Who deserves most of the blame for this season?

[CDM_Stats]

There's a lot of blame to go around, but how anyone can pick anyone but Kerr when you can only choose one is beyond me. He's been a disaster in SO many ways. I respect the guy as a decent person and I respect his career but he's been so lost the last couple of years, I don't know how you recover from that without starting over from scratch. Like 90% of the choices he made were the wrong call and that's not even counting the many things he never saw, or saw too late. His blind loyalty to the vets, while perhaps endearing, is the final nail in the coffin.

Replace Kerr with any coach in history and what is our win total? Maybe +4-5 wins best case scenario.

The talent stinks and the roster construction is bad.

The wins.. sure, maybe. If the same predictive analytics that people fawned over just a couple years ago are the same - they were - then the team left a ton of net value on the table this year. Its sloppy math to apply it per game, so who knows how many more wins it actually would have netted, but fact is the team wasn't likely to make a ton of noise this year unless they had an adaptive coach and that's never been Kerr's style. Also said adaptive coach would have had to make a lot of right calls, and at some point the law of averages kicks in - no one's right all the time

All that said, it is absolutely unforgiveable that Kerr could do the job he did this year, W/L wise, and still not have an idea of what his best 5 man unit was. He was content to roll Curry out in high pressure situations with no actual playcall and ask him to make magic happen. He was content to roll Klay out there game after painstaking game on the off-chance he had a retro Klay night. He was content to put CP3-Curry together for clutch stretches as the defense/rebounding suffered, and the offense didnt make up for it. If looked at in isolation, ignoring his history of success, he did an objectively terrible job and likely would be looking for a new job this offseason

[DB23]

There's a lot of blame to go around, but how anyone can pick anyone but Kerr when you can only choose one is beyond me. He's been a disaster in SO many ways. I respect the guy as a decent person and I respect his career but he's been so lost the last couple of years, I don't know how you recover from that without starting over from scratch. Like 90% of the choices he made were the wrong call and that's not even counting the many things he never saw, or saw too late. His blind loyalty to the vets, while perhaps endearing, is the final nail in the coffin.

Replace Kerr with any coach in history and what is our win total? Maybe +4-5 wins best case scenario.

The talent stinks and the roster construction is bad.

The wins.. sure, maybe. If the same predictive analytics that people fawned over just a couple years ago are the same - they were - then the team left a ton of net value on the table this year. Its sloppy math to apply it per game, so who knows how many more wins it actually would have netted, but fact is the team wasn't likely to make a ton of noise this year unless they had an adaptive coach and that's never been Kerr's style. Also said adaptive coach would have had to make a lot of right calls, and at some point the law of averages kicks in - no one's right all the time

All that said, it is absolutely unforgiveable that Kerr could do the job he did this year, W/L wise, and still not have an idea of what his best 5 man unit was. He was content to roll Curry out in high pressure situations with no actual playcall and ask him to make magic happen. He was content to roll Klay out there game after painstaking game on the off-chance he had a retro Klay night. He was content to put CP3-Curry together for clutch stretches as the defense/rebounding suffered, and the offense didnt make up for it. If looked at in isolation, ignoring his history of success, he did an objectively terrible job and likely would be looking for a new job this offseason

Disagree with your characterization. I don’t think he did a good job, probably average. You can’t have the talent go MIA and expect the team to do anything. Dray, klay, Wiggins etc the players also blew multiple games themselves with stupid decision making down the stretch.

But by all means fire Kerr and get spo next year, you really think this is going somewhere as constructed? Good luck.

[CDM_Stats]

Replace Kerr with any coach in history and what is our win total? Maybe +4-5 wins best case scenario.

The talent stinks and the roster construction is bad.

The wins.. sure, maybe. If the same predictive analytics that people fawned over just a couple years ago are the same - they were - then the team left a ton of net value on the table this year. Its sloppy math to apply it per game, so who knows how many more wins it actually would have netted, but fact is the team wasn't likely to make a ton of noise this year unless they had an adaptive coach and that's never been Kerr's style. Also said adaptive coach would have had to make a lot of right calls, and at some point the law of averages kicks in - no one's right all the time

All that said, it is absolutely unforgiveable that Kerr could do the job he did this year, W/L wise, and still not have an idea of what his best 5 man unit was. He was content to roll Curry out in high pressure situations with no actual playcall and ask him to make magic happen. He was content to roll Klay out there game after painstaking game on the off-chance he had a retro Klay night. He was content to put CP3-Curry together for clutch stretches as the defense/rebounding suffered, and the offense didnt make up for it. If looked at in isolation, ignoring his history of success, he did an objectively terrible job and likely would be looking for a new job this offseason

Disagree with your characterization. I don’t think he did a good job, probably average. You can’t have the talent go MIA and expect the team to do anything. Dray, klay, Wiggins etc the players also blew multiple games themselves with stupid decision making down the stretch.

