[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

800 pound gorilla thread: LB case to be decided:
Author Thread
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/21/2006  12:16 AM
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah


Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
AUTOADVERT
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
9/21/2006  12:19 AM
Posted by nyk4ever:
Posted by buddapaw:

The starting lineup is only part of it what about the mindnumbing substitution patterns.

When your team sucks, what else do you expect. You guys act like this was a winning team before Brown took over, this was/is a perennial 30win team that Brown was doing these "mindnumbing" substituion patterns. It's not like he was subbing out Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen here.


Another good point! Three of the guys who are going to be putting up some numbers this year, were all rookies last year. That's an automatic excuse not to play them regularily, if you choose. And James and Curry were both major non-factors for us, so yeah' it's not like there were some real big stars sitting on the bench, let alone playing them on a regular basis, or anyone for that matter.

I would also like to point out, and you can check it out on a time-line basis wise, when Q's bro got shot, things seemed to really come un-raveled around then and it just got worse. We just never seemed to have a chance to come together from that point on.
I'll never trust this' team again.
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
9/21/2006  12:22 AM
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah

Now if the bolded statement wasn't true for 100% of the other NBA coaches that ever coached in the league, than you would have a point.

~You can't run from who you are.~
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
9/21/2006  12:24 AM
Posted by BlueSeats:

Don't hear this wrong, but Brown said that Isiah told him who to play. I'm not saying isiah told him to use 42 lineups, but it's possible that since they had different concepts on who merited time that they decided between them to give everybody a good look. An extended audition if you will, especially after Marbury went down and all shots at the playoffs were kaput.

Instead of arguing over who merited time, give them all a shot and see who rises to the top.

It's possible.


I have a good feeling that after Brown recieves every cent owed to him and the lawyers say it's okay now' he'll talk and tell what happened from his own point of view and we'll know what the thinking was on his part.
I'll never trust this' team again.
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
9/21/2006  12:26 AM
Posted by BlueSeats:

Don't hear this wrong, but Brown said that Isiah told him who to play. I'm not saying isiah told him to use 42 lineups, but it's possible that since they had different concepts on who merited time that they decided between them to give everybody a good look. An extended audition if you will, especially after Marbury went down and all shots at the playoffs were kaput.

Instead of arguing over who merited time, give them all a shot and see who rises to the top.

It's possible.

Do you mean 'tie there hands behind they're backs, throw them into a pool of water and which ever one bobs to the top, is the one who was telling the truth'?
I'll never trust this' team again.
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
9/21/2006  12:34 AM
I would also like to point out, and you can check it out on a time-line basis wise, when Q's bro got shot, things seemed to really come un-raveled around then and it just got worse. We just never seemed to have a chance to come together from that point on.

I can give you basic averages.

Before December 6th- 6 pts, 3.875 rebounds.
After he got back- 8.44 pts, 4.10 rbs.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3417/gamelog;_ylt=At1fzHhWE_W_uqiIHGUiFC.kvLYF
click on splits and go down, it breaks it down by the month too.
~You can't run from who you are.~
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
9/21/2006  12:36 AM
Posted by nixluva:
Posted by nyk4ever:

YES BROWN WAS HORRIBLE LAST YEAR AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE 23WIN SEASON JUST AS MUCH AS THE PLAYERS CONTRIBUTED TO THE 23WIN SEASON. With that said, if you give me the keys to the franchise and who will rebuild the franchise, I'll take Brown over Isiah any day of the year.

Uh, when did Brown ever build a team himself? He wasn't the GM of his former teams. Thank God! Let's not forget his now famous bipolar love/hate thing with his players. Some of his suggestions have been good, but I give him ZERO credit for his one championship team, cuz Dumars built that team.

Isiah may not have had many wins, but in terms of remaking this team in just 2.5 seasons, coming from where he started, I think he's done a decent job with this team. Now he'll get to prove whether his work has made the team better. See if all your doing is looking at how poorly we've done in the past, then you're missing the point of what has been going on since he traded Nazr. That's when he started this process of going younger and making this team over. If not for LB we would have had a good start to this teams focus on our younger core. We've got a nice mix of vets and kids. If Lb had done his job, Isiah would only have 1 bad year on his record. Now many of those who don't like Isiah, can make it sound like he's had all these failures here, when its still only been 2.5 seasons. We thought it would take longer than that to get this team straight when he got here. In fact MOST analysts thought it would take a long time to fix that mess. Here we are going into our 3rd full season and I think this team is setup nicely for having some success after a long drought. Compare that to how long it took Chicago or many other teams to get things right.

