is quite higher than a few pages ago iirc. Weren't you arguing that the Cavs were more talented, and by a good margin? Or was that someone else?
Maybe, but I've never called them mediocre. And honestly, yes the Cavs are equally if not more talented (rough unscientific assessment, but I stand by it). Their problem is that they fail to work as a team.
|
Top 3 vs top 3 is fine, but it's top 4 vs top 4 which tilts the balance for GSW by quite a lot. You would rather have one of Green/Klay rather than Thompson. Then top 5 vs top 5 is even worst for the Cavs. GSW's fifth best is Iguodala, I wouldn't even know who's the 5th best for the Cavs...
I honestly think the Big 3 from the Cavs is more talented than the top 3 players from GSW (with whomever you want to include at third). Because Love is really underrated and underused in the Cavs. But if you go past 3 and go up to 5 then it's just laughable how better the Warriors are.
|
What JimmiC said. It's also difficult to have depth when most of your players are on max contract
|
Would you agree that they failed to maximize their potential and play as a coherent team?
|
Yes, I would agree. But they lost 4-1, there is a huge gap between them and the Warriors, that I don't think just a bit more team cohesion can fix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
