PDA

View Full Version : Developing a Culture of Winning is Underestimated



AllBall
05-27-2015, 09:38 PM
A lot has to be said for NBA organizations who have developed a culture of losing so ingrained in the teams fabric that they can never get away from it. I believe this is often dismissed as being irrelevant, but in these playoffs we have seen clear examples of organizations who don't have "IT" if you will.. Teams who time and time again collapse when it counts and because of it never have a real shot at winning it all. You need the right ownership, management and coaching staff to breed that pedigree of winning and it is not as easy as just having the right players. Teams who have it don't take plays off in the playoffs, truly play like every possession counts, defend home court, don't allow for off court distractions, play through injury and play like each game is the last. There's too much coasting happening in these types of teams and then they wonder why they seem cursed to never get over the hump.

Your thoughts?

KnicksorBust
05-27-2015, 09:44 PM
A lot has to be said for NBA organizations who have developed a culture of losing so ingrained in the teams fabric that they can never get away from it. I believe this is often dismissed as being irrelevant, but in these playoffs we have seen clear examples of organizations who don't have "IT" if you will.. Teams who time and time again collapse when it counts and because of it never have a real shot at winning it all. You need the right ownership, management and coaching staff to breed that pedigree of winning and it is not as easy as just having the right players. Teams who have it don't take plays off in the playoffs, truly play like every possession counts, defend home court, don't allow for off court distractions, play through injury and play like each game is the last. There's too much coasting happening in these types of teams and then they wonder why they seem cursed to never get over the hump.

Your thoughts?

I don't think it is underestimated at all. The Spurs get full credit for their culture of winning. I dispute your whole premise that you need the right managment, coaching staff, etc. and that some franchises are cursed to losing. At the end of the day talent wins out. Doc Rivers was the worst coach in the NBA until KG created ubuntu and then he was amazing. Dan Gilbert was an obnoxious owner who failed to keep a hometown hero and his franchise went back to shambles. Now they are back in the Finals. You can't sell me on a culture of winning from Gilbert and Blatt. The players have far more to do with the success of a franchise.

Chronz
05-27-2015, 09:47 PM
yeah, no. i dont see how these playoffs proved it at all

JEDean89
05-27-2015, 10:13 PM
why do people quote a lengthy op when they are the first to post?

obviously teams that are winning have a winning culture, but the 3 of the top 4 players in the NBA are in the final 4. the hawks have made the playoffs year after year, but don't have that guy that can get it done. right now cleveland (which had no winning culture the last 4 years) has the best player on the planet. that alone can trump a great team like the warriors. i wouldn't be betting against cleveland, though i like the warriors to win.

Goose17
05-27-2015, 10:22 PM
I agree. But it's more than possible to turn it around. Lacob and Meyers have done that for the Dubs.

KnicksorBust
05-27-2015, 11:01 PM
I agree. But it's more than possible to turn it around. Lacob and Meyers have done that for the Dubs.

But none of that would matter if they hadnt landed the MVP at pick #7.

Cal827
05-28-2015, 12:15 AM
As a Raptor fan, I can agree that it's very, very hard. Even now that they're winning games, we definitely don't have a winning culture instilled. Just a team that might be lucky on winning weak divisions, and then flopping in the playoffs.

The roster and unfortunately much of the fanbase, seem to take comments that aren't to terrible way to seriously. When Pierce made his comments that the Raptors didn't have it (as well as he said any other team in the East, referring to that it might be open this season), I agreed with the comments. Unfortunately, the fanbase got pissed off, Ujiri had another stupid *** soundbite, and MLSE made revenue off the comments (just like last year with the **** Brooklyn shirts). The off-court distractions seem to get to the team, cause I don't think I've seen such a one sided 4-5 match-up in a long time. The Raptors play was absolutely appalling, and it looked like a team that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Now, onto next year. We decided to keep Casey after that playoff joke (which to me, was an outright terrible move, cause when you lose that badly, the coach clearly lost the players). I'm probably going to worry every day of the off-season, cause I'm not convinced that this team will hold a playoff spot. MLSE is likely too scared of rebuilding the roster due to the All Star game upcoming, as well as the Leafs admitting to going into rebuild mode.

Heat fans should be thanking their stars, that they have a guy like Pat Riley around. He actually cares about the team. :laugh2:

AllBall
05-28-2015, 09:42 AM
I don't think it is underestimated at all. The Spurs get full credit for their culture of winning. I dispute your whole premise that you need the right managment, coaching staff, etc. and that some franchises are cursed to losing. At the end of the day talent wins out. Doc Rivers was the worst coach in the NBA until KG created ubuntu and then he was amazing. Dan Gilbert was an obnoxious owner who failed to keep a hometown hero and his franchise went back to shambles. Now they are back in the Finals. You can't sell me on a culture of winning from Gilbert and Blatt. The players have far more to do with the success of a franchise.

If you read that again you'll see I'm dismissing the notion of curses and say that it is because of bad ownership, management and coaching that teams develop these bad processes and habits. It remains to be seen for the Cavs until the finals are over.


yeah, no. i dont see how these playoffs proved it at all

You don't think that there is any team in the East or West that have these attributes?


Now, onto next year. We decided to keep Casey after that playoff joke (which to me, was an outright terrible move, cause when you lose that badly, the coach clearly lost the players). I'm probably going to worry every day of the off-season, cause I'm not convinced that this team will hold a playoff spot. MLSE is likely too scared of rebuilding the roster due to the All Star game upcoming, as well as the Leafs admitting to going into rebuild mode.

Heat fans should be thanking their stars, that they have a guy like Pat Riley around. He actually cares about the team. :laugh2:

I agree Cal, I for sure thought Casey was going to get canned. Yes, I'm thankful the Heat organization is run the right way but I can't say the same for other sports franchises in this city.

PhillyFaninLA
05-28-2015, 09:54 AM
I think the coach can foster a winning environment with a terrible team. If you promote hard work, fundamentals, team work, sometimes you need to sacrifice so a teammate can make a play while you are building a team then you can lose games but not develop the losing mindset.

Of course as a Sixers fan I don't have much of a choice but to believe that.

Goose17
05-28-2015, 10:01 AM
But none of that would matter if they hadnt landed the MVP at pick #7.

Drafting can be part of changing that culture. Klay, Green, Barnes, Ezeli. Then succeeding in free agency (Iguodala, Livingston, even Landry and Jack during that first playoff run).

This is all about changing the culture. Bringing in winners. Guys who have won on other levels even if it wasn't in the NBA.

Scoots
05-28-2015, 12:17 PM
Drafting can be part of changing that culture. Klay, Green, Barnes, Ezeli. Then succeeding in free agency (Iguodala, Livingston, even Landry and Jack during that first playoff run).

This is all about changing the culture. Bringing in winners. Guys who have won on other levels even if it wasn't in the NBA.

This.

And having a coach that builds up rather than tears down. The Warriors had little confidence as a team, but Mark Jackson gave them that. Curry was passive late in games and at pivotal moments and Jackson encouraged him to take over. He was the perfect coach for that group his first 2 years.

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 12:31 PM
If you read that again you'll see I'm dismissing the notion of curses and say that it is because of bad ownership, management and coaching that teams develop these bad processes and habits. It remains to be seen for the Cavs until the finals are over.

