CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:The picks aren't in play yet. The second rounder that was traded from this years draft currently is the 59th out of 60 picks. F the Knicks scout guys projected to go at 59 there is a pretty good chance that one of them might be available after one more pick is taken.

What about the other two picks? You're OK with giving up 3 picks to clear a total of $3 mil in cap space as long as one of them is a very late 2nd round pick? That doesn't strike you as an absurd exchange rate? I'm sure this off-season we could clear the $40 mil we owe Tyson and Amare if we used 40 draft picks to entice other teams to take them off our hands. I'll even stipulate that 1/3 of the picks are very late 2nd round, 1/3 ordinary 2nd rounders, and 1/3 first round picks. Then we could keep Melo and sign max FAs this off-season and/or enjoy the trade advantages of teams with cap space. And it would only take giving up 40 picks. You're OK with that exchange rate?

The Knicks gave up their lottery pick and a top 3 protected pick to dump Jeffries and gain cap space. Two second round picks and a first round pick that Denver has the right to swap in 2016. Yeah jam ok with that compromised pick being moved for space. I think grunwald was thinking that he would have a 32 year old melo when that pick is used and the guy taken would be a late first rounder that probably doesn't make an impact until melo is 35.

Well you didn't answer my question with the Amare/Chandler example. (And I made no claim that the Knicks' past decisions were smart.) But how about this:
Let's say in a future year where you already had over $50 mil in projected cap space, if a team asked you to take on a $3 mil contract and offered you 3 picks to do so (one completely unprotected 1st round pick from a historically terrible franchise, one mid 2nd round, and a very late 2nd round), you'd say no?

I wouldn't say no. But just to be clear, the first round pick the knicks traded was already compromised by Denver's right to swap. Also, if you are the gm do you hope that Amare can play the next season and that Tyson gets on the court for more than 60 games or do you look to improve your team while your star player is in his prime.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Clean wrote:

martin wrote:

Clean wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Yea. Michael Woodson doesn't seem like a guy who has a full grasp of every element in coaching. So no he is not. Championship coach

What I don't get, and I'm being genuine here, is how does he manage to rustle up these prolonged winning streaks?- he's done it every year he's been here. It seems like his defensive schemes are terrible and he makes no adjustments, yet we've won a lot of games under him- so are we overlooking some of his strengths?

Like clockwork he always gets exposed in the playoffs. He has noticeably been out coached in every playoff series as a Knick coach.

really? which ones?

All of them.

Off the top of my head the series vs the heat it was obvious that the heat did 3 things vs us. They trapped the ball handlers off most PNR's. They played good denial and post D on melo. The last thing I remember they did vs us was any double that was not a trap came from the weak side corner. Woody did nothing to counter these moves. He force fed the ball to Melo in the post and he did not think to put the best 3pt shooter in the league(novak) in the weak side corner EVERY TIME he is on the court.

For the Indiana series he hardly made any adjustments and when he did it was the wrong one. He went big vs the Pacers which is a negative because their bigs are better than our bigs. It also meant that Hibbert would live in the paint because none of our bigs could hit a shot. He played Amare too much after coming back rusty from an injury. He did not play Cope until too late. After the Pacers beat us Frank Vogel specifically said he was glad we did not use Cope in the series. Cope would have meant hibbert could not stay in the paint all game.

Woody lets his players take too many low percentage shots. If that's on the players because they don't listen to the coach? Then we need a coach who will require that players listen to their instructions.

He got out coached in the playoffs because the ball stuck. Very weak ball movement. If you lose and are moving the ball, I am ok with it. But, if you lose going ISO/forced basketball then I blame the coach. Now I know the personnel sucked especially at guard but that is still no excuse to not require ball movement.

Watching the college game and seeing the ball movement that's coached makes me really hate the NBA (especially the knicks style).

Not sure I buy the Cope thing.

Or does Dolan give Woodson players who take too many low percentage shots? It's not like these players started doing this under Woodson.
You might find this analysis interesting since appreciate the metrics.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703506904575592363492225220
Basically, nearly all of the coaches from the past three decades had no impact on their teams' records. You could just take the historical wins produced from each of the individual players on the team, add them up, and figure out how many games the team would win. In the rare cases where a coach had a significant impact, he was consistently either good or bad to a point that was obvious. It wasn't like there were some years where his teams overachieved and some where they underachieved (like Woodson), which would seem to just be random variation.

Interesting. I would love to see more data.

Yeah, the analysis doesn't make Matt Goukas look good.

Then there's Matt Guokas, who compiled a .430 winning percentage in seven years as head coach. He's the only person in this sample to make his players significantly worse.

I chuckled when I read that

Pjax comes out far better then riles.

need more data to really by into this.

Well I've spent a decent (not huge) amount of time Google searching this topic and never been able to find a statistical assessment with a different conclusion.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I meant just from Google searching. That was the only analysis I found that used advanced metrics to test this question. Obviously it's not definitive but you can't just ignore the available data to stick with a more comfortable belief like "coaches have a huge impact." It also seems implausible that the same coach with the same brain will be great one year and awful the next. It would be like expecting a player to alternate between all-star level and league min level production each year.

I don't ignore any data. There are many contributing factors.

Woodson last year to this year had mostly to do with his personnel.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I meant just from Google searching. That was the only analysis I found that used advanced metrics to test this question. Obviously it's not definitive but you can't just ignore the available data to stick with a more comfortable belief like "coaches have a huge impact." It also seems implausible that the same coach with the same brain will be great one year and awful the next. It would be like expecting a player to alternate between all-star level and league min level production each year.

