PDA

View Full Version : How relevant is Steve Kerr?



Lionel20
11-20-2015, 05:08 PM
In the 2013-14 Season under Mark Jackson, the Warriors won 51 games. It was Barnes rookie season, Iguodala missed 1/4 of the season, and Draymond was still developing.

In 2014-15 Season, under Kerr, Draymond/Barnes move into the Starting lineup, a move I argue would've happened in most organizations. Lee was inactive the first quarter of the 2014-15 season, and Draymond's defensive play in particular help make the Warriors more competitive on that end. Barnes, was likely to start his Sophomore year in the NBA after being selected 7th overall by the Warriors.

The Warriors won 67 games in 2014-15, and an NBA Title. But I have a hard time seeing how this would've have been the case under Jackson w/ Draymond/Barnes inserted into the starting lineup, Lee and Iguodala coming off the bench. Klay Thompson and Steph Curry have continued to improve each year in the league, and since the 2012-13 they've improved at about the same rate each year. It's highly probable Thompson/Curry would've continued in that trend, improving in the 2014-15 under Jackson. The Warriors added a few other bench pieces, making it entirely conceivable that the Warriors would've won the same amount of games or more with Jackson as they did 1st year coach Steve Kerr.

And then of course, there's this year. In Kerr's absence, the Warriors are off to one of the best starts in NBA history. With reigning MVP, Curry looking even better than last season.

KnicksorBust
11-20-2015, 05:16 PM
Kerr installed a completely different offense that catapulted Gstate from 12th best to 2nd best in 1 year. Curry went from allstar to MVP. They are running the offense Kerr and his coaches installed this season to even more impressive results. If their entire offensive system changed for the better I would say that is pretty relevant. He has the perfect temperament for this team too. Jackson didn't regardless of what the players said when he left.

tredigs
11-20-2015, 05:17 PM
Long story short: He helped implement the engine that you see before you. He made the call to bench the incumbent ~20/10 AS David Lee (also the teams highest paid player) in favor of the young Draymond Green upon D. Lee's return from injury (this is beyond exceedingly rare for an AS player to lose his job due to injury, possibly the only instance in history), and he helped cultivate the culture of success that you see before you.

He seems to work fantastically with those around him, and by and large was very important for the team. Luke's doing a fine job putting the oil in the tank right now, I'm very happy with his demeanor on the bench in letting the players continue to operate as they've already learned. Still, given the choice of Walton/Jackson or Kerr, well it's not a choice.

Scoots
11-20-2015, 05:18 PM
Barnes wasn't a rookie in 13-14, Jackson moved him from starting to coming off the bench. Barnes was drafted with Green and Ezeli.

Barnes went BACK to starting because the bench was struggling with him as it's offensive leader.

The team was largely dysfunctional under Jackson that last year (several people outside the organization have said so), the schemes on offense and defense had regressed. Kerr brought in elite coaches, and an open approach to collaboration.

Quinnsanity
11-20-2015, 05:38 PM
Barnes wasn't a rookie in 13-14, Jackson moved him from starting to coming off the bench. Barnes was drafted with Green and Ezeli.

Barnes went BACK to starting because the bench was struggling with him as it's offensive leader.

The team was largely dysfunctional under Jackson that last year (several people outside the organization have said so), the schemes on offense and defense had regressed. Kerr brought in elite coaches, and an open approach to collaboration.

This pretty much explains it. Kerr just improved the entire atmosphere of the organization. He brought in the right people and treated them well, made it a very collaborative environment and took advantage of all of the knowledge in the building. The talent was always there with this team. They don't necessarily need much in the way of X's and O's (though Kerr is certainly capable in that regard). But what he did in establishing the tone of the organization after everything that went wrong with Mark Jackson is what made them champions.

North Yorker
11-20-2015, 06:06 PM
IIRC the Warriors averaged something like 30 more passes per game with Kerr last season compared to the previous season with Jackson. That offense is awesome.

And without looking at the numbers, my guess is that their defense was much improved with Kerr there as well. He deserves a lot of credit imo. They may not win it all last season without him.

bgdreton
11-20-2015, 06:12 PM
Who cares???? Kerr yes is a better coach than Mark Jackson. What is the continuing interest in Mark jackson he is not even a head coach anymore. I really don't understand the obvious.

tredigs
11-20-2015, 06:17 PM
Any questions about those responses, Lionel?

Quinnsanity
11-20-2015, 06:43 PM
IIRC the Warriors averaged something like 30 more passes per game with Kerr last season compared to the previous season with Jackson. That offense is awesome.

And without looking at the numbers, my guess is that their defense was much improved with Kerr there as well. He deserves a lot of credit imo. They may not win it all last season without him.

The defense went from third in defensive efficiency under Jackson to first under Kerr, largely because of the improvement going from Lee to Draymond and letting Stephen Curry guard point guards. The real improvement came during Jackson's time (from 27th before he got there to 13th to 3rd), but that's largely because of Darren Erman, one of the best defensive assistants in the league (now in New Orleans).

Scoots
11-20-2015, 06:59 PM
The defense went from third in defensive efficiency under Jackson to first under Kerr, largely because of the improvement going from Lee to Draymond and letting Stephen Curry guard point guards. The real improvement came during Jackson's time (from 27th before he got there to 13th to 3rd), but that's largely because of Darren Erman, one of the best defensive assistants in the league (now in New Orleans).

And the improvement can also be put some at the feet of Ron Adams, one of the few assistants in the league better than Erman :) The amazing thing about the increase in defensive efficiency is that the team was playing at the highest pace in the NBA and #1 in pace and in D is incredibly rare so the defense didn't just improve from #3 to #1 ... we just don't have an easy metric to measure how much they improved.

Lionel20
11-20-2015, 07:21 PM
Barnes wasn't a rookie in 13-14, Jackson moved him from starting to coming off the bench. Barnes was drafted with Green and Ezeli.

Barnes went BACK to starting because the bench was struggling with him as it's offensive leader.

The team was largely dysfunctional under Jackson that last year (several people outside the organization have said so), the schemes on offense and defense had regressed. Kerr brought in elite coaches, and an open approach to collaboration.

Yeah, I can't believe how time flies. I remember like it was yesterday, Barnes and Henson @ UNC. It was the new acquisition of Iguodala that year that sent Barnes back to the bench. But long-term I think it was the organizations intent to reinsert him in the starting lineup.

How did they regress under Jackson? If you consider the team metrics, the Warriors improved each year under Jackson:

2012:
OffRtg = 103.1
DefRtg = 106.0
NetRtg = -3.0

2013
OffRtg = 104.2
DefRtg = 102.6
NetRtg = 1.7

2014
OffRtg = 105.3
DefRtg = 99.9
NetRtg = 5.4

So a 217% increase in (net) efficiency per 100 possessions btw 2012 - 2013 and 2013 - 2014 is regressing???

When you take the 2014-2015 ratings,

2015
OffRtg = 109.7
DefRtg = 98.2
NetRtg = 11.4

This shows a 111% increase in team efficiency. So if you look at the actual percentage increase, the Warriors improved at a higher rate from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014, than they did 2013-2014 to 2014-2015. And as far as I know almost all the players that played under both Jackson and Kerr, respect them both. At the rate the Warriors were improving under Jackson, it's very likely that they reached some of the same results if he remained. Plus, it's almost statistically impossible for Kerr to do a better job than what Walton is currently doing. It just begs the question to me, how is Kerr not completely interchangeable?

BKLYNpigeon
11-20-2015, 07:36 PM
Kerr is still around the team almost everyday and talking to Luke Walton about each game.

he's just not present at all practices and at the games.

tredigs
11-20-2015, 08:08 PM
Yeah, I can't believe how time flies. I remember like it was yesterday, Barnes and Henson @ UNC. It was the new acquisition of Iguodala that year that sent Barnes back to the bench. But long-term I think it was the organizations intent to reinsert him in the starting lineup.

How did they regress under Jackson? If you consider the team metrics, the Warriors improved each year under Jackson:

2012:
OffRtg = 103.1
DefRtg = 106.0
NetRtg = -3.0

2013
OffRtg = 104.2
DefRtg = 102.6
NetRtg = 1.7

2014
OffRtg = 105.3
DefRtg = 99.9
NetRtg = 5.4

So a 217% increase in (net) efficiency per 100 possessions btw 2012 - 2013 and 2013 - 2014 is regressing???

When you take the 2014-2015 ratings,

2015
OffRtg = 109.7
DefRtg = 98.2
NetRtg = 11.4

This shows a 111% increase in team efficiency. So if you look at the actual percentage increase, the Warriors improved at a higher rate from 2012-2013 to 2013-2014, than they did 2013-2014 to 2014-2015. And as far as I know almost all the players that played under both Jackson and Kerr, respect them both. At the rate the Warriors were improving under Jackson, it's very likely that they reached some of the same results if he remained. Plus, it's almost statistically impossible for Kerr to do a better job than what Walton is currently doing. It just begs the question to me, how is Kerr not completely interchangeable?
Of course they improved under MJax.

#1: They made the trade for Bogut and got rid of Monta. Allowing it to be Curry's team. That was the largest thing this team could have done for itself to begin to tap in to their potential.

#2: It is MUCH easier to go from OK to good then it is to go from good to world champion. Especially when it's a growing core that you went from OK to good under.

The offense under Jackson was simply not good. They had no structure, no ball movement and their time-out plays were a joke. As a result, they were a predictably middling team in offensive efficiency despite massive talent.

Under Kerr and his assistants, they built an entirely new system for offense predicated on backdoor cuts, double-screens and constant ball movement + transition 3's. The result that you see now in year two with all that familiarity under their belt is one of the most free-flowing, dynamic offenses in history.

Sorry, but no. They were not getting their under Mark Jackson. He made it abundantly clear that he did not want to tinker and was content with simply letting them play as they wished on that end. He also never would have had the nuts to start Draymond over Lee upon his return (as I stated earlier, who would?). Edit: And as Leethal pointed out below me, the choice to bench Iggy in favor of Barnes. Also something Jackson almost certainly would have never had the balls to do.

Kerr's a G, and his best quality is probably his willingness and proactiveness in allowing the assistants he has who are smarter than him in various aspects of the game to work their magic.

In year two, after all the pieces have been set in motion and the entire core has a full off-season of growth + familiarity to organically get more cohesive on both ends, this is the result you're seeing. Naively thinking that Luke Walton is the brainchild here and that he's doing anything more than putting the gas in the tank is simply a foolish, off-the-cuff reaction from a person who clearly doesn't follow the squad closely.

D-Leethal
11-20-2015, 08:09 PM
Your argument that most coaches would have started 2nd rounder Draymond and 2nd year player Barnes over big money, former all star Iggy and bigger money, former all star Lee would get laughed at by most.

What Kerr did with that squad is nothing short of amazing. He deserves the kudos and Walton taking over and the team not skipping beat is a testament to KERR and the culture and system he built more than it is anyone else.

To answer your thread - very relevant.

dnl123
11-20-2015, 08:32 PM
Steve Kerr has a championship ring as a head coach and he earned it. Close Thread.

Lionel20
11-20-2015, 10:31 PM
Your argument that most coaches would have started 2nd rounder Draymond and 2nd year player Barnes over big money, former all star Iggy and bigger money, former all star Lee would get laughed at by most.