I read it multiple times. Please re-read my post. You referenced bad owners/management/coaching and I gave two specific examples of exactly how your premise was flawed. Doc Rivers was a terrible coach until he had great players then he was a great coach. Dan Gilbert was a great owner when he had LeBron, then a terrible owner, and now a successful owner again. The players are overwhelmingly going to decide the fate of the franchise. These "bad habits" are nonsense. Any bad owner/coach/etc. can look like a champion with one or two moves. Any theory that can be easily refuted with one/two roster moves can't be that concrete or realistic.

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 12:32 PM
Drafting can be part of changing that culture. Klay, Green, Barnes, Ezeli. Then succeeding in free agency (Iguodala, Livingston, even Landry and Jack during that first playoff run).

This is all about changing the culture. Bringing in winners. Guys who have won on other levels even if it wasn't in the NBA.

And all of those alleged "culture changes" wouldn't mean anything without having a transcendent talent like Curry.

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 12:34 PM
This.

And having a coach that builds up rather than tears down. The Warriors had little confidence as a team, but Mark Jackson gave them that. Curry was passive late in games and at pivotal moments and Jackson encouraged him to take over. He was the perfect coach for that group his first 2 years.

This is another example that proves exactly the opposite point of the OP. Mark Jackson was such an influential coach who gave confident to his players. He was so instrumental to Curry developing that killer mind-set that they could fire him and get ... better?? How can you sell me on a coach being such a culture leader and then a team gets better when he leaves? Give me a break. The talent and franchise players of a team dictate the success not the other way around.

Goose17
05-28-2015, 12:38 PM
And all of those alleged "culture changes" wouldn't mean anything without having a transcendent talent like Curry.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Drafting him was part of that change. Keeping him and trading Monta was part of that change. He is part of that change. Nothing you're saying disproves my argument, you're only supporting what I'm saying.

Goose17
05-28-2015, 12:40 PM
This is another example that proves exactly the opposite point of the OP. Mark Jackson was such an influential coach who gave confident to his players. He was so instrumental to Curry developing that killer mind-set that they could fire him and get ... better?? How can you sell me on a coach being such a culture leader and then a team gets better when he leaves? Give me a break. The talent and franchise players of a team dictate the success not the other way around.

You don't get those players without great management changing the culture, drafting well, making the team more appealing to free agents. You should know that. Dolan has single handedly ruined your team. Destroyed it.

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 12:49 PM
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Drafting him was part of that change. Keeping him and trading Monta was part of that change. He is part of that change. Nothing you're saying disproves my argument, you're only supporting what I'm saying.

Here's the problem. You are generalizing every decision made by a franchise as a "culture change." That's not realistic. The word itself is wide-ranging in impact that to pin-point 2-3 decisions as a "culture change" is absurd. You could bring in all the character guys you want. Draft only players who won in HS and College. It wouldn't matter unless you had LeBron. Unless you had Steph Curry. Unless you had Tim Duncan. I agree that over time a team can develop a chemistry and an environment of hard work and dedication. I completely believe that it what the Spurs have right now and it is what the Hawks are trying to have in Atlanta. However, you can't tell me JR Smith promotes a culture of winning and he is a key player on a team 4 wins away from the greatest glory in the sport. If a team like the Cavs can be thrown together over night and end up in the Finals than that pokes serious holes in your theory.


You don't get those players without great management changing the culture, drafting well, making the team more appealing to free agents. You should know that. Dolan has single handedly ruined your team. Destroyed it.

Everything you say makes my part of the argument more convincing. The Knicks were 1 pick away from drafting Curry. If the Warriors had drafted Jordan Hill and let the Knicks get Steph Curry then who do you think would magically have a better "culture" right now. Dolan is the perfect example. How can ownership/management be so important and yet Dolan's Knicks are one of the most embarrassing franchises in sports and the Rangers (the other team he owns) are 5 wins away from the winning the Stanley Cup. It makes no sense.

Scoots
05-28-2015, 01:06 PM
This is another example that proves exactly the opposite point of the OP. Mark Jackson was such an influential coach who gave confident to his players. He was so instrumental to Curry developing that killer mind-set that they could fire him and get ... better?? How can you sell me on a coach being such a culture leader and then a team gets better when he leaves? Give me a break. The talent and franchise players of a team dictate the success not the other way around.

Look up Larry Brown's career. Teams that were bad for a long time would hire him, make the playoffs, then he would leave and they wouldn't get suddenly terrible. The Warriors were a run and gun non-defense playing team and Jackson was a part of changing that ... along with bringing in Bogut and Iguodala and Green. That had NOTHING to do with Curry, and without their league leading defense there is no way they are in the finals.

valade16
05-28-2015, 01:31 PM
And all of those alleged "culture changes" wouldn't mean anything without having a transcendent talent like Curry.


I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Drafting him was part of that change. Keeping him and trading Monta was part of that change. He is part of that change. Nothing you're saying disproves my argument, you're only supporting what I'm saying.

When you say changing the culture what you really seem to mean is upgrading the talent.

Imagine if they had drafted Jonny Flynn instead of Steph Curry. They wouldn't be in the Finals right now and no amount of culture change would have made a difference.

It's not like Flynn wasn't a winner. NY State Public Schools and Federation HS Champion, U18 Gold Medal Winner, Big East Champion at Syracuse.

Culture definitely matters. If you have a team of malcontents or guys who are used to losing (or don't care about winning) it will affect you. But most of the guys in the NBA want to win. So more often than not, teams have good character guys and a strong culture, even some on losing teams.

For instance, which team that had a winning record this year doesn't have a winning culture to you? The fact that a positive/winning culture is so closely tied to talent shows how important the talent aspect is.

valade16
05-28-2015, 01:36 PM
Look up Larry Brown's career. Teams that were bad for a long time would hire him, make the playoffs, then he would leave and they wouldn't get suddenly terrible. The Warriors were a run and gun non-defense playing team and Jackson was a part of changing that ... along with bringing in Bogut and Iguodala and Green. That had NOTHING to do with Curry, and without their league leading defense there is no way they are in the finals.

I think a big part of the improvement is also swapping Green and Barnes in the starting lineup with Lee and Iggy.

Here's the question, do you think the Warriors would be in the Finals if Green were still playing 21 MPG and Lee and Iggy were starting instead of Green/Barnes?

Chromehounds
05-28-2015, 01:52 PM
The funny thing is you can't develop a culture of winning without talented players. :0 It's safe to say the so-called culture of winning starts out with Luck through the drafts/trades/free-agents. After all that then the coach comes into play, so to see folks saying the coach brought the winning culture to the team...yike!

Goose17
05-28-2015, 02:07 PM
When you say changing the culture what you really seem to mean is upgrading the talent.

Imagine if they had drafted Jonny Flynn instead of Steph Curry. They wouldn't be in the Finals right now and no amount of culture change would have made a difference.

It's not like Flynn wasn't a winner. NY State Public Schools and Federation HS Champion, U18 Gold Medal Winner, Big East Champion at Syracuse.

Culture definitely matters. If you have a team of malcontents or guys who are used to losing (or don't care about winning) it will affect you. But most of the guys in the NBA want to win. So more often than not, teams have good character guys and a strong culture, even some on losing teams.