The only difference in Chicago though is, it may have taken them longer, but here they are once again, a major player and they already won six championships (three of them, at the expense of us), the last one being just several years ago and miserable littel us, last won in 1973, still waiting to put it all together. If you ask me, that's the way to do it. Be patient and wait for the right time to make your move. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Chicago at this point (and I HATE chicago).
I'll never trust this' team again.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/21/2006  1:05 AM
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah

Now if the bolded statement wasn't true for 100% of the other NBA coaches that ever coached in the league, than you would have a point.

That is the point 49. This "LB always starts slow" is a mythology used to explain what he did with the Knicks. Like any other coach he does better when he has had better players. Last year he had good enough players to be mediocre. He underachieved horribly and authored his own demise.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
9/21/2006  1:11 AM
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah

But is that not the case with 'every' successful team? L.A. couldn't win without Magic, Jabaar, Worthy, Kobe or Shaq! Boston could not win without Cousey, Russell, Bird, McHale as well as a few others! Chicago couldn't have won without jordan (and his side kick, pippy long stockings)!

I think maybe we should investigate more thouroughly Browns won-lost records, the first seasons and the following seasons. It makes total sense when you have a team that is good enough to win and win as a coach and have a losing season, when your team is not so good or having trouble getting it together, as in the case of the Knicks. New York City has to be factored into this. It's a whole different animal here. We have big egos and attitudes we have to take into consideration and the events that took place and how the chemistry never came together and how we had three guys who were rookies and how Curry still' was un-prepaired (and we already knew that he might not be prepared again) to play at his potential. Let's not forget the shooting of Q's brother in Chicago! That definately had an effect on a team that was all so new together. And no one even knows what happened to Jerome James big ass! Take into consideration that the only real bright spot that we had last season was the one that was already fully established, not only with a season tucked under his belt and part of an NBA career, but a stroke of genuine talent, in the name of Jamal Crawford, who hit (what was it again?) four game winners last season! I mean isn't it fair to say that he was truely the only one who any kind of a foundation to work from, combined with a decent professional attitude about him? Don't worry, I'm not saying most of the others didn't have a professional attitude about them. My point is, he is the only one that was in a position to have a chance at a balanced season and I think he made the most of it.

It's not a question of wether we had talent or not. We have plenty of talent on this team. The only problem is, is that it just wasn't all together yet. We can and will argue this for years to come and we will all have our own opinions. Believe it or not, it is a very bizaar place that these Knicks and the situation that they ended up in last season. I'm suggesting that it was a complete 'FLUKE'! We all can agree that we know damn well that we were much, much better than that and what happened couldn't happen again, even if you tried. I think that's the only answer I have to what has been a strange phenominom last year. I cannot bring myself to believe that this can ever happen to our team again. It just can't get any worse and I refuse to beleive that Larry Brown could be that bad of a coach for crying out loud. The man took teams that were talented to were he was supposed to take them and took teams nowhere, were they could not go. I will say, if this team repeats' itself again, then there is certainly something very rotten in it's nucleus and should be immediately dismantled at all cost's!

Amen!
I'll never trust this' team again.
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
9/21/2006  1:16 AM
Posted by joec32033:
I would also like to point out, and you can check it out on a time-line basis wise, when Q's bro got shot, things seemed to really come un-raveled around then and it just got worse. We just never seemed to have a chance to come together from that point on.

I can give you basic averages.

Before December 6th- 6 pts, 3.875 rebounds.
After he got back- 8.44 pts, 4.10 rbs.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3417/gamelog;_ylt=At1fzHhWE_W_uqiIHGUiFC.kvLYF
click on splits and go down, it breaks it down by the month too.

I was referring to the 'team' psyche. He (individually) came on stronger later in the season to get those numbers up. I would appreciate stat provers to take into consideration that there is a human being behind those numbers you post as proof. Proof? Iverson averages 30 each year, but has never won an NBA championship. There's always the human factor in this game. Think about that in your stats.
I'll never trust this' team again.
TheGame
Posts: 26652
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/15/2006
Member: #1154
USA
9/21/2006  4:40 AM
Originally posted by 4949:

Okay, aside from some bad Larry moves in coaching this team last season (and I agree on about some of his bad moves), the point that I am making on the season is, it did not help matters much for starbury to go into his mood swings and disrupt the team like he did. There are some folks here placing all the blame of Larry, when nothing is said by these same folks about starbury's tactics. If you blame Larry for the season, then make sure you blame the other players for the fiasco that went on. Coaching tactics can be changed, but disrupting the team outside of a professional attitude is unexceptible! We all saw with our own two eyes what happened, it's only fair.