But by all means fire Kerr and get spo next year, you really think this is going somewhere as constructed? Good luck.

You understand thats not the point at all, right?

He can do a bad job and the team could have not been realistically competitive for a title. I feel like I covered that in the first paragraph.. he went against logic countless times, both in a micro and macro sense. If that's average, then I'd really hate to see what a bad coach would do

[DB23]

The wins.. sure, maybe. If the same predictive analytics that people fawned over just a couple years ago are the same - they were - then the team left a ton of net value on the table this year. Its sloppy math to apply it per game, so who knows how many more wins it actually would have netted, but fact is the team wasn't likely to make a ton of noise this year unless they had an adaptive coach and that's never been Kerr's style. Also said adaptive coach would have had to make a lot of right calls, and at some point the law of averages kicks in - no one's right all the time

All that said, it is absolutely unforgiveable that Kerr could do the job he did this year, W/L wise, and still not have an idea of what his best 5 man unit was. He was content to roll Curry out in high pressure situations with no actual playcall and ask him to make magic happen. He was content to roll Klay out there game after painstaking game on the off-chance he had a retro Klay night. He was content to put CP3-Curry together for clutch stretches as the defense/rebounding suffered, and the offense didnt make up for it. If looked at in isolation, ignoring his history of success, he did an objectively terrible job and likely would be looking for a new job this offseason

Disagree with your characterization. I don’t think he did a good job, probably average. You can’t have the talent go MIA and expect the team to do anything. Dray, klay, Wiggins etc the players also blew multiple games themselves with stupid decision making down the stretch.

But by all means fire Kerr and get spo next year, you really think this is going somewhere as constructed? Good luck.

You understand thats not the point at all, right?

He can do a bad job and the team could have not been realistically competitive for a title. I feel like I covered that in the first paragraph.. he went against logic countless times, both in a micro and macro sense. If that's average, then I'd really hate to see what a bad coach would do

Well I assume your point was that as you say he did an objectively terrible job.

For it to be objectively terrible, that must mean you think the team underperformed their talent level and that he was objectively terrible compared with his peers.

So which teams in the west did he finish below that are less talented in terms of roster construction?

Which coaches outperformed him this year?

If you objectively answer those questions then really his performance is average.

FYI - i hate the over playing of klay and small ball lineups too. I’m just not one to think playing moody more solves our problems.

[CDM_Stats]

Well I assume your point was that as you say he did an objectively terrible job. (Yes.)

For it to be objectively terrible, that must mean you think the team underperformed their talent level (yes, clearly) and that he was objectively terrible compared with his peers (what?)

So which teams in the west did he finish below that are less talented in terms of roster construction? (the whole point of what i said in previous posts was because this is the question typically posed, as if analytics is finite data, or magic. I explained what he did wrong relative to what he should have done. Comparing against every other coach, as you reference several times, is diverting the argument to dilute it)

Which coaches outperformed him this year?

If you objectively answer those questions then really his performance is average. (1, thats not objective at all. I said objectively because the majority of fans agree that Kerr did a bad job. 2, nothing you said even argued that he was average. How did you compare him against the rest of the coaches in the league? A metric?)

FYI - i hate the over playing of klay and small ball lineups too. I’m just not one to think playing moody more solves our problems.(and this is the topper. Citing one small component, one that wasn't even mentioned in my explanation, isn't a proof. This all comes off as disingenuous)

[DB23]

Well I assume your point was that as you say he did an objectively terrible job. (Yes.)

For it to be objectively terrible, that must mean you think the team underperformed their talent level (yes, clearly) and that he was objectively terrible compared with his peers (what?)

So which teams in the west did he finish below that are less talented in terms of roster construction? (the whole point of what i said in previous posts was because this is the question typically posed, as if analytics is finite data, or magic. I explained what he did wrong relative to what he should have done. Comparing against every other coach, as you reference several times, is diverting the argument to dilute it)

Which coaches outperformed him this year?

If you objectively answer those questions then really his performance is average. (1, thats not objective at all. I said objectively because the majority of fans agree that Kerr did a bad job. 2, nothing you said even argued that he was average. How did you compare him against the rest of the coaches in the league? A metric?)

FYI - i hate the over playing of klay and small ball lineups too. I’m just not one to think playing moody more solves our problems.(and this is the topper. Citing one small component, one that wasn't even mentioned in my explanation, isn't a proof. This all comes off as disingenuous)

Actually you avoid the point. You agree that the talent level of the team matters but don’t refute that actually we finished right around the talent level of the roster.

Any issues are not objective just because a majority of people say one thing, actually that makes it subjective. It’s objective compared to data. My broader point is that ever fan base craps on the coach, even some of the ones at the top. That is because we are first fans of the players and it’s easier to forgive their mistakes than the coach. I said he had a middling performance and I stick by that. Only so much you can do with average talent.

[CDM_Stats]

Actually you avoid the point. You agree that the talent level of the team matters but don’t refute that actually we finished right around the talent level of the roster.

I'm literally the person who made the point. You changed it, added something about all coaches that I still don't understand, and then the other half of your argument is about where we finished, even though my first post that you responded to explained why applying the raw +/- difference (Ie, the value left on the table) to a W-L record is logically messy. And you're just beating that drum repeatedly, but dont seem to acknowledge that. And honestly, its a question you cant answer either. Conversely, I can provide the statistical difference if say, Moody and Klay's minutes were switched. Or if we didnt use CP3-Curry-Klay in close game situations in the 4th. And I can provide the raw +/- of what that would look like - I could even scale it down to 50% of the impact. Its still significant.. but to apply it equally to every single game is sloppy, so how do you suggest that argument is made, in a way that's logically sound?

Any issues are not objective just because a majority of people say one thing, actually that makes it subjective. It’s objective compared to data. My broader point is that ever fan base craps on the coach, even some of the ones at the top. That is because we are first fans of the players and it’s easier to forgive their mistakes than the coach. I said he had a middling performance and I stick by that. Only so much you can do with average talent.

Its not objective because people know it, people know it because it is objective. The Warriors used to be one of the best teams at getting value out of players. Poole, GP2, JTA, OPJ.. scrap heap finds that provided value. When the metrics liked those guys and the team did better, they played more. Makes sense.. but they've gone the opposite direction in the past 2 seasons. To reduce actual analysis to tropes like "every fanbase bags on their coach" is reductive. If you want to have those one liner arguments, go ahead. But they don't belong in an actual conversation about how poorly the coach did.

In a year where he was clearly chasing wins over development, proudly saying so several times, the team didnt make the playoffs and still has serious developmental questions about 2 guys due extensions this offseason. Both have serious questions about their role and future on the team. And one of the worst impact players in the league, a guy who struggled on both sides of the ball the majority of the year, was #2 in MPG on this team, ahead of Draymond. A 39 year old guy who was a fine backup PG got more minutes than the one good slasher on the team.

You're telling me that half of the coaches in the league accomplished their goals WORSE than Steve Kerr did last year? Aside from the Suns, I dont see a single team that did less for themselves this year, but I also didnt see a single coaching value vacuum worse than Kerr's decisions with regards to Klay Thompson, with one exception. The guy was a -2.9 net with Steph Curry. The only other player who was a net negative with Steph was Saric. That guy played the 2nd most minutes..

BTW that one exception? It was Pop playing Jeremy Sochan at PG. No other coach had a net negative situation like that that was ran into the ground. Pop was tanking.. what's Kerr's excuse?

[DB23]

Actually you avoid the point. You agree that the talent level of the team matters but don’t refute that actually we finished right around the talent level of the roster.

I'm literally the person who made the point. You changed it, added something about all coaches that I still don't understand, and then the other half of your argument is about where we finished, even though my first post that you responded to explained why applying the raw +/- difference (Ie, the value left on the table) to a W-L record is logically messy. And you're just beating that drum repeatedly, but dont seem to acknowledge that. And honestly, its a question you cant answer either. Conversely, I can provide the statistical difference if say, Moody and Klay's minutes were switched. Or if we didnt use CP3-Curry-Klay in close game situations in the 4th. And I can provide the raw +/- of what that would look like - I could even scale it down to 50% of the impact. Its still significant.. but to apply it equally to every single game is sloppy, so how do you suggest that argument is made, in a way that's logically sound?

Any issues are not objective just because a majority of people say one thing, actually that makes it subjective. It’s objective compared to data. My broader point is that ever fan base craps on the coach, even some of the ones at the top. That is because we are first fans of the players and it’s easier to forgive their mistakes than the coach. I said he had a middling performance and I stick by that. Only so much you can do with average talent.

Its not objective because people know it, people know it because it is objective. The Warriors used to be one of the best teams at getting value out of players. Poole, GP2, JTA, OPJ.. scrap heap finds that provided value. When the metrics liked those guys and the team did better, they played more. Makes sense.. but they've gone the opposite direction in the past 2 seasons. To reduce actual analysis to tropes like "every fanbase bags on their coach" is reductive. If you want to have those one liner arguments, go ahead. But they don't belong in an actual conversation about how poorly the coach did.

In a year where he was clearly chasing wins over development, proudly saying so several times, the team didnt make the playoffs and still has serious developmental questions about 2 guys due extensions this offseason. Both have serious questions about their role and future on the team. And one of the worst impact players in the league, a guy who struggled on both sides of the ball the majority of the year, was #2 in MPG on this team, ahead of Draymond. A 39 year old guy who was a fine backup PG got more minutes than the one good slasher on the team.

You're telling me that half of the coaches in the league accomplished their goals WORSE than Steve Kerr did last year? Aside from the Suns, I dont see a single team that did less for themselves this year, but I also didnt see a single coaching value vacuum worse than Kerr's decisions with regards to Klay Thompson, with one exception. The guy was a -2.9 net with Steph Curry. The only other player who was a net negative with Steph was Saric. That guy played the 2nd most minutes..

BTW that one exception? It was Pop playing Jeremy Sochan at PG. No other coach had a net negative situation like that that was ran into the ground. Pop was tanking.. what's Kerr's excuse?

So if moody plays klays minutes, where do we finish? How do you think it plays out?

And this is why spreadsheet basketball is meaningless. I don’t have to agree with Kerr to get the logic, the only way the team makes noise is if klay catches fire at the right time. Moody played too small a sample size to really understand how he would fare in a larger role.

There are thirty coaches in the league. They can’t all be terrible at their job but if you listen to fans like you, you would think so. And just having a goal doesn’t mean it’s attached to the reality of roster talent and construction. And yes if you were to rank performance 1-30 he’s probably in the middle somewhere.

[SpreeS]

What was our goal of this season? To compete or to get into PO and make a noise? If our goal was to compete - it was unrealistic. Every TOP team will go as far as the best players will go. Curry and Green were very far from TOP players this season. I said befor season this team will miss PO, it was written on the wall. It is unrealistic that 36y old 6-2 guy bring you on TOP.

I agree that our position comming to PO would be better if not Kerr/Klay situation and we could beat teams like LAC w/o Kawhi in 1st PO rnd, but that it's celling.

I dont blame FO how this team was structured and why wasnt any trades. I dont want to trade our young players, b/c any of these combinations (Klay/Paul/Wiggs + young players + picks) wouldn't change anything if we look at level of avalable players like Siakam, Anunoby or Murray.

[CDM_Stats]

So if moody plays klays minutes, where do we finish? How do you think it plays out?

And this is why spreadsheet basketball is meaningless. I don’t have to agree with Kerr to get the logic, the only way the team makes noise is if klay catches fire at the right time. Moody played too small a sample size to really understand how he would fare in a larger role.

There are thirty coaches in the league. They can’t all be terrible at their job but if you listen to fans like you, you would think so. And just having a goal doesn’t mean it’s attached to the reality of roster talent and construction. And yes if you were to rank performance 1-30 he’s probably in the middle somewhere.

See? Reductive. General. No substance. A deflection of any criticism.. because some criticism of some fans is just reflexive and reactive, all criticism should be in that bucket. Thats lazy and disingenuous. And just repetitive too - keep saying things like you'd put him in the middle. Cool. Bully for you. A lot of people disagree and there's a lot of evidence to back it up. And unlike others who defend Kerr, you are giving no reasoning other than a general disdain for anyone who critiques it. So what are we doing here?

Spreadsheet basketball, as you call it, has been accurately predicting things for a long time; Moses Moody played 1100 minutes last year - not sure what a sample size means to you, but that's absolutely a solid sample size if not its own standalone dataset; and the difference between Moody/Klay was (raw) +7.6 towards Moody, and (adjusted) +6.8 towards Moody. Per 48 minutes, fwiw.

Like I understand if people are generally wary of people using advanced metrics because a lot of people just look for the highest number and call that analysis. But it is absolutely ridiculous to handwave off an entire section of the industry, that every team uses to varying degrees, because of it. Especially because it conflicts with a general opinion that is backed up by nothing

[vvoland]

So if moody plays klays minutes, where do we finish? How do you think it plays out?

And this is why spreadsheet basketball is meaningless. I don’t have to agree with Kerr to get the logic, the only way the team makes noise is if klay catches fire at the right time. Moody played too small a sample size to really understand how he would fare in a larger role.

There are thirty coaches in the league. They can’t all be terrible at their job but if you listen to fans like you, you would think so. And just having a goal doesn’t mean it’s attached to the reality of roster talent and construction. And yes if you were to rank performance 1-30 he’s probably in the middle somewhere.

See? Reductive. General. No substance. A deflection of any criticism.. because some criticism of some fans is just reflexive and reactive, all criticism should be in that bucket. Thats lazy and disingenuous. And just repetitive too - keep saying things like you'd put him in the middle. Cool. Bully for you. A lot of people disagree and there's a lot of evidence to back it up. And unlike others who defend Kerr, you are giving no reasoning other than a general disdain for anyone who critiques it. So what are we doing here?

Spreadsheet basketball, as you call it, has been accurately predicting things for a long time; Moses Moody played 1100 minutes last year - not sure what a sample size means to you, but that's absolutely a solid sample size if not its own standalone dataset; and the difference between Moody/Klay was (raw) +7.6 towards Moody, and (adjusted) +6.8 towards Moody. Per 48 minutes, fwiw.

Like I understand if people are generally wary of people using advanced metrics because a lot of people just look for the highest number and call that analysis. But it is absolutely ridiculous to handwave off an entire section of the industry, that every team uses to varying degrees, because of it. Especially because it conflicts with a general opinion that is backed up by nothing

I think we can all agree that Kerr isn't going anywhere, not next year, at least. With Kenny Atkinson being rumored as a candidate for the lakers, does it make more sense to talk about how the dubs can surround Steve with a better staff? Curious who the board likes from an assistant coach standpoint and which of the fired HC would you like to see on this roster?

[CDM_Stats]

I think we can all agree that Kerr isn't going anywhere, not next year, at least. With Kenny Atkinson being rumored as a candidate for the lakers, does it make more sense to talk about how the dubs can surround Steve with a better staff? Curious who the board likes from an assistant coach standpoint and which of the fired HC would you like to see on this roster?

Id think that whether or not Atkinson stays, they definitely need to do some work with the coaching roster. But at this stage it also feels a day late, a dollar short. Barring a huge move, the team is looking like a fringe playoff team. So all I care about is development and maximizing assets, one of which is in Kerr's hands (and boy do I not trust him re: developing) and the other is in Lacob/MDJ/decision-makers (and boy do I not trust them re: sentimentality)

Or in short, I think this is a situation where fans should wait to see what direction the FO decides to go, because it should greatly affect who they bring in

[vvoland]

I think we can all agree that Kerr isn't going anywhere, not next year, at least. With Kenny Atkinson being rumored as a candidate for the lakers, does it make more sense to talk about how the dubs can surround Steve with a better staff? Curious who the board likes from an assistant coach standpoint and which of the fired HC would you like to see on this roster?

Id think that whether or not Atkinson stays, they definitely need to do some work with the coaching roster. But at this stage it also feels a day late, a dollar short. Barring a huge move, the team is looking like a fringe playoff team. So all I care about is development and maximizing assets, one of which is in Kerr's hands (and boy do I not trust him re: developing) and the other is in Lacob/MDJ/decision-makers (and boy do I not trust them re: sentimentality)

Or in short, I think this is a situation where fans should wait to see what direction the FO decides to go, because it should greatly affect who they bring in

I think we know the direction, even if we don't agree. They plan to compete, they don't think the team is that far away, and whether we like it or not, will try to "chase wins" until the wheels fall off. I'd rather not rehash if that's the right approach but unless Curry is ok with tanking (my own shorthand for "development and maximizing assets") or asks for a trade, that will be the org's approach. Once they make the strategic switch because curry retires or is traded, there's a 0% chance that Kerr will be the coach. The 'fire kerr, start the tank' crowd will definitely get what they want, eventually, just not next two seasons.

Given that reality (let's just assume it since it's not guaranteed but is the likely scenario), I'd like to rebuild the coaching staff with some people that can really challenge Kerr's long-standing philosophies and blind spots. For me it's his leaning too far to the ball-handling, point guard skills at the expense of size and scoring. Not sure who's the guy to bring in to challenge the staff and players, hence asking the board for their opinions.

[Onus]

I think we can all agree that Kerr isn't going anywhere, not next year, at least. With Kenny Atkinson being rumored as a candidate for the lakers, does it make more sense to talk about how the dubs can surround Steve with a better staff? Curious who the board likes from an assistant coach standpoint and which of the fired HC would you like to see on this roster?

Id think that whether or not Atkinson stays, they definitely need to do some work with the coaching roster. But at this stage it also feels a day late, a dollar short. Barring a huge move, the team is looking like a fringe playoff team. So all I care about is development and maximizing assets, one of which is in Kerr's hands (and boy do I not trust him re: developing) and the other is in Lacob/MDJ/decision-makers (and boy do I not trust them re: sentimentality)

Or in short, I think this is a situation where fans should wait to see what direction the FO decides to go, because it should greatly affect who they bring in

What’s really odd is that we brought in a bunch of supposed developmental style coaches and then didn’t actually play the developmental players and were wondering why tactically we aren’t where we were before? Maybe because all the coaches are focused on development and not cutting edge on schemes or analytics. Just the worst choice because no one can actually do their job effectively because there’s not a single direction.

[vvoland]

I think we can all agree that Kerr isn't going anywhere, not next year, at least. With Kenny Atkinson being rumored as a candidate for the lakers, does it make more sense to talk about how the dubs can surround Steve with a better staff? Curious who the board likes from an assistant coach standpoint and which of the fired HC would you like to see on this roster?

Id think that whether or not Atkinson stays, they definitely need to do some work with the coaching roster. But at this stage it also feels a day late, a dollar short. Barring a huge move, the team is looking like a fringe playoff team. So all I care about is development and maximizing assets, one of which is in Kerr's hands (and boy do I not trust him re: developing) and the other is in Lacob/MDJ/decision-makers (and boy do I not trust them re: sentimentality)

Or in short, I think this is a situation where fans should wait to see what direction the FO decides to go, because it should greatly affect who they bring in

What’s really odd is that we brought in a bunch of supposed developmental style coaches and then didn’t actually play the developmental players and were wondering why tactically we aren’t where we were before? Maybe because all the coaches are focused on development and not cutting edge on schemes or analytics. Just the worst choice because no one can actually do their job effectively because there’s not a single direction.

Listen, I hated the way the coaching staff treated JK and Moody the last 3 seasons. That said, they have definitely played young players, just not the ones I wanted. If we're talking this season, they played podz and TJD quite a bit as far as rookies go. We can say they should have played TJD earlier but I think TJD looked way worse early in the year than he did later. Not surprising considering C is a tough position to learn in the NBA. Podz got on the floor pretty quickly and Steve, almost immediately, said "I need to find minutes for Podz." You can go back and in most years, we'll see rookies or 2nd/3rd year players getting decent run (remember jordan bell or patrick mccaw?).

I have to repeat myself, I agree that the way the staff has strung moody and JK along has been pretty tough to watch. That said, none of the young prospects this team has lost/traded have done jack outside GS (is chris boucher the best player we let walk since Kerr took over?). I wonder if that'll change if JK/Moody leave. It could be that the two of them are just not as good as I think they are. I may not be a huge Moody fan but I do think JK will be a star. At the same time, I'm willing to admit he may be another anthony randolph (someone I also thought would be a star and he became one - in Europe).

[Onus]

Id think that whether or not Atkinson stays, they definitely need to do some work with the coaching roster. But at this stage it also feels a day late, a dollar short. Barring a huge move, the team is looking like a fringe playoff team. So all I care about is development and maximizing assets, one of which is in Kerr's hands (and boy do I not trust him re: developing) and the other is in Lacob/MDJ/decision-makers (and boy do I not trust them re: sentimentality)

Or in short, I think this is a situation where fans should wait to see what direction the FO decides to go, because it should greatly affect who they bring in

What’s really odd is that we brought in a bunch of supposed developmental style coaches and then didn’t actually play the developmental players and were wondering why tactically we aren’t where we were before? Maybe because all the coaches are focused on development and not cutting edge on schemes or analytics. Just the worst choice because no one can actually do their job effectively because there’s not a single direction.

Listen, I hated the way the coaching staff treated JK and Moody the last 3 seasons. That said, they have definitely played young players, just not the ones I wanted. If we're talking this season, they played podz and TJD quite a bit as far as rookies go. We can say they should have played TJD earlier but I think TJD looked way worse early in the year than he did later. Not surprising considering C is a tough position to learn in the NBA. Podz got on the floor pretty quickly and Steve, almost immediately, said "I need to find minutes for Podz." You can go back and in most years, we'll see rookies or 2nd/3rd year players getting decent run (remember jordan bell or patrick mccaw?).

I have to repeat myself, I agree that the way the staff has strung moody and JK along has been pretty tough to watch. That said, none of the young prospects this team has lost/traded have done jack outside GS (is chris boucher the best player we let walk since Kerr took over?). I wonder if that'll change if JK/Moody leave. It could be that the two of them are just not as good as I think they are. I may not be a huge Moody fan but I do think JK will be a star. At the same time, I'm willing to admit he may be another anthony randolph (someone I also thought would be a star and he became one - in Europe).

I’ve actually been arguing that Kerr does play young guys, he just doesn’t play guys that don’t know what they’re doing.

I think really it falls on the front office for not picking a direction. They’re continually not choosing a direction and it’s causing confusion and no one is able to do their job properly because there’s no singular focus. The coaching hires for one aren’t scheme or matchup experts but developmental experts, but we’re trying to win. So the coaches are tasked with doing things that they aren’t experts at so they don’t look as good and it shows up. Then what they’re supposed to be good at they can’t even fully do because the players they were brought in to develop can’t even carve out a role. So really this is a front office failure.

[DB23]

So if moody plays klays minutes, where do we finish? How do you think it plays out?

And this is why spreadsheet basketball is meaningless. I don’t have to agree with Kerr to get the logic, the only way the team makes noise is if klay catches fire at the right time. Moody played too small a sample size to really understand how he would fare in a larger role.

There are thirty coaches in the league. They can’t all be terrible at their job but if you listen to fans like you, you would think so. And just having a goal doesn’t mean it’s attached to the reality of roster talent and construction. And yes if you were to rank performance 1-30 he’s probably in the middle somewhere.

See? Reductive. General. No substance. A deflection of any criticism.. because some criticism of some fans is just reflexive and reactive, all criticism should be in that bucket. Thats lazy and disingenuous. And just repetitive too - keep saying things like you'd put him in the middle. Cool. Bully for you. A lot of people disagree and there's a lot of evidence to back it up. And unlike others who defend Kerr, you are giving no reasoning other than a general disdain for anyone who critiques it. So what are we doing here?

Spreadsheet basketball, as you call it, has been accurately predicting things for a long time; Moses Moody played 1100 minutes last year - not sure what a sample size means to you, but that's absolutely a solid sample size if not its own standalone dataset; and the difference between Moody/Klay was (raw) +7.6 towards Moody, and (adjusted) +6.8 towards Moody. Per 48 minutes, fwiw.

Like I understand if people are generally wary of people using advanced metrics because a lot of people just look for the highest number and call that analysis. But it is absolutely ridiculous to handwave off an entire section of the industry, that every team uses to varying degrees, because of it. Especially because it conflicts with a general opinion that is backed up by nothing

Now you are just straw-manning and being hyperbolic. I have criticized kerr, this issue I take is the poll being skewed so heavily to giving the players and front office a pass.

You haven’t refuted that the talent on this roster is mediocre. Or that the players woefully underperformed or went missing this season.

However you want to split the blame pie, there is plenty to go around. Pinning it all on Kerr is in my view just reflective and easy criticism that ignores the fact that major changes need to be made to the roster.

[Onus]

Stephen A punking Bob Myers on set is an all time low. This guy really was the gm of a dynasty. And Stephen a really thinks he knows more about basketball than him. And Bob on tv is really exposing himself as lucky to be there.

Watching bill belichick on tv and I’m in awe at how much football he knows. This dude is a legend.

[CDM_Stats]

Now you are just straw-manning and being hyperbolic. I have criticized kerr, this issue I take is the poll being skewed so heavily to giving the players and front office a pass.

You haven’t refuted that the talent on this roster is mediocre. Or that the players woefully underperformed or went missing this season.

