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