I don't ignore any data. There are many contributing factors.

Woodson last year to this year had mostly to do with his personnel.

Oh I agree. It was both predictable and predicted that there would be at least a 10 if not 20 win drop off due to the changes in personnel.
(Sorry it probably came across wrong when I mentioned ignoring the data.)

So where I think a coach stands out is when then go low efficient players and they teach how to play the right and bring up their efficiency to where they can produce wins.

Woodson allowing JR and Melo to chuck from anywhere no matter how contested just shows that he can't make that difference.

How many coaches have those guys played for? None ever made a difference. I think this is a great example of coaches not having an impact (though actually Melo's efficiency has been slightly better as a Knick).

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I meant just from Google searching. That was the only analysis I found that used advanced metrics to test this question. Obviously it's not definitive but you can't just ignore the available data to stick with a more comfortable belief like "coaches have a huge impact." It also seems implausible that the same coach with the same brain will be great one year and awful the next. It would be like expecting a player to alternate between all-star level and league min level production each year.

I don't ignore any data. There are many contributing factors.

Woodson last year to this year had mostly to do with his personnel.

Oh I agree. It was both predictable and predicted that there would be at least a 10 if not 20 win drop off due to the changes in personnel.
(Sorry it probably came across wrong when I mentioned ignoring the data.)

So where I think a coach stands out is when then go low efficient players and they teach how to play the right and bring up their efficiency to where they can produce wins.

Woodson allowing JR and Melo to chuck from anywhere no matter how contested just shows that he can't make that difference.

How many coaches have those guys played for? None ever made a difference. I think this is a great example of coaches not having an impact (though actually Melo's efficiency has been slightly better as a Knick).

Because none of their coaches were difference makers. I bet that if they remain here, Melo and JR's efficiency go up next year.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I meant just from Google searching. That was the only analysis I found that used advanced metrics to test this question. Obviously it's not definitive but you can't just ignore the available data to stick with a more comfortable belief like "coaches have a huge impact." It also seems implausible that the same coach with the same brain will be great one year and awful the next. It would be like expecting a player to alternate between all-star level and league min level production each year.

I don't ignore any data. There are many contributing factors.

Woodson last year to this year had mostly to do with his personnel.

Oh I agree. It was both predictable and predicted that there would be at least a 10 if not 20 win drop off due to the changes in personnel.
(Sorry it probably came across wrong when I mentioned ignoring the data.)

So where I think a coach stands out is when then go low efficient players and they teach how to play the right and bring up their efficiency to where they can produce wins.

Woodson allowing JR and Melo to chuck from anywhere no matter how contested just shows that he can't make that difference.

How many coaches have those guys played for? None ever made a difference. I think this is a great example of coaches not having an impact (though actually Melo's efficiency has been slightly better as a Knick).

Because none of their coaches were difference makers. I bet that if they remain here, Melo and JR's efficiency go up next year.

By that, I'm assuming you mean the past coaches didn't make a positive or a negative difference. And you're also saying Woodson is getting the same result as other coaches who aren't difference makers. We can use the law of transitivity here and reach the conclusion I was going for.

Yes. Most coaches don't make much of a different in player efficiency.

Its hard to know what Tibs and his defense or JVG means to the teams wins. Advanced metrics do not do a good enough job (yes) in determining defensive WP's.

playa2 wrote:Woody is an assistant with no final decision making

<<<Woody is an assistant
>>>
Yep!
Woodson is also an ASS-HOLE whom needs to GO! Please Lord

This man is praised up & down by NBA/Tnt and media/Ny local media for being a very good coach
REALLLLLY ?????

A defensive coach guru REALLLLLLY ?

This man is going to finish the season and Woodson and his switching D' schemes cant get the hell outta NY too fast
& soon for the DJ.

The freaky Knicks lost the Phu_cking game tonite cause Mike Woodson doesnt play the game the right way
Its never about stops OR Adjustments, its always about JR SMith, and Felton play off MELO and also
about 3 point shots as Woodson loves to give freedom to Knick players to hoists ****s up & NY being near
bottom of the damn league in FG% - Three points made.

GOOD Riddance ! Mike when it time comes for Jackson/GM to Let you know you're now longer going to get a phone call
nor get any chance of returning to frustrate Knick fans by your inempt incompetance of coaching and hanging $STOCK
on your playa's outscoring folks from 3-point line as a scheme to win games in this league.

Woodson doesnt' even look least upset at having one of NYK Team worst ever Won/Lost records at home losing a game needed
to the Phucking Cleveland Cavaliers the 27-44 CAVs without Allstar Kylie Irving even being in NY, pisses me off to a tee!

Wooodson
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-
Please get this coach to end of season so we can re-start this team,

Friday 76ers near loss doesnt tell fans enough is enough of Mike Woodson
This man doesnt change, he doesnt not adapt, he offers **** & same results! Cant perform at home gym when needed

Then says
"Its on me! "
What a waste of Knick-coach postgame time !!

*Outta here! , if this was Mike D'Antoni coaching same here in NY MDA woulda been Fired in 4th quarter of 2013!
CAA and Woodson GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

So ask Toure Murray to be Iman on Jack? And then play 3 on 5 on the offensive end, with Tyson AWOL and Stat not beasting against Deng on one leg and Spenser for Hire?

Call for a coach's head over and over.

Im gonna let PHil sort this one out.