Old Lenny Is On The Hot Seat Again

[Traceman]

http://waymoresports.thestar.com/NASApp/cs...Raptors/Raptors

It's almost funny because some of the complaints up there sound eerily close to the complaints than many here on this board make about Lon:

"They play long stretches of uninspired basketball with rushed jump shots replacing methodical, intelligent offence; defence that allows teams free access to the rim; intensity that comes and goes with no consistency.

The blame for the predicament, fairly or unfairly, falls at the feet of the head coach.

After all, Wilkens remains in charge of game-situation rotations and he's found himself time and time again with two or three of his best players languishing on the bench while a close game gets out of hand.

On Sunday, for instance, neither Vince Carter nor Alvin Williams were on the floor when the Portland Trail Blazers took command of the game early in the fourth quarter."

Does that not sound like Lon? Poor Old Lenny! I almost feel sorry for him. NOT!

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

After all, Wilkens remains in charge of game-situation rotations and he's found himself time and time again with two or three of his best players languishing on the bench while a close game gets out of hand.

On Sunday, for instance, neither Vince Carter nor Alvin Williams were on the floor when the Portland Trail Blazers took command of the game early in the fourth quarter."

---

I thought that the argument made against Lenny here was that he played his starters (good players) too much and didn't spend enough time developing Bench greats like Big Balla Ed Gray and Donnie Big man Boyce??

I understood the Lenny hate while he was here, however, he's gone now and now you still Make up reasons to hate him.

I think he did well with what he had in both cases. Even now, he has no talent other than carter, Carter has played in only 10 games and they have 7 wins. If you process all of that correctly, they are about 70% with Carter? Or they have managed with win a game or two without Carter? Either way, that's pretty good considering who they have.

[Guest]

Lon only has 3 more wins with alot more talented

team.Remember Lamond Murray hasnt even played.

[Blunt91]

This article is a good indication that headcoaches do hear the negative comments from the fans whether they address it or not. Lenny stated he wasn't going to play Vince in the 4thquarter sunday because he needed his rest. Fans thought he was stupid for not putting him in, Lenny stated if he had of gotten hurt they would have been saying he was stupid anyway for playing him. If a headcoach like Lenny hears what the people say then you know Lon Kruger has heard the complaints from the fans of Atlanta whether he acknowledges it pubilcy or not.

[Traceman]

article about Lenny were the same ones that many on this board (primarily YOU) have about Lon. You constantly complain about Lon's x's & o's and his sub patterns and that is EXACTLY what this article is questioning about Lenny.

Don't hate the messenger, hate the writer of the article. He said it, I just posted it! I didn't "make up" anything, I just posted the article. You want me to feel sorry for Lenny because his team has injuries? Please! You sure as [censored] didn't give Lon any slack despite the fact that Theo, Kukoc, Hendu, Glover, Crawford and E-mail were all injured for significant parts of last season.

PS - They certainly have NOT won 70% of the games in which Carter has played and they do have talent. They just don't have a coach! HAAAAAAAAAA!

[Guest]

I believe they're 3 and 7 without Carter. Pretty sure of it.

[Traceman]

[Diesel]

The cast without Carter Sucks.

Carter has been injured all season and with Carter they are about the same as without him. Which means that they suck.

We have an abundance of Depth and talent and we are only 3 games ahead of them?

You need to do some rethinking Trace. If you say Lenny's doing a horrible job and he has very little talent..... What does that say for LOn who has an abundance of talent???

[KZ3]

Diesel, that's a circular explanation. From the statement "Carter has been injured all season and with Carter they are about the same as without him. Which means that they suck.", the only conclusions you can draw are that Carter's presence does not have a very big effect on Toronto's success, and that Toronto is not a very competitive team. You cannot make any assumptions about the talent on that team. Their lack of success on the court could be attributed to Lenny's coaching style just as much as it could be a lack of talent. Unless you have an independent measure of talent, your argument is flawed.

[Diesel]

First, let me break down the Logic Problem.

The argument is circular only because Carter has been hampered with that injury for the whole season. Since his 3rd game I believe. He has played injured and he has started some games that he didn't finish. Point is, that this is not a 100% Carter and therefore, he's not contributing as much as he has in the past. So, the Toronto team looks the same Statwise when Carter is marked down as playing and when he's not.

NOW, let's break down the BS...

In reply to:

---

You cannot make any assumptions about the talent on that team.

---

This is the biggest BS I have read in a while. What a statement to try to base a credible argument on. So let me ask some questions that will show you just how silly that statement really is:

1. Would you trade JT for Alvin Williams?

2. Would you trade SAR for JYD??

3. Would you trade Theo for Antonio Davis?

4. Would you trade Hendu, Glover, and Nazr for Bradley, Jackson, and Ndaiye??

If you can come up with an answer and a reason for your answer for any of those question, it tells me that you can obviously evaluate the talent for that team. Don't try and tell me that JYD is as talented as Shareef or that it can't be determined... That's BS.

[KZ3]

There was nowhere in that post where I argued that Toronto had more talent than us. Nowhere. That is not the question.

I am saying that their lack of success is not simply a function of their lack of talent. Or at least there is no way of knowing without a)being able to quantify and measure talent and coaching ability with a method that is independent of winning % or b)putting the same group of guys under different coaching.

