Grasshopper:
Nature must follow a process of evorution in order to bring harmony and balance.
Basketball must follow fundamentals and not care about "wins" but solidify its process and do it right.
It is too easy to say the lessons need not exist. You assume Mr. Brown after 31 years, coaching college and professionals as incompetitant until he shortend the rotation. YOu see the result without credence to the process.
Chicken or the egg?
Oohah or Hall of fame Larry.
Larry.
This is what I mean when I say that people around here worship LB and think he cannot make a mistake. Your whole point sounds like 'it is not for you to question' similar to in the Bible.
It was never "oohah vs. LB" That was added by you for sensationalist purposes.
I never claimed LB was not a great coach. I simply pointed out what I consider to be errors on his part.
Nalod, do you consider yourself informed enough to point out a mistake by LB? Are any of us? Why do we even discuss this game when everybody actually involved with it knows so much more?
I ask you Nalod, can you point out one thing LB has done as an error with the Knicks? Ever?
I don't know what else you need to show someone besides the information that I provided earlier in this thread. 4 out of 5 teams is a trend if I've ever seen one. The records and the winning % through 28 games with all the NBA teams that Larry Brown has coached in his first year with that team have been dismal. After the 28 games the records and the winning %'s go up. Why? Because Larry Brown sets a foundation, just like any good coach should do, even moreso when your team is chock-full of young players. 4 out of 5 is a trend, like it or not oohah.
Here is why your study is absolutely skewed:
1)You chose 28 as an arbitrary number. The slow start may have been different for different teams. You have to look in the context of when the losses or wins are mounted. Remember Detroit was 16/8 before they were 16/12 then they were 19/13. If you look at the Knicks' record now without knowing they just won 5 in a row, then they are still mired in a 'slow start' at 12/21, when they in fact have 'sped up' considerably.
2)You limited the study to only LB's first year with any given team, and you still managed to leave out his first two teams.
3)Nobody proclaimed that "LB teams always start slow in their first year" until you put forth these examples. Before that it was: "LB teams always start slow". I even read: "LB teams are always bad in their first year". But never anything about starting slow in his first year.
A true study would look at LB's teams every year. Why? Because if LB teams always have a 'slow start' in his first year, then they should always 'start fast' in subsequent years. Else, the original 'slow start' is meaningless.
Context. Completeness. That is what is missing.
oohah
[Edited by - oohah on 01-12-2006 5:40 PM]