However you want to split the blame pie, there is plenty to go around. Pinning it all on Kerr is in my view just reflective and easy criticism that ignores the fact that major changes need to be made to the roster.

... I think you mean yourself. Because you added a part to something I said (something about comparing him to all other coaches - strawman) and keep saying he's average, even though there's no way you could know how each of those other 29 coaches actually did. You asked for why I think Kerr did a bad job, I gave you an answer, even gave you the numbers behind the answer. What exactly is going on here?

Also man.. the title of this thread is "Who deserves the most blame?". The answer is going to be singular. Most fans think the head coach is the most to blame, and thats a reasonable take since he is effectively in charge of rotations and strategy, and most people think he did a lousy job at both

Thing is no one, certainly not me, is arguing things you are talking about up there. I've said the roster is better than Kerr made it seem, and the numbers back that up. In my first quote, and several times after, I said that you can't apply things like net difference across games with any level of accuracy. And that a replacement coach isnt going to make all the right calls either. And you've consistently changed what I've said so it runs counter to what you're saying and I dont understand why. The roster can be non-title quality AND he can have done a bad job maximizing the talent we did have. Why are you talking like these are mutually exclusive things? And why are you assuming that no one else catches any blame?

Now if you want to talk about maybe WHY some players disappeared or WHY some players underperformed, sure lets do that. But lets take Wiggins for example - how is it that when he played with Draymond, his efficiency numbers were right on par with the 21-22 season. When he played off-ball, his defensive impact was right on par with the 21-22 season. And when Klay plays off-ball, for his entire career, he's a much worse defender and team defense suffers. So why, in 23-24, did Wiggins play on-ball more than ever, and Klay play off-ball more than ever? Shouldnt a coach be able to identify what works and what doesn't?

[Crazy-Canuck]

Now you are just straw-manning and being hyperbolic. I have criticized kerr, this issue I take is the poll being skewed so heavily to giving the players and front office a pass.

You haven’t refuted that the talent on this roster is mediocre. Or that the players woefully underperformed or went missing this season.

However you want to split the blame pie, there is plenty to go around. Pinning it all on Kerr is in my view just reflective and easy criticism that ignores the fact that major changes need to be made to the roster.

... I think you mean yourself. Because you added a part to something I said (something about comparing him to all other coaches - strawman) and keep saying he's average, even though there's no way you could know how each of those other 29 coaches actually did. You asked for why I think Kerr did a bad job, I gave you an answer, even gave you the numbers behind the answer. What exactly is going on here?

Also man.. the title of this thread is "Who deserves the most blame?". The answer is going to be singular. Most fans think the head coach is the most to blame, and thats a reasonable take since he is effectively in charge of rotations and strategy, and most people think he did a lousy job at both

Thing is no one, certainly not me, is arguing things you are talking about up there. I've said the roster is better than Kerr made it seem, and the numbers back that up. In my first quote, and several times after, I said that you can't apply things like net difference across games with any level of accuracy. And that a replacement coach isnt going to make all the right calls either. And you've consistently changed what I've said so it runs counter to what you're saying and I dont understand why. The roster can be non-title quality AND he can have done a bad job maximizing the talent we did have. Why are you talking like these are mutually exclusive things? And why are you assuming that no one else catches any blame?

Now if you want to talk about maybe WHY some players disappeared or WHY some players underperformed, sure lets do that. But lets take Wiggins for example - how is it that when he played with Draymond, his efficiency numbers were right on par with the 21-22 season. When he played off-ball, his defensive impact was right on par with the 21-22 season. And when Klay plays off-ball, for his entire career, he's a much worse defender and team defense suffers. So why, in 23-24, did Wiggins play on-ball more than ever, and Klay play off-ball more than ever? Shouldnt a coach be able to identify what works and what doesn't?

It was clear to me that it was to protect klay and keep him on the floor.

They tried wiggins off ball, but then we had no one to defend poa capably (in kerrs eyes). I distinctly remember a hawks then bulls game.

Wiggins had Trae under control in the 1h. He got hurt then Trae went bonkers.

In the bulls game, kerr benched wiggins to give jk a shot on derozen. It was nothing but and 1s given up down the stretch.

The answer was always moody. If wiggs was going to poa, then u need off ball defenders which klay and jk weren't. Which also meant steph was running through screens and not conserving energy on that end.

If poole could do some poa, no idea why moody or jk couldn't for certain match ups with dray, tjd, wiggs behind him.