I agree that Marbury did not have the greatest attitude in the world. But it is hard to put most of the blame on Marbury for last season. First, it is clear that Marbury was our best player and the few games we won were due in large part to his efforts. Second, most of Marbury's antics were in reaction to the bulls--t LB was doing. Was that professional? No, but I am not going to put more blame on Marbury for acting unprofessional in response to LB's unprofessional behavior. If LB would have handled the Marbury situation in a more professional manner, rather than selling him out in the media, things would not have gotten as bad as they did. What other coach sells their star player out in the media? Third, the players did not put the blame on Marbury and the players are the ones that see firsthand what is going on. The players at their exit interviews put the blame squarely on LB and his coaching and personnel decisions. While I agree that IT and the players could have and should have done some things differently, it was LB that really made this situation spin out of control.

Moreover, this whole thing about LB being a great coach misses the point. LB is incapable of coaching any team that is not composed of defensive-minded players who can also score. IMHO, a great coach is someone that can get the most out of the players that he has, whether they are offensive or defensive-minded players. That is what a coach is expected to do, and that is the reason everything fell apart last year. IT and Dolan expected Larry to come in here, teach this team fundamentals, and try to win as many games as possible with the current roster to see where we were at. Larry came in, realized that these guys could not play defense the way he wanted, got frustrated and started f--kin' around with the roster in an attempt to expose the players, with the ultimate hope of forcing IT to dump the entire roster (or get IT fired so that he could take over and dump the roster). The Knicks did not pay LB $50 million for him to act as a psuedo GM. They paid him $50 million to take the 2005 Knicks as far as he could and he wholly failed in that endeavor. That is why he got fired. He may be a great coach (and he obviously still knows alot about the game and can coach in this league), but I think his ego has gotten in the way of his coaching abilities at this point.
Trust the Process
Silverfuel
Posts: 31750
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 6/27/2002
Member: #268
USA
9/21/2006  5:57 AM
good post TheGame.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
9/21/2006  7:20 AM
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah
thats under the assumption that last years team had talent. Aside from our drafted players we have a lot of guys who's former teams were quite happy to part with them, talent aside.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
9/21/2006  7:45 AM
Posted by oohah:
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah

Now if the bolded statement wasn't true for 100% of the other NBA coaches that ever coached in the league, than you would have a point.

That is the point 49. This "LB always starts slow" is a mythology used to explain what he did with the Knicks. Like any other coach he does better when he has had better players. Last year he had good enough players to be mediocre. He underachieved horribly and authored his own demise.

oohah

Oohah, this is a self serving argument, IMO. You are going by these numbers but you dealing with an uncertainty here. You have no idea how good or bad these teams would have been if Larry wasn't there. Larry may have coached a horrible team to a decent .500 record, where as another coach's best with that team could have been a .400 record.



[Edited by - joec32033 on 09-21-2006 07:51 AM]
~You can't run from who you are.~
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
9/21/2006  7:50 AM
Posted by 4949:
Posted by joec32033:
I would also like to point out, and you can check it out on a time-line basis wise, when Q's bro got shot, things seemed to really come un-raveled around then and it just got worse. We just never seemed to have a chance to come together from that point on.

I can give you basic averages.

Before December 6th- 6 pts, 3.875 rebounds.
After he got back- 8.44 pts, 4.10 rbs.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3417/gamelog;_ylt=At1fzHhWE_W_uqiIHGUiFC.kvLYF
click on splits and go down, it breaks it down by the month too.

I was referring to the 'team' psyche. He (individually) came on stronger later in the season to get those numbers up. I would appreciate stat provers to take into consideration that there is a human being behind those numbers you post as proof. Proof? Iverson averages 30 each year, but has never won an NBA championship. There's always the human factor in this game. Think about that in your stats.

First off, I was being totally impartial, I took what you said you just wanting to see some type of stats before and after Q's brother got shot, so I decided to do the leg work for you. Next time, I'll just let you do your own leg work.

Bro read the names next to the posts, before you start coming strong on people. I have been agreeing with you this whole thread.
~You can't run from who you are.~
wsdm
Posts: 20803
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/16/2006
Member: #1167

9/21/2006  11:39 AM
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by oohah:
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah

Now if the bolded statement wasn't true for 100% of the other NBA coaches that ever coached in the league, than you would have a point.

