That group plus 3 first year COY’s is probably consistent with assistant coach success where most of them are fired within 3-4 years. It’s NBA Head Coaching….if you are a strong leader, know the NBA game, hire competent assistants and have good players you are most likely going to succeed. Redick checks the boxes that he can control.
"back row Joe" had credentials enough. Really anyone who's been an NBA assistant for a year has credentials enough, if he interviews well then god bless. Go back to the threads here when he was given the job, go back to the start of the current Coach Joe Mazzulla thread when he was given the permanent job. We basically all agreed, not without some trepidation, that if Danny and Brad and Wyc thought he was ready, and thought they might have a prodigy on their hands, that we would trust them on that. Myself among them. But at the point he was given the big chair, Joe Mazzulla had been a professional coach of basketball for 11 years. Most NBA assistants have been coaches at other levels for at least a few years before joining a pro team's staff. Redick has been a professional coach for 0 years. You don't think that's a bit of a difference?
Sidenote
Not really. He stated teams never hire people without experience which actually does happen, many names were already thrown out in this thread. “I wouldn’t think it was possible” despite probably 5-10 examples of it. Then again speaking in certain terms about things that are not true happens frequently for him.
My exact words were "I wouldn't think it possible - or advisable, at any rate - to hire a coach who has never coached college or the pros." Most people would understand that phrasing to not be an assertion that it has never ever happened, but rather that I'd be surprised. And wouldn't ya know, it appears I'm surprised. Great! That's why I'm here! We can then get on with a conversation about the exceptions and how they did, which is what HRB and CD proceeded to do. A little learning, a little ad-hoc collection of data points, a little context...
This is now the third time you've gone out of your way to be a dick, specifically to me, on different threads spanning a week. How many more threads are you going to bring your personal distaste into, instead of just blocking me and getting on with discussions on the site? It may not be tiresome to you - at this point, I have to assume you enjoy it - but it must be getting tiresome for everyone else to read.
I'll stick my neck out: I like the approach taken by Michael Pina, Zach Lowe and others of putting Brunson 5th on the MVP ballot ahead of Tatum while giving Tatum the All-NBA first team nod over Brunson. There's a subtle difference between these awards that this approach recognizes. Tatum is objectively a better player than Brunson, but Brunson's season has better fulfilled the nebulous and subjective adjective "valuable" in the sense that he's carried an enormous load on a team that's exceeded expectations in the face of injuries, blah blah. There's always an element of "best narrative" to MVP voting. I'm ok with it.
That's a valid perspective in my eyes. I think baseball - the writers and the fans - have gone too far into trying to quantify their way into awards being some sort of objective thing, that there's an equation and you just get your answer and move on. As much as I like right answers (perhaps not according to some!), that does elide a lot of what makes sports fun, a lot of why people watch, a lot of why the XKCD "weighted random number generator" cartoon is only half true - narrative, just as you say. Perhaps baseball is less of a narrative sport, though it used to be one when it dominated the zeitgeist. But basketball really does lend itself to personalities and styles and drama and story arcs in a way that exceeds every other sport. And if its biggest proponents - the people paid to write about it - decide that that's the best way to celebrate their sport and honor players, to honor not the people nor the player but to honor the narrative, effectively, then I have a hard time calling them "wrong".
Many people don’t take into account that these are regular season awards and not something that ones playoff performance should be factored. Brunson will always have a capped ceiling in the playoffs due to his physical profile but that isn’t what these regular season awards are all about and he deserves recognition for that. These two seasons play much differently.
Good question. Clearly, for both, a case of respondents interpreting the question as "Who was your favorite player growing up?"
Would you feel good playing Steph in a game 7 with a reasonable team around him?
I would but aren’t Klay, Kuminga, Wiggins, and Dray, with all his faults, reasonable?
I love that sketch so much that I choose to believe it is a non-fiction reenactment; I have no idea why NBC chooses to only play the instrumental.
Is there really any difference between wing scoring and Booker? He's not small at 6'6" and while listed as shooting guard he does similar stuff on the offensive end to Tatum and Brown or any other good offensive "wing".
Booker is a better defender than people think, and he's big. He'd fit great next to Brunson imo.
Yep, that's a good start
I'm more curious about the Nets' angle: doesn't going hard after Booker while offering the Suns their draft back make tons of sense for both parties? They'd then have Bridges, Johnson, Claxton...there's stuff to work with, along with a very appealing market.