What Kerr did with that squad is nothing short of amazing. He deserves the kudos and Walton taking over and the team not skipping beat is a testament to KERR and the culture and system he built more than it is anyone else.

To answer your thread - very relevant.

How is that a gutsy decision? The Warriors were 22 - 3, and Draymond had a P/M = 10.6 before Lee was activated in 2014-15.

I think Kerr's effect is being exposed as marginal at best. If Kerr took the job in New York, I still see no rationale for the Knicks winning any more than 20 games last year.

The Warriors were a gift to Kerr, not the other way around. Jackson wasn't fired because of team performance, he was fired because of internal disputes with management. The point being, that team already poised to win a championship. Kerr simply found himself in a ready-made situation.

The Warriors won 51 games in 2014.

I estimate that replacing Lee for Draymond (esp. defensively), awhile keeping Lee on the bench half the season instead of an aged Jermaine O'Neal, produced the equivalent of 4-5 wins for the Warriors.

Iguodala played about the same amount of minutes in 2015 as he did in 2014, but Iguodala's all-around play helped make the 2nd unit much more competitive. By starting Barnes (avg. the same amount of MPG from 2014 to 2015) with the 1st unit, and maintaining Iguodala as the six man, the Warriors produce the equivalent of 4-5 wins.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Thompson and Curry have been consistently improving each year following Jackson's arrival, at a rate equivalent to 2 wins per year. Curry, at least, is continuing at that rate of improvement under interim coach Luke Walker. Btw Curry/Thompson, there experience and growth produces about 3-4 additional wins per season.

Lastly, the addition of Livingston and Barbosa on the bench over Crawford and Blake, +other minor bench moves produces 1-2 wins.

These changes alone, many of which were bound to occur, according to my measures account for 12 -16 wins. In other words, even with Jackson at coach these changes alone should produce btw 63 - 67 wins. I think Kerr's system is being given entirely too much credit for a team already progressing into a Dynasty. They already had a top-3 player in the NBA in Curry, and one of the deepest rosters in the league prior to Kerr signing.

KnicksorBust
11-20-2015, 11:35 PM
Honestly like I am amazed that we have this great NBA team that is fun to watch, plays hard on both ends, and plays with passion and people are so resistant to give them credit. Kerr and Curry both can't get the dap. Just sit tight folks bc if they are able to take down Porzingis in the Finals then you are looking at back to back champs.

tredigs
11-20-2015, 11:36 PM
You're clearly wrong on many levels here, Lionel, but out of curiosity, what is your underlying point here? That the Warriors should fire Kerr and stick with Luke Walton? Or just to undermine what he brought to the team in general? I'm not quite understanding the crux of your point here. Maybe you're just a huge MJax fan?

Scoots
11-21-2015, 01:48 AM
Starting to think Lionel has an agenda.

Jackson was a good coach but the team wasn't going to go any further with him leading the team. What's most interesting to me is that Jackson hasn't had a sniff let alone an interview for any coaching gigs. I'm not sure if that is an indictment of his coaching or of his interpersonal skills.

slashsnake
11-21-2015, 05:22 AM
The funniest part of this thread, is how lost it seems. So Lacob fires Mark Jackson for 2 main reasons that he talks about.

1. Doesn't feel Jackson can coach this team to the finals.
2. Doesn't feel Jackson hired good assistants.

Joe Lacob... LAST YEAR "Right now, Kerr looks great, I think he will be great. And he did the one big thing that I wanted more than anything else from Mark Jackson he just wouldn't do, in all honesty, which is hire the very best. Carte blanche. Take my wallet. Do whatever it is to get the best assistants there are in the world. Period. End of story. Don't want to hear it. And (Jackson's) answer . . . was, 'Well, I have the best staff.' No you don't. And so with Steve, very, very different."

UMM, how was this not the PERFECT hire then Lionel??? Kerr gets them to the finals and wins it, and his picks for assistant coaches are leading an elite NBA team on gameday and continuing his system perfectly. Jackson's assistants were getting shipped off to coach in the D league when he fought with them and fired for recording meetings to show the front office how bad he was.


I think the system he went with, better ball movement, less hero ball, more spacing elements he picked up from the Phil's triangle, and Popovich's open floor concepts, combined with that up-tempo style he got from Gentry was PERFECT for this team.

The minute management, as others said, moving a mix into the lineups with Lee and Iggy off the bench with the 2nd unit was huge. They don't let up defensively. There is no slack period on that side of the ball when starters rest. That is so big for them, as teams don't get that time to get back into games.


I know LionelLogic says that Mark Jackson sweeps the finals because... well since when does reality matter..



And remind me, of the following, who did Mark beat out for a job? He's looking, he had the deal written in his contract with ESPN to allow him to leave for a coaching gig.

Quin Snyder, Derek Fisher, David Blatt, Jason Kidd, Lionel Hollins, Byron Scott, George Karl, Billy Donovan, Scott Skiles, Alvin Gentry, Fred Hoiberg, Michael Malone, Sam Mitchel and now JB Bickerstaff ALL hired while Mark was available. And of those staffs... 1 of his 5 assistants found another job.






I agree that Kerr found himself a great situation. He didn't lose in the first round with that talent like they did the year before.

Thibs got himself a great team in Chicago.
Avery Johnson got himself a great team in Dallas.
Stan Van Gundy got himself one in Miami.
His brother got one in Orlando
Brian Hill got one there too.
Scott Brooks got himself one in OKC.
Doug Collins got one in Chicago.
D'Antoni got one in Phoenix.
Bob Hill got one in San Antonio.
Del Harris got one in LA.
So did Del Negro there.

What Kerr has done with his great situation in Golden State is what makes him different until he proves otherwise.

LakersIn5
11-21-2015, 07:05 AM
Okay mark jackson > steve kerr. Thread close.

JasonJohnHorn
11-21-2015, 10:08 AM
I think GSW would have won last year with Mark Jackson, but I don't think they would have won 67 games.


As for Walton vs. Kerr... Walton is running Kerr's system.


Kerr really brought out the best in the players and helped them develop. But even with their amazing start, we see a regression in guys like Thompson.


Kerr's awesome. Walton's doing a bang-up job. Jackson was good, maybe even great, but Kerr was simply better for this team.

slashsnake
11-21-2015, 10:34 AM
Kerr really brought out the best in the players and helped them develop. But even with their amazing start, we see a regression in guys like Thompson.



Tough to call someone regressing when they are only a handful of games into the season and playing with a hurt back. He's 4 made 3 pointers from shooting a career high from downtown

It is such a small sample size. He had a bad first two games of the year. Since then he's been on pace for career highs in assists, rebounds, blocks, with a career low turnover rate, and shooting 46% from the field, which would tie his career high. I thought his game against the Clippers earlier in the week was one of the better games on both ends of the floor I've seen from him (especially how he just attacked Crawford on offense and D)

giantspwn
11-21-2015, 11:51 AM
I'm surprised anyone would feel this way.

Kerr's absence has still hurt this team. Walton's made a lot of questionable decisions regarding player minutes and certain substitutions. Obviously, a 14-0 record speaks for itself, but it shouldn't absolve Walton from criticism.

Either way, as of now, Walton's just a puppet. Kerr's still running this team from behind the scenes. Although, this team is extremely talented, like others have said, it's his framework.

Chronz
11-21-2015, 12:59 PM
And the improvement can also be put some at the feet of Ron Adams, one of the few assistants in the league better than Erman :) The amazing thing about the increase in defensive efficiency is that the team was playing at the highest pace in the NBA and #1 in pace and in D is incredibly rare so the defense didn't just improve from #3 to #1 ... we just don't have an easy metric to measure how much they improved.
I don't think it's as rare as you claim. Pretty sure I remember there is no meaningful correlation between pace and efficiency. We know exactly how much they've improved by the standards that matter

Lionel20
11-21-2015, 01:29 PM
Starting to think Lionel has an agenda.

Jackson was a good coach but the team wasn't going to go any further with him leading the team. What's most interesting to me is that Jackson hasn't had a sniff let alone an interview for any coaching gigs. I'm not sure if that is an indictment of his coaching or of his interpersonal skills.

That Warriors team was improving exponentially every single year Jackson was coach. I have no idea how you can conclude that the Warriors wouldn't go any further under Jackson.

My point is, this team is a championship caliber team regardless of what inexperience coach was signed. All the coach had to do was facilitate the direction the team was going in under Jackson. Kerr was overrated as a Suns manager, the Suns won 60 games prior to his arrival, and he's overrated as a coach in my opinion. It doesn't take an agenda to call things like you see them.

phantasyyy
11-21-2015, 01:43 PM
That Warriors team was improving exponentially every single year Jackson was coach. I have no idea how you can conclude that the Warriors wouldn't go any further under Jackson.

My point is, this team is a championship caliber team regardless of what inexperience coach was signed. All the coach had to do was facilitate the direction the team was going in under Jackson. Kerr was overrated as a Suns manager, the Suns won 60 games prior to his arrival, and he's overrated as a coach in my opinion. It doesn't take an agenda to call things like you see them.

I think your really underrating the benefits of implementing a more free/open offensive system, while overrating individual improvements. Sure the team as a whole was young enough to make gradual improvements every year, but last year they didn't just improve they exploded onto the scene on both sides of the floor.

Its easier to make improvements as a team from bad to good, but I don't think you understand how hard it is for a team to go from good to great.. You perennially see teams that have a ceiling of just being a playoff contender - without the ability to break through and become a championship contender so to speak(e.g. the ATL Hawks).

The impression that Jackson could have the Warriors make the same leap from 51w's to 67w's and a 1st round exit to NBA championship is just absurd.

Gander13SM
11-21-2015, 06:40 PM
This is mad, Jackson was a horrible offensive coach. He ran 90% isolation plays and would throw in an elevator play now and then. He was an average defensive coach. His best quality as a coach was rallying the troops and getting the chemistry right.

Kerrs motion offense (with the help of Gentry and Walton) has turned this team into a juggernaut on that side, it has elements of the triangle, Princeton and even some of Gentrys corner offense thrown into it. He's taken inspiration from everywhere in his career.

On top of that he helped with the development of guys like Draymond, it's no coincidence that both Blake Griffin and Draymond Green had career years in assists and took on way more ball handling duties when Gentry became their assistant coach. Same is happening with Davis this year. And the development of Steph too, especially as a play maker. Kerr surrounded himself with high caliber assistants and crafted lineups that are still puzzling teams more than a year later, their Avengers lineup is burning everyone.

Bringing in Gentry, Adams, Barbosa etc wouldn't have been possible without Steve Kerrs connections.

Jackson took the talent as far as he could, with him, they would have been a consistent playoff squad. With Kerr, they have the potential to become a dynasty.

Vinylman
11-21-2015, 07:31 PM
I think GSW would have won last year with Mark Jackson, but I don't think they would have won 67 games.


As for Walton vs. Kerr... Walton is running Kerr's system.


Kerr really brought out the best in the players and helped them develop. But even with their amazing start, we see a regression in guys like Thompson.


Kerr's awesome. Walton's doing a bang-up job. Jackson was good, maybe even great, but Kerr was simply better for this team.