That is the point 49. This "LB always starts slow" is a mythology used to explain what he did with the Knicks. Like any other coach he does better when he has had better players. Last year he had good enough players to be mediocre. He underachieved horribly and authored his own demise.

oohah

Oohah, this is a self serving argument, IMO. You are going by these numbers but you dealing with an uncertainty here. You have no idea how good or bad these teams would have been if Larry wasn't there. Larry may have coached a horrible team to a decent .500 record, where as another coach's best with that team could have been a .400 record.



[Edited by - joec32033 on 09-21-2006 07:51 AM]

I think you guys are looking at this way too deeply. Oohah's only point is that its a myth that LB's teams start poorly and last year simply fit that mythological pattern. When you have .600 or even near .700 winning %s on teams in your first year with them, you're obviously not starting poorly.
www.selltheknicks.com----No more DOLANOMICS!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
9/21/2006  12:08 PM
I think you guys are looking at this way too deeply. Oohah's only point is that its a myth that LB's teams start poorly and last year simply fit that mythological pattern. When you have .600 or even near .700 winning %s on teams in your first year with them, you're obviously not starting poorly.

Exactamundo.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024

9/21/2006  12:18 PM
In all actuality Brown typically produces an increase in wins his first season. His teams may struggle early, but they make up for it after guys "get it' by finishing strong.

------

Knicks President Isiah Thomas says the poor showing hasn't shaken his confidence in Brown because he's looking at the bigger picture.

"He believes that he makes and can make a difference at the end of games, and he can," Thomas says. "What Coach is doing with our guys and what I'm seeing now is some semblance of a team playing better.

{b]"I didn't hire Larry Brown for this year. We hired him for five years. We knew we had a lot of young players. We wanted him to teach them to play."

Despite the Knicks' struggles, the feeling around the NBA is that Brown will get it turned around. Many say it will be sooner rather than later, noting his track record. They are mindful that in his previous stops, he traditionally got off to rocky starts. But by season's end his teams were forces to be reckoned with.

Davis, a member of Brown's Pacers teams, constantly reminds his teammates of how Brown turned around things in Indiana. "From the outside looking in it may look helter-skelter," Davis says. "Until he figures out what's the best way for this team to be successful, he's going to keep trying different things. I go around preaching for guys to be patient."

Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh says the Knicks' recent six-game winning streak is a sign of what's ahead if the players will stay the course.

"When they hired him and people called me, I said that in the beginning you guys will be writing stuff (like), 'Oh, God. It's awful. It's terrible.' Then all of a sudden, they'll start winning," Walsh says. "That's what I'm seeing. It doesn't surprise me."

Walsh, who also was Brown's assistant with the Denver Nuggets, says Brown's teams usually struggle early because of the way Brown sees the game. "He has a definite idea of how he wants to play, and the players don't. He's trying to get them into a picture that he sees that they don't see yet."

Marbury can attest to that. He never fully adjusted to Brown's system during the 2004 Summer Olympics. However, he says he has a better grasp now of what Brown is trying to get done.

"Coach's visions are there, and he's like, 'We got to do this right now,' " Marbury says. "We're not up to speed with him right then and there. But ... the only way we're going to go forward is by having confidence in him."

Says Brown: "They're starting to figure it out. I see a light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know how long this tunnel is. (But) I'm really encouraged with what I'm seeing."

Turnaround king
Larry Brown has the reputation of making swift progress in the teams he takes on. The record improved for all but one of the seven professional teams he coached for the first time from the start of a season over the previous year (an average of 11.3 more wins):


1styear Team Record Prev.year's record Change

1972-73 Carolina (ABA) 57-27 35-49 +22
1974-75 Denver (ABA) 65-19 37-47 +28
1981-82 New Jersey 44-38 24-58 +20
1988-89 San Antonio 21-61 31-51 -10
1993-94 Indiana 47-35 41-41 +6
1997-98 Philadelphia 31-51 22-60 +9
2003-04 Detroit 54-28 50-32 +4


-------

In truth, I think a lot of guys were getting it (Lee, Frye, Nate, Malik, Curry, Richardson, Qyntel) before things feel apart with Marbury's injury, ADs suspension and trade, the harassment suit, and then the Marbury mutiny. But the guys who were capable of getting it simply didn't comprise the power base of the team (Marbury) and team chemistry was simply too fractured by then. Just as it was the year before.[/b] Diverse agendas, lack of caring, personal sob stories, managerial distractions, turf wars, etc, were simply too great to overcome.

