Fire Stotts Eventually

[Minstrel]

While we're making up hypothetical stories

I'm not sure how hypothetical this one is--Kerr took over essentially the same team as Mark Jackson. They went from a first-round loser to a 64-win juggernaut and champion. There's never any such thing as identical teams season-over-season, but that's about as close to a "control case" as we'll probably ever get in the NBA.

And it's not like they just started hitting shots they missed before. Kerr featured different players and the team played in a very obviously different way. So chalking up the results to luck of the draw would probably be facile.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm not sure how hypothetical this one is--Kerr took over essentially the same team as Mark Jackson. They went from a first-round loser to a 64-win juggernaut and champion. There's never any such thing as identical teams season-over-season, but that's about as close to a "control case" as we'll probably ever get in the NBA.

And it's not like they just started hitting shots they missed before. Kerr featured different players and the team played in a very obviously different way. So chalking up the results to luck of the draw would probably be facile.

And Mark Jackson is Terry Stotts. I bet they don’t win a ring if Jackson had stayed the coach.

 

[Minstrel]

And Mark Jackson is Terry Stotts.

I think that's a fair comparison. Both had some success, but neither seems like more than a mediocre coach, neither seems like the type that can add value beyond merely coaching the player talent they have or figure out how to maximize underutilized players.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If Stotts won three rings he would have the city named after him.

Stottlandia?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

While we're making up hypothetical stories:

If Stotts coached the GSW they would have won 5 straight titles.

The Golden Stott Warriors!

 

[Hoopguru]

I agree with you, if it means anything. Part of it is about energy expenditure on their parts, although I still think their defense is underrated by most people, especially analyticians. Dame's taken a number of big charges this year and is a lot harder to post up against than a guy his height should be. CJ always blocked more shots than a player with no size who plays no defense should and he gets some big steals, too. They pick their spots and seem to at least try to ratchet it up in crunch time.

CJ is good at jumping the passing lanes when he’s pumped and energentic.

 

[Tince]

I'm not sure how hypothetical this one is--Kerr took over essentially the same team as Mark Jackson. They went from a first-round loser to a 64-win juggernaut and champion. There's never any such thing as identical teams season-over-season, but that's about as close to a "control case" as we'll probably ever get in the NBA.

And it's not like they just started hitting shots they missed before. Kerr featured different players and the team played in a very obviously different way. So chalking up the results to luck of the draw would probably be facile.

I agree with all the facts you provided here. There are some additional variables, Green, Thompson, and Barnes had a combined 4 years of NBA experience in Jackson's last year, so there was natural growth in front of them. But like you said, you'll never get the same thing year over year.

Statements like "Kerr maximized every player" are the ones I take greater issue with. Some people like to make strong, vague, unprovable statements that sound impressive which can never be disproven.

Fact is, Kerr was the coach of 4 amazing teams. When reduced back to one all-star, the GSW haven't been near as impressive.

 

[Tince]

And Mark Jackson is Terry Stotts. I bet they don’t win a ring if Jackson had stayed the coach.

It's possible or they could've won more... the beauty of these predictions is we'll never know either way.

 

[Minstrel]

I agree with all the facts you provided here. There are some additional variables, Green, Thompson, and Barnes had a combined 4 years of NBA experience in Jackson's last year, so there was natural growth in front of them. But like you said, you'll never get the same thing year over year.

Statements like "Kerr maximized every player" are the ones I take greater issue with. Some people like to make strong, vague, unprovable statements that sound impressive that can never be disproven.

Fact is, Kerr was the coach of 4 amazing teams. When reduced back to one all-star, the GSW haven't been near as impressive.

I think it's reasonable to say that you can't just blindly evaluate a coach by his record. No matter how great the coach, talent is always the largest factor. I like Kerr as a coach due to his expressed coaching philosophies and how his teams play, so I tend to give him a lot of credit, but that's a subjective appraisal.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's possible or they could've won more... the beauty of these predictions is we'll never know either way.

