Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Or at least don't be a dick about it.

I think it's pretty black or white, no?

Whatever X and O's or strategy or motivational speeches or sub patterns or timeouts or set plays he calls that works in the regular season doesn't work in the playoffs. True or False?

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Or at least don't be a dick about it.

I think it's pretty black or white, no?

Whatever X and O's or strategy or motivational speeches or sub patterns or timeouts or set plays he calls that works in the regular season doesn't work in the playoffs. True or False?

Your overanalyzing a small sample. You're coming up with theories (he can make adjustments in the regular but not post-season) to explain phenomena that likely just reflect random variation in small samples. It's like if a coin comes up head 6 and tails 4 times and you spend hours writing about how the heads side must weigh slightly more or the angle of the engraving must favor the heads side, etc.

It's not a small sample size though. In 9 seasons in Denver, he's only made it out of the first round once.

That's actually a monstrous sample size, a lifetime or career sample size pretty much for most coaches.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Or at least don't be a dick about it.

I think it's pretty black or white, no?

Whatever X and O's or strategy or motivational speeches or sub patterns or timeouts or set plays he calls that works in the regular season doesn't work in the playoffs. True or False?

Your overanalyzing a small sample. You're coming up with theories (he can make adjustments in the regular but not post-season) to explain phenomena that likely just reflect random variation in small samples. It's like if a coin comes up head 6 and tails 4 times and you spend hours writing about how the heads side must weigh slightly more or the angle of the engraving must favor the heads side, etc.

It's not a small sample size though. In 9 seasons in Denver, he's only made it out of the first round once.

That's actually a monstrous sample size, a lifetime or career sample size pretty much for most coaches.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Or at least don't be a dick about it.

I think it's pretty black or white, no?

Whatever X and O's or strategy or motivational speeches or sub patterns or timeouts or set plays he calls that works in the regular season doesn't work in the playoffs. True or False?

Your overanalyzing a small sample. You're coming up with theories (he can make adjustments in the regular but not post-season) to explain phenomena that likely just reflect random variation in small samples. It's like if a coin comes up head 6 and tails 4 times and you spend hours writing about how the heads side must weigh slightly more or the angle of the engraving must favor the heads side, etc.

It's not a small sample size though. In 9 seasons in Denver, he's only made it out of the first round once.

That's actually a monstrous sample size, a lifetime or career sample size pretty much for most coaches.

I added more detail after you replied. You're talking about a few dozen games spread out over 9 years. Further, you're really talking about a difference in expected wins of maybe 6 or 7 games. (He lost 42 out of 65 games in those 9 years and you might expect a .600 regular season team in the west to lose more like 35 of 62 - keep in mind that a .600 regular season team in the west will likely be a 5 to 8 seed and not expected to win.)

Actually he won the division 3 times in Denver. You're running out of excuses.

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Or at least don't be a dick about it.

I think it's pretty black or white, no?

Whatever X and O's or strategy or motivational speeches or sub patterns or timeouts or set plays he calls that works in the regular season doesn't work in the playoffs. True or False?

Your overanalyzing a small sample. You're coming up with theories (he can make adjustments in the regular but not post-season) to explain phenomena that likely just reflect random variation in small samples. It's like if a coin comes up head 6 and tails 4 times and you spend hours writing about how the heads side must weigh slightly more or the angle of the engraving must favor the heads side, etc.

It's not a small sample size though. In 9 seasons in Denver, he's only made it out of the first round once.

That's actually a monstrous sample size, a lifetime or career sample size pretty much for most coaches.

I added more detail after you replied. You're talking about a few dozen games spread out over 9 years. Further, you're really talking about a difference in expected wins of maybe 6 or 7 games. (He lost 42 out of 65 games in those 9 years and you might expect a .600 regular season team in the west to lose more like 35 of 62 - keep in mind that a .600 regular season team in the west will likely be a 5 to 8 seed and not expected to win.)

Actually he won the division 3 times in Denver. You're running out of excuses.

Put it this way, if you toss normal coins 100 times each, there will be plenty of times where you get less than 40 heads or tails. (If two playoff teams are roughly evenly matched it's like a coin - each side has a 50/50 shot.) One team or side of the coin might win around 35% but that doesn't mean there's something meaningful to explain. In a sample of 100 tosses (or 100 post-season games), you won't figure out if there's something wrong with the coin (or coaching approach). You'll need thousands. Like most humans, you seem to have no appreciation for the power of chance or randomness.

Flawed logic. You just compared the science of winning games to flipping a coin.

Are you saying the Nuggets were evenly matched to the undermanned David Lee-less Warriors?

Are you saying the 63 win Seattle Sonics in 1994 with Hall of Fame top 10 all time point guard Gary Payton should've been a coin flip to the to the 42 win Mutombo led Denver Nuggets?

Don't buy it. Sometimes it's as simple as being outcoached over and over.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

3G4G wrote:Still waiting for Chuck and other naysayers to put a list of coaches together not named...

Phil
Pop
Doc

Who have taken 2-3 different teams to a Conference Finals and to a Finals

What's the statement or argument again?