Kerr's system? LMFAO

Kerr had zero belief in SSOL in Phoenix but this is his "system" He tried to dismantle SSOL in Phoenix and install a traditional offense (remember that visionary trade for Shaq)

Back to reality... Steve Kerr has done a great job of putting an unbelievable group of assistants together and developed great team chemistry but he is not an X's and O's guy

As for your assertion that they would have won it with Jackson at the helm last year... simply absurd... Jackson was a control freak who didn't understand the key to developing a staff.

The Warriors have a bright future as long as they stay healthy and can figure out how to replace bogut in the next two years

Gander13SM
11-21-2015, 07:53 PM
Kerr's system? LMFAO

Kerr had zero belief in SSOL in Phoenix but this is his "system" He tried to dismantle SSOL in Phoenix and install a traditional offense (remember that visionary trade for Shaq)

Back to reality... Steve Kerr has done a great job of putting an unbelievable group of assistants together and developed great team chemistry but he is not an X's and O's guy

As for your assertion that they would have won it with Jackson at the helm last year... simply absurd... Jackson was a control freak who didn't understand the key to developing a staff.

The Warriors have a bright future as long as they stay healthy and can figure out how to replace bogut in the next two years

1. The Warriors aren't running 7 seconds or less offense.

2. Kerr is a stellar Xs and Os coach.

Bowman53
11-21-2015, 08:55 PM
That Warriors team was improving exponentially every single year Jackson was coach. I have no idea how you can conclude that the Warriors wouldn't go any further under Jackson.

My point is, this team is a championship caliber team regardless of what inexperience coach was signed. All the coach had to do was facilitate the direction the team was going in under Jackson. Kerr was overrated as a Suns manager, the Suns won 60 games prior to his arrival, and he's overrated as a coach in my opinion. It doesn't take an agenda to call things like you see them.

I could very easily because the Warriors offense was being poorly utilized under Jackson and why was that? Too much Isolation basketball with David Lee and Steph Curry.

He even tried turning Harrison Barnes and Klay Thompson into Isolation players and that's not playing to their strengths.

JasonJohnHorn
11-22-2015, 01:19 AM
Tough to call someone regressing when they are only a handful of games into the season and playing with a hurt back. He's 4 made 3 pointers from shooting a career high from downtown

It is such a small sample size. He had a bad first two games of the year. Since then he's been on pace for career highs in assists, rebounds, blocks, with a career low turnover rate, and shooting 46% from the field, which would tie his career high. I thought his game against the Clippers earlier in the week was one of the better games on both ends of the floor I've seen from him (especially how he just attacked Crawford on offense and D)

Fair point. But I think it is a valid observation. We typically see guys improving still at this stage, and Klay seems to be overshadowed by Curry right now. I expect by seasons end that he'll be back to where he was and perhaps even improve, but if we are looking at how he plays under Walton, I think a dozen games is enough to get a grasp.

tredigs
11-22-2015, 01:26 AM
Lionel seemingly scared to counter one of my posts.

nastynice
11-22-2015, 02:27 AM
In the 2013-14 Season under Mark Jackson, the Warriors won 51 games. It was Barnes rookie season, Iguodala missed 1/4 of the season, and Draymond was still developing.

In 2014-15 Season, under Kerr, Draymond/Barnes move into the Starting lineup, a move I argue would've happened in most organizations. Lee was inactive the first quarter of the 2014-15 season, and Draymond's defensive play in particular help make the Warriors more competitive on that end. Barnes, was likely to start his Sophomore year in the NBA after being selected 7th overall by the Warriors.

The Warriors won 67 games in 2014-15, and an NBA Title. But I have a hard time seeing how this would've have been the case under Jackson w/ Draymond/Barnes inserted into the starting lineup, Lee and Iguodala coming off the bench. Klay Thompson and Steph Curry have continued to improve each year in the league, and since the 2012-13 they've improved at about the same rate each year. It's highly probable Thompson/Curry would've continued in that trend, improving in the 2014-15 under Jackson. The Warriors added a few other bench pieces, making it entirely conceivable that the Warriors would've won the same amount of games or more with Jackson as they did 1st year coach Steve Kerr.

And then of course, there's this year. In Kerr's absence, the Warriors are off to one of the best starts in NBA history. With reigning MVP, Curry looking even better than last season.

I actually find this very inconceivable. The warriors CLEARLY ran a MUCH BETTER offense last year compared to the years before, I don't know what stat says what, but if you watch the games I don't see how this could even be up for debate, i mean it was a VERY NOTICEABLE difference. Finally got rid of the 3rd quarter iso ball strategy, lol, oh man remember that crap?

nastynice
11-22-2015, 02:32 AM
That Warriors team was improving exponentially every single year Jackson was coach. I have no idea how you can conclude that the Warriors wouldn't go any further under Jackson.

My point is, this team is a championship caliber team regardless of what inexperience coach was signed. All the coach had to do was facilitate the direction the team was going in under Jackson. Kerr was overrated as a Suns manager, the Suns won 60 games prior to his arrival, and he's overrated as a coach in my opinion. It doesn't take an agenda to call things like you see them.

What an odd perspective, why do you say that? What does Jackson bring to the team that Kerr doesn't? Because I can name things Kerr brings that Jackson doesn't, ball movement, consistently running offensive sets every time, the defensive rotations are much better, the way his distributes minutes is much better, the players he puts on the court with each other is better...I mean he's doing A LOT of things to help this team that Jackson wasn't doing. But what was Jackson doing that Kerr isn't?

slashsnake
11-22-2015, 03:27 AM
That Warriors team was improving exponentially every single year Jackson was coach. I have no idea how you can conclude that the Warriors wouldn't go any further under Jackson.

My point is, this team is a championship caliber team regardless of what inexperience coach was signed. All the coach had to do was facilitate the direction the team was going in under Jackson. Kerr was overrated as a Suns manager, the Suns won 60 games prior to his arrival, and he's overrated as a coach in my opinion. It doesn't take an agenda to call things like you see them.

Again, that's great... How often do we see good young teams improve a lot over a few years but never able to take the next step? Happens all the time.

You keep saying that team is a championship caliber team. And they are... now. A couple years ago they were a team that had a habit of showing up unprepared to lesser teams in home games that cost them anything better than a #6 seed and failed to get out of the first round with Mark Jackson. And they didn't lose to the eventual champions there. No, they lost to a team beaten in the following round... Who lost to a team beaten in the following round. The only time they were a championship caliber team has been... with Kerr and the staff he picked.

Jackson got fired because he was the anchor on the Warriors, the one holding them back. How can you not see that when you watch them now?

It's fine if you think Kerr is overrated. But Jackson is the one passed over for a head coaching gig 14 times since he was FIRED. He's the one who fought with Michael Malone till he left, sent Scalabrine packing, had Erman fired a week later... Those were his picks...

The team owner told him his last year, I want you to find a good tactician to add to your assistant coaches, money is no object, we want to be the best. He added... Wait for it... Lindsey Hunter. Yes, the guy with a single year of experience in a fail season in Phoenix before getting fired.

Sorry, but if I am your boss and tell you we want to win over this client, money is no object, I want to wine and dine them, and you bring in a couple McDouble's, and a 6 pack of schlitz... you aren't hanging around long.


It's funny how you give that front office all the props in the world for seeing talent and bringing those guys in... EXCEPT when it comes to coaches. There, they felt a huge change was needed to make them a real championship contender and made it.. and became a championship contender. But there the Warriors front office was dumber than LionelLogic all of a sudden.

We see this all the time in real life. Sometimes the CEO who makes a bad company good, is the worst CEO to make a good company elite. They CEO you want for a startup may not be the one you want for a company trying to reach a billion in sales. You can have that wild crazy CEO early on... But in the final stages, is that who you want?

IBleedPurple
11-22-2015, 06:03 AM
Lionel seemingly scared to counter one of my posts.That's all he does. Unless you're asking him to post useless stats, you'll never get anything substantial.

JasonJohnHorn
11-22-2015, 09:50 AM
What an odd perspective, why do you say that? What does Jackson bring to the team that Kerr doesn't? Because I can name things Kerr brings that Jackson doesn't, ball movement, consistently running offensive sets every time, the defensive rotations are much better, the way his distributes minutes is much better, the players he puts on the court with each other is better...I mean he's doing A LOT of things to help this team that Jackson wasn't doing. But what was Jackson doing that Kerr isn't?

Jackson was a fine coach in terms of defense and offense. He might not have been a good people person, and he might have had an ego. And he might have crossed the line with some psychological games judging from rumours, but that team got better every year under him, and the players got better every year.

I look at his firing much in the same way I look at Doug Collins getting canned from the Bulls. Collins got that team deeper in the playoffs each year, and had he been coaching prime Pippen and Grant, instead of a couple of sophomores, and had he had BJ Armstrong with a couple of seasons under his belt, he would would have been able to win it all with that roster. Jackson was a good move, but Collins, even if not so good a coach, was still a great coach who helped develop those guys.


Kerr did a great job, but he also had the benefit of Stephen Curry handing in an MVP performance, a level he simply wasn't at under Jackson because he just wasn't there yet. Also, Barnes and Green were still developing, and Thompson was just hitting his stride.

The question is really: could Jackson have gotten the seeding position Kerr did? If the answer is yes, then that team would have been able to win. With Jackson or Kerr, that team beats NO, they beat MEM, they beat HOU, and they beat CLE (the last two who were injury depleted and the first two were clearly inferior teams).

Jackson could have won those series.


The only think I think might have been an issue is that Jackson might have been inclined to got back to Lee when he came back from injury, instead of Green. That would have hurt them defensively. But there is no way to know for sure.


It is very probable that Mark Jackson would have won with that roster.

Gander13SM
11-22-2015, 09:57 AM
No way Warriors win it all without this new offense. No way at all.


Jackson took them as far as he could. He's an average coach. Nothing more.

Scoots
11-22-2015, 02:00 PM
I don't think it's as rare as you claim. Pretty sure I remember there is no meaningful correlation between pace and efficiency. We know exactly how much they've improved by the standards that matter

I think there has been 1 team in NBA history to lead the league in pace and defensive efficiency.

TrueFan420
11-22-2015, 06:59 PM
Jackson was a fine coach in terms of defense and offense.

Let me just stop you right there. Was he? Offensively we played ISO. He tried to make a team full of good passers into a hero ball side. This was always a team capable of so much more offensively than he was capable of nurturing and we've seen just that with Kerr. Defensively, he did help get the team to buy into defense. However, how was our defense that first year under him? It was piss poor. What happened when we got Bpgut and Iggy two elite defenders? We improved. Yes no coach anywhere can do it without talent. But then let's look at what Kerr did with the same players. He made them even better as a unit. And no Kerr doesn't get all the credit. He brought in two great minds in Gentry and the ever underrated Ron Adams. However, that's something else that Jackson refused to do. Jackson was egotistical to the max. This team is far far better off without him.

TrueFan420
11-22-2015, 07:00 PM
No way Warriors win it all without this new offense. No way at all.


Jackson took them as far as he could. He's an average coach. Nothing more.

Agreed

nastynice
11-22-2015, 10:10 PM
Jackson was a fine coach in terms of defense and offense. He might not have been a good people person, and he might have had an ego. And he might have crossed the line with some psychological games judging from rumours, but that team got better every year under him, and the players got better every year.