Nope. I know these things. You'll just have to take my word for it

 

[Tince]

I think it's reasonable to say that you can't just blindly evaluate a coach by his record. No matter how great the coach, talent is always the largest factor. I like Kerr as a coach due to his expressed coaching philosophies and how his teams play, so I tend to give him a lot of credit, but that's a subjective appraisal.

We like Kerr for the same reasons. I don't give him a ton of credit for the Warriors championships, but I didn't see him as a liability then and I don't see him as one now. Warrior fans who watch them more do, but I chalk that up to standard fan behavior.

 

[Tince]

Nope. I know these things. You'll just have to take my word for it

You know I have trust issues Nate!

 

[wizenheimer]

While we're making up hypothetical stories:

If Stotts coached the GSW they would have won 5 straight titles.

I have to ask: what is it with you and Stotts? Why does it seem you're the manager of his apology-tour? I mean, I get that you think he's a good coach. But I just don't see why you're such a force of resistance to the idea of replacing Stotts

his career regular season winning percentage is .515. Out of a thousand games he's only won 30 more than he's lost. His career playoff winning percentage is .344. Project that over a regular season and it's a 28-54 record. His overall record is 526-515. That screams "average". I know you believe in context, and that there is plenty of context that mitigates in favor of Stotts vs his record. But there is a lot of other context that goes the other direction

for instance, I also know you believe Portland does not have talent sufficient to contend. That's one side of a context coin. But the obvious other side of that same coin is that Portland would be risking nothing significant if they changed coaches. Just another year of pretending

in terms of the personal Stotts context: this is his 9th season which is twice the tenure of an average coach. So he's skated to double the tenure based upon his average record. Another big chunk of context is that he has been paid 40-50 million dollars over the last 9 years. That's a lot of mercy to help him getting over being unemployed. Not only that, he's 63 years old. For chrissakes he can start drawing Social Security and in 19 months will be eligible for Medicare

I'm with a lot of people in that I think the guy who hired Stotts should be the first fired; but I just don't see a significant downside to changing coaches because the upside of the team seems limited

 

[e_blazer]

I have to ask: what is it with you and Stotts? Why does it seem you're the manager of his apology-tour? I mean, I get that you think he's a good coach. But I just don't see why you're such a force of resistance to the idea of replacing Stotts

his career regular season winning percentage is .515. Out of a thousand games he's only won 30 more than he's lost. His career playoff winning percentage is .344. Project that over a regular season and it's a 28-54 record. His overall record is 526-515. That screams "average". I know you believe in context, and that there is plenty of context that mitigates in favor of Stotts vs his record. But there is a lot of other context that goes the other direction

for instance, I also know you believe Portland does not have talent sufficient to contend. That's one side of a context coin. But the obvious other side of that same coin is that Portland would be risking nothing significant if they changed coaches. Just another year of pretending

in terms of the personal Stotts context: this is his 9th season which is twice the tenure of an average coach. So he's skated to double the tenure based upon his average record. Another big chunk of context is that he has been paid 40-50 million dollars over the last 9 years. That's a lot of mercy to help him getting over being unemployed. Not only that, he's 63 years old. For chrissakes he can start drawing Social Security and in 19 months will be eligible for Medicare

I'm with a lot of people in that I think the guy who hired Stotts should be the first fired; but I just don't see a significant downside to changing coaches because the upside of the team seems limited

I'm not going to answer for Tince, but I will chime in with my usual response. I think that Stotts is a solid coach and I think that the Blazers have had many who were worse. I think that more of the mediocrity during his tenure has been due to roster and injuries than it has been to anything about his coaching abilities. I'm not opposed to a change, but the time to make that change is the off-season, not now when the Blazers are in the midst of securing a decent playoff berth. I also am a believer that Olshey should go before Terry and the new person should get to choose who the new coach should be.

 

[wizenheimer]

I also am a believer that Olshey should go before Terry and the new person should get to choose who the new coach should be.

I think that's pretty much the consensus of those who believe change is necessary

I also don't care if he's fired in the next 3 minutes or 3 months from now. Obviously, if Portland makes it to the WCF and actually puts up a good fight there, that would change the equation for many. Not sure it would for me though because short of a championship I think Olshey should be canned

 

[Hoopguru]

I think that's pretty much the consensus of those who believe change is necessary

I also don't care if he's fired in the next 3 minutes or 3 months from now. Obviously, if Portland makes it to the WCF and actually puts up a good fight there, that would change the equation for many. Not sure it would for me though because short of a championship I think Olshey should be canned

If Mark Few loses tonight should he be canned? Im being sarcastic but he seems to not get over the hump, so when is it coaching or just talent?

 

[Natebishop3]

We like Kerr for the same reasons. I don't give him a ton of credit for the Warriors championships, but I didn't see him as a liability then and I don't see him as one now. Warrior fans who watch them more do, but I chalk that up to standard fan behavior.

I think those fans are struggling to realize that their team is missing a ton of talent from when they were a true contender. You don't just lose Durant and Klay and bounce back like nothing happened. They also don't have Iggy anymore. They have a lot of young guys and Draymond simply isn't a guy that can carry the offensive load.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Now doesn't seem to be working, how about Fire Stotts Later, or Fire Stotts Tomorrow?

 

[Tince]

I have to ask: what is it with you and Stotts? Why does it seem you're the manager of his apology-tour? I mean, I get that you think he's a good coach. But I just don't see why you're such a force of resistance to the idea of replacing Stotts

his career regular season winning percentage is .515. Out of a thousand games he's only won 30 more than he's lost. His career playoff winning percentage is .344. Project that over a regular season and it's a 28-54 record. His overall record is 526-515. That screams "average". I know you believe in context, and that there is plenty of context that mitigates in favor of Stotts vs his record. But there is a lot of other context that goes the other direction

for instance, I also know you believe Portland does not have talent sufficient to contend. That's one side of a context coin. But the obvious other side of that same coin is that Portland would be risking nothing significant if they changed coaches. Just another year of pretending

in terms of the personal Stotts context: this is his 9th season which is twice the tenure of an average coach. So he's skated to double the tenure based upon his average record. Another big chunk of context is that he has been paid 40-50 million dollars over the last 9 years. That's a lot of mercy to help him getting over being unemployed. Not only that, he's 63 years old. For chrissakes he can start drawing Social Security and in 19 months will be eligible for Medicare

I'm with a lot of people in that I think the guy who hired Stotts should be the first fired; but I just don't see a significant downside to changing coaches because the upside of the team seems limited

As I've stated before, I think the issue is roster related, not coaching (one way or the other) and think any focus otherwise is fruitless.

I'm 100% ok with him getting fired though, unless it causes Dame to leave (which I doubt).

 

[wizenheimer]

If Mark Few loses tonight should he be canned? Im being sarcastic but he seems to not get over the hump, so when is it coaching or just talent?

I'm not sure how Mark Few's career at Gonzaga justifies Stotts keeping his job, or losing it for that matter

but it always seems to come down to: Portland might do worse than Stotts, so keep him as coach

 

[Hoopguru]

I'm not sure how Mark Few's career at Gonzaga justifies Stotts keeping his job, or losing it for that matter

but it always seems to come down to: Portland might do worse than Stotts, so keep him as coach

Oh, I can see how you may have thought I was referring to Stotts as you were talking about a change, but i wasn't, I listened to a radio show this morning and they were talking about if Few doesnt win it all tonight it will reflect on his legacy as he's had numerous shots but never won the big one. He imo, regardless if he wins it all tonight or not has been a superb coach and for 12 million a year has built a terrific program.

 

[Natebishop3]

Now doesn't seem to be working, how about Fire Stotts Later, or Fire Stotts Tomorrow?

I already made this joke sly!

I would also accept "fire Stotts soon."

 

[Tince]

I'm not going to answer for Tince, but I will chime in with my usual response. I think that Stotts is a solid coach and I think that the Blazers have had many who were worse. I think that more of the mediocrity during his tenure has been due to roster and injuries than it has been to anything about his coaching abilities. I'm not opposed to a change, but the time to make that change is the off-season, not now when the Blazers are in the midst of securing a decent playoff berth. I also am a believer that Olshey should go before Terry and the new person should get to choose who the new coach should be.

Your feelings are my thoughts exactly, so I'll co-sign on this post. Thanks and well said!

 

[Tince]

I'm not sure how Mark Few's career at Gonzaga justifies Stotts keeping his job, or losing it for that matter

but it always seems to come down to: Portland might do worse than Stotts, so keep him as coach

I don't know I've ever heard this as the main reason for not wanting Stotts fired. Then again, I don't hear many people who are 100% against firing Stotts. The majority of posts I read that are considered "defending Stotts" are actually just questioning if he's the real problem or if the problem is more related to the roster.

 

[Tince]

If Mark Few loses tonight should he be canned? Im being sarcastic but he seems to not get over the hump, so when is it coaching or just talent?

I know you're tongue in cheek with this, but it's kinda interesting. I wonder how many Zag fans are upset they let him go 21 straight years without a championship without getting rid of him. Hopefully none.

Few has done a great job, he's adapting to the new transfer and international style of roster creation as well as any, well ahead of the curve.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I already made this joke sly!

 

[Minstrel]

but it always seems to come down to: Portland might do worse than Stotts, so keep him as coach

There might be people like that. There are also plenty of "This isn't working, so just fire Stotts" people without much consideration of how much of this not working is due to Stotts.

My viewpoint is: Fire Stotts the instant you (the general you, in the case, the team) believe you have a superior replacement available.

That superior replacement could be a proven NBA head coach, it could be a top college coach, it could be a talented assistant. But I think you should already have someone (or someones) you believe in as a better option for this team when you fire a coach or GM. To me, that's operating with a plan. Franchises that say, "Fire so-and-so and we'll figure out the rest later" are operating by the seat of their pants. I want Portland to be operating with a plan.

 

[BonesJones]

We are going to find out just how good a coach he is now as he's got a decent team and nice mix of vets and young high draft picks. It takes a while for any team thats gone through some injuries and player changes to gel. I think he's a good coach but we will find out just how good he is in the next year or two. Unless he steps away which wouldn't surprise me either.

Our roster is much better than theirs. Their roster is pretty trash. Draymond's production has fallen off a cliff. I'd take 5 of our guys over any of theirs outside of Steph.

 

[BonesJones]

Statements like "Kerr maximized every player" are the ones I take greater issue with. Some people like to make strong, vague, unprovable statements that sound impressive which can never be disproven.
.

That's literally all YOU do. You can make this complaint without being hypocritical when you start defending Stotts with actual basketball reasons.

 

[Tince]

That's literally all YOU do. You can make this complaint without being hypocritical when you start defending Stotts with actual basketball reasons.

This is another false claim using absolutes. Find a post where I said Stotts maximized every player on a roster, like you just did about Kerr. No chance you'll find that.

I've laid out measurable criteria in this specific thread that can be vetted and measured looking back and moving forward. I might be wrong, but I've taken a stance and laid it out ahead of time.

Saying a coach maximized every player is beyond subjective. If you're ready to lay out criteria, that can be used league wide, I'm all ears. I've asked for this before and you've continued to come up with excuses for not providing it. Or you say something like assists correlate to winning, then I pull the data and they do not, then you get upset.

I don't know how many times I have to say this: My stance is that coaching (not Stotts) plays such a small role in overall team success that it is not something worth creating an entire brand over. I believe top end talent is by far the best predictor of who will win championships and I believe I have backed that up with data.

Want to fire Stotts tonight? Fine with me. I still think we're still a 1st or 2nd round team in the West.