For instance, which team that had a winning record this year doesn't have a winning culture to you? The fact that a positive/winning culture is so closely tied to talent shows how important the talent aspect is.

Upgrading talent is part of the change sure. To change a culture of losing to a culture of winning you need to get better. Best way to get better is to get better players. Not the only way but it is the best.

You're going to tell me Bud and his guys haven't changed the culture in Atlanta? You're going to tell me you don't see the culture in Minnesota starting to change already despite their record this year?

Ive never even heard of people arguing against this. I'm bewildered by some of you.

And Knicks guy. You're still just supporting my argument. Everything you've said supports what I'm saying about culture change.

Goose17
05-28-2015, 02:09 PM
And as for the Cavs Knicks dude... One word. LeBron.

He changes everything. He impacts everyone. He makes everyone around him a better player and a better person. He is responsible for the culture change right now.

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 02:33 PM
Look up Larry Brown's career. Teams that were bad for a long time would hire him, make the playoffs, then he would leave and they wouldn't get suddenly terrible. The Warriors were a run and gun non-defense playing team and Jackson was a part of changing that ... along with bringing in Bogut and Iguodala and Green. That had NOTHING to do with Curry, and without their league leading defense there is no way they are in the finals.

Another example that supports my argument. Larry Brown... He was a culture changer right? He went to the Pistons and led them to one of the more impressive title runs in NBA History. One problem? Then he went to the Knicks and he was a terrible coach. He didn't lead the Bobcats anywhere either.

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 02:38 PM
And as for the Cavs Knicks dude... One word. LeBron.

He changes everything. He impacts everyone. He makes everyone around him a better player and a better person. He is responsible for the culture change right now.

This is some of the sloppiest back and forth arguing I've seen in a while. I continue to make clear and specific points with examples and you have no rebuttal. This is now the 3rd time you have used an example that supports my theory that players dictate the success of a team. This is in direct contrast with the OP's theory "You need the right ownership, management and coaching staff to breed that pedigree of winning and it is not as easy as just having the right players."

Your whole post is about how LeBron, one player, changes everything. That supports everything I am saying.

valade16
05-28-2015, 02:55 PM
Upgrading talent is part of the change sure. To change a culture of losing to a culture of winning you need to get better. Best way to get better is to get better players. Not the only way but it is the best.

You're going to tell me Bud and his guys haven't changed the culture in Atlanta? You're going to tell me you don't see the culture in Minnesota starting to change already despite their record this year?

Ive never even heard of people arguing against this. I'm bewildered by some of you.

And Knicks guy. You're still just supporting my argument. Everything you've said supports what I'm saying about culture change.

I think Bud and his guys haven't changed the culture so much as changed the scheme. I think that and Horford's injury had a lot more to do with changing the record than Bud somehow having a culture of winning.

I think that a winning culture and the right attitude are important, but I think they are getting overstated here.

valade16
05-28-2015, 02:58 PM
And as for the Cavs Knicks dude... One word. LeBron.

He changes everything. He impacts everyone. He makes everyone around him a better player and a better person. He is responsible for the culture change right now.

But how would that culture have helped change them to a winner if LeBron were not playing? Suppose he just sat on the bench and helped in practice and gave the team that winning culture but they didn't get the benefits of his talent on the court.

Would they still be going to the Finals? Probably not.

lol, please
05-28-2015, 03:52 PM
I don't think it is underestimated at all. The Spurs get full credit for their culture of winning. I dispute your whole premise that you need the right managment, coaching staff, etc. and that some franchises are cursed to losing. At the end of the day talent wins out. Doc Rivers was the worst coach in the NBA until KG created ubuntu and then he was amazing. Dan Gilbert was an obnoxious owner who failed to keep a hometown hero and his franchise went back to shambles. Now they are back in the Finals. You can't sell me on a culture of winning from Gilbert and Blatt. The players have far more to do with the success of a franchise.

That's just not true, it's more than talent, or the Lakers squad with Nash and Dwight would have plowed to the finals, the Dream Team Eagles would have won the super bowl, This current Bulls squad would be in the finals right now playing against the Spurs if all that mattered was talent on paper. Things happen, intangibles matter, and unselfish teamwork is paramount. Tredigs summed it up well in the WCF thread, now immortalized on someone's sig: "Warriors are winners, Rockets are losers."

KnicksorBust
05-28-2015, 05:39 PM
With all due respect this whole post is a crock of ****.


That's just not true, it's more than talent, or the Lakers squad with Nash and Dwight would have plowed to the finals,

Is this seriously the first example you want to give? You realize Nash and Gasol were injured all regular season right? Nash could only play in 2 playoff games and Kobe was out for the whole playoffs. How does a bunch of past their prime injured players prove anything?


the Dream Team Eagles would have won the super bowl,

Let's stick to basketball. Football is a completely different animal. 22 guys vs. 5.


This current Bulls squad would be in the finals right now playing against the Spurs if all that mattered was talent on paper.

This can't be real. Your example of the most talent was Bulls vs. Spurs? Again you are picking teams ravaged by injuries to prove something that isn't real. I also love the idea that the Spurs have the "talent on paper" to make it to the Finals but still failed. They must not have enough culture of winning? :rolleyes:


Things happen, intangibles matter, and unselfish teamwork is paramount.

I never argued against any of these points?


Tredigs summed it up well in the WCF thread, now immortalized on someone's sig: "Warriors are winners, Rockets are losers."


They also clearly had more talent. Again how does a more talented team winning a 7 game series do anything but further my argument that elite franchise players are more important to the success of a franchise than anything else?

Chronz
05-28-2015, 07:43 PM
If you read that again you'll see I'm dismissing the notion of curses and say that it is because of bad ownership, management and coaching that teams develop these bad processes and habits. It remains to be seen for the Cavs until the finals are over.



You don't think that there is any team in the East or West that have these attributes?



I agree Cal, I for sure thought Casey was going to get canned. Yes, I'm thankful the Heat organization is run the right way but I can't say the same for other sports franchises in this city.

No i really don't. I'm of the jerry west mold, i think words likea winning culture is cliche and always a result of the talent.

lol, please
05-28-2015, 09:12 PM
With all due respect this whole post is a crock of ****.



Is this seriously the first example you want to give? You realize Nash and Gasol were injured all regular season right? Nash could only play in 2 playoff games and Kobe was out for the whole playoffs. How does a bunch of past their prime injured players prove anything?



Let's stick to basketball. Football is a completely different animal. 22 guys vs. 5.

.

This can't be real. Your example of the most talent was Bulls vs. Spurs? Again you are picking teams ravaged by injuries to prove something that isn't real. I also love the idea that the Spurs have the "talent on paper" to make it to the Finals but still failed. They must not have enough culture of winning? :rolleyes:



I never argued against any of these points?



They also clearly had more talent. Again how does a more talented team winning a 7 game series do anything but further my argument that elite franchise players are more important to the success of a franchise than anything else?
The best team on paper doesn't always win in any sport, so I fail to see how the spurs not making the finals means anything here. A winning culture helps an organization win, be positive, promotes selflessness, and maintains high standards, it doesn't guarantee success in itself.

