If you're telling me you don't understand the credibility difference between two groups then you might have a problem. Acting like NBA front offices and sportswriters have the same credibility is brain dead logic. Might as well say NBA coaches and NBA fans are the same since they both vote.
For the millionth time, I don't base my criticism based off one look at the standings sheet. So you you acting like its inconsistent if I dont do that for another team is ridiculous.
I didn't say you did base your criticism off the standings, did I? I said it seems like people hold Stotts to a different criteria (not standings) than other coaches.
I didn't say I had an issue with the credibility difference between the two. I had an issue with you saying you've determined Olshey is better than Stotts by using Executive of the Year voting, but provided NOTHING similar to compare it with Stotts. I'll try again. What are you comparing the two with in order to determine one is way better than the other outside of your opinion?
Well I don't watch the Celtics night in and night out. How do you expect people to know as much about how another team is playing as they do about the Blazers?
I don't expect them to know as much. I expect them to have a bias towards the team they watch causing them to think their team issues/strengths are vastly different than the rest of the league. This is true for the supporters/haters of thier GM, coach, and players. This is why fans think their best player should be MVP/traded, their bench guys are amazing/horrible, etc. That's where taking a step back, removing emotion, and using large data sets can help paint a more accurate picture. In my opinion.
It makes sense to do that. Stotts should be evaluated according to his weird coaching beliefs. Also, Stotts-lovers apply the injury excuse to him, inconsistently from all the other coaches who have the same injuries.
Well I watch a different NBA team night in and night out and I can tell are issues are different based on our opponents. But I cant come to conclusions on the way another team is coached based off of one game. Large data sets? Okay. How about how weve been last in assists the last two years and near the bottom the year before that. Or how about our 29th ranked defense. I don't analyze the coaching based off emotion. You seem to be stretching yourself thin to try to discredit others opinions when they back theirs up and you struggle to.
Doesn't Stotts have one of the worst post season records among active coaches? Or is that data not good enough for you?
"weird coaching beliefs"? According to who? I thought Stotts-haters only count other teams injuries, not ours?
With the roster Olshey built. And Olshey's Clipper rosters also under-achieved in the playoffs. Now we're starting to compare like resumes.
Yes. You're right and all the front offices around the league have been wrong for a decade. Leave your info below in case any NBA franchises want to hire you.
I love the assist data set. It's been proven to have near zero correlation with winning basketball. We could find large data sets where Portland is top 2, like 3 pointers made. But what good is that data if it doesnt' correlate to wins? If you have a stat where Portland is 29th in league that also has a strong correlation to wins, please provide it. I've asked you for this many times, but you tend to deflect, go to "eye tests" or provide a tiny data set.
Wrong about what? Not voting for coach of the year? You didn't like me comparing Olshey's playoff success in Portland with Stotts success in Portland? It's like they're the same!
The closest thing you have is the coach of the year award and he's still not where Olshey is in terms of votes for being the best at their jobs. If you still have a problem with that comparison then you should go find the data since you're arguing otherwise.
