PDA

View Full Version : Who was Mark Jackson holding back?



Chronz
05-07-2014, 03:23 PM
The Warriors were a great defensive team but there are rumblings from some in the media that the Dubs were underachieving offensively. That a team with so many gifted passers and shooters, should be much better than they were on that end this year.

Before the season started I asked PSD to predict offensive/defensive success this year. In classic fashion, a GS fan defended his team


Didn't mention the Warriors. Can't take this seriously then. Clearly biased.
In another thread, CN brings up the Clippers and you see many posters chime in on GS being better offensively; http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?843223-How-Great-Can-The-Clippers-Offense-Be


So its not just an expectation of the media but some of their die hard fans.



So 3 questions;

Why weren't the Warriors an elite offensive team?

Who's most to blame for that (Players, Management, Coaching etc..)?

What can be done to make the Warriors an elite 2-way team?

Method28
05-07-2014, 03:29 PM
I actually feel them getting rid of Jackson COULD benefit the team long term.

GS often times seemed to have no game plan and no mid game adjustments. Jackson's duty is to put his team in the best possible position to win with a set plan. He failed to do so imo.

There was no consistency and no fluidity. Curry had a game where he took how many shots? Many of their half court sets look like they're simply going iso and seeing what happens.

Then you hear Jackson on the sidelines with his rah rah speeches. A true X's and O's guy could greatly help this team.

bbcmillionaire
05-07-2014, 03:32 PM
Maybe Klay? Idk that team seemed pretty solid outside their big man situation. But I think that has to do with injuries

GiantsSwaGG
05-07-2014, 03:44 PM
Brian Scalabrinie

Chronz
05-07-2014, 03:46 PM
Maybe Klay? Idk that team seemed pretty solid outside their big man situation. But I think that has to do with injuries

Klay is the mark I want to discuss. I do think Jackson held him back, but I think he did it by over casting him in a role hes not meant to play. Hes a 3-D guy who doesn't stick to playing D and shooting as much as he should. Jackson struck me as an old school coach who refused to go small except when injuries struck and would look to exploit mismatches in the post rather than stick to the overall gameplan. Often times this meant Barnes/Klay try to post up smaller players, and in certain sets it worked, but I feel like he went to that far too often.

bbcmillionaire
05-07-2014, 03:51 PM
Klay is the mark I want to discuss. I do think Jackson held him back, but I think he did it by over casting him in a role hes not meant to play. Hes a 3-D guy who doesn't stick to playing D and shooting as much as he should. Jackson struck me as an old school coach who refused to go small except when injuries struck and would look to exploit mismatches in the post rather than stick to the overall gameplan. Often times this meant Barnes/Klay try to post up smaller players, and in certain sets it worked, but I feel like he went to that far too often.

Yeah I've seen taller players who couldn't post for anything, and short players with that natural skill. You either have it or you don't.

Bruno
05-07-2014, 03:57 PM
Golden state should trade Lee and Igudola for an upgrade at the PF/C. Thompson guarded Cp3 in round one. If Iggy isn't going to be the lock down guy for the other teams best player then there's no point in having him on your team because he's a negative on offense. Harrison Barnes and Green should be used as stretch 4's. it'll open up Thompson and it will give more opportunity to Barnes and Green.

smith&wesson
05-07-2014, 04:01 PM
they need to trade Harrison Barnes, he is being wasted on that team.

D-Leethal
05-07-2014, 04:09 PM
Traditionalist philosophy in a progressive era of hoops. The old school guys are getting weeded out and have been for awhile now.

Bruno
05-07-2014, 04:12 PM
they need to trade Harrison Barnes, he is being wasted on that team.
they should trade Lee and Iggy for a legit big who can play PF next to Bogut, but who can also hold down the center position when Bogut gets injured. Barnes players 100% of his minutes at the stretch four next to this potential player at C, or Bogut at C.

in the playoffs when Bogut is injured they play Barnes at the stretch 4 next to potential PF/C.

what do the timberwolves say If GS hits them up on the phone offering Lee, Igudola and two future first round picks for Love on February 1st? probably better than any package the Lakers can offer unless they are lucky enough to get a top 3 pick, which they have less than 30% odds of doing so.

what if Golden state includes 2-3 years of first round picks to this offer? wolves fans would probably rather tank post love but thats not a horrible package for kevin love.
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=l2pwvjx

Chronz
05-07-2014, 04:28 PM
Woah, I know Iggy isn't a great player but a net negative offensively? I think hes perfect for any team because he brings 2-way efficiency and can facilitate the ball some. I can understand why you would rather have Curry handle the ball more tho, if thats the case you're going to make, I just think he provides GS the ability to be more diverse in their off-ball attack.