Brown's detractors seem to insinuate Brown came here with the intention to uproot Isiah and sabotaged the team to do so. I just don't believe that. I believe that here, like everywhere else, Brown would have turned things around pretty quickly were it not for the resistance of a few key protagonists. When it became clear those protagonists would not stand down, and would not be removed, is when Brown's efforts became futile and his departure a forgone conclusion.

People try to suggest last season was a uniquely Larry Brown experience, like the kind of thing that could only occur because of his defects, but the truth of the story is that last year had as much in common with Isiah's team's history with Lenny Wilkens and Herb Williams, as it did with any of Brown's other stops.

The year prior Brown was in the finals for the second consecutive year and the 3rd time in 5 years, while the Knicks under Lenny and Herb were already beating their path to the gutter with abominable chemistry, disinterest, horrid effort and woeful execution.

Knicks record since Marbury's "I'm the best comments": 45-90

[Edited by - blueSeats on 09-21-2006 12:24 PM]
joec32033
Posts: 30632
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #583
USA
9/21/2006  12:21 PM
Posted by wsdm:
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by oohah:
Posted by joec32033:
Posted by oohah:
Aren't we forgetting something fundamentally important here? Of all of the teams Larry coached, did he not have a first bad year, then a very successfull following year and then some?

This is possibly the most widely repeated misconception about LB. From a earlier in this thread, LB's first year with each pro team he has coached:


1973 CAR ABA 57 27 .679
1977 DEN NBA 50 32 .610
1982 NJN NBA 44 38 .537
1989 SAS NBA 21 61 .256

1992 LAC NBA 23 12 .657
1993 LAC NBA 41 41 .500
1994 IND NBA 47 35 .573
1998 PHI NBA 31 51 .378
2004 DET NBA 54 28 .659
2006 NYK NBA 23 59 .280


LB's win pattern follows as such: When he has had less talent, he has lost more, when he has had more talent he has won more. With the notable exception of last year's Knicks.

oohah

Now if the bolded statement wasn't true for 100% of the other NBA coaches that ever coached in the league, than you would have a point.

That is the point 49. This "LB always starts slow" is a mythology used to explain what he did with the Knicks. Like any other coach he does better when he has had better players. Last year he had good enough players to be mediocre. He underachieved horribly and authored his own demise.

oohah

Oohah, this is a self serving argument, IMO. You are going by these numbers but you dealing with an uncertainty here. You have no idea how good or bad these teams would have been if Larry wasn't there. Larry may have coached a horrible team to a decent .500 record, where as another coach's best with that team could have been a .400 record.



[Edited by - joec32033 on 09-21-2006 07:51 AM]

I think you guys are looking at this way too deeply. Oohah's only point is that its a myth that LB's teams start poorly and last year simply fit that mythological pattern. When you have .600 or even near .700 winning %s on teams in your first year with them, you're obviously not starting poorly.

Understood. But the fact remains that nowhere is anyone taking into consideration the team he took over and where they were the season before. You take over a god team that just needs a better coach (a la the Pistons), your first year will be better. You also have to take into account the how receptive the players are to your system.

1972 Cougars- 35-49/1973 Cougars- 57-27 - Major difference other than Brown is that the best player on the 72 squad was the third best player on the 73 squad.

1974 Nuggets (Oohah your info is off, LB was coaching the Nuggets for 2 years in the ABA starting in 1975 before they went to the NBA and he produced the record you listed)-37-47/ 1975 Nuggets 65-19 - Once again, most of the top 4 players are totally different than the year before.

1981 Nets-25-58/1982 Nets 44-38- Once again a totally different roster from the season before.

1988 Spurs-31/51/1989 Spurs 21/61- Many of the same players from the year before. 1990 Spurs-56-26 Totally different roster.

1991 Clips-31-51/1992 Clips(3 coaches in one season-Larry being the last one) LB's record-23/12. The first coach MIke Schular was 21-24, the next coach was 1-1, then LB. It was a decent team.

1993 Indy 41-41 under Bob Hill/ 1994 Indy 47-35. A good team, A few Key changes were made to that team (Schrempf out McKey in).

1997 Philly- 22-60/1998 Philly 31-51. Major roster changes when LB took over.

Detroit we all know about them. And now us.

