NBA '17

[MU82]

Smart is not a good player.  The Cavs have good players. 

Smart is tough, versatile and good defensively. So I think you're wrong about him. And, more importantly, so does Brad Stevens.

I'd rather have Smart than Hill, as one comparison.

[Its DJOver]

Watch the games closely. Both his set plays and plays after time out always seem to put the right players in the right position.  He is a damn good coach. Unlike Kerr who just seems to roll the ball out there. Golden State plays "sloppy", while Boston seems to play much more disciplined.

Don't get me wrong I think he's good enough to coach in the NBA, but any head coach can run good sets out of time outs.  Does he have this much success without IMO the best GM in the game building his roster?  Would he make any non-playoff team a playoff team?  Other than possibly Denver, I don't think he does. 

I think the trend right now in all sports is to apply to much praise/blame on the head coach/manager, when it should be going to the GM.  Kerr didn't build the Warriors roster, but he has certainly gotten a lot of praise for their recent success.

[Cooby Snacks]

Don't get me wrong I think he's good enough to coach in the NBA, but any head coach can run good sets out of time outs.  Does he have this much success without IMO the best GM in the game building his roster?  Would he make any non-playoff team a playoff team?  Other than possibly Denver, I don't think he does. 

I think the trend right now in all sports is to apply to much praise/blame on the head coach/manager, when it should be going to the GM.  Kerr didn't build the Warriors roster, but he has certainly gotten a lot of praise for their recent success.

The Warriors’ player development has been out of this world, coupled with smart veteran pickups (Iggy, Livingston, West) and, of course, Joe Lacob’s Basketball Disruptor Algorithm^TM that informed him signing Kevin Durant would be a good idea.

I think Kerr’s a very good coach, but let’s not forget that Luke Walton ran out like 26-0 at the helm in 2015 when Kerr was recovering from surgery. It’s a really well-run organization at all levels, similar to the Celtics and Spurs. Houston isn’t bad either.

[4everwarriors]

Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler.  I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.

[Its DJOver]

Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler.  I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.

If being able to make adjustments and having players attention is the only criteria for being an outstanding coach, then there are quite a few of them out there. 

If Stevens were the coach of the Raptors this year, how many games do you think they win in the series against the Cavs, going up against a much worse coach in Ty Lue? I'd put the over/under at 1.5.  End of the day, the best coach in the world could have been in Phoenix last year, but without a good GM, the Suns would have only been marginally better.

[wadesworld]

Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler.  I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.

+1.  In my opinion the 3 best coaches in the world right now are 1) Pop 2) Stevens 3) Jay Wright.  He gets mismatches pretty much every time down the court, he has every player completely buying in and working hard as a unit, and his teams very rarely beat themselves.  Even if the talent he currently has at his disposal is as good as the Cavs (or Sixers, or Bucks), the fact that he has been able to get his team to adjust to two season ending injuries even if the talent drop off isn't as big as people think it is (I personally think it is, but Stevens's coaching minimizes it) so quickly is a testament to his coaching ability.

And as if what he's doing in the NBA doesn't show it, the guy got to back to back national title games at Butler, once with Matt Howard as his best player.  That's pretty incredible.

[wadesworld]

If being able to make adjustments and having players attention is the only criteria for being an outstanding coach, then there are quite a few of them out there. 

If Stevens were the coach of the Raptors this year, how many games do you think they win in the series against the Cavs, going up against a much worse coach in Ty Lue? I'd put the over/under at 1.5.  End of the day, the best coach in the world could have been in Phoenix last year, but without a good GM, the Suns would have only been marginally better.

4.  The Raptors had a lot more talent available in the Playoffs than the Celtics currently have.

[MU82]

Stevens is obviously a great coach. I don't understand what metrics one could find to argue otherwise.

You are judged on performance. He did a great job at Butler - got a mid-major to two consecutive NCAA championship games, for crissakes. He then took over a dumpster fire in Boston and has improved the team's record and playoff performance every single year.

Right now, his team is without its PG, who also happens to be one of the NBA's dozen best players; the Celtics also have gone the entire season without the guy who was supposed to be their leading scorer. And yet he has them within one win of the NBA Finals.

Obviously Ainge deserves a ton of credit. I know nobody who would argue otherwise. And while we're handing out credit, the players deserve most of it.

But jeesh.

I guess Stevens needs to light victory cigars to move up a notch in the eyes of some tough critics.

[Its DJOver]

Stevens is obviously a great coach. I don't understand what metrics one could find to argue otherwise.

You are judged on performance. He did a great job at Butler - got a mid-major to two consecutive NCAA championship games, for crissakes. He then took over a dumpster fire in Boston and has improved the team's record and playoff performance every single year.