Bruno
05-07-2014, 04:40 PM
Woah, I know Iggy isn't a great player but a net negative offensively? I think hes perfect for any team because he brings 2-way efficiency and can facilitate the ball some. I can understand why you would rather have Curry handle the ball more tho, if thats the case you're going to make, I just think he provides GS the ability to be more diverse in their off-ball attack.

based off what i saw last series, I'd maybe try to argue that Igudola doesn't play point forward nearly well enough to justify being expected to be that guy, and I think his presence as a ball handling wing curbs how aggressive Klay Thompson can be. i think Iggy dribbles too high and i don't see him successfully penetrating for this team. I see an aging Igudola. I think allowing Thompson to develop into what Iggy is supposed to be- or was a few years ago would be smart for Golden State. Iggy doesn't really have the mentality to step up in moments when the rest of the team is struggling. I think Thompson does and that he needs to develop it a bit more and that it will be difficult to do with Iggy having the ball in his hands second most behind Curry. way too much standing around and waiting for steph to do something if you're iggy and thompson. i think trying to package iggy with Lee opens up Thompsons game, and it opens up Barnes as a stretch 4/6th man. i think a Lee/Iggy/picks package could brining in the final piece to the puzzle. if thats' even possible while broke-like-glass- bogut is still on the books.

kingsdelez24
05-07-2014, 04:40 PM
Klay is the mark I want to discuss. I do think Jackson held him back, but I think he did it by over casting him in a role hes not meant to play. Hes a 3-D guy who doesn't stick to playing D and shooting as much as he should. Jackson struck me as an old school coach who refused to go small except when injuries struck and would look to exploit mismatches in the post rather than stick to the overall gameplan. Often times this meant Barnes/Klay try to post up smaller players, and in certain sets it worked, but I feel like he went to that far too often.

Yeah I've seen taller players who couldn't post for anything, and short players with that natural skill. You either have it or you don't.

My post game would be considered elite if I was 6'11 and not 5'11

Chronz
05-07-2014, 04:55 PM
based off what i saw last series, I'd maybe try to argue that Igudola doesn't play point forward nearly well enough to justify being expected to be that guy, and I think his presence as a ball handling wing curbs how aggressive Klay Thompson can be. i think Iggy dribbles too high and i don't see him successfully penetrating for this team. I see an aging Igudola. I think allowing Thompson to develop into what Iggy is supposed to be- or was a few years ago would be smart for Golden State. Iggy doesn't really have the mentality to step up in moments when the rest of the team is struggling. I think Thompson does and that he needs to develop it a bit more and that it will be difficult to do with Iggy having the ball in his hands second most behind Curry. way too much standing around and waiting for steph to do something if you're iggy and thompson. i think trying to package iggy with Lee opens up Thompsons game, and it opens up Barnes as a stretch 4/6th man. i think a Lee/Iggy/picks package could brining in the final piece to the puzzle. if thats' even possible while broke-like-glass- bogut is still on the books.
Did not see that one coming, I thought it was going to be about Curry but we just dont see eye to eye on Klay. I think he should be doing less and you think he should be doing more.
He does have a rep for shooting, so if he adds some subtle up-fakes and fixes his handles, I mean, the blueprint is almost the exact opposite that it was for Iggy. Iggy always had the skills, he just needed to get the shot. Now hes a more consistent shooter but hes not the same athletically IMO, pretty close but not there. Whereas Klay has the shooting, but needs to work on the handles-vision thing.

Im not opposed to packaging Iggy, and I do agree they should explore going small more often, if they can get a Kevin Love for Iggy+Lee+asset, then by all means, but moving him to give Thompson more possessions despite his inefficiency already, is something I have to really work to understand.