Yes, the Lakers example is still valid, so there were injuries, the point still stands that on paper many people thought it would be one of the most dominant teams in history. So 2 players were injured...that leaves 3 huge names, so another "big 3" scenario, my point still stands.

No i really don't. I'm of the jerry west mold, i think words likea winning culture is cliche and always a result of the talent.
An ironic statement, considering jerry west has been a huge part of the winning culture of the warriors.

Shammyguy3
05-28-2015, 09:23 PM
KoB cleans up the mess, then gets tripped and the mess falls back down to the ground.

Repeat.



It's kind of funny KoB :laugh2:

PhillySportFan
05-28-2015, 09:37 PM
When I clicked on this thread from the top 10 list I thought it'd be an NFL topic. It makes more sense for me in the NFL, winning culture is huge. Of course to a degree it is in the NBA too but you very rarely see team without a superstar playing a on championship winning team. That's pretty well documented and most have 2 near superstar players.

Your whole thing is that basically without a winning mentality in your coaching and front office staff it doesn't matter who your players are, in the NFL I'd agree, in the NBA not so much. I don't know that much but it doesn't look like David Blatt is exactly the best head coach ever but LeBron is carrying him. That type of thing is very rare in the NFL but in the NBA it's much more possible.

Chronz
05-28-2015, 11:49 PM
The best team on paper doesn't always win in any sport, so I fail to see how the spurs not making the finals means anything here. A winning culture helps an organization win, be positive, promotes selflessness, and maintains high standards, it doesn't guarantee success in itself.

Yes, the Lakers example is still valid, so there were injuries, the point still stands that on paper many people thought it would be one of the most dominant teams in history. So 2 players were injured...that leaves 3 huge names, so another "big 3" scenario, my point still stands.

An ironic statement, considering jerry west has been a huge part of the winning culture of the warriors.

Ironic? How?

krazylegz
05-29-2015, 01:13 AM
tis true

valade16
05-29-2015, 09:10 AM
The best team on paper doesn't always win in any sport, so I fail to see how the spurs not making the finals means anything here. A winning culture helps an organization win, be positive, promotes selflessness, and maintains high standards, it doesn't guarantee success in itself.

Yes, the Lakers example is still valid, so there were injuries, the point still stands that on paper many people thought it would be one of the most dominant teams in history. So 2 players were injured...that leaves 3 huge names, so another "big 3" scenario, my point still stands.

An ironic statement, considering jerry west has been a huge part of the winning culture of the warriors.

The Lakers are probably a pretty poor example because the 00-02 Lakers won 3 straight Championships despite having one of the most toxic atmosphere's between Shaq and Kobe.

So if they had a winning culture, what is a winning culture really? If they didn't, how important was a winning culture really?

lol, please
05-29-2015, 03:56 PM
The Lakers are probably a pretty poor example because the 00-02 Lakers won 3 straight Championships despite having one of the most toxic atmosphere's between Shaq and Kobe.

So if they had a winning culture, what is a winning culture really? If they didn't, how important was a winning culture really?
There can be a toxic relationship amidst a winning culture, e.g. Jim "WGIBTU" Harbaugh and our beloved FO.

You can have a great season without a winning culture, it would be an outlier season, possibly a brief stretch of success, but a winning culture promotes susstained success.

Chronz
05-29-2015, 05:08 PM
There can be a toxic relationship amidst a winning culture, e.g. Jim "WGIBTU" Harbaugh and our beloved FO.

You can have a great season without a winning culture, it would be an outlier season, possibly a brief stretch of success, but a winning culture promotes susstained success.

a 3 peat with like 3 other seasons of still being elite is brief success?

KnicksorBust
05-29-2015, 07:18 PM
KoB cleans up the mess, then gets tripped and the mess falls back down to the ground.

Repeat.



It's kind of funny KoB :laugh2:

?

KnicksorBust
05-29-2015, 07:19 PM
There can be a toxic relationship amidst a winning culture, e.g. Jim "WGIBTU" Harbaugh and our beloved FO.

You can have a great season without a winning culture, it would be an outlier season, possibly a brief stretch of success, but a winning culture promotes susstained success.

a 3 peat with like 3 other seasons of still being elite is brief success?

He is contradicting himself every post. I am moving on.

lol, please
05-29-2015, 11:51 PM
a 3 peat with like 3 other seasons of still being elite is brief success?
You might need an extra set of hands so you dont throw your back out, to help you pull that out of my mouth so you can show me where you saw me say that, because honestly I have no idea. None whatsoever.

Scoots
05-30-2015, 01:41 PM
I think that players can enjoy the environment, buy in to playing as a team on offense and on defense and play in a "winning way" without elite talent and without winning results ... but the culture is there. Then when the talent arrives good results follow. I think the Bulls had a losing culture but overcame it with talent, the Lakers too.

lol, please
05-30-2015, 02:02 PM
Bulls historically are a winning and successful franchise, I would argue the opposite. Just because they haven't been able to get over the championship hump doesn't meant it's not a winning culture, there are varying levels of success to factor.

Scoots
05-30-2015, 04:39 PM
I think the Bulls players had tension between themselves. Between the players and the coach. Between the coach and the front office. Between the players and the press. Between the coach and the press. There was a lot of dysfunction and they won a lot of games despite it. A losing culture and a winning record.

Mark Jackson helped build a winning culture in the Warriors ... then he soured it and they replaced him at first opportunity for someone who would maintain what Jackson had built while improving the areas Jackson failed at. The culture is now even better ... the talent hasn't really changed since 2 years ago.

Chronz
05-31-2015, 01:45 AM
You might need an extra set of hands so you dont throw your back out, to help you pull that out of my mouth so you can show me where you saw me say that, because honestly I have no idea. None whatsoever.
Then you didn't address his point about the lakers toxic environment and their sustained dominance which was nothing brief
Just like u ignored my q. Have you read west s bio?

valade16
06-01-2015, 09:08 AM
Can someone provide historical examples of teams that had a winning culture that didn't win?

lol, please
06-01-2015, 10:26 AM
Can someone provide historical examples of teams that had a winning culture that didn't win?
I think we don't have to look further than our 9ers. 3 deep playoff runs and a goal line play at the SB away from a title yet we had a winning culture.

valade16
06-01-2015, 10:53 AM
I think we don't have to look further than our 9ers. 3 deep playoff runs and a goal line play at the SB away from a title yet we had a winning culture.

But they were winners. They won 70%+ of their games. I'm talking about a team that had a winning culture and actually lost more games than they won.

And that's my point, establishing a winning culture is a retroactive determination. People only say that teams have established a winning culture once they've started winning. So are we sure they're even different?

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 11:07 AM
I don't think it is underestimated at all. The Spurs get full credit for their culture of winning. I dispute your whole premise that you need the right managment, coaching staff, etc. and that some franchises are cursed to losing. At the end of the day talent wins out. Doc Rivers was the worst coach in the NBA until KG created ubuntu and then he was amazing. Dan Gilbert was an obnoxious owner who failed to keep a hometown hero and his franchise went back to shambles. Now they are back in the Finals. You can't sell me on a culture of winning from Gilbert and Blatt. The players have far more to do with the success of a franchise.

the OP is right IMO. but basketball is so heavily influenced by it's upper 1% that the elite of the elite can basically reverse the trend on their own.