Right now, his team is without its PG, who also happens to be one of the NBA's dozen best players; the Celtics also have gone the entire season without the guy who was supposed to be their leading scorer. And yet he has them within one win of the NBA Finals.

Obviously Ainge deserves a ton of credit. I know nobody who would argue otherwise. And while we're handing out credit, the players deserve most of it.

But jeesh.

I guess Stevens needs to light victory cigars to move up a notch in the eyes of some tough critics.

Ok, no where did I say that he was a bad coach.  I said he was good enough to be in the NBA, in order to do that, you obviously have to be good.  Getting players to play hard and smart is important, but identifying which players can do that and bringing them to your organization is more important.

Stevens deserves credit, you don't get this far without coaching ability, but Ainge making the moves that he has is a bigger reason why the C's are where they are.  You don't win 53 games, get the number one seed and then return 4 players next year and have this kind of success unless your GM is literally making ALL the right moves.

[MU82]

Ok, no where did I say that he was a bad coach.  I said he was good enough to be in the NBA, in order to do that, you obviously have to be good.  Getting players to play hard and smart is important, but identifying which players can do that and bringing them to your organization is more important.

Stevens deserves credit, you don't get this far without coaching ability, but Ainge making the moves that he has is a bigger reason why the C's are where they are.  You don't win 53 games, get the number one seed and then return 4 players next year and have this kind of success unless your GM is literally making ALL the right moves.

I give them all credit: the GM, the coach and the players. Not sure how anybody can identify who deserves what percent.

I don't think I accused you of saying Stevens was a bad coach. If I did, I apologize.

[Its DJOver]

I give them all credit: the GM, the coach and the players. Not sure how anybody can identify who deserves what percent.

I don't think I accused you of saying Stevens was a bad coach. If I did, I apologize.

The point that I am trying to make is that at that level, all coaches are essentially Rain Man about basketball, so I think the level of coaching is just as high as it can go, and there are a bunch of coaches that are at the ceiling, or very near it.  You can call and execute a play perfectly, but if I'm out there, the shot's probably not going in.  Players make plays, but it comes down to the GM's being able to identify the best players and best trades to give their coaches the best tools to win.  Players make the shots and physical plays that none of us can.  Coaches get players to work together (to varying degrees), but the GM is the one behind the scenes making the moves that really get things done.  That's why I think Danny Ainge should be getting more credit than Stevens.  IMO he has been perfect the last 18 months.

[MU82]

The point that I am trying to make is that at that level, all coaches are essentially Rain Man about basketball, so I think the level of coaching is just as high as it can go, and there are a bunch of coaches that are at the ceiling, or very near it.  You can call and execute a play perfectly, but if I'm out there, the shot's probably not going in.  Players make plays, but it comes down to the GM's being able to identify the best players and best trades to give their coaches the best tools to win.  Players make the shots and physical plays that none of us can.  Coaches get players to work together (to varying degrees), but the GM is the one behind the scenes making the moves that really get things done.  That's why I think Danny Ainge should be getting more credit than Stevens.  IMO he has been perfect the last 18 months.

Fair enough.

Although, through no fault of Ainge's, I could argue that Toronto has a better active roster than Boston (minus Irving and Hayward). And yet Stevens is one win away from beating LeBron, while Toronto barely farted in its series against LeBron.

[forgetful]

Smart is tough, versatile and good defensively. So I think you're wrong about him. And, more importantly, so does Brad Stevens.

I'd rather have Smart than Hill, as one comparison.

I probably shouldn't have said "not good".  I agree with what you say about him, but I think most are underestimating the importance of:

1.  Having the right types of players for the roster (as others have noted this is on the GM).
2.  Having a coach that puts those players in a position to succeed. 

My point is that the Cavs have a lot of talent, but Lue doesn't know what to do with them. 

The Celtics have no business being in the finals with what remains of their roster; the ability of Stevens to get them to buy in to his plans, and get them to execute is pretty damn amazing.  They are incredibly fun to watch, because all the players have a lot of warts, but Stevens hides them well.

[MU82]

I probably shouldn't have said "not good".  I agree with what you say about him, but I think most are underestimating the importance of:

1.  Having the right types of players for the roster (as others have noted this is on the GM).
2.  Having a coach that puts those players in a position to succeed. 

My point is that the Cavs have a lot of talent, but Lue doesn't know what to do with them. 

The Celtics have no business being in the finals with what remains of their roster; the ability of Stevens to get them to buy in to his plans, and get them to execute is pretty damn amazing.  They are incredibly fun to watch, because all the players have a lot of warts, but Stevens hides them well.

We mostly agree here, except I think you are higher on the Cavs' "talent" than I am.

[MU82]

No Kevin Love.

Cavs win anyway.

LeBron 46-11-9.

What more needs to be said? (Except that LeBron obviously wasn't good enough to get a triple-double)

[Jockey]

No Kevin Love.

Cavs win anyway.

LeBron 46-11-9.

What more needs to be said? (Except that LeBron obviously wasn't good enough to get a triple-double)

Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.

I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.

Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.

[wadesworld]

Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.

I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.

Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.

Because he didn’t leave Cleveland and take less money to join up with two other top 10 players in the NBA? And then the second those two other players showed signs of decline he didn’t leave them to go back to Cleveland and demanded a trade for Kevin Love to go along with Kyrie?

[MU82]

Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.

I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.

Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.

If LeBron wins the NBA championship with this crew, it will be one of the great accomplishments in team sports history. As it is, carrying Cleveland to the Finals as a 22-year-old with a team whose next 3 best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas already is one of the most incredible achievements ever ... but most people only remember champions.

I'd have voted for LeBron as MVP this season, but I certainly understand why Harden probably will win the award. Nevertheless, comparing him (and what is expected of him) to LeBron is crazy.

The last two games, Harden went 16-47 from the floor, including 3-23 from 3-point range. THREE FOR TWENTY-THREE!!! He had 8 assists and 8 turnovers. And we all know he played no defense. If LeBron or Westbrook put up those kinds of numbers, wades would be all over them - and deservedly so. Yet the Rockets won both games over the defending champions because Harden has Chris Paul and other good players around him. He doesn't have to do what LeBron does. Nobody does.

It will be interesting to see how Harden responds in Game 6 with Paul out. I hope he does well, but I'm guessing the Warriors will win easily at home.

I'm looking forward to Game 7 of Cavs-Celtics. I sure as heck wouldn't bet against the best player on the planet.

[forgetful]

As it is, carrying Cleveland to the Finals as a 22-year-old with a team whose next 3 best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas already is one of the most incredible achievements ever ... but most people only remember champions.

Why was it so incredible?  The entire East was crap that year (just like this year).  Cleveland was favored to win every series, and had the 2nd best record in the East.  It wasn't particularly surprising. 

That roster, although not great, was probably the best roster in the entire East.  They had strong defensive players, and enough offense to win games. 

Whoever won the east that year was going to be swept by whichever team won the west.  Saying it was an amazing achievement fails to remember how historically bad the entire east was.

Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars.  He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference.  He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West. 

[GGGG]

Why was it so incredible?  The entire East was crap that year (just like this year).  Cleveland was favored to win every series, and had the 2nd best record in the East.  It wasn't particularly surprising. 

That roster, although not great, was probably the best roster in the entire East.  They had strong defensive players, and enough offense to win games. 

Whoever won the east that year was going to be swept by whichever team won the west.  Saying it was an amazing achievement fails to remember how historically bad the entire east was.

Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars.  He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference.  He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West. 

You don't think the Cavs make the playoffs this year had they been in the West?  That's nonsense.

The East is better this year than it has the last few years.  The top of the West is clearly better, but it isn't as deep as it has been recently.

[GGGG]

The ball is moving MUCH better when Durant isn't in the game tonight.  Obviously GSW is better with him than without him, but they stop running those isolations without him on the floor and it shows.

[MU82]

Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars.  He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference.  He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West.

Silliness. The kind of comment that strains the commenter's credibility.

[forgetful]

You don't think the Cavs make the playoffs this year had they been in the West?  That's nonsense.

The East is better this year than it has the last few years.  The top of the West is clearly better, but it isn't as deep as it has been recently.

The Cavs were 15-15 against the West. No team from the West that made the playoffs had a worse winning percentage against the West than that.

So, statistically speaking, they performed worse than all the playoff teams from the West. 

If you take their win percentage in the East and apply it to 30 games (as if they were in the West) and do the same for the 52 games against the west, they would have finished 46-36 and missed the playoffs.

Silliness. The kind of comment that strains the commenter's credibility.

The Cavs had two all-stars this year (true statement).  They are in a crappy conference (True statement). 

Regarding playoffs.  Arguable.  But see above, my opinion is consistent with documentable facts.

But regarding credibility?  I would never argue that I am one of the most knowledgeable posters regarding the NBA. 

In fact, I don't even think I'd venture to argue that I am even knowledgeable. 

I do think though, that my argument here is evidentiarily sound.

[MU82]

In fact, I don't even think I'd venture to argue that I am even knowledgeable. 

That's quite an admission. I appreciate your honesty.

[GGGG]

https://twitter.com/jon_bois/status/1000580952047931393