Bruno
05-07-2014, 05:08 PM
Did not see that one coming, I thought it was going to be about Curry but we just dont see eye to eye on Klay. I think he should be doing less and you think he should be doing more.
He does have a rep for shooting, so if he adds some subtle up-fakes and fixes his handles, I mean, the blueprint is almost the exact opposite that it was for Iggy. Iggy always had the skills, he just needed to get the shot. Now hes a more consistent shooter but hes not the same athletically IMO, pretty close but not there. Whereas Klay has the shooting, but needs to work on the handles-vision thing.

Im not opposed to packaging Iggy, and I do agree they should explore going small more often, if they can get a Kevin Love for Iggy+Lee+asset, then by all means, but moving him to give Thompson more possessions despite his inefficiency already, is something I have to really work to understand.

understandable. i'm coming from the place where I think Thompson can be that guy. but he needs to develop into it. i don't see it happening with Iggy. the idea of moving iggy compounds when i see that thompson guarded paul all series.

east fb knicks
05-07-2014, 05:47 PM
Golden state should trade Lee and Igudola for an upgrade at the PF/C. Thompson guarded Cp3 in round one. If Iggy isn't going to be the lock down guy for the other teams best player then there's no point in having him on your team because he's a negative on offense. Harrison Barnes and Green should be used as stretch 4's. it'll open up Thompson and it will give more opportunity to Barnes and Green.

I agree with this lee isn't a great defender and iggy was just a bad signing if anything they held back the growth of barnes

Vinylman
05-07-2014, 06:00 PM
Anyone suggesting that a team should make plans around andrew bogut should have their posting privileges revoked.

tredigs
05-07-2014, 06:16 PM
D Lee and Draymond should've swapped roles in the 2nd month of the season. We lacked a #1 off the bench and it crippled us. We also lost plenty of home games to sub par opponents, and I'd say that's indicative of weak leadership, starting with Jackson.

KnicksorBust
05-07-2014, 08:33 PM
Iguodala was just brought in this year. Bogut was injured during the playoffs. This was their first 50 win season since 1994. Maybe Jackson was this rogue lone wolf coach who didn't mesh with certain members of the management/coaching staff but I still hate that he is fired and that people are already fake trading key players of a really good team. Them losing to the Clippers (who imo have a great chance to make the finals) in 7 games without their starting center is not worth panic trading/firing.

NBA_Starter
05-07-2014, 09:45 PM
I don't know who he ****** off but it is sad that he got fired.

ManRam
05-07-2014, 10:11 PM
Barnes, Klay and Iggy. The former two have shown little growth, the latter was utilized very poorly offensively.

1. I don't know why they weren't an elite offensive team with all that offensive talent, but they were below average in 3 of the 4 offensive four factors (TOV%, ORB% and especially FT/FGA). I don't think Curry playing the point is the problem, nor do I think their team passing overall was poor. I think they could have utilized Iggy's "point-forward" abilities a bit more, however.

They didn't go small ball enough. Lee coming off the bench providing a bench spark probably would have been a nice thing. Dray starting would compliment that and be a nice move (edit: as Tre said). I think that's where Mark's most guilty in terms of rotations.

2. Who's most to blame? You can spread it pretty thick. I think Lacob and Co. going "all in" on Iggy is TBD. The defense improved a ton, but simply put, they didn't make up for the production they got from Jack and Landy. Dray helped a little with the Landry thing, but for the most part he was a very poor offensive player (stud defender). I'm unconvinced that Mark is a great coach. There are now more substantive rumors about SVG-interest. If they can pull of that hire and get those young guys to buy into his demanding (though not suffocating) style, I think they'll improve in that regard. It's hard to tell how great Mark was with a roster that has improved so much over his three years. The players obviously shoulder some blame too. Where's Barne's improvement? Why is Klay still so one-dimensional offensively? Relying on Bogut to be healthy is silly, but his loss was obviously a big one. Iggy, Klay and Lee had meh playoffs. Everyone deserves some of it.