It seems the only way there IS a quick turnaround is if you get LB players he needs or wants.
~You can't run from who you are.~
wsdm
Posts: 20803
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/16/2006
Member: #1167

9/21/2006  12:22 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:

In all actuality Brown typically produces an increase in wins his first season. His teams may struggle early, but they make up for it after guys "get it' by finishing strong.

------

Knicks President Isiah Thomas says the poor showing hasn't shaken his confidence in Brown because he's looking at the bigger picture.

"He believes that he makes and can make a difference at the end of games, and he can," Thomas says. "What Coach is doing with our guys and what I'm seeing now is some semblance of a team playing better.

"I didn't hire Larry Brown for this year. We hired him for five years. We knew we had a lot of young players. We wanted him to teach them to play."

Despite the Knicks' struggles, the feeling around the NBA is that Brown will get it turned around. Many say it will be sooner rather than later, noting his track record. They are mindful that in his previous stops, he traditionally got off to rocky starts. But by season's end his teams were forces to be reckoned with.

Davis, a member of Brown's Pacers teams, constantly reminds his teammates of how Brown turned around things in Indiana. "From the outside looking in it may look helter-skelter," Davis says. "Until he figures out what's the best way for this team to be successful, he's going to keep trying different things. I go around preaching for guys to be patient."

Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh says the Knicks' recent six-game winning streak is a sign of what's ahead if the players will stay the course.

"When they hired him and people called me, I said that in the beginning you guys will be writing stuff (like), 'Oh, God. It's awful. It's terrible.' Then all of a sudden, they'll start winning," Walsh says. "That's what I'm seeing. It doesn't surprise me."

Walsh, who also was Brown's assistant with the Denver Nuggets, says Brown's teams usually struggle early because of the way Brown sees the game. "He has a definite idea of how he wants to play, and the players don't. He's trying to get them into a picture that he sees that they don't see yet."


Marbury can attest to that. He never fully adjusted to Brown's system during the 2004 Summer Olympics. However, he says he has a better grasp now of what Brown is trying to get done.

"Coach's visions are there, and he's like, 'We got to do this right now,' " Marbury says. "We're not up to speed with him right then and there. But ... the only way we're going to go forward is by having confidence in him."

Says Brown: "They're starting to figure it out. I see a light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know how long this tunnel is. (But) I'm really encouraged with what I'm seeing."

Turnaround king
Larry Brown has the reputation of making swift progress in the teams he takes on. The record improved for all but one of the seven professional teams he coached for the first time from the start of a season over the previous year (an average of 11.3 more wins):


1styear Team Record Prev.year's record Change

1972-73 Carolina (ABA) 57-27 35-49 +22
1974-75 Denver (ABA) 65-19 37-47 +28
1981-82 New Jersey 44-38 24-58 +20
1988-89 San Antonio 21-61 31-51 -10
1993-94 Indiana 47-35 41-41 +6
1997-98 Philadelphia 31-51 22-60 +9
2003-04 Detroit 54-28 50-32 +4


-------

In truth, I think a lot of guys were getting it (Lee, Frye, Nate, Malik, Curry, Richardson, Qyntel) before things feel apart with Marbury's injury, ADs suspension and trade, the harassment suit, and then the Marbury mutiny. But the guys who were capable of getting it simply didn't comprise the power base of the team (Marbury) and team chemistry was simply too fractured by then. Just as it was the year before. Diverse agendas, lack of caring, personal sob stories, managerial distractions, turf wars, etc, were simply too great to overcome.

brown's detractors seem to insinuate Brown came here with the intention to uproot Isiah and sabotaged the team to do so. I just don't believe that. I believe that here, like everywhere else, Brown would have turned things around pretty quickly were it not for the resistance of a few key protagonists. When it became clear those protagonists would not stand down, and would not be removed, is when Brown's efforts became futile and his departure a forgone conclusion.

People try to suggest last season was a uniquely Larry Brown experience, like the kind of thing that could only occur because of his defects, but the truth of the story is that last year had as much in common with Isiah's team's history with Lenny Wilkens and herb Williams, as it did with any of Brown's other stops.

The year prior Brown was in the finals for the second consecutive year (3rd time in 5 years), while the Knicks under Lenny and Herb were already beating their path to the gutter with abominable chemistry, disinterest, and woeful effort and execution.
An average of +8 wins. That sounds slightly above average. (You usually fire a coach when you severely underachieve and have nowhere but up to go.)

www.selltheknicks.com----No more DOLANOMICS!
800 pound gorilla thread: LB case to be decided:

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy