Bonn1997 wrote:Our back-court is giving up 16 net points per 48 minutes. I don't get how so many think we're underachieving.

I honestly can't think of a backcourt as bad as ours. Can you? Even during the PG lull of the early 2000s, you generally had a star/productive 2 man.

The talent in the back court might suck - but that doesn't mean there isn't talent elsewhere that could be performing better.

We lost a 44 year old Jason Kidd and suddenly our back court goes from powering a 54 win team to a sub 500 team?

Vmart wrote:The Knicks back court underachieving is by Woodson's and the entire organizations choice. Most coaches would already have moved past Felton, Prigioni. Just see Denver and Blazers yet Knicks are treating Felton like he is Clyde or something. Prigioni is a third stringer at best.

franco12 wrote:we had a more dynamic offense when we had Hubie Brown calling out each play to Daryl Walker and Rory Sparrow.

The talent in the back court might suck - but that doesn't mean there isn't talent elsewhere that could be performing better.

We lost a 44 year old Jason Kidd and suddenly our back court goes from powering a 54 win team to a sub 500 team?

To be fair, we lost J-Kidd and everyone else took a dramatic step back.

*stolen from Reddit

yellowboy90 wrote:I think Chicago's back court shoots worse than the Knicks but they play D.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I think Chicago's back court shoots worse than the Knicks but they play D.

You're exactly right. I just looked at the #s on 82games.com. Our effective FG% from the backcourt is about .020 higher than theirs but their net PER is far better (or far less bad) than ours.

I think that points to coaching more than anything. Thibs actually gets results from his players as a defensive coach.

dk7th wrote:too bad neither woodson nor melo could abide jeremy lin. fragile and unhealthy egos tend to lose.

Yea, thaaats the reason why Lin isn't with us.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I think Chicago's back court shoots worse than the Knicks but they play D.

You're exactly right. I just looked at the #s on 82games.com. Our effective FG% from the backcourt is about .020 higher than theirs but their net PER is far better (or far less bad) than ours.

I think that points to coaching more than anything. Thibs actually gets results from his players as a defensive coach.

That's a possible hypothesis but I've never seen evidence supporting the idea that coaches have the kind of impact on player production that many here think they have. You're a numbers guy, right? All the data I've seen point to the opposite conclusion. It seems even more improbable to say that the same coach caused the same players (at least Felton, Prigs, and JR) to put up good production last year and poor production this year. Maybe we just have ****ty old players in the backcourt.
I mean, if people think Woodson's impact on players flips on annual basis, why not keep him through next year when he's "due" to have a great impact again? Maybe get rid of him after that season when he's due for a bad impact again?!

Well there isn't any numbers to really quantify defensive impact but when you see a coach shuffle players in and out his system and the team still put up "good defensive numbers" I think coaching is a part of it.

Or maybe just having good players to shuffle is part of it.
Actually, there have been many attempts to quantify coach impact.
Here is one but you can find many just through Google.
I'm not aware of studies finding any consistent impact of coaching - and it's not for lack of trying. Researchers keep trying to find such evidence.
http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I think Chicago's back court shoots worse than the Knicks but they play D.

You're exactly right. I just looked at the #s on 82games.com. Our effective FG% from the backcourt is about .020 higher than theirs but their net PER is far better (or far less bad) than ours.

I think that points to coaching more than anything. Thibs actually gets results from his players as a defensive coach.

That's a possible hypothesis but I've never seen evidence supporting the idea that coaches have the kind of impact on player production that many here think they have. You're a numbers guy, right? All the data I've seen point to the opposite conclusion. It seems even more improbable to say that the same coach caused the same players (at least Felton, Prigs, and JR) to put up good production last year and poor production this year. Maybe we just have ****ty old players in the backcourt.
I mean, if people think Woodson's impact on players flips on annual basis, why not keep him through next year when he's "due" to have a great impact again? Maybe get rid of him after that season when he's due for a bad impact again?!

Well there isn't any numbers to really quantify defensive impact but when you see a coach shuffle players in and out his system and the team still put up "good defensive numbers" I think coaching is a part of it.

Or maybe just having good players to shuffle is part of it.
Actually, there have been many attempts to quantify coach impact.
Here is one but you can find many just through Google.
I'm not aware of studies finding any consistent impact of coaching - and it's not for lack of trying. Researchers keep trying to find such evidence.
http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

Korver, Dunleavy, Robinson, Watson, Belineli, Augustin & etc were not known as defensive players but all played well for Chi.