3. I don't know. Hard to trade Bogut for an upgrade at this point, so pray he can stay healthy? That's a good start. Hope the new coach has a positive influence offensively. Hope Barnes actually turns into a decent player. It's still a young team. It was just Iggy's first year there. I don't think it's panic team. They took a very good Clippers team to 7 games without their defensive anchor.

mdm692
05-07-2014, 10:17 PM
Barnes would be a great fit in Phx and they have the assets to make it happen. Frye(expiring stretch 4) and the the Was pick?

raiderposting
05-08-2014, 02:51 AM
Barnes would be a great fit in Phx and they have the assets to make it happen. Frye(expiring stretch 4) and the the Was pick?

Lol no

mdm692
05-08-2014, 01:28 PM
Lol no

You can't really expect to get a lottery pick for a player that had 1 good playoff series in 2 years and regressed instead of improved.

moshy2
05-08-2014, 02:16 PM
Our offense goes to isolation way too often and that has to be on Mark Jackson. The offense needs to flow much better and utilize all the talent we have.

We need consistent scoring next to Curry. Klay has his on and off times and Iggy and Bogut aren't scoring weapons, but are top passers for their positions. Lee is usually good for his along with being a top passer. It's not a mistake that Curry had his best game vs the Clippers at the same time Klay, Barnes, and Iggy had theirs. Curry can make ridiculous shots, but not all the time. Other players need to take the focus off Curry.

Goose17
05-08-2014, 04:57 PM
Everyone is to blame.

- Fans. Expectations were too high, a lot of people bought into the hype the media gave us during the playoffs.

- Jackson/coaching staff. Too much iso plays early on, not enough direction on offense.

- Players. Failure to get to the line, when they did get to the line, failed to convert free throws consistently. Turnovers and some greedy players (Crawford). Barnes is incapable of creating for others so falls back on iso a lot. Bench early on was terrible for not passing the ball. Dre, Klay and Barnes seemed to have a lapse of confidence mid-season, they stopped attacking the rim and just spotted up for 3s constantly.

- Ownership/Management. They brought in a bench compiled of lack luster players that couldn't move the ball between them. The bench was so bad our starters had to play extended minutes and fatigue didn't help with the ball movement.



We have a high caliber passing player at every position in our starting line up (high caliber for their respective position, I'm not saying Lee is the next Stockton or anything) so there's no reason we can't have great ball movement consistently.

We did see it more during the second half of the season, and during the series with the Clippers, especially after Green was inserted into the lineup.


What we really need is another consistent post player on offense so we can play more inside-outside. Our wing guys need to be more aggressive at getting to the basket (like Klay was in the Clippers series).

likemystylez
05-08-2014, 10:26 PM
Iguodala was just brought in this year. Bogut was injured during the playoffs. This was their first 50 win season since 1994. Maybe Jackson was this rogue lone wolf coach who didn't mesh with certain members of the management/coaching staff but I still hate that he is fired and that people are already fake trading key players of a really good team. Them losing to the Clippers (who imo have a great chance to make the finals) in 7 games without their starting center is not worth panic trading/firing.

Last year the warriors front office went into the offseason less than 300k away from the luxury tax line and about 14 million over the cap. With those constraints- they literally moved mountians to put themselves in a position where they had a chance to bring in the top 2 free agents. (dwight howard and Iggy). I still think the lakers woulda been better off trading dwight for bogut and barnes.

Either way- they didnt bring in Iggy to a team that should have had improving players up and down the rotation to regress. The front office was looking at top 4 in the west. and given the fact that they basically phoned it in on 10-12 games, top 4 in the west was attainable with the talent and injuries that this team had this year.

They basically didnt even try against

Lakers, Cavs, Bobcats twice, knicks, t wolves, wizards, nuggets twice. I honestly believe they had the talent to beat the cavs at home or the nuggets with all their starters injured

AsianSensation
05-08-2014, 10:38 PM
I look forward to the demise of the Warriors.

Horrible, horrible decision made by egotistical maniacs that can't handle someone with Christian beliefs.

Now you know why Tim Tebow isn't playing football.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 10:47 PM
they should trade Lee and Iggy for a legit big who can play PF next to Bogut, but who can also hold down the center position when Bogut gets injured. Barnes players 100% of his minutes at the stretch four next to this potential player at C, or Bogut at C.

in the playoffs when Bogut is injured they play Barnes at the stretch 4 next to potential PF/C.

what do the timberwolves say If GS hits them up on the phone offering Lee, Igudola and two future first round picks for Love on February 1st? probably better than any package the Lakers can offer unless they are lucky enough to get a top 3 pick, which they have less than 30% odds of doing so.

what if Golden state includes 2-3 years of first round picks to this offer? wolves fans would probably rather tank post love but thats not a horrible package for kevin love.
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=l2pwvjx

as a Wolves fan, I would take Clay/Lee, and 2 first rounders for Love if the Wolves move him.

slashsnake
05-09-2014, 03:51 AM
I look forward to the demise of the Warriors.

Horrible, horrible decision made by egotistical maniacs that can't handle someone with Christian beliefs.

Now you know why Tim Tebow isn't playing football.

Tim Tebow isn't playing football because he's looked awful throwing the ball in a passing league and couldn't beat out an undrafted free agent for a roster spot. He was let go because there have been three QB's since the 1978 rule changes with a lower completion percentage. Mike McMahon, Akili Smith, and Rusty Hilger. They didn't get a lot of opportunities either.

As for the decision, if you and your boss don't get along, this is what happens.

jerellh528
05-09-2014, 04:58 AM
I don't see what happened here. Completely turned that whole team around

likemystylez
05-10-2014, 09:42 AM
I don't see what happened here. Completely turned that whole team around

I think the team might have been turned around when the front office and management replaced a rotation that had 4 or 5 d league players with role players like Iggy, Andrew Bogut, Draymond Green, and Harrison Barnes.


But yeah- mark jackson is the reason a team is better when replacing ronny turiaf with andrew bogut.

likemystylez
05-10-2014, 09:45 AM
Barnes would be a great fit in Phx and they have the assets to make it happen. Frye(expiring stretch 4) and the the Was pick?

that trade may have worked if it was made last summer

BALLER R
05-10-2014, 02:06 PM
Completely take away how you feel about the team. I think you can make the argument that they rely on Curry far too much.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-11-2014, 07:09 PM
Im not opposed to packaging Iggy, and I do agree they should explore going small more often, if they can get a Kevin Love for Iggy+Lee+asset, then by all means, but moving him to give Thompson more possessions despite his inefficiency already, is something I have to really work to understand.

If they could get a Kevin Love for Lee+Iggy+asset, sure but otherwise, why trade Iggy who has been one of the biggest +/- stars?
http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/s4pm/2014/iguodan01_2014.html

Whole lot of green there for Iggy. Also need to play Draymond more. Not convinced on Barnes and does he really fit with their team?

flea
05-11-2014, 07:16 PM
The fact that each poster seemingly has a different player or player's role to blame for GS's woes shows that Mark Jackson just wasn't that great of a coach for this team. If you've got shooters like they do you should be playing ball-screen offenses like the Spurs - not inside-out, ISO, and lazy P&Rs.

tredigs
05-11-2014, 07:33 PM
If we get SVG to sign here, I think we will get a clearer picture of what advanced coaching can do for this squad.

It's easy to look like "you were the one who turned it around" when you have a player who single handedly collapses defenses on one end and marquee defenders traded for at multiple positions on the other. Every coach in the league "turns that around" from our 2010 squad.

COOLbeans
05-11-2014, 07:39 PM
as a Wolves fan, I would take Clay/Lee, and 2 first rounders for Love if the Wolves move him.

So you want to commit robbery? No way Love's worth 2 first plus Klay and Lee.

I'd do one 1st, Lee and Barnes for Love and Brewer. Or Iggy, Lee and two 1sts, for your 1st, Love Brewer and JJ.

Loves good but he's not worth mortgaging your future. I'm shocked the Wolves turned down Waiters, the number 1 and Thompson. That was the best deal you're going to get.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-11-2014, 07:59 PM
Iguodala was just brought in this year. Bogut was injured during the playoffs. This was their first 50 win season since 1994. Maybe Jackson was this rogue lone wolf coach who didn't mesh with certain members of the management/coaching staff but I still hate that he is fired and that people are already fake trading key players of a really good team. Them losing to the Clippers (who imo have a great chance to make the finals) in 7 games without their starting center is not worth panic trading/firing.

Or maybe Jackson utilizes too many iso plays for a team that has a ton of good passers? 10.7% of their plays were isolations this year, with about 250 more iso plays run than the Clippers (their 1st round opponent) and TWICE as many iso's run compared to the Spurs (1043 to the Spurs 522). Why are you iso'ing so much when you have some pretty good passers in Lee, Iggy, Draymond and Curry? Someone mentioned earlier that the Warriors had above average passers at every position- could be true so why are you iso'ing so much? Especially when it's well known that the isolation is the least efficient play and on top of that, your team is only 11th in points per possession on isolations so you aren't even that great at it when you do iso.

Also, as someone else mentioned, he's got an older traditional philosophy (lots of post ups and lots of iso's) which doesn't agree with the way the NBA is trending. His rotations also don't make a ton of sense- does he use any +/- data? If so, why was Barnes playing way more minutes than Draymond? Especially when you have information like this: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/s4pm/2014/greendr01_2014.html Draymond's +8 on both sides of the ball compared to Barnes with the same lineups.

Jackson's a good defensive coach and I think he'd be a good assistant as a defense specialist only but he has no clue on offense (doesn't run any plays, just tons of iso's) and his rotations make no sense (no willingness to go small unless absolutely forced to). There were legitimate reasons to fire Jackson because he's simply not a good X's and O's coach offensively.

And in regards to the rotations- the Curry-Thompson-Iguodala-Green-Lee lineup had the 3rd best Net Rating (Off Rtg - Def Rtg) in the league this season (http://stats.nba.com/leagueLineups.html?pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions&sortField=NET_RATING&sortOrder=DES&columnOrder=&MeasureType=Advanced) and yet, it was nowhere close to the most frequent lineup used for the Warriors- only getting a total of only 104 minutes (http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?TeamID=1610612744&pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&sortField=MIN&sortOrder=DES&PerMode=Totals&columnOrder=&MeasureType=Base) and thats despite being used in 28 different games. And it's easy to see why that lineup had so much success- good mix of floor spacing (all players able to shoot) and defense (with Green and Iggy). Obviously, it's difficult to play that lineup all the time with it's lack of rim protection but you'd think Jackson would at least pay attention to lineup synergies and play his most successful lineup a bit more. But as I mentioned earlier, he's a traditionalist which means he can't go small and won't utilize all of the stats at his disposal (it's been known for awhile he hates advanced metrics).

As for the Warriors success, are we really going to ignore a very talented roster? You or I could coach this team and have a ton of success, it's so talented.

lol, please
05-12-2014, 01:51 AM
Or maybe Jackson utilizes too many iso plays for a team that has a ton of good passers? 10.7% of their plays were isolations this year, with about 250 more iso plays run than the Clippers (their 1st round opponent) and TWICE as many iso's run compared to the Spurs (1043 to the Spurs 522). Why are you iso'ing so much when you have some pretty good passers in Lee, Iggy, Draymond and Curry? Someone mentioned earlier that the Warriors had above average passers at every position- could be true so why are you iso'ing so much? Especially when it's well known that the isolation is the least efficient play and on top of that, your team is only 11th in points per possession on isolations so you aren't even that great at it when you do iso.

Also, as someone else mentioned, he's got an older traditional philosophy (lots of post ups and lots of iso's) which doesn't agree with the way the NBA is trending. His rotations also don't make a ton of sense- does he use any +/- data? If so, why was Barnes playing way more minutes than Draymond? Especially when you have information like this: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/s4pm/2014/greendr01_2014.html Draymond's +8 on both sides of the ball compared to Barnes with the same lineups.

Jackson's a good defensive coach and I think he'd be a good assistant as a defense specialist only but he has no clue on offense (doesn't run any plays, just tons of iso's) and his rotations make no sense (no willingness to go small unless absolutely forced to). There were legitimate reasons to fire Jackson because he's simply not a good X's and O's coach offensively.

And in regards to the rotations- the Curry-Thompson-Iguodala-Green-Lee lineup had the 3rd best Net Rating (Off Rtg - Def Rtg) in the league this season (http://stats.nba.com/leagueLineups.html?pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions&sortField=NET_RATING&sortOrder=DES&columnOrder=&MeasureType=Advanced) and yet, it was nowhere close to the most frequent lineup used for the Warriors- only getting a total of only 104 minutes (http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?TeamID=1610612744&pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&sortField=MIN&sortOrder=DES&PerMode=Totals&columnOrder=&MeasureType=Base) and thats despite being used in 28 different games. And it's easy to see why that lineup had so much success- good mix of floor spacing (all players able to shoot) and defense (with Green and Iggy). Obviously, it's difficult to play that lineup all the time with it's lack of rim protection but you'd think Jackson would at least pay attention to lineup synergies and play his most successful lineup a bit more. But as I mentioned earlier, he's a traditionalist which means he can't go small and won't utilize all of the stats at his disposal (it's been known for awhile he hates advanced metrics).

As for the Warriors success, are we really going to ignore a very talented roster? You or I could coach this team and have a ton of success, it's so talented.
Good post. Well said.

ManRam
05-12-2014, 12:05 PM
I don't see what happened here. Completely turned that whole team around

The team obviously has improved a ton since he joined, but just look at the rosters first.

2011-12: Dorell Wright (61 games started), Lee (57), Ellis (37), Biedrins (35), Klay (29), Charles Jenkins (28), Steph Curry (23), Jeremy Tyler (23)...Richard Jefferson, Nate Robinson, Ekpe Udoh, Kwame Brown, etc. coming off the bench at various times. It was a mess of a roster with a young and injured Steph and a young Klay. They finished 23-43. It was a bad team.

2012-13: Klay Thompson (82), Harrison Barnes (81), David Lee (79), Steph (78), Ezeli/Bogut/Biedrins at Center. Jack and Landry are strong additions. Draymond has a solid rookie year. RJ and Biedrins' roles reduce, which is a great thing. The roster is healthy, better, more talented and stable. 4 of their starters make it essentially the whole season. There's some movement at the C position, but that's easy to handle. It's a huge turnaround for a ton of reasons. 47-35. I don't think merely saying "he completely turned that whole team around" is true. Steph staying healthy helped a ton. Klay becoming more experienced helped. Getting rid of Monta helped. Bogut helped. Adding Jack and Landry helped. The roster just changed so drastically. It wasn't like he was taking the same team from one year to the next here. Those teams were wildly different.

2013-14: A 4 game improvement is certainly solid.


Any coach is going to see huge improvements from one year to the next if their roster changes for the better as much as Jackson's roster did his first two years there. He certainly deserves a ton of credit, especially for his work defensively...but I don't know how certain we can be of his role. It's a small sample size and it's presiding over a roster that simply improved drastically during his time there.

Shammyguy3
05-12-2014, 01:06 PM
Or maybe Jackson utilizes too many iso plays for a team that has a ton of good passers? 10.7% of their plays were isolations this year, with about 250 more iso plays run than the Clippers (their 1st round opponent) and TWICE as many iso's run compared to the Spurs (1043 to the Spurs 522). Why are you iso'ing so much when you have some pretty good passers in Lee, Iggy, Draymond and Curry? Someone mentioned earlier that the Warriors had above average passers at every position- could be true so why are you iso'ing so much? Especially when it's well known that the isolation is the least efficient play and on top of that, your team is only 11th in points per possession on isolations so you aren't even that great at it when you do iso.

Also, as someone else mentioned, he's got an older traditional philosophy (lots of post ups and lots of iso's) which doesn't agree with the way the NBA is trending. His rotations also don't make a ton of sense- does he use any +/- data? If so, why was Barnes playing way more minutes than Draymond? Especially when you have information like this: http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/s4pm/2014/greendr01_2014.html Draymond's +8 on both sides of the ball compared to Barnes with the same lineups.

Jackson's a good defensive coach and I think he'd be a good assistant as a defense specialist only but he has no clue on offense (doesn't run any plays, just tons of iso's) and his rotations make no sense (no willingness to go small unless absolutely forced to). There were legitimate reasons to fire Jackson because he's simply not a good X's and O's coach offensively.

And in regards to the rotations- the Curry-Thompson-Iguodala-Green-Lee lineup had the 3rd best Net Rating (Off Rtg - Def Rtg) in the league this season (http://stats.nba.com/leagueLineups.html?pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions&sortField=NET_RATING&sortOrder=DES&columnOrder=&MeasureType=Advanced) and yet, it was nowhere close to the most frequent lineup used for the Warriors- only getting a total of only 104 minutes (http://stats.nba.com/teamLineups.html?TeamID=1610612744&pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25&sortField=MIN&sortOrder=DES&PerMode=Totals&columnOrder=&MeasureType=Base) and thats despite being used in 28 different games. And it's easy to see why that lineup had so much success- good mix of floor spacing (all players able to shoot) and defense (with Green and Iggy). Obviously, it's difficult to play that lineup all the time with it's lack of rim protection but you'd think Jackson would at least pay attention to lineup synergies and play his most successful lineup a bit more. But as I mentioned earlier, he's a traditionalist which means he can't go small and won't utilize all of the stats at his disposal (it's been known for awhile he hates advanced metrics).

As for the Warriors success, are we really going to ignore a very talented roster? You or I could coach this team and have a ton of success, it's so talented.

Shaq. :hide:

bbiq
05-12-2014, 03:52 PM
know one seen this coming Mark Jackson turned this team around and to be honest with a loser center like Bogut always injured and forever unreliable ,lets see who is put at the helm. imo Jackson did a great job with what he had to work with the west is packed with talent and im sorry David Lee is not going to cut it when defending true centers , STOP GRASPING FOR STRAWS! Mark Jackson was as good as it gets with his first coaching gig

COOLbeans
05-12-2014, 04:06 PM
know one seen this coming Mark Jackson turned this team around and to be honest with a loser center like Bogut always injured and forever unreliable ,lets see who is put at the helm. imo Jackson did a great job with what he had to work with the west is packed with talent and im sorry David Lee is not going to cut it when defending true centers , STOP GRASPING FOR STRAWS! Mark Jackson was as good as it gets with his first coaching gig

Agreed 100%

tredigs
05-12-2014, 04:15 PM
Agreed 100%

Agreeing 100% with that mindless drivel speaks volumes.

If we get SVG next season you'll begin to see what this team is capable of on the offensive side of the ball.

COOLbeans
05-12-2014, 04:32 PM
Agreeing 100% with that mindless drivel speaks volumes.

If we get SVG next season you'll begin to see what this team is capable of on the offensive side of the ball.

Which part speaks volumes? I agree with his message and tone not his writing prowess. Bogut IS made of glass, do you disagree? And for a 1st time head coach Mark Jackson did a great job considering the meddling, backstabbing and internal spying by the Warriors ownership and management.

COOLbeans
05-12-2014, 04:36 PM
Agreeing 100% with that mindless drivel speaks volumes.

If we get SVG next season you'll begin to see what this team is capable of on the offensive side of the ball.

Not going to lie, I think Stan would do a great job but I'm not sure if his style would work on Steph, Klay, Dray, Lee and Barnes considering they've had Jackson as their leader for the past 3 years... The complete opposite philosophies in coaching styles.

I'd also be intrigued by Hollins

flea
05-12-2014, 04:43 PM
If they wanted Hollins they might as well have kept Jackson.

COOLbeans
05-12-2014, 04:51 PM
If they wanted Hollins they might as well have kept Jackson.

The reason Jackson was fired was because he didn't play nice with ownership and neither did ownership play nice with him. Hollins would come in with a clean slate.

Chromehounds
05-12-2014, 06:33 PM
The time of letting the inmates running the asylum is over, a structured system and holding players accountable will help the W's more than not. Now we'll see how spoiled these kids are after 3yrs under Jackson, my hope is they are professionals and will adapt to the upcoming changes.

PatsSoxKnicks
05-13-2014, 12:31 AM
Shaq. :hide:

What? :confused:

Iodine
05-13-2014, 02:58 AM
Agreeing 100% with that mindless drivel speaks volumes.

If we get SVG next season you'll begin to see what this team is capable of on the offensive side of the ball.

Well yeah, generally speaking getting a coach who is tied for the 4th most seasons with teams in the top 10 of both offense and defense efficiency since the merger is a good thing. Plus oh god all three's and layups and Aspartame