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 11:12 AM
There can be a toxic relationship amidst a winning culture, e.g. Jim "WGIBTU" Harbaugh and our beloved FO.

You can have a great season without a winning culture, it would be an outlier season, possibly a brief stretch of success, but a winning culture promotes susstained success.

well stated.

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 11:13 AM
But they were winners. They won 70%+ of their games. I'm talking about a team that had a winning culture and actually lost more games than they won.

And that's my point, establishing a winning culture is a retroactive determination. People only say that teams have established a winning culture once they've started winning. So are we sure they're even different?

you are just arguing semantics now. a winning culture begins in most cases long before winning results show up. IMO.

lol, please
06-01-2015, 11:31 AM
But they were winners. They won 70%+ of their games. I'm talking about a team that had a winning culture and actually lost more games than they won.

And that's my point, establishing a winning culture is a retroactive determination. People only say that teams have established a winning culture once they've started winning. So are we sure they're even different?

Got it. I thought you meant who hadn't won't the ultimate goal (championship) when you asked who had a winning culture but didn't win, because some people have this championship or bust mentality even without being contenders which imo are flawed expectations but that's another discussion.

I can't speak for everyone else but I don't label every time with a winning record to have a winning culture, that's not what it means to me. And I think examples of teams that win without a winning culture are teams that win a title or have a great season which are outliers when compared to a 5 year span or so. The Os and Pirates the other season, the Hawks this season, The Lions and Falcons making the playoffs for brief stints, I'm on my way to work so I don't have time to look for examples at the moment but to me, as I said before already I believe, a team can win without a winning culture but not sustain success as effectively without it.

To me it's more than results, it's mentality, professionalism, and morality as well. Culture os the key word, just like in our cultures we are more than people, more than bodies we are ideas, beliefs, etc. You can't just win, how do you win, why do you win, what is your philosophy from top to bottom? The 9ers are an easy pick for a good example of a team with a winning culture imo.

valade16
06-01-2015, 11:31 AM
you are just arguing semantics now. a winning culture begins in most cases long before winning results show up. IMO.

And conveniently manifests itself when the team upgrades the overall talent level?

I look at winning culture like this: it's important to have a winning culture because having an indifferent culture or one that doesn't mind losing won't breed success, however most teams have a winning culture and there are virtually no teams that have a drastically better winning culture than others (except maybe the .01% of truly transcendent coaches).

In this years playoffs, how many teams that made the playoffs would anyone say didn't have a winning culture? Would someone say the Clippers had more of a winning culture than the Spurs because they beat them? Or that the Cavs/Warriors had the most winning culture of any teams in the league?

I think it's more of a pass/fail thing rather than drastic degrees in winning culture, and most teams pass.

How many teams currently in the league have a "losing" culture?

valade16
06-01-2015, 11:43 AM
Got it. I thought you meant who hadn't won't the ultimate goal (championship) when you asked who had a winning culture but didn't win, because some people have this championship or bust mentality even without being contenders which imo are flawed expectations but that's another discussion.

I can't speak for everyone else but I don't label every time with a winning record to have a winning culture, that's not what it means to me. And I think examples of teams that win without a winning culture are teams that win a title or have a great season which are outliers when compared to a 5 year span or so. The Os and Pirates the other season, the Hawks this season, The Lions and Falcons making the playoffs for brief stints, I'm on my way to work so I don't have time to look for examples at the moment but to me, as I said before already I believe, a team can win without a winning culture but not sustain success as effectively without it.

To me it's more than results, it's mentality, professionalism, and morality as well. Culture os the key word, just like in our cultures we are more than people, more than bodies we are ideas, beliefs, etc. You can't just win, how do you win, why do you win, what is your philosophy from top to bottom? The 9ers are an easy pick for a good example of a team with a winning culture imo.

See this is where I think the winning culture simply goes too far. I think morality and things like that are completely separate from a winning culture as it pertains to achieving in the sport. Ironically the 49ers are a perfect example of this.

They had a winning culture and were one of the most morally reprehensible teams in terms of off-field behavior during that time period. McDonald, Aldon Smith, Chris Culliver, and even Kaepernick being investigated.

Another example is the Seahawks, they had more off field troubles than virtually any other team (especially with Adderall) and they were the most successful team the past 2-3 seasons.

So I think the idea of a winning culture and everything that happens off the field/court are completely separate issues.

lol, please
06-01-2015, 12:09 PM
I kind of disagree with that, I think for us fans a lot of those things were a bigger deal than they should have been. Especially anything regarding Kaepernick, the media just looks for crap to talk about. Same thing with Aldon, he had some fun at a party, I can't call that toxic responsibly. Its a non issue. Morally reprehensible is inaccurate to me, at least for the 9ers. What team has zero off field issues? When you are in the spotlight everything is under scrutiny you can't take some stuff for fave value when that's the case.

valade16
06-01-2015, 01:48 PM
I kind of disagree with that, I think for us fans a lot of those things were a bigger deal than they should have been. Especially anything regarding Kaepernick, the media just looks for crap to talk about. Same thing with Aldon, he had some fun at a party, I can't call that toxic responsibly. Its a non issue. Morally reprehensible is inaccurate to me, at least for the 9ers. What team has zero off field issues? When you are in the spotlight everything is under scrutiny you can't take some stuff for fave value when that's the case.

But you're the one that said morality is part of a winning culture. It isn't. Regardless of how big or small a deal the incidents were, both the 49ers and Seahawks were at or near the top of the league in terms of off-field incidents and they were 2 of the most successful.

The Patriots have gotten caught cheating multiple times and had a literal murderer on their team and they still had a winning culture. I just don't think morality has as much to do with a winning culture.

lol, please
06-01-2015, 02:02 PM
I am of the school of thought were ethics matter. I guess we can all just pull thugs out of prison for the sake of winning though. Makes sense.

valade16
06-01-2015, 02:18 PM
I am of the school of thought were ethics matter. I guess we can all just pull thugs out of prison for the sake of winning though. Makes sense.

I think ethics should matter on an organizational level, however I don't think it matters much when it comes to actually creating a winning culture on the field/court. Teams of thugs have had winning cultures and experienced success before because they (and their coaches) are able to separate what they need to do to be successful on the field with their personal lives.

Not condoning the behavior, but that's what I think. Look at the 90's Dallas Cowboys. Outside of Aikman and Emmitt, they had a team full of miscreants who did cocaine all the time and they still created a winning culture on the football field, because they were able to separate them.

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-01-2015, 02:37 PM
Can someone provide historical examples of teams that had a winning culture that didn't win?

What does this even mean? Having a "winning culture" is a result of winning. There are no examples of a losing team with a winning culture because the team isn't winning lol.

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-01-2015, 02:38 PM
But they were winners. They won 70%+ of their games. I'm talking about a team that had a winning culture and actually lost more games than they won.

And that's my point, establishing a winning culture is a retroactive determination. People only say that teams have established a winning culture once they've started winning. So are we sure they're even different?

So yeah, I guess we agree.

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 03:04 PM
And conveniently manifests itself when the team upgrades the overall talent level?

I look at winning culture like this: it's important to have a winning culture because having an indifferent culture or one that doesn't mind losing won't breed success, however most teams have a winning culture and there are virtually no teams that have a drastically better winning culture than others (except maybe the .01% of truly transcendent coaches).

In this years playoffs, how many teams that made the playoffs would anyone say didn't have a winning culture? Would someone say the Clippers had more of a winning culture than the Spurs because they beat them? Or that the Cavs/Warriors had the most winning culture of any teams in the league?

I think it's more of a pass/fail thing rather than drastic degrees in winning culture, and most teams pass.

How many teams currently in the league have a "losing" culture?
I think you are mistakenly assuming that a winning culture is something an outsider is qualified to assess. That's what it sounds like to me at least.

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 03:05 PM
What does this even mean? Having a "winning culture" is a result of winning. There are no examples of a losing team with a winning culture because the team isn't winning lol.
Wrong wrong wrong man

valade16
06-01-2015, 03:21 PM
I think you are mistakenly assuming that a winning culture is something an outsider is qualified to assess. That's what it sounds like to me at least.

Unless I'm mistaken you're saying no outsider can determine whether any team had a winning culture or not, as such it is undefinable and unverifiable by any person currently on earth as they are not qualified to have been an insider on enough teams to come up with any kind of baseline for which teams are above average or below average compared to the overall number of teams for which we could make this evaluation.

Is that what you're saying? Otherwise, no one can claim a winning culture is important because they weren't an insider to witness the winning culture.

lol, please
06-01-2015, 03:33 PM
I think what he meant to say is no outsider can validate, not assess, and he does have a point. Fans will make armchair assessments of a franchise all day, just like fans will play armchair coach all day, I rip 9er fans for the all the time when it goes too far, if you were better than Harbaugh you would have a job in the NFL, stop acting like you have all the answers from behind your computer screen, lol.

Shlumpledink
06-01-2015, 03:39 PM
Just look at the clippers and the knicks, cultures of winning are important.

valade16
06-01-2015, 04:24 PM
I think what he meant to say is no outsider can validate, not assess, and he does have a point. Fans will make armchair assessments of a franchise all day, just like fans will play armchair coach all day, I rip 9er fans for the all the time when it goes too far, if you were better than Harbaugh you would have a job in the NFL, stop acting like you have all the answers from behind your computer screen, lol.

I agree to an extent, it's impossible to say for sure whether a team has a winning culture or not oftentimes until someone sheds some insight about the inner workings of the team.

There have been numerous examples of teams people thought were humming along and then someone spills the beans and it turns out things weren't all roses.

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 04:26 PM
I think what he meant to say is no outsider can validate, not assess, and he does have a point. Fans will make armchair assessments of a franchise all day, just like fans will play armchair coach all day, I rip 9er fans for the all the time when it goes too far, if you were better than Harbaugh you would have a job in the NFL, stop acting like you have all the answers from behind your computer screen, lol.

exactly. plus a culture of winning is not exclusive to sports teams so one doesn't have to have been on a large number of teams to make that assessment as he suggested. it's as true of the best run walmart as it is an NBA franchise.

Chronz
06-01-2015, 04:32 PM
Just look at the clippers and the knicks, cultures of winning are important.

wat r we suppose to be seeing in ur example?

Chronz
06-01-2015, 04:35 PM
exactly. plus a culture of winning is not exclusive to sports teams so one doesn't have to have been on a large number of teams to make that assessment as he suggested. it's as true of the best run walmart as it is an NBA franchise.

how do u even gauge that culture? y does that culture evaporate once the talent runs out? its obvious which is more important

valade16
06-01-2015, 04:47 PM
exactly. plus a culture of winning is not exclusive to sports teams so one doesn't have to have been on a large number of teams to make that assessment as he suggested. it's as true of the best run walmart as it is an NBA franchise.


how do u even gauge that culture? y does that culture evaporate once the talent runs out? its obvious which is more important

Exactly.

I'd also like to get somebodies opinion on how many teams currently in the NBA do they think doesn't have a winning culture?

lol, please
06-01-2015, 05:00 PM
Exactly.

I'd also like to get somebodies opinion on how many teams currently in the NBA do they think doesn't have a winning culture?

I would argue teams like the Knicks, Clippers, and Kings don't. Sure, the Clippers have seen moderate success, but they still fall short every time and there is always drama, selfishness, and negative gossip surrounding the team and staff, and it always feels too volatile, like players are ready to bolt at the drop of a hat, despite it being a more "appealing" location than say, the Lakers right now ( and I would debate that as well.)

Knicks are a large market team in one of the biggest cities of the country and a storied team in the league yet are as dysfuntional as they come, can't/won't retain the proper talent, and are essentially a laughing stock despite on paper having solid squads in recent years.

The Kings are also talented on paper yet can't get out of a vicious cycle of losing games, personnel, and almost the team itself from Sacramento.


You have to separate teams like that from teams like the Hawks for example, who win with less and are selfless as an organization, even if this is simply a cinderella season, or teams like the Lakers and Celtics, who are in genuine rebuild phases.

To me the Clippers are a great example in a way, as we have a team who wins, but without a real winning culture as part of the franchise. They win because they have enough talent, but they can only manage that perfect storm for so long, a franchise with a winning culture won't fall apart if a few key players or staff members leave because the rest of the organization understands the process and not only would it be an appealing destination from the outside, but the remaining personnel would buy in to the process and alternate roles for the sake of a greater goal.

valade16
06-01-2015, 05:02 PM
I would argue teams like the Knicks, Clippers, and Kings don't. Sure, the Clippers have seen moderate success, but they still fall short every time and there is always drama, selfishness, and negative gossip surrounding the team and staff, and it always feels too volatile, like players are ready to bolt at the drop of a hat, despite it being a more "appealing" location than say, the Lakers right now ( and I would debate that as well.)

Knicks are a large market team in one of the biggest cities of the country and a storied team in the league yet are as dysfuntional as they come, can't/won't retain the proper talent, and are essentially a laughing stock despite on paper having solid squads in recent years.

The Kings are also talented on paper yet can't get out of a vicious cycle of losing games, personnel, and almost the team itself from Sacramento.


You have to separate teams like that from teams like the Hawks for example, who win with less and are selfless as an organization, even if this is simply a cinderella season, or teams like the Lakers and Celtics, who are in genuine rebuild phases.

To me the Clippers are a great example in a way, as we have a team who wins, but without a real winning culture as part of the franchise. They win because they have enough talent, but they can only manage that perfect storm for so long, a franchise with a winning culture won't fall apart if a few key players or staff members leave because the rest of the organization understands the process and not only would it be an appealing destination from the outside, but the remaining personnel would buy in to the process and alternate roles for the sake of a greater goal.

But what does it say about the power of a winning culture when the non-winning culture Clippers beat the Spurs this postseason, who are the gold standard of winning cultures?

lol, please
06-01-2015, 05:08 PM
But what does it say about the power of a winning culture when the non-winning culture Clippers beat the Spurs this postseason, who are the gold standard of winning cultures?

I don't think it says/denotes anything about it one way or the other, I think it just serves as evidence that, as they say in football, "any given sunday". Any team can win/lose a game and a series, the better team usually comes out on top, but not always. Same in baseball in the postseason. An inferior team can get hot/clicking and overcome odds, a team can overachieve, role players can step up and have career games at the right time, etc.

Let's not forget the fact that the Spurs are getting old, and will only contend for so long before even they have to make adjustments to the team.

But again, let's look at a team with a true winning culture, the warriors, representing the west in the finals, about to win a championship.

Can't argue with a SRS of 10.01.
Just can't.
I'd dare you to even try.

Jamiecballer
06-01-2015, 05:32 PM
how do u even gauge that culture? y does that culture evaporate once the talent runs out? its obvious which is more important

"you" don't. that's the whole point. i think they are equally important because the right culture breeds more winners and better players.

JBJoo
06-01-2015, 08:48 PM
Hi guys. New here. Been spying on these forums for awhile and thought it was about time I grew a pair and posted.

I just don't understand Jamiecballer. If it's not quantifiable by a fan then what's the point discussing it? It seems like sort of circular logic, and an unbeatable claim. You're kind of saying no ones opinion matters. Maybe you're right, but doesn't that close the discussion?

andy2518
06-01-2015, 08:59 PM
Just look at the clippers and the knicks, cultures of winning are important.

To be fair, the Knicks used to be a great franchise at one point. Not so much with the Clips.

Scoots
06-01-2015, 10:24 PM
how do u even gauge that culture? y does that culture evaporate once the talent runs out? its obvious which is more important

Did anybody say culture was MORE important that talent?

Chronz
06-01-2015, 10:32 PM
"you" don't. that's the whole point. i think they are equally important because the right culture breeds more winners and better players.
But Why would You think That when You can't Even evaluate it? Everyone wants a winning culture , Even guys who don't believe in It

Chronz
06-01-2015, 10:33 PM
Did anybody say culture was MORE important that talent?

I'm saying it's so far and away not Even close to it in terms of importance. Id rather win than have a winning culture.

Chronz
06-01-2015, 10:35 PM
I remember when trying to establish that culture hurt a teams lottery standing and stunted their actual ability to win.

Jamiecballer
06-02-2015, 08:31 AM
Hi guys. New here. Been spying on these forums for awhile and thought it was about time I grew a pair and posted.

I just don't understand Jamiecballer. If it's not quantifiable by a fan then what's the point discussing it? It seems like sort of circular logic, and an unbeatable claim. You're kind of saying no ones opinion matters. Maybe you're right, but doesn't that close the discussion?
Hey. No its not meant to close discussion at all.

Fans are free to speculate about these things and surely will. That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that we are ignorant for the most part in these areas.

I don't pretend to know who has a winning culture and who does not. I understand the skepticism because the media has a superficial view of it, drawing attention to it only when a team is already extremely successful. Emphasis on already.

What I suggest is people draw on their real life experiences and ask if a workplace filled with harder than average workers, more committed employees, great mentors and dynamic leadership can have a transformative effect on the attitude and commitment of newcomers or not.

valade16
06-02-2015, 09:35 AM
I don't think it says/denotes anything about it one way or the other, I think it just serves as evidence that, as they say in football, "any given sunday". Any team can win/lose a game and a series, the better team usually comes out on top, but not always. Same in baseball in the postseason. An inferior team can get hot/clicking and overcome odds, a team can overachieve, role players can step up and have career games at the right time, etc.

Let's not forget the fact that the Spurs are getting old, and will only contend for so long before even they have to make adjustments to the team.

But again, let's look at a team with a true winning culture, the warriors, representing the west in the finals, about to win a championship.

Can't argue with a SRS of 10.01.
Just can't.
I'd dare you to even try.

Well if you're going to look at the Warriors, look at their entire body of work. Is this the first year they had a winning culture? What can we say about the Warriors every year prior to this one that they didn't win the title yet had a winning culture?

I think the reason they're going to win the Championship has less to do with a winning culture and more to do with being the most talented team in the league.

So yes, let's use the Warriors, it only proves my point. Talent beats out winning culture in terms of importance.

lol, please
06-02-2015, 11:37 AM
Talent is a huge factor, but I would say ever since west arrived and lacob traded Monta for bogut, that culture has been cultivating, and Jackson played a huge part in that as well, now, with Kerr and the core players entering their primes and more developed, it's all paying off.

Chronz
06-02-2015, 01:36 PM
Jerry West keeps coming up but have any of you guys actually read his auto biography? He mocks the term, and yes i understand he still uses the term but he's made his thoughts on it perfectly clear. We ALL want a culture of winning, but it's the talent that breeds it. You may as well just say i want better players

Jamiecballer
06-02-2015, 03:07 PM
Jerry West keeps coming up but have any of you guys actually read his auto biography? He mocks the term, and yes i understand he still uses the term but he's made his thoughts on it perfectly clear. We ALL want a culture of winning, but it's the talent that breeds it. You may as well just say i want better players

sure sure. don't worry chronz just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean it can hurt you.

Saddletramp
06-02-2015, 04:47 PM
I don't think it says/denotes anything about it one way or the other, I think it just serves as evidence that, as they say in football, "any given sunday". Any team can win/lose a game and a series, the better team usually comes out on top, but not always. Same in baseball in the postseason. An inferior team can get hot/clicking and overcome odds, a team can overachieve, role players can step up and have career games at the right time, etc.

Let's not forget the fact that the Spurs are getting old, and will only contend for so long before even they have to make adjustments to the team.
................
But again, let's look at a team with a true winning culture, the warriors, representing the west in the finals, about to win a championship.

Can't argue with a SRS of 10.01.
Just can't.
I'd dare you to even try.

As for the first bolded, so I guess the Spurs need to get better talent? When guys get old and lose a step, they get replaced. Happens in every sport.


As for the second part, valade is absolutely right when he says it's not about the culture there, it's about the talent. If that whole team got traded for the Wolves whole team, Minnesota would be a chapionship favorite going forward. Talent in the Front Office acquired talent at the player level and it's paying off. End of story.

The Lakers have always had a "winning culture" until, guess what? The talent dissolved and now they have one of the worst teams in the league. Because, you know, talent.

Jamiecballer
06-02-2015, 04:51 PM
As for the first bolded, so I guess the Spurs need to get better talent? When guys get old and lose a step, they get replaced. Happens in every sport.


As for the second part, valade is absolutely right when he says it's not about the culture there, it's about the talent. If that whole team got traded for the Wolves whole team, Minnesota would be a chapionship favorite going forward. Talent in the Front Office acquired talent at the player level and it's paying off. End of story.

The Lakers have always had a "winning culture" until, guess what? The talent dissolved and now they have one of the worst teams in the league. Because, you know, talent.
I guess its about perception because I havent perceived the Lakers as one of those cultures since phil was there

lol, please
06-02-2015, 05:16 PM
As we've been over already, talent alone doesn't equate to winning. Look at the Nash/Kobe laker squad or the dream team eagles for quick examples of superior talent on paper that fell flat on their faces. Of course talent is needed to win but I can't ignore the intangibles and methodology of the franchise in question and the correlation to success, I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. A winning culture promotes and sustains success in an organization - it doesn't mean a winning culture will win championships with D leaguers, nor does it mean championship winning teams all have the culture. NOR does it mean that if a team wins with a toxic environment thst culture doesn't matter and vica versa. By and large every situation is different, the urge to try and produce a counter argument by assuming the position of the extreme opposite is childish and weak as an argument. Critical thinking people. Its not that hard to do.

