dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Nalod wrote:Coach Kidd won 54 games last year. Except for any of the wins during the last two months of the season. Coach couldn't shoot.

Fixed

Re-Fixed.

Yup, he was terrible on the court the last two months, but he was still leading the team.

And the 18-6 finish the year before? That was coach JR?

No, it was the boost from getting rid of MDA. But according to your theory it wouldn't matter if JR was coach, would it, the WP for each player wouldn't vary significantly...

Well, it's not my theory; it's what the available data indicates. But there have been quite rare exceptions where the coach mattered. All we know is that if you're dealing with a restricted sample (people already qualified enough to be offered a coaching job - a sample that excludes JR), the exact choice is unlikely to make a difference.

doesn't coaching matter a lot more the further into the playoffs you go? i never like woodson for that reason alone... history has shown that his teams get annihilated in the second rounds, nit even competitive series. the failure rate for him between regular season and first round (which don't really count for me) and the second round is startling.

Did his playoff teams get beat by better teams or did they get upset. Not sure about Atlanta but the Knicks were the big dog against Indy.

I am not a fan at all of his style though.

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Nalod wrote:Coach Kidd won 54 games last year. Except for any of the wins during the last two months of the season. Coach couldn't shoot.

Fixed

Re-Fixed.

Yup, he was terrible on the court the last two months, but he was still leading the team.

And the 18-6 finish the year before? That was coach JR?

No, it was the boost from getting rid of MDA. But according to your theory it wouldn't matter if JR was coach, would it, the WP for each player wouldn't vary significantly...

Well, it's not my theory; it's what the available data indicates. But there have been quite rare exceptions where the coach mattered. All we know is that if you're dealing with a restricted sample (people already qualified enough to be offered a coaching job - a sample that excludes JR), the exact choice is unlikely to make a difference.

doesn't coaching matter a lot more the further into the playoffs you go? i never like woodson for that reason alone... history has shown that his teams get annihilated in the second rounds, nit even competitive series. the failure rate for him between regular season and first round (which don't really count for me) and the second round is startling.

Did his playoff teams get beat by better teams or did they get upset. Not sure about Atlanta but the Knicks were the big dog against Indy.

I am not a fan at all of his style though.

vogel stated publicly that he did not understand woodson's strategy in the seconf round last season.

if you see woodson's playoff history his team were not even competitive. sweeps, five-game series, blowouts galore. i have to think another coach would have done a lot better than that.

i really see two seasons and two types of basketball between regular season and the second round of the playoffs and beyond.

not cool for vogel to do that.

I don't like woodson either but unless he came in below expectations (odds/line) then I can't say its on him.

JVG used a very ISO heavy offense with a really slow pace. He won by boring the other team to death (and defense).

I read the stats / article that Bonn provided and I found it pretty intriguing.

Nalod wrote:A team with a losing record does not garner support for the coach from fans.

Nobody likes Woodson now. We all liked what Kidd did last year for the guards, but he was not the coach.
Our guard play is awful this year.
Woodson looks awful this year.
The only one that looks good is Melo and when he is not superman, he looks awful.

I like how posters are all like "Yeah, I never liked him........."

18-6
54-28

Seems like nobody had problems when we were winning.

This year is awful no doubt.

Forget ATL and forget Melo in Denver. Im talking about the product we putting on the floor in NY!

I'll let Phil sort this one out.

well i had problems with "when" we were winning because it was not THAT we were winning but HOW we were winning that concerned me. the knicks last season never looked enough like a final four level team the entire regular season. first 25 games ok, then there was a stretch in march maybe, but not enough to shore up the team to levels that made me a believer.

playoffs exposed that, and that's on woodson.

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Nalod wrote:Coach Kidd won 54 games last year. Except for any of the wins during the last two months of the season. Coach couldn't shoot.

Fixed

Re-Fixed.

Yup, he was terrible on the court the last two months, but he was still leading the team.

And the 18-6 finish the year before? That was coach JR?

No, it was the boost from getting rid of MDA. But according to your theory it wouldn't matter if JR was coach, would it, the WP for each player wouldn't vary significantly...

Well, it's not my theory; it's what the available data indicates. But there have been quite rare exceptions where the coach mattered. All we know is that if you're dealing with a restricted sample (people already qualified enough to be offered a coaching job - a sample that excludes JR), the exact choice is unlikely to make a difference.

doesn't coaching matter a lot more the further into the playoffs you go? i never like woodson for that reason alone... history has shown that his teams get annihilated in the second rounds, nit even competitive series. the failure rate for him between regular season and first round (which don't really count for me) and the second round is startling.

I'd say there's been virtually no support in any of the major sports for the idea that a different set of factors (whether it's the coach or players) wins games in playoffs than the regular season

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Nalod wrote:Coach Kidd won 54 games last year. Except for any of the wins during the last two months of the season. Coach couldn't shoot.

Fixed

Re-Fixed.

Yup, he was terrible on the court the last two months, but he was still leading the team.

And the 18-6 finish the year before? That was coach JR?

No, it was the boost from getting rid of MDA. But according to your theory it wouldn't matter if JR was coach, would it, the WP for each player wouldn't vary significantly...

Well, it's not my theory; it's what the available data indicates. But there have been quite rare exceptions where the coach mattered. All we know is that if you're dealing with a restricted sample (people already qualified enough to be offered a coaching job - a sample that excludes JR), the exact choice is unlikely to make a difference.

doesn't coaching matter a lot more the further into the playoffs you go? i never like woodson for that reason alone... history has shown that his teams get annihilated in the second rounds, nit even competitive series. the failure rate for him between regular season and first round (which don't really count for me) and the second round is startling.

I'd say there's been virtually no support in any of the major sports for the idea that a different set of factors (whether it's the coach or players) wins games in playoffs than the regular season

when you say "available data" do you mean to say there are algorithms, however few, that allow a coach to be evaluated between regular-season performance/record and playoff performance/record? if there are i would like to see them.

this makes for an interesting subject. i mean we keep hearing that doc rivers was not a good coach until he had good players, for example. i am not persuaded that is a valid statement. look how popovich and thiboudeaux make do with their rosters. seems like they do more with less, ie overachieve in the regular season and playoffs.

I think the data had those guys as exceptions to the rule along with phil jackson. The data pretty much states that very few coaches can make a significant difference.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Dagger wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Nalod wrote:Coach Kidd won 54 games last year. Except for any of the wins during the last two months of the season. Coach couldn't shoot.

Fixed

Re-Fixed.

Yup, he was terrible on the court the last two months, but he was still leading the team.

And the 18-6 finish the year before? That was coach JR?

No, it was the boost from getting rid of MDA. But according to your theory it wouldn't matter if JR was coach, would it, the WP for each player wouldn't vary significantly...

Well, it's not my theory; it's what the available data indicates. But there have been quite rare exceptions where the coach mattered. All we know is that if you're dealing with a restricted sample (people already qualified enough to be offered a coaching job - a sample that excludes JR), the exact choice is unlikely to make a difference.

Okay, but I'd like to hear your take on what you feel the discrepancy is between last year's team and this year's team. In your opinion, why are we so much worse with many of the same players and the same coach? I know Bargnani sucks, but he's missed enough games to conclude this team is poor even when he doesn't play.