Did George Karl take the Nuggets to the NBA Finals or something and I missed it?

I'm pretty sure Larry Brown took 2 different teams to the NBA Finals.

How do you explain the success he had pre-Nuggets? Do you really think he was a good coach and then lost the ability? Like when he turned sixty, he started experiencing cognitive damage and can't think as well? Further, the impaired cognition is post-season-specific. It lies dormant during the regular season? the The simpler explanation is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot. You're talking about a couple dozen games a decade. You should expect lots of variability unless you have true hall-of-famers.

Speaking of Larry Brown, craphole of a coach with the Knicks he was, here's his playoff record:

193 wins - 100 losses, .518 winning percentage, 2 NBA Finals appearances, 1 ring

A good comparison for George Karl is probably Don Nelson.

Nellie was also a great regular season coach, couldn't produce in the playoffs when it counts:

Don Nelson

75 wins - 91 losses, .452 winning percentage

What does Larry Brown have to do with anything I posted?
You didn't offer any coherent explanation for the pattern I identified.

You seem to be making the implausible argument that there's something meaningful about Karl's coaching that (a) used to work well in both the regular and post-seasons, (b) still works well in the regular season, but (c) no longer works in the post-season. It's a hard claim to swallow. Either that or you're ignoring part (a) out of convenience.

Exhibit A, B, C, D, E,....Z - #3 Denver Nuggets(57-25) vs #6 Golden State Warriors(47-35) 2013 1st Round

Nuggets won handily in the regular season 3-1. The Nuggets barely won Game 1 in the playoff game of Andre Miller's life. Once Karl lost Game 2, he didn't make the necessary adjustments, and lost the series 4-2.

So yea open up that claim and swallow.

You're saying the loss in the first round this year can explain points A through C? That doesn't make sense. At a minimum, it can't possibly explain A.

Basically George Karl is the worst coach at making adjustments in the playoffs. Without the aid of great leaders like Gary Payton and Chauncey Billups would be an automatic 1st round exit. Would you agree with that assessment?

No, it doesn't fit with points A through C. You'd have to argue that he used to be great at making adjustments in both the regular and post-season but now is only great at making them in the regular season.

If you want my view, though, you probably won't like any of it. I think there's strong evidence that coaches rarely matter (e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-berri/coaching-changes_b_2348287.html) and playoffs are too small a sample to make much out of.

Yea whatever link you posted that involves Berri or James gets flushed down the mental toilet.

Coaches rarely matter, that's a joke right?

Tom Thibadeau and the Bulls would like a word with you.

Don't ask my opinion if you don't want to hear it. Or at least don't be a dick about it.

I think it's pretty black or white, no?

Whatever X and O's or strategy or motivational speeches or sub patterns or timeouts or set plays he calls that works in the regular season doesn't work in the playoffs. True or False?

Your overanalyzing a small sample. You're coming up with theories (he can make adjustments in the regular but not post-season) to explain phenomena that likely just reflect random variation in small samples. It's like if a coin comes up head 6 and tails 4 times and you spend hours writing about how the heads side must weigh slightly more or the angle of the engraving must favor the heads side, etc.

It's not a small sample size though. In 9 seasons in Denver, he's only made it out of the first round once.

That's actually a monstrous sample size, a lifetime or career sample size pretty much for most coaches.

I added more detail after you replied. You're talking about a few dozen games spread out over 9 years. Further, you're really talking about a difference in expected wins of maybe 6 or 7 games. (He lost 42 out of 65 games in those 9 years and you might expect a .600 regular season team in the west to lose more like 35 of 62 - keep in mind that a .600 regular season team in the west will likely be a 5 to 8 seed and not expected to win.)

Actually he won the division 3 times in Denver. You're running out of excuses.

Put it this way, if you toss normal coins 100 times each, there will be plenty of times where you get less than 40 heads or tails. (If two playoff teams are roughly evenly matched it's like a coin - each side has a 50/50 shot.) One team or side of the coin might win around 35% but that doesn't mean there's something meaningful to explain. In a sample of 100 tosses (or 100 post-season games), you won't figure out if there's something wrong with the coin (or coaching approach). You'll need thousands. Like most humans, you seem to have no appreciation for the power of chance or randomness.

Flawed logic. You just compared the science of winning games to flipping a coin.

Are you saying the Nuggets were evenly matched to the undermanned David Lee-less Warriors?

Are you saying the 63 win Seattle Sonics in 1994 with Hall of Fame top 10 all time point guard Gary Payton should've been a coin flip to the to the 42 win Mutombo led Denver Nuggets?

Don't buy it. Sometimes it's as simple as being outcoached over and over.

If they're not exactly evenly matched (perhaps one team should win 55% rather than 50%) it's not going to change any of the above. Randomness occurs even when the baseline probabilities differ from 50/50. I just used 50/50 for simplicity. If you're talking about one series like the '94 season, you're talking about a sample of just a couple games. So the potential role for randomness is going to be gigantic.