I look at his firing much in the same way I look at Doug Collins getting canned from the Bulls. Collins got that team deeper in the playoffs each year, and had he been coaching prime Pippen and Grant, instead of a couple of sophomores, and had he had BJ Armstrong with a couple of seasons under his belt, he would would have been able to win it all with that roster. Jackson was a good move, but Collins, even if not so good a coach, was still a great coach who helped develop those guys.


Kerr did a great job, but he also had the benefit of Stephen Curry handing in an MVP performance, a level he simply wasn't at under Jackson because he just wasn't there yet. Also, Barnes and Green were still developing, and Thompson was just hitting his stride.

The question is really: could Jackson have gotten the seeding position Kerr did? If the answer is yes, then that team would have been able to win. With Jackson or Kerr, that team beats NO, they beat MEM, they beat HOU, and they beat CLE (the last two who were injury depleted and the first two were clearly inferior teams).

Jackson could have won those series.


The only think I think might have been an issue is that Jackson might have been inclined to got back to Lee when he came back from injury, instead of Green. That would have hurt them defensively. But there is no way to know for sure.


It is very probable that Mark Jackson would have won with that roster.

Disagree about the people person thing, this squad loved playing for him.

Agree about the players simply being better thanks to experience.

Disagree about being good at offense and defense, at least x and o wise, I don't see how this could be up for debate, it's so obvious watching these teams. I did like how jackson let his players let loose and play free, but the issue is that was ALL he brought. That's why we were great at checkers and terrible at chess.

Jackson my boy, no doubt, he was a part of the turnaround for this franchise so I'm a always have love for him. But that doesn't make me blind to his shortcomings. They all seemed so obvious to me, so I'm finding hard to understand where ur coming from.

TrueFan420
11-22-2015, 10:32 PM
Disagree about the people person thing, this squad loved playing for him.
I think his comment about Jackson not being a people person was more directed towards the other coaches/management. Jackson wanted all the credit. That rubs people the wrong way because it's never just one person.

Lionel20
11-22-2015, 10:59 PM
Lionel seemingly scared to counter one of my posts.

smh
Really dude, which one? Give me the post#

Lionel20
11-23-2015, 12:18 AM
What an odd perspective, why do you say that? What does Jackson bring to the team that Kerr doesn't? Because I can name things Kerr brings that Jackson doesn't, ball movement, consistently running offensive sets every time, the defensive rotations are much better, the way his distributes minutes is much better, the players he puts on the court with each other is better...I mean he's doing A LOT of things to help this team that Jackson wasn't doing. But what was Jackson doing that Kerr isn't?

Well, for one I think Jackson was a better defensive coach. The GSW were 4th in adjusted defensive rating 2013-14, with David Lee starting 67 games that season. I think Kerr borrowed a lot from Jackson, for instance I see the Warriors still using a lot of the same floppy action, some elevator doors. It's obvious, that Curry was already a superstar before Kerr took over, and it was Jackson that helped develop Curry's confidence.

But ok,

So the Warriors led the NBA with the lowest Avg. Seconds per touch in 2014-2015 = 2.41, the Knicks were 3rd = 2.48, they won 17 games. In 2013-2014, the team with the lowest Avg. Seconds per touch was the 76ers = 2.45, they won 19 games. Ball movement does not seem to have as high a correlation to winning as people think. However, talent does. And before Kerr arrived, the Warriors were loaded with talent. I broke down, in post#16 how a few simple rosters shifts, etc. enhanced the Warriors quality of play following Jackson's termination, namely Draymond for Lee. Lee was hurt, Draymonds P/M in Lee's absence made the Warriors a better overall team, and that would've took place regardless of Kerr.

My post#16 points out my opinion that 2015 Champion Warriors are much more a product of such roster shifts (that likely would've occurred under any average coach), and Thompson/Curry's growth and experience than any system that Kerr and his assistants introduced.

Scoots
11-23-2015, 12:35 AM
I don't think there is any point trying to convince Lionel of anything. No need to keep going with this thread.

nastynice
11-23-2015, 03:44 AM
Well, for one I think Jackson was a better defensive coach. The GSW were 4th in adjusted defensive rating 2013-14, with David Lee starting 67 games that season. I think Kerr borrowed a lot from Jackson, for instance I see the Warriors still using a lot of the same floppy action, some elevator doors. It's obvious, that Curry was already a superstar before Kerr took over, and it was Jackson that helped develop Curry's confidence.

But ok,

So the Warriors led the NBA with the lowest Avg. Seconds per touch in 2014-2015 = 2.41, the Knicks were 3rd = 2.48, they won 17 games. In 2013-2014, the team with the lowest Avg. Seconds per touch was the 76ers = 2.45, they won 19 games. Ball movement does not seem to have as high a correlation to winning as people think. However, talent does. And before Kerr arrived, the Warriors were loaded with talent. I broke down, in post#16 how a few simple rosters shifts, etc. enhanced the Warriors quality of play following Jackson's termination, namely Draymond for Lee. Lee was hurt, Draymonds P/M in Lee's absence made the Warriors a better overall team, and that would've took place regardless of Kerr.

My post#16 points out my opinion that 2015 Champion Warriors are much more a product of such roster shifts (that likely would've occurred under any average coach), and Thompson/Curry's growth and experience than any system that Kerr and his assistants introduced.

whoa whoa, I don't know what any of this is. Look, that's cool and I'm not trying to dismiss ur stats, but I'm just asking, like what is it that ur seeing that makes you say that? I'm legitimately not trying to dismiss ur stats, believe me, but I'm just trying to understand, as someone who just watches the game, like what is it that ur seeing that Jackson was doing that was better than what Kerr is doing?

I mean, I don't know the stats, but I can say that by watching the games the offense moves MUCH better. Now I appreciate that you have a stat that says movement doesn't mean anything, but no matter how you slice it, Jackson had us playing a lot of iso ball for stretches, and teams routinely came back from double digits because of this, whereas with Kerr this simply doesn't happen (with any regularity). We would get low percentage shot after low percentage shot when doing that with Jackson , vs much more quality looks with Kerr. So regardless what the stats say, if Jackson gave up a 20 point lead in the 3rd quarter because players were out there looking lost again for 5 min spurts at a time and no one taking a comfortable/decent looking shot, its very different than if Kerr gives up a 20 pt lead because that means the team is just struggling, because the passing lanes, the rotations, the movement, the open looks are all there. But u know, **** happens, sometimes people go cold. Sometimes the other team is just better for a stretch.

I can also say just by watching the games, the substitutions are WAY better with Kerr than Jackson (and this has NOTHING to do with the Iggy starting in the finals thing), just top to bottom, Kerr knows how to mix and match his lineups when need be, he always has people out there in some kind of groove. Man, Jackson, that **** was frustrating, its like he had a starting 5 and a back up 5, and that's it. He'll choose when to play starters, he'll choose when to play back ups. Obviously sometimes you'd see starters and reserves mixed, but he generally had either one given group of 5 out there, or the other given group.

Maybe something like that you can tell me? I don't know if these things are tracked by stats, but it doesn't matter, they don't need to be, you can see it and know it just by watching the game.

Are you a dubs fan? Do you watch a lot of warriors?

Gander13SM
11-23-2015, 04:52 AM
Anyone who denies the impact of this new offensive system the Warriors run simply doesn't know anything about basketball. Sorry.

chipurmunki
12-02-2015, 09:53 PM
kerr's not relevant as he neither coaches nor travels with the team.

Scoots
12-03-2015, 01:23 PM
kerr's not relevant as he neither coaches nor travels with the team.

Except that he does. Not all the time, but he is at most home practices and has traveled with the team and addressed them before games too.

AllBall
12-04-2015, 01:42 PM
Who cares???? Kerr yes is a better coach than Mark Jackson. What is the continuing interest in Mark jackson he is not even a head coach anymore. I really don't understand the obvious.

Because there is a giant elephant in the room that no one seems to want to acknowledge about the Warriors when it comes to coaching.

Lionel20
12-06-2015, 01:53 AM
Except that he does. Not all the time, but he is at most home practices and has traveled with the team and addressed them before games too.

Honestly,

This year, Luke Walton (like Kerr, no real pro coaching experience prior to the Warriors) is coach of the month for a team that is currently 21 - 0, and the NBA is crediting a coach on sick leave with all of those wins.

I mean this sincerely, Brett Brown can cruise control this vehicle to a championship. It's crazy how in some regard Blatt/Spoelstra are repped as figureheads, but somehow it's Kerr's ingenious system that has turned the woeful Warriors around. A Warriors team that I might add, is overall better than "anything" Blatt/Spoelstra have had to work with. My research in the previous pages breaks down how Kerr/Walton came on board when the stage was already set, and just simply rode the wave. Kerr is a championship coach, and whatever value that may have, but I'm nowhere near sold on the idea that Kerr and his mighty assistants turned stale water into top-shelf wine. David Lee's injury to start '14 was a gift that showcased Draymond, and Curry/Thompson all-around growth in particular, first developed under Jackson, was increasing at the same rate each year after Jackson took over. Yes, Curry is a lot better under Walton than he was last year under Kerr. He was a lot better under Kerr 2014 than Jackson 2013. He was a lot better under Jackson 2013 than he was under Jackson 2012 ....

Kerr/Walton are just as much a figure head as Blatt/Spoe, the difference is that Kerr/Walton are playing with a better draw of cards.

slashsnake
12-06-2015, 04:19 AM
Honestly,

This year, Luke Walton (like Kerr, no real pro coaching experience prior to the Warriors) is coach of the month for a team that is currently 21 - 0, and the NBA is crediting a coach on sick leave with all of those wins.


I had a boss years ago talk about how the best sign of a great manager of people is that when he disappears or steps away, things don't dissolve into chaos. That he doesn't boss people, he makes them so good and talented at their job that they just know what to do when he's there or not.




Two years ago the assistant coaches Jackson picked were getting fired and sent to the D league. All you need to know about the importance of Kerr and his staff. Jackson spent his time fighting and arguing with the front office of why he didn't need the best assistants. Ummm, can you think of a bigger reason than right now of why getting a coach who found the best assistants money he could isn't a HUGE reason they are winning???


You can't really be watching this team, the offense they are running and say that they weren't a lot worse off losing to crap teams and being unprepared with Jackson on their way out in the first round of the playoffs???? I mean they were so poorly prepared.. Losing to crappy Knick teams, Cavs teams, Hornets, Nuggets, Twolves... Seems like bad teams would come to town and Golden State would not show up, clearly the more talented team but just fold in half.



And how can you not see the shot differences??? Under Jackson they were taking midrange shots left and right... Worst shot in the NBA and he's coaching them to take them... pull up jumpers from 15 feet. Or Klay and Barnes post ups?? Remember those a couple years ago. Talk about an ugly posession. I know Jackson was a physical strong post up guard, doesn't mean those guys were. They were not good passers out of the post too.. Green out of the high post or even low post... Night and day better.

Then Kerr comes along and it's at the rim or 3 points, and here's the spacing and ball movement to get you good looks in those two spots. If you aren't a good post player, you only are getting the ball in the post if you have a favorable mismatch (11th in post points with Jackson, now 1st). Look at the numbers 6 players shot 20% of their shots from 16 foot to the 3 line under Jackson. Now 1 does that.

They went from 17th in points in the paint to 3rd and now 1st.. with the most 3 pointers too. It's all about the best shots you can take now. No more pull up jumpers off the dribble, from 17th to 6th in baskets within 5 feet of the rim. Easy buckets are huge for them too... 11th in fast break points under Jackson to 1st with Kerr and his staff. A full 3 more posessions per game to boot with that much more efficient offense.

How do you get those good looks?


The ball movement changes are obvious... 2 players under Jackson got 60% or more of their 2pt shots off assists... Now 6 do. Same from 3, 2 got 90% catch and shoot, now 6. Huge jump in passing to get the open three instead of making their own shots. Under Jackson, guess which offense was LAST IN THE NBA IN PASSES PER GAME! Then with Kerr, 10th in passes per game and 1st in assists, 1st in hockey assists, and 1st in shots taken off passes where they were 17th with Jackson. Warriors with Kerr last year....66.9 MORE PASSES PER GAME than the year before (now up to 78 more this season) Lionel you really must not watch a game of basketball for these things to slip right over your head again and again

Dead last from number of player touches a game... to 6th now. No more Iso ball of Mark Jackson out there. Passing, spacing, movement and open looks.

They went from 2.55 dribbles before passing (most in the league) with Jackson to 1.76 (2nd fewest, 1.75 is first). From 4th in taking pull ups off the dribble... to 20th.

That better passing and spacing (how much more active are those guys without the ball now), took them from 25th in touches in the paint to 2nd now... No longer were they a live and die by the three. They were a great 3 pt shooting team that got a lot of high percentage paint buckets too. That's why they went from 9th to 1st in FG% by adding Kerr.


Someones arguing about the D??? They are chasing and rotating as good as ever. They allow barely 30% on 3's this year. Isn't that on pace for the best EVER FG and 3PT FG% against in TEAM HISTORY????? That's insane. 4th in blocks, 8th in steals, 3rd in boards. 5th lowest in fouling. Things they never did with Jackson.

One of the best things Kerr did as a leader was challenge Curry. Jackson always put Klay on the premier perimeter guy and Curry would hide on the other guy. To me, that's part of what was holding Curry back. Kerr stepped in and made him be not just another great offensive player, but a leader, a real MVP and a superstar and told him you have to take on the challenge of playing the best point guards in the league on both ends of the floor.

Then he challenged him on offense to take it to the next level. Curry loved the midrange. 37% of his shots were coming from 10' to the 3pt line, and he was shooting 44% on them. This year... less than 15% of his shots are from there. Curry now shoots a career most of his shots either at the rim, or from 3. Where he shoots over 50% or gets 3 points. And so much more of those shots are catch and shoot or catch and lay it up, his assisted FG's inside 3pt range have doubled. Gone up 15% on his assisted 3pt attempts too since Jackson.

Curry loved dribbling to get open. 40% of his shots came after he had the ball at least 6 seconds. ISO ball at it's best. Now??? 20% of them. Cut that in half, and doubled his catch and shoot rate. Spacing and passing, and off ball movement over hero iso ball.

He knew Curry could be a great scorer, that's what he had. But he didn't want another Melo. He wanted to push Curry to be an MVP type player and forced him to work for better shots, forced him to work to play good defense.

And he forced everyone to take better shots.

Klay got almost the same thing... More shots at the rim or from downtown, less midrange.

Green of course... he was shooting 28% of his shots in that 10-3pt range, shooting 35% on them. Jackson let him settle for those. This year. 6% of his shots from there, only taking them when they are obvious and wide open and he is shooting over 50% on those. He's shooting a much higher number of shots... At the rim and from downtown. And much more of his shots are assisted rather than self created.

Iggy same thing, 23% more of his 2's are assisted than with Jackson, 12% more of his 3's more shots at rim or from 3.

Barnes, 20% more of his 2's assisted, 17% more of his 3's. More at the rim or from 3.

Festus same thing, 15% more of his shots at the rim, 30% more coming off assists.

See the common repeating trend there again and again and again. Better shot selection, more passing to get looks instead of the dribble and put it up.


We can say all we want that Jackson would have moved AI to the bench for Barnes, BUT HE NEVER DID. That was Kerr's coaching move to increase pace and level of play all 48 minutes. Get a better ball handler and passer with the 2nd unit. Iggy hated it at first, and Jackson always started Iggy to keep him happy. Kerr made the best choice for the team there rather than be the players coach they all loved.


Sure, the team improved under Jackson. lets see his last two years.
Jackson in 2012... 53 total wins
Jackson in 2013... 54 total wins

Kerr takes over and installs his staff and system...
2014... 83 total wins
2015... Longest win streak in pro sports.

Jackson at his 1 more win a year improvement was on the pace to be where Kerr had them by the mid-2040's.

You bring up Spoelstra and Blatt... Did Spoelstra do that? Did the big 3 get together and win 54 games and Spoelstra came in and they immediately won 83??? Were the Cavs all together then won 30 more games the next year by adding Blatt? Jackson at the end with Klay, Curry, Lee, Speights, Barnes, Iggy, Green, and Bogut wasn't able to get out of the first round. With that same group, as you say Kerr has them to the point you think that same core can coast to the finals.


I put up all those night and day numbers changes to the offense so you can't sit there and just say "I don't see it". If you don't see it, its because you aren't watching or understanding basketball.

You don't just "ride the wave" to NBA championships and 21-0 starts Lionel.

You make major changes to win 30 more games. You coach your team to pass rather than ISO hero ball it, you get better spacing and positioning, you turn an offensive shooter into a legit MVP by pushing him to be better on both ends of the floor, you coach your team to get easier buckets, you take out the bad shots, you eliminate the bad posessions.




It's always nice to pretend that if a guy wasn't fired, he would have done amazing things because he took a team from bad to pretty good. But he never did more than that. Jackson's time there was marked with strife with his own staff and the front office, his team appeared to show up unprepared, and when they choked out quickly in the playoffs, that cost Jackson. The owners felt he was not the person that could take the next step with the Warriors and that Kerr would be and that has proven exactly correct.

Lionel20
12-06-2015, 08:54 AM
I had a boss years ago talk about how the best sign of a great manager of people is that when he disappears or steps away, things don't dissolve into chaos. That he doesn't boss people, he makes them so good and talented at their job that they just know what to do when he's there or not.




Two years ago the assistant coaches Jackson picked were getting fired and sent to the D league. All you need to know about the importance of Kerr and his staff. Jackson spent his time fighting and arguing with the front office of why he didn't need the best assistants. Ummm, can you think of a bigger reason than right now of why getting a coach who found the best assistants money he could isn't a HUGE reason they are winning???


You can't really be watching this team, the offense they are running and say that they weren't a lot worse off losing to crap teams and being unprepared with Jackson on their way out in the first round of the playoffs???? I mean they were so poorly prepared.. Losing to crappy Knick teams, Cavs teams, Hornets, Nuggets, Twolves... Seems like bad teams would come to town and Golden State would not show up, clearly the more talented team but just fold in half.



And how can you not see the shot differences??? Under Jackson they were taking midrange shots left and right... Worst shot in the NBA and he's coaching them to take them... pull up jumpers from 15 feet. Or Klay and Barnes post ups?? Remember those a couple years ago. Talk about an ugly posession. I know Jackson was a physical strong post up guard, doesn't mean those guys were. They were not good passers out of the post too.. Green out of the high post or even low post... Night and day better.

Then Kerr comes along and it's at the rim or 3 points, and here's the spacing and ball movement to get you good looks in those two spots. If you aren't a good post player, you only are getting the ball in the post if you have a favorable mismatch. Look at the numbers 6 players shot 20% of their shots from 16 foot to the 3 line under Jackson. Now 1 does that.

They went from 11th in points in the paint to 3rd... with the most 3 pointers too. It's all about the best shots you can take now. No more pull up jumpers, from 17th to 6th in baskets within 5 feet of the rim. Easy buckets are huge for them too... 11th in fast break points under Jackson to 1st with Kerr and his staff. A full 3 more posessions per game to boot with that much more efficient offense.

How do you get those good looks?


The ball movement changes are obvious... 2 players under Jackson got 60% or more of their 2pt shots off assists... Now 6 do. Same from 3, 2 got 90% catch and shoot, now 6. Huge jump in passing to get the open three instead of making their own shots. Under Jackson, guess which offense was LAST IN THE NBA IN PASSES PER GAME! Then with Kerr, 10th in passes per game and 1st in assists. Warriors with Kerr....66.9 MORE PASSES PER GAME than the year before. Lionel you really must not watch a game of basketball for these things to slip right over your head again and again

That better passing and spacing (how much more active are those guys without the ball now), took them from 25th in touches in the paint to 14th. No longer were they a live and die by the three. They were a great 3 pt shooting team that got a lot of high percentage paint buckets. That's why they went from 9th to 1st in FG% by adding Kerr.


Someones arguing about the D??? They are chasing and rotating as good as ever. They allow barely 30% on 3's this year. Isn't that on pace for the best EVER FG and 3PT FG% against in TEAM HISTORY????? That's insane. 4th in blocks, 8th in steals, 3rd in boards. 5th lowest in fouling. Things they never did with Jackson.

One of the best things Kerr did as a leader was challenge Curry. Jackson always put Klay on the premier perimeter guy and Curry would hide on the other guy. To me, that's part of what was holding Curry back. Kerr stepped in and made him be not just another great offensive player, but a leader, a real MVP and a superstar and told him you have to take on the challenge of playing the best point guards in the league on both ends of the floor.

Then he challenged him on offense to take it to the next level. Curry loved the midrange. 37% of his shots were coming from 10' to the 3pt line, and he was shooting 44% on them. This year... less than 15% of his shots are from there. Curry now shoots a career most of his shots either at the rim, or from 3. Where he shoots over 50% or gets 3 points. And so much more of those shots are catch and shoot or catch and lay it up, his assisted FG's inside 3pt range have doubled. Gone up 15% on his assisted 3pt attempts too since Jackson.

He knew Curry could be a great scorer, that's what he had. But he didn't want another Melo. He wanted to push Curry to be an MVP type player and forced him to work for better shots, forced him to work to play good defense.

And he forced everyone to take better shots.

Klay got almost the same thing... More shots at the rim or from downtown, less midrange.

Green of course... he was shooting 28% of his shots in that 10-3pt range, shooting 35% on them. Jackson let him settle for those. This year. 6% of his shots from there, only taking them when they are obvious and wide open and he is shooting over 50% on those. He's shooting a much higher number of shots... At the rim and from downtown. And much more of his shots are assisted rather than self created.

Iggy same thing, 23% more of his 2's are assisted than with Jackson, 12% more of his 3's more shots at rim or from 3.

Barnes, 20% more of his 2's assisted, 17% more of his 3's. More at the rim or from 3.

Festus same thing, 15% more of his shots at the rim, 30% more coming off assists.

See the common repeating trend there again and again and again. Better shot selection, more passing to get looks instead of the dribble and put it up.




We can say all we want that Jackson would have moved AI to the bench for Barnes, BUT HE NEVER DID. That was Kerr's coaching move to increase pace and level of play all 48 minutes. Get a better ball handler and passer with the 2nd unit. Iggy hated it at first, and Jackson always started Iggy to keep him happy. Kerr made the best choice for the team there rather than be the players coach they all loved.


Sure, the team improved under Jackson. lets see his last two years.
Jackson in 2012... 53 total wins
Jackson in 2013... 54 total wins

Kerr takes over and installs his staff and system...
2014... 83 total wins
2015... Longest win streak in pro sports.

Jackson at his 1 more win a year improvement was on the pace to be where Kerr had them by the mid-2040's.

You bring up Spoelstra and Blatt... Did Spoelstra do that? Did the big 3 get together and win 54 games and Spoelstra came in and they immediately won 83??? Were the Cavs all together then won 30 more games the next year by adding Blatt? Jackson at the end with Klay, Curry, Lee, Speights, Barnes, Iggy, Green, and Bogut wasn't able to get out of the first round. With that same group, as you say Kerr has them to the point you think that same core can coast to the finals.


You don't just "ride the wave" to NBA championships and 21-0 starts. You make major changes to win 30 more games. You coach your team to pass, you get better spacing and positioning, you turn an offensive shooter into a legit MVP by pushing him to be better on both ends of the floor, you coach your team to get easier buckets, you take out the bad shots, you eliminate the bad posessions.




It's always nice to pretend that if a guy wasn't fired, he would have done amazing things because he took a team from bad to decent. But he never did more than that. Jackson's time there was marked with strife with his own staff and the front office, his team appeared to show up unprepared, and when they choked out quickly in the playoffs, that cost Jackson. The owners felt he was not the person that could take the next step with the Warriors and that Kerr would be and that has proven exactly correct.

Firstly, Luke Walton has won 21 of his first 21 games, coaching; and coach of the month. I think you can give him more than just one of the dudes that's part of "Kerr's staff". smh


I'm waiting on someone to provide the correlation between ball movement and winning. Ok, Spurs/Warriors. But then, the 2014-15 Knicks were top 3, the 2013-14 76ers had the lowest second per touch and finished with only 17 wins.

Kerr's little ball control system pales in comparison to the importance of developing players confident and competent enough to execute it. Somebody already mentioned this in the thread, the biggest organizational move that improved the Warriors from mediocre under the final years of Nelson towards being legitimate contenders was the Ellis-Bogut trade shortly after Jackson arrived. Jackson wanted to center the offense around Curry and rookie Klay Thompson. The following season, Jackson emphasizes defense, and the Warriors become an elite defensive team: the 3rd best defensive unit in 2012-13 behind only the Bulls and Pacers according to percentage points differential (-2.0).

All the critical components, the offense designed around the Splash Brothers parameter shooting (the Warriors led the league in 25-29 ft. FGA in 2013-14, doesn't sound like mid-range), the defensive identity, and of the course key roster additions: Draymond, Iguodala, Thompson, have Jackson's (and of course GM Meyer 2012 - ) imprint all over it. The machine was already constructed. The Warriors went from locking up the 4th seed in 2012-13 to clinching the 3rd seed the following year. I've already charted how the 2013-14 to 2014-15 Warriors progressions would've taken place irrespective of Kerr and his assistants. The critical and hard work was already done before Kerr walked in the door. The foundation was already laid. Although dissension between the front office and Mark Jackson eventually led to the latter's termination, Warrior ownership released a statement claiming that "Wins and Losses" had nothing to do with his firing. And how could it? Jackson led the Warriors to it's first 50-win season since Chris Webber's rookie year, and was fired immediately afterwards lol.

I just call it like I see it, and provide the info that makes me think the way I do. I'm from Louisiana and "on principle", this Jackson-Kerr transition reminds me somewhat of Saban-Miles, when Les won the BCS in '07. Sure he won it, but with Saban's team.

Gander13SM
12-06-2015, 09:21 AM
"Kerr's little ball control system"

SMH... that's like calling the big bang theory a small pop hypothesis.

You're vastly underrating what Kerr has done, making them even BETTER defensively, bringing in assistants of the caliber Jackson never had because he lacked the interpersonal skills to do so, a far superior coach "in the moment" makes smarter adjustments and subs, bringing in Livingston and Barbosa, the latter of which would never have joined the club otherwise, convincing Lee to take a bench role, Iguodala too. And then the death lineup, the ultimate small ball lineup that no team has had an answer for yet.

Oh... and he created a whole new offense.

Under Jackson they were a top 5 defensive team and barely in the top half of the league for offense.

Under Kerr they're arguably the best defensive team in the league AND a top 3/4 offense.

Give Mark Jackson the Spurs, see what happens.... yes, the impact Kerr has had is comparable to Budenholzer with Hawks or Popovich with the Spurs. You are VASTLY underestimating his impact.

phantasyyy
12-06-2015, 01:44 PM
Firstly, Luke Walton has won 21 of his first 21 games, coaching; and coach of the month. I think you can give him more than just one of the dudes that's part of "Kerr's staff". smh


I'm waiting on someone to provide the correlation between ball movement and winning. Ok, Spurs/Warriors. But then, the 2014-15 Knicks were top 3, the 2013-14 76ers had the lowest second per touch and finished with only 17 wins.

Kerr's little ball control system pales in comparison to the importance of developing players confident and competent enough to execute it. Somebody already mentioned this in the thread, the biggest organizational move that improved the Warriors from mediocre under the final years of Nelson towards being legitimate contenders was the Ellis-Bogut trade shortly after Jackson arrived. Jackson wanted to center the offense around Curry and rookie Klay Thompson. The following season, Jackson emphasizes defense, and the Warriors become an elite defensive team: the 3rd best defensive unit in 2012-13 behind only the Bulls and Pacers according to percentage points differential (-2.0).

All the critical components, the offense designed around the Splash Brothers parameter shooting (the Warriors led the league in 25-29 ft. FGA in 2013-14, doesn't sound like mid-range), the defensive identity, and of the course key roster additions: Draymond, Iguodala, Thompson, have Jackson's (and of course GM Meyer 2012 - ) imprint all over it. The machine was already constructed. The Warriors went from locking up the 4th seed in 2012-13 to clinching the 3rd seed the following year. I've already charted how the 2013-14 to 2014-15 Warriors progressions would've taken place irrespective of Kerr and his assistants. The critical and hard work was already done before Kerr walked in the door. The foundation was already laid. Although dissension between the front office and Mark Jackson eventually led to the latter's termination, Warrior ownership released a statement claiming that "Wins and Losses" had nothing to do with his firing. And how could it? Jackson led the Warriors to it's first 50-win season since Chris Webber's rookie year, and was fired immediately afterwards lol.

I just call it like I see it, and provide the info that makes me think the way I do. I'm from Louisiana and "on principle", this Jackson-Kerr transition reminds me somewhat of Saban-Miles, when Les won the BCS in '07. Sure he won it, but with Saban's team.

They key concept your forgetting is the progression or learning curve it takes a team to go from bad to good and then from good to great. If the point your making is that Jackson laid down the foundation for the warriors to go from a bad team toa good team than yes nobody here is going to argue that point with you. Under his tutelage he allowed Curry and Thompson the offensive freedom to expand their game by centering around his offense to their capabilities. Nobody here is going to argue how much of an impact Jackson had on Curry since as you know they both played PG in the L and Jackson was pretty darn good at at that..

But to sit here and say that Kerr and the new coaching staff hired on to replace him dont deserve the recognition from transitioning the team from good to great is blasphemy. If you recall Barnes endured his worst season under Jackson's final year and this was coming off his fantastic play off run. There was no way that he Jackson was going to bench AI for Barnes purely juding from the level of play sustained during that year. I mean to go from good to great is a much harder transition and learning curve than the latter...-otherwise we'd see so many times make that leap to become championship contenders (e.g. the ATL hawks, Memphis Grizzlies, Raptors to name a few)

Lionel20
12-06-2015, 05:29 PM
"Kerr's little ball control system"

SMH... that's like calling the big bang theory a small pop hypothesis.

You're vastly underrating what Kerr has done, making them even BETTER defensively, bringing in assistants of the caliber Jackson never had because he lacked the interpersonal skills to do so, a far superior coach "in the moment" makes smarter adjustments and subs, bringing in Livingston and Barbosa, the latter of which would never have joined the club otherwise, convincing Lee to take a bench role, Iguodala too. And then the death lineup, the ultimate small ball lineup that no team has had an answer for yet.

Oh... and he created a whole new offense.

Under Jackson they were a top 5 defensive team and barely in the top half of the league for offense.

Under Kerr they're arguably the best defensive team in the league AND a top 3/4 offense.

Give Mark Jackson the Spurs, see what happens.... yes, the impact Kerr has had is comparable to Budenholzer with Hawks or Popovich with the Spurs. You are VASTLY underestimating his impact.

^
Yeah, see this is what I have a problem with.

Yes, the Warriors are likely going to go down as one of the greatest teams in NBA History. So how do we explain their greatness?

Kerr and his assistants? lol The "Kerr" ball movement system, if there is such a thing, = to the BIG BANG THEORY? Well, then Popovich's must be the Genesis CREATION? Then we compare 1-year Kerr's impact to that of one of the greatest coaches of all-time, Popovich? How is this not extreme Hyperbole?

With the way Draymond was playing to open 2014-15, it was not a difficult decision to sit him, as I explained in an earlier post in this thread. I touched on Iguodala as well, but it's interesting with the Warriors down to the undermanned Cavs in the Finals last year, Kerr reinserted Iguodala in the starting lineup as Jackson had him. Iguodala won finals MVP, and honestly I'm unsure if the Warriors don't get upset by the Cavs without Iguodala starting. It would've been one of the all-time upsets in my opinion w/ the Cavs playing without Kevin Love, and more importantly Kyrie. Shumpert was hurt as well.

That brings me to this,

The Warriors obviously earned their first seed last year, but they caught some breaks in my opinion.

There are three teams that I think match up very well with the Warriors in a 7 game series. Spurs, Thunder, and Clippers. Last Season Durant was injured and OKC misses the playoffs. The Clippers knock off the Spurs in 7, and the Rockets knocking off the Clippers in 7. The Warriors road to the title = the Pelicans, Memphis (minus Conley, defensive PG), Rockets (minus Beverly, defensive PG), and the Cavs (minus everybody but Lebron).

Jackson lost to the Spurs in 6 in 2013, and the Clippers in 7 in 2014. Two teams the Warriors were able to avoid under Kerr.

Allphakenny1
12-06-2015, 07:01 PM
^
Yeah, see this is what I have a problem with.

Yes, the Warriors are likely going to go down as one of the greatest teams in NBA History. So how do we explain their greatness?

Kerr and his assistants? lol The "Kerr" ball movement system, if there is such a thing, = to the BIG BANG THEORY? Well, then Popovich's must be the Genesis CREATION? Then we compare 1-year Kerr's impact to that of one of the greatest coaches of all-time, Popovich? How is this not extreme Hyperbole?

With the way Draymond was playing to open 2014-15, it was not a difficult decision to sit him, as I explained in an earlier post in this thread. I touched on Iguodala as well, but it's interesting with the Warriors down to the undermanned Cavs in the Finals last year, Kerr reinserted Iguodala in the starting lineup as Jackson had him. Iguodala won finals MVP, and honestly I'm unsure if the Warriors don't get upset by the Cavs without Iguodala starting. It would've been one of the all-time upsets in my opinion w/ the Cavs playing without Kevin Love, and more importantly Kyrie. Shumpert was hurt as well.

That brings me to this,

The Warriors obviously earned their first seed last year, but they caught some breaks in my opinion.

There are three teams that I think match up very well with the Warriors in a 7 game series. Spurs, Thunder, and Clippers. Last Season Durant was injured and OKC misses the playoffs. The Clippers knock off the Spurs in 7, and the Rockets knocking off the Clippers in 7. The Warriors road to the title = the Pelicans, Memphis (minus Conley, defensive PG), Rockets (minus Beverly, defensive PG), and the Cavs (minus everybody but Lebron).

Jackson lost to the Spurs in 6 in 2013, and the Clippers in 7 in 2014. Two teams the Warriors were able to avoid under Kerr.

It seems like you have a point to prove and you ignore all the evidence against your point and only choose the facts that support you. While you think you sound intelligent, everyone else sees what you are doing so you are not fooling anyone.

1. The Warriors turn around was for many reasons. New ownership, new GM, Jerry West as a consultant, better players than the team has had over the last 40 years, and yes, Jackson as coach. It seems like you want to give Jackson all the credit when all the coaches before him were not given the talent Jackson had to work with. Did he vastly improve their defense? Yes. Did he vastly underachieve on offense? Hell yes. Jackson did help turn this team around, but he also came in when the Warriors front office was at its best and the talent level of players were at its best so a big improvement should be expected.

2. If you cannot see the difference in ball movement you are an idiot and all of us our wasting our time arguing with you. If you cannot see how a first year coach can emulate an all time great coach like Pop, it is not hard. a) He played in and mastered his system. b) He has great players who are capable of playing such a difficult system. Yes, the players are important to the system. No great coach has been successful without great players. Jackson had these same great players and could not figure out how to use them offensively. Kerr was able to do that and that is the only reason the Warriors are NBA champions today. I find it very difficult to believe the Warriors would have won the championship under Jackson's system.

3. The idea of the Warriors getting lucky is tired and anyone hanging on to it are showing their obvious bias against the team.

A) Thunder - Every team had the advantage of Durant being injured, yet only one team won the championship. Besides, the Warriors had a better season than any the Thunder previously had so the most logical assumption would be that the Warriors would have been the better team.

B) Spurs - Could have been the worst match-up for the Warriors, but did not earn the right to face the Warriors in the playoffs. They could have beat the Pelicans to end the regular season to get a higher seed, but they did not. They could have beat the Clippers to advance in the playoffs, but they did not. They did not earn the right to play the Warriors, so why were the Warriors lucky to not face them.

C) Clippers - Easy one as they were so close to facing the Warriors, but choked to the Rockets. Like the Spurs, they did not earn the right to face the Warriors. Besides, if they choked against the Rockets, what makes you think they would have beat the Warriors.

D) Pelicans - A few players injured like Holiday and Evans, but they would not have made a big enough difference anyway.

E) Grizzlies - Conley only missed one game so you acting like he missed the series is childish. He literally missed one game and came back to play some of the best basketball of his career so the injury did not hold him back. Also, before you mention Allen's injury, the Warriors figured him out and made him such an offensive liability that it more than offset his defense and he was sitting on the bench anyway.

F) Rockets - Beverly and that big *** PF from Lithuania (I think) are back-ups. They are not talented enough to swing the tide in that series to the Rockets favor.

G) Cavs - This is the only series where the Warriors really got lucky.
-----Injuries happen
-----No one really knows who would have one if Love and Irving played so the Warriors may have won anyway.
-----The Warriors rested players all year and played starters less minutes so they deserved to be healthier. \
-----Defense is the big reason the Cavs won two games and the back-ups were instrumental in that where Love and Irving are lacking on the defensive end.


To sum it all up, you are not calling it like you see it, you are biased and are only using the facts (and I use facts loosely) that support your point. you are simply ignoring anything that proves you wrong even though pretty much everyone else sees it but you.

Lionel20
12-06-2015, 11:46 PM
It seems like you have a point to prove and you ignore all the evidence against your point and only choose the facts that support you. While you think you sound intelligent, everyone else sees what you are doing so you are not fooling anyone.

1. The Warriors turn around was for many reasons. New ownership, new GM, Jerry West as a consultant, better players than the team has had over the last 40 years, and yes, Jackson as coach. It seems like you want to give Jackson all the credit when all the coaches before him were not given the talent Jackson had to work with. Did he vastly improve their defense? Yes. Did he vastly underachieve on offense? Hell yes. Jackson did help turn this team around, but he also came in when the Warriors front office was at its best and the talent level of players were at its best so a big improvement should be expected.

2. If you cannot see the difference in ball movement you are an idiot and all of us our wasting our time arguing with you. If you cannot see how a first year coach can emulate an all time great coach like Pop, it is not hard. a) He played in and mastered his system. b) He has great players who are capable of playing such a difficult system. Yes, the players are important to the system. No great coach has been successful without great players. Jackson had these same great players and could not figure out how to use them offensively. Kerr was able to do that and that is the only reason the Warriors are NBA champions today. I find it very difficult to believe the Warriors would have won the championship under Jackson's system.

3. The idea of the Warriors getting lucky is tired and anyone hanging on to it are showing their obvious bias against the team.

A) Thunder - Every team had the advantage of Durant being injured, yet only one team won the championship. Besides, the Warriors had a better season than any the Thunder previously had so the most logical assumption would be that the Warriors would have been the better team.

B) Spurs - Could have been the worst match-up for the Warriors, but did not earn the right to face the Warriors in the playoffs. They could have beat the Pelicans to end the regular season to get a higher seed, but they did not. They could have beat the Clippers to advance in the playoffs, but they did not. They did not earn the right to play the Warriors, so why were the Warriors lucky to not face them.

C) Clippers - Easy one as they were so close to facing the Warriors, but choked to the Rockets. Like the Spurs, they did not earn the right to face the Warriors. Besides, if they choked against the Rockets, what makes you think they would have beat the Warriors.

D) Pelicans - A few players injured like Holiday and Evans, but they would not have made a big enough difference anyway.

E) Grizzlies - Conley only missed one game so you acting like he missed the series is childish. He literally missed one game and came back to play some of the best basketball of his career so the injury did not hold him back. Also, before you mention Allen's injury, the Warriors figured him out and made him such an offensive liability that it more than offset his defense and he was sitting on the bench anyway.

F) Rockets - Beverly and that big *** PF from Lithuania (I think) are back-ups. They are not talented enough to swing the tide in that series to the Rockets favor.

G) Cavs - This is the only series where the Warriors really got lucky.
-----Injuries happen
-----No one really knows who would have one if Love and Irving played so the Warriors may have won anyway.
-----The Warriors rested players all year and played starters less minutes so they deserved to be healthier. \
-----Defense is the big reason the Cavs won two games and the back-ups were instrumental in that where Love and Irving are lacking on the defensive end.


To sum it all up, you are not calling it like you see it, you are biased and are only using the facts (and I use facts loosely) that support your point. you are simply ignoring anything that proves you wrong even though pretty much everyone else sees it but you.

Dude, usually when someone keeps using the "everyone knows you're this, that" it means they can't defend there argument on their own. Who cares what "everyone" else thinks, I surely don't. It's your post, why not just make your point. If "you" feel I'm bias, then show me where. I feel I'm very reasonable and definitely not afraid to admit when I'm wrong.

1. It's my understanding that Meyers was an assistant in 2011. I would think that Jackson had more input on Klay Thompson at least. I'm not giving Jackson all the credit, I'm comparing Jackson with Kerr, and seems Jackson was much more influential in putting together the cornerstones that have led to the Warriors being such a great team.

2. lol, I think you, like many others are overrating the importance of ball movement.

The top 5 teams this year in Avg. Second per Touch (Team Record), (Off Rtg/Rk):

1. Warriors 2.36 (21 - 0), (114/1st)
2. Wizards 2.41 (8 - 9), (98.8/25th)
3. Celtics 2.42 (10 - 9), (101/17th)
4. Knicks 2.49 (10 - 11), (99/24th)
5. Mavs 2.51 (11 - 9), (102/12th)

So the average "offensive rating" for teams with the "best" ball movement = 16th in the NBA. Hell, the 76ers are top-10 in ball movement measures, they have a 1 - 20 record, and unsurprisingly the leagues worst offense, with a rating of 92. Simply moving the ball around has little to know relationship with offensive production in the NBA. The Thunder run a lot of Iso, thanks to their PG being Westbrook, who holds the ball on average 5.5 seconds per touch, and yet the Thunder have the 2nd ranked offense in the league this season.

3. The Warriors catching breaks is certainly not their fault. But there path to the Finals was certainly the most favorable they could've hoped for. So this idea that I'm faulting them for other teams mishaps and misfortune is telling me that you must be arguing with someone else.

My only points with 2,3 were that Jackson gets blamed for losing to the Clippers/Spurs - to teams that the Warriors avoided in the postseason under Kerr. And Jackson's tendency to over-ISO being the reason for the loses, is false; and I think anyone that believes that it was is the "idiot". The Warriors were improving each year under Jackson, and that improvement continued under Kerr, and now Walton. It's not like Kerr just birthed this potential dynasty out of his "staff and system". Jackson was the real chef cooking this Historic team up for a few seasons, all Kerr did was take it out the oven and serve it.

I wasn't even a fan of Mark Jackson. I though he was an grimey ol' dude. Lacob owns the team, it's his right to fire Jackson for whatever reason he felt the need. But what I dislike more than Jackson's attitude, is a guy that usurp's all the glory from someone else hard work. While Kerr, has remarked on numerous occasions how Jackson did an excellent job developing the talent on this Warriors team, it's people, some of whom are in this thread that I'm addressing. It's people who are unapologetically down on Jackson, a key force in building this great Warriors team, that are actually making me appreciate more of his work.

slashsnake
12-10-2015, 06:03 AM
Firstly, Luke Walton has won 21 of his first 21 games, coaching; and coach of the month. I think you can give him more than just one of the dudes that's part of "Kerr's staff". smh

My only points with 2,3 were that Jackson gets blamed for losing to the Clippers/Spurs - to teams that the Warriors avoided in the postseason under Kerr.



What? The Warriors are 5-1 against the Clippers since Jackson left. You mention the Thunder with Durant as a big reason they won so many games... HE PLAYED IN 3 OF THEIR 4 GAMES LAST YEAR VS. THE WARRIORS AND LOST ALL THREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How's this a huge devastating thing to meet them? The only time they couldn't beat the Clippers was when Jackson was coaching them. If that was such an issue, then quit showing up unprepared for those crap teams and costing yourself a top 4 seeding.



You are acting like 3 games from being out of the playoffs in 2013 to 22 games from being out of the playoffs is just a minor jump.



Lionel... tell me this. NBA shot % off assists vs. NBA shot % not off assists.


Hint... its a 15.5% effective FG% difference. Really, you are shaking your head at passing more instead of hero ball iso???



Then explain how Kerr's passing ball movement which spiked their assist rate, their hockey assist rate etc. wasn't huge. I am not talking about blindly throwing the ball around. I am talking about using spacing and movement and ball passing to get good shots.



Explain how catch and shoot %'s compare to dribble and shoot (hint, Curry's FG% jumps 5% there, Klay is similar... and others)


Explain how taking A LOT more midrange shots is better than getting 3's and shots at the rim please Lionel.


Explain how all these changes I said put the warriors into shooting shots they hit more often isn't a big deal???


Curry shot 47% after 7 dribbles, and over 51% off 0 dribbles under Jackson. Still does under Kerr and company, just shoots 14% more of the 0 dribble and 14% less of the 7 dribble shots in Kerr's system than he did in Jackson's. You can talk about the Wizards offense all you want, I am talking about Golden State here.


You can shake your head all you want, but the scheme changed and the offense flourished with making more passes, getting the ball in the paint more, taking more high % or high point shots.


You can shake your head about challenging your star player to be a star on both ends of the court instead of just a great scorer, but that's huge IMO.


I am not saying it's all Kerr, nobody is... But EVERYONE is saying Kerr is a lot better than Jackson, and when talking about what makes you great to what makes you elite or a champion, yes all the parts are huge and have to be working together.

Scoots
12-10-2015, 10:43 AM
You know the Warriors are only 2 games better this year than last ... I don't know why people are making such a big deal about it this year when they didn't last year.

Scoots
12-10-2015, 11:36 AM
If you cannot see the difference in ball movement you are an idiot

Hit. Nail. Head.

effen5
12-10-2015, 01:20 PM
Steve Kerr for Fred Hoiberg and Derrick Rose

phantasyyy
12-10-2015, 03:50 PM
You know the Warriors are only 2 games better this year than last ... I don't know why people are making such a big deal about it this year when they didn't last year.

Being undefeated helps haha. Its such a big deal due to that and Curry's improvement. I mean I hope he does win MIP and MVP

Lionel20
12-10-2015, 06:23 PM
What? The Warriors are 5-1 against the Clippers since Jackson left. You mention the Thunder with Durant as a big reason they won so many games... HE PLAYED IN 3 OF THEIR 4 GAMES LAST YEAR VS. THE WARRIORS AND LOST ALL THREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


How's this a huge devastating thing to meet them? The only time they couldn't beat the Clippers was when Jackson was coaching them. If that was such an issue, then quit showing up unprepared for those crap teams and costing yourself a top 4 seeding.


What do you mean Jackson couldn't beat the Clippers, even if you go back to 2011-12 when Steph was hurt, Jackson does not have a losing record against the Clippers. I don't know where you get this idea that the Jackson coached Warriors couldn't beat the Clippers.

Now, if you're talking just post season records, then there's nothing in Kerr's body of work to compare to because the Warriors were able to avoid the Clippers last year.




You are acting like 3 games from being out of the playoffs in 2013 to 22 games from being out of the playoffs is just a minor jump.



Lionel... tell me this. NBA shot % off assists vs. NBA shot % not off assists.


Hint... its a 15.5% effective FG% difference. Really, you are shaking your head at passing more instead of hero ball iso???



Then explain how Kerr's passing ball movement which spiked their assist rate, their hockey assist rate etc. wasn't huge. I am not talking about blindly throwing the ball around. I am talking about using spacing and movement and ball passing to get good shots.



Explain how catch and shoot %'s compare to dribble and shoot (hint, Curry's FG% jumps 5% there, Klay is similar... and others)


Explain how taking A LOT more midrange shots is better than getting 3's and shots at the rim please Lionel.


Explain how all these changes I said put the warriors into shooting shots they hit more often isn't a big deal???


Curry shot 47% after 7 dribbles, and over 51% off 0 dribbles under Jackson. Still does under Kerr and company, just shoots 14% more of the 0 dribble and 14% less of the 7 dribble shots in Kerr's system than he did in Jackson's. You can talk about the Wizards offense all you want, I am talking about Golden State here.


You can shake your head all you want, but the scheme changed and the offense flourished with making more passes, getting the ball in the paint more, taking more high % or high point shots.


You can shake your head about challenging your star player to be a star on both ends of the court instead of just a great scorer, but that's huge IMO.


I am not saying it's all Kerr, nobody is... But EVERYONE is saying Kerr is a lot better than Jackson, and when talking about what makes you great to what makes you elite or a champion, yes all the parts are huge and have to be working together.

So Kerr's "ball movement system" is responsible for the Warriors increasing assist rate? Well,

Here are the 2014-15 top 5 ranked teams in "avg. second per touch" measuring ball movement, and there corresponding rank in adjusted assist = assist, free throw assist, hockey assist.

Warriors
Avg. sec per touch = Ranked 1st
Adjusted Assist = Ranked 1st

Jazz
Avg. sec per touch = Ranked 2nd
Adjusted Assist = Ranked 26th

Knicks
Avg. sec per touch = Ranked 3rd
Adjusted Assist = Ranked 24th

Spurs
Avg. sec per touch = Ranked 4th
Adjusted Assist = Ranked 3rd

76ers
Avg. sec per touch = Ranked 5th
Adjusted Assist = Ranked 28th


Based on this sample, looks like Ball Movement to Assist has virtually "no relationship" at all. The Kings and Cavs have poor ball movement, and rank 4th and 5th respectively in Adjusted Assist.

But I'll let you in on something that the Warriors, Spurs, Cavs all did well, and has a higher relationship with winning than ball movement. When Warriors shooters were in assist situations they converted on them into points more so than any team in the league @ 1.34 pts per potential assist. The Cavs were 2nd, @1.24, Kings 3rd, @ Spurs 4th. The Warriors actually very efficient in converting potential assist into points under Jackson in 2013-14, @1.26 2nd in the NBA. The Heat were 3rd @ 1.24, Clippers & Spurs 4th and 5th. The Rockets led the NBA in 2013-14 @1.28.

The majority of the top "ball movement" teams are not playoff teams. The majority of the top Pts/Potential Assist teams are talented playoff teams. It's overwhelmingly the development of "talent" that helps a team win, show me how Kerr helped cultivate Curry and Thompson, etc. more so than Jackson? Before he walked in the doors, the Warriors key players were already improving year-by-year at a high rate.

tredigs
12-10-2015, 09:06 PM
Lionel, you insufferable ignorant dullard, obviously talent is king. But knowing how to best utilize that talent is just as paramount. Kerr had enough immediate respect within the team to be able to sit his All Star PF upon his return from injury (name me 3 coaches ever who have sat an incumbent All Star upon their return from injury halfway through the season). He also moved Andre Iguodala - a player who started every game of his career - to the bench in favor of a lesser and unproven player because he thought the team would benefit overall. Stunningly, Andre was open to the decision (one that very few coaches would have made), and the team did in fact benefit as a result.

Their improved offense is about a hell of a lot more than simply passing. It's how to best utilize Curry off the ball, through multiple action sets, and in keeping Draymond as a starter in order to keep the spacing of his 3pt threat on the court alive. Defensively, the switching system that they developed under Kerr and co. was not even discussed under Mark Jackson, let alone implemented. And it has bred what has become the most dangerous 5 man lineup possibly of this generation due to the flexibility offensively/defensively that they developed on both ends.

These things just don't happen under Mark Jackson, and that much was obvious. He had to go, so he went. And the team exploded as a result. They'd have been very good under Jackson, but not anything close to this. The assistants that Kerr brought in alone bring more value than Jackson and his entire crew offered (mostly because he butted heads with so many of them and went at the position in his own way).

Did your favorite coach get snubbed for COY or something? Why do you even care about this. The team loves their coaching staff and they do an incredible job on both ends. The notion to even make a thread crying about it is just annoying.

Lionel20
12-11-2015, 02:26 AM
Lionel, you insufferable ignorant dullard, obviously talent is king. But knowing how to best utilize that talent is just as paramount. Kerr had enough immediate respect within the team to be able to sit his All Star PF upon his return from injury (name me 3 coaches ever who have sat an incumbent All Star upon their return from injury halfway through the season). He also moved Andre Iguodala - a player who started every game of his career - to the bench in favor of a lesser and unproven player because he thought the team would benefit overall. Stunningly, Andre was open to the decision (one that very few coaches would have made), and the team did in fact benefit as a result.

Their improved offense is about a hell of a lot more than simply passing. It's how to best utilize Curry off the ball, through multiple action sets, and in keeping Draymond as a starter in order to keep the spacing of his 3pt threat on the court alive. Defensively, the switching system that they developed under Kerr and co. was not even discussed under Mark Jackson, let alone implemented. And it has bred what has become the most dangerous 5 man lineup possibly of this generation due to the flexibility offensively/defensively that they developed on both ends.

These things just don't happen under Mark Jackson, and that much was obvious. He had to go, so he went. And the team exploded as a result. They'd have been very good under Jackson, but not anything close to this. The assistants that Kerr brought in alone bring more value than Jackson and his entire crew offered (mostly because he butted heads with so many of them and went at the position in his own way).

Did your favorite coach get snubbed for COY or something? Why do you even care about this. The team loves their coaching staff and they do an incredible job on both ends. The notion to even make a thread crying about it is just annoying.

Digs, you pestiferous idiot, yes Curry is better under Walton this year than Kerr last year. Yes, he was better under Kerr last year than Jackson the year before, and better under Jackson's last year than Jackson's second year.

I actually can score using my own version of win shares based on the Alternative Win Score formula.

Regular Seasons
*Win Shares

Curry 2016 (Walton) = ??? likely 17-18 proj. WS
Curry 2015 (Kerr) = 15.99 WS
Curry 2014 (Jackson) = 14.01 WS
Curry 2013 (Jackson) = 12.60 WS
Curry 2012 (Jackson) = injured for much of the season

Curry prior to Jackson, avg = about 9 WS

If we're going to credit coaching for the Warriors best player, my work clearly shows that Curry made his biggest advancements, a 40% increase in value, after Jackson took over in the 2011-12 Season.

The other key pieces Draymond, Thompson, Iguodala, Barnes all happened under Jackson. I don't know to what extent you want to credit Jackson (he certainly deserves a portion), but Kerr was completely absent in building the foundation structure and talent base of what may go down as one of the all-time teams. And Walton is out here looking like the second coming of Red Auerbach this season with Kerr on leave... although unlike Walton it was Auerbach that provided his input on selecting the key players and then coached them into stars.


The other thing I can dispute is that you make it seem that Kerr provided the Warriors with some massive defensive turn-around through yet another hype term "his switching system", which is a ignorant thing to state.

Jackson's 2014 Warriors were just as good, despite Draymond playing 10 less minutes. Fortunately for Draymond he got the chance to showcase his talents with the Lee injury at the beginning of 2015. By the time Lee was healthy, the Warriors w Draymond starting were on an epic run, and a high +/- with him on the floor, I doubt it was such an excruciating decision to bring Lee in off the bench.

Jackson's 2014 Warriors:
Defensive Rating = 102.6
TOV% = 13.6
eFG% = .477
Opponents shot 4.6% lower than there average


Kerr's 2015 Warriors
Defensive Rating = 101.4
TOV% = 14.3
eFG% = .470
Opponents shot 4.2% lower than there average


I think it's pretty safe to say playing Draymond w/ the 1st team, and a 40% increase in his MPG more than explains this differential. But it fairly simple-minded of you to just brand it as another one of "Kerr's system".


And save all the touchy-feely "why do you care" stuff for some Lifetime movies forum. This is a sports debate, if you can't drop an rational argument I suggest you just log off or click on another thread.

Wrigheyes4MVP
12-11-2015, 12:07 PM
People still trying to take credit away from Kerr lol. This is still his team, running his system.