Hawkeye15
06-02-2015, 05:29 PM
To be fair, the Knicks used to be a great franchise at one point. Not so much with the Clips.

when, 40 years ago? They had a nice little run in the mid 90's too, but for all the resources and allure they have, simply the biggest underachiever in the NBA.

Saddletramp
06-02-2015, 05:34 PM
As we've been over already, talent alone doesn't equate to winning. Look at the Nash/Kobe laker squad or the dream team eagles for quick examples of superior talent on paper that fell flat on their faces.

You mean the old and hurt Lakers team? Nash and Artest hardly played again at any sort of great level, Pau and Dwight had injury issues, Kobe was being a dick to everyone, coaching changes and new schemes. That was a good team in theory but stuff just collapsed. And which Eagles team are you talking about? This new one with Chip Kelly as coach? Please.


Of course talent is needed to win but I can't ignore the intangibles

(talent playing to their potential)


and methodology

(great coaches/systems being executed to their potential)


of the franchise in question and the correlation to success, I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point.

Now you know how we feel about you and your posts. At least I respond to you when you converse with me.


A winning culture promotes and sustains success in an organization - it doesn't mean a winning culture will win championships with D leaguers, nor does it mean championship winning teams all have the culture. NOR does it mean that if a team wins with a toxic environment thst culture doesn't matter and vica versa.

IfIfIfButButButNorNorNor. There's no right recipe. Except you need talent. That's the main thing.


By and large every situation is different, the urge to try and produce a counter argument by assuming the position of the extreme opposite is childish and weak as an argument. Critical thinking people. Its not that hard to do.

"Extreme opposite"? What are you talking about? No one is being extreme here. Talent and a good system trumps anything else. The Colts had a winning culture. Until Peyton had surgery and was out for a year. Then they had the worst record in the league. Because, TALENT.

JBJoo
06-02-2015, 07:09 PM
As we've been over already, talent alone doesn't equate to winning. Look at the Nash/Kobe laker squad or the dream team eagles for quick examples of superior talent on paper that fell flat on their faces. Of course talent is needed to win but I can't ignore the intangibles and methodology of the franchise in question and the correlation to success, I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. A winning culture promotes and sustains success in an organization - it doesn't mean a winning culture will win championships with D leaguers, nor does it mean championship winning teams all have the culture. NOR does it mean that if a team wins with a toxic environment thst culture doesn't matter and vica versa. By and large every situation is different, the urge to try and produce a counter argument by assuming the position of the extreme opposite is childish and weak as an argument. Critical thinking people. Its not that hard to do.

I think all that Lakers team proved is that if you have one injured great defender it doesn't make up for 4 old guys that no longer play defense.

JBJoo
06-02-2015, 07:23 PM
Hey. No its not meant to close discussion at all.

Fans are free to speculate about these things and surely will. That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that we are ignorant for the most part in these areas.

I don't pretend to know who has a winning culture and who does not. I understand the skepticism because the media has a superficial view of it, drawing attention to it only when a team is already extremely successful. Emphasis on already.

What I suggest is people draw on their real life experiences and ask if a workplace filled with harder than average workers, more committed employees, great mentors and dynamic leadership can have a transformative effect on the attitude and commitment of newcomers or not.

Honestly you might be right, but I really don't by it. I know this is the wrong sport but when Bill Belichick coached the browns he was fired, and accused of manipulation, and trickery. Then he goes to the Patriots, and drafts Tom Brady. Then he's considered an all time great coach all of a sudden, and the Pats are known as this ultra great organization. Even though they've done a mediocre job of drafting over the last 10 years, and without Brady they probably aren't even a .500 team consistently.

From my own experiences in sports a winning culture is developed after winning. Not during or before. It's just like everyone this year talking trash about Blatt and James, and how they have poor attitudes. Now they're in the finals and it's all smiles.

All I know is some of the worst attitudes I've encountered were on some of the best teams I was ever on in high school/college. I just feel like whenever a story is written after something happens it's usually ******** because hindsight is 20/20.

Shammyguy3
06-02-2015, 07:44 PM
?
having to respond to that user's posts, then getting no response out of him when you tried to keep him on topic

Chronz
06-04-2015, 06:01 PM
sure sure. don't worry chronz just because you can't quantify it doesn't mean it can hurt you.

quantify it? lol no one is even close to understanding it. u got a LONG way before u get into anything scientific


As we've been over already, talent alone doesn't equate to winning. Look at the Nash/Kobe laker squad or the dream team eagles for quick examples of superior talent on paper that fell flat on their faces. Of course talent is needed to win but I can't ignore the intangibles and methodology of the franchise in question and the correlation to success, I feel like I'm just repeating myself at this point. A winning culture promotes and sustains success in an organization - it doesn't mean a winning culture will win championships with D leaguers, nor does it mean championship winning teams all have the culture. NOR does it mean that if a team wins with a toxic environment thst culture doesn't matter and vica versa. By and large every situation is different, the urge to try and produce a counter argument by assuming the position of the extreme opposite is childish and weak as an argument. Critical thinking people. Its not that hard to do.

who r u talking to? Not seeing how an injured team led by an old kobe helps ur argument. not seeing y you would ignore intangibles when none of us have. is WEST ignoring them when he mocks the term? maybe were just disagreeing with the level of importance .

a winning culture isnt anything uve described imo. y should anyone believe that? critical thinking? lolplz, this is so far from that , u repeating ur originally flawed premise (while ignoring qs raised) isnt advancing the discussion . ironic indeed.

lol, please
06-04-2015, 06:03 PM
What questions do I ignore? There is only so much you can quantify and we can argue variables in question all day. And I wouldn't mind doing it either. Please elaborate

Chronz
06-04-2015, 06:06 PM
What questions do I ignore? There is only so much you can quantify and we can argue variables in question all day. And I wouldn't mind doing it either. Please elaborate

c how ur not quoting me, thats ignoring the entire post and asking me to repeat . lets start with the direct qs.

for the 3rd time now, have u read wests bio?

lol, please
06-04-2015, 06:07 PM
c how ur not quoting me, thats ignoring the entire post and asking me to repeat . lets start with the direct qs.

for the 3rd time now, have u read wests bio?
Jerry Wests bio? Not to its entirety no.

Chronz
06-04-2015, 06:11 PM
Jerry Wests bio? Not to its entirety no.

not hard right.

so lets go back to y u found ironic? srry no keyboard yet so i must be succinct

Jamiecballer
06-04-2015, 06:20 PM
quantify it? lol no one is even close to understanding it. u got a LONG way before u get into anything scientific



who r u talking to? Not seeing how an injured team led by an old kobe helps ur argument. not seeing y you would ignore intangibles when none of us have. is WEST ignoring them when he mocks the term? maybe were just disagreeing with the level of importance .

a winning culture isnt anything uve described imo. y should anyone believe that? critical thinking? lolplz, this is so far from that , u repeating ur originally flawed premise (while ignoring qs raised) isnt advancing the discussion . ironic indeed.
By more or less dismissing it in favor of talent you are in fact quantifying it. That's why it's such a cop out.