You cannot ignore Lenny's effect on the team. Your attempts to absolve Lenny for his questionable coaching by suggesting that he is working with less talent are weak. How do you know that that same talent wouldn't perform better under better coaching? For all we know, if Rick Carlisle coached the Raptors, they would be leading the Central Division.

Your opinions are opinions, not fact. Do not argue them as if they are that way. When you can prove that Lenny has a positive effect on his team, then you have the right to call my post BS. If not, your opinion is no better than mine.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

I am saying that their lack of success is not simply a function of their lack of talent. Or at least there is no way of knowing without a)being able to quantify and measure talent and coaching ability with a method that is independent of winning % or b)putting the same group of guys under different coaching.

---

You confuse the ability to play as a team with TALENT. Their Talent is definitely quantifiable. ON paper when I see:

Williams/Lenard/Peterson/Williams/Davis

as their starting 5, I realize that they are not going to do well against most of the nba.

On that team, Alvin williams is the high scorer and he's averaging 16 ppg.

You say that it might be coaching that's effecting these players. However, Davis is in his later yrs. Lenard has never averaged 20 ppg. Williams is having his career best season. Peterson too. Even under another coach. Even Carlisle the great, these players would still lack the TALENT to beat most NBA teams.

The thing you point to is Teamwork. That cannot be quantified. However, the results that are seen especially when Vince doesn't play are totally expected. Like I said before, these guys suck.... It's amazing that they have even 7 wins.

[KZ3]

Again I have to ask you WHY you know that that group of players is incapable of performing well against NBA competition?

I am not pointing to team work or the team chemistry. The only reason you can say that

Williams/Peterson/Davis/Leonard/Williams has less talent than most NBA teams is because when they play together they only have 3 or 4 wins, is it not? Well, Lenny's coaching is inherently involved as a variable in every game just like those player's talent level is. You cannot separate the two unless Lenny leaves. Here is an example that might help you to understand my point:

Say you make a team of the NCAA College All-Americans and pit them against the Toronto Raptors. Can you look at the lineups and determine which team has more talent? Obviously, you can't accurately judge the college athletes' talent or performance on the NBA level. This is because your definition of talent is grounded on the basis of how they would perform on a day to day basis in the NBA. The problem that lies herein is that Lenny's coaching also affects their play on the court. If Lenny's coaching is adversely affecting their performance on the court, then your assumptions about talent level are incorrect. You don't have proof that a different coach will get better or worse results. All you have is an opinion that Lenny is getting the best out of these players, but again these are no more than opinions.

[Diesel]

In reply to:

---

Williams/Peterson/Davis/Leonard/Williams has less talent than most NBA teams is because when they play together they only have 3 or 4 wins,

---

Actually, wins don't even come into play. You can build a case on their talent based on the players themselves. That's why there are previews and predictions before a game is played. Because you can quantify the talent of a team. The reason why predictions are sometimes wrong is that what you can't quantify is the team chemistry or team work of a team. For instance.... Detroit. Talent wise, they are one of the weakest teams playing. However, when you consider their chemistry, they have really good chemistry because everyone knows their roles.

In reply to:

---

Say you make a team of the NCAA College All-Americans and pit them against the Toronto Raptors. Can you look at the lineups and determine which team has more talent? Obviously, you can't accurately judge the college athletes' talent or performance on the NBA level. This is because your definition of talent is grounded on the basis of how they would perform on a day to day basis in the NBA.

---

you almsot get it, but let me bring it home for you...

You say

In reply to:

---

. The problem that lies herein is that Lenny's coaching also affects their play on the court. If Lenny's coaching is adversely affecting their performance on the court, then your assumptions about talent level are incorrect.

---

This line of Logic is dead wrong... Here's why.

Your argument suggests that a player is only as good as his coach can make him? Right? Because the way that the coach coaches affects the players performance on the court...

BUT... A player is a player regaurdless of who coaches.

Last yr, Frank Johnson was voted the WORST coach in the League.

He was the coach when Kidd went to Nj and Marbury went to Phoenix....

BUT

The worst coach in the league didn't have any effect on Stephon's game. Last yr, Stephon's FG% and assists were better than when he played for Scott in NJ. WHat that suggest is that even though Marbury played with the worst coach in the league, his game was still the same if not better than ever.

The only way Lenny could be adversly affect the talent of those guys in Toronto is if he wasn't allowing them to play at all. Even then, they'd still have the same talent.. Vince missed half of last season. NObody expected him to come back less talented than when he left.

Last Point. Shaqfu. IN Orlando, Shaq was a really good player. IN LA under Leslie Neilson Shaq was a really good player. NOW, under PHil Jackson, Shaq is a really good player. Three different coaches with different systems... NONE of them affected the talent that Shaq has.

So when I say, I can look at the lineup and tell what kind of talent that team has... I can. It's simple to do that. What is the unknown is how well 11 guys can play together. It doesn't matter how much lack of talent there is (Detroit) if the team chemistry comes together, a team can be good.

[KZ3]

You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying that a player's talent is dependent on the coach. I think we both agree that it obviously isn't.

I am saying that you cannot judge talent simply by looking at their win-loss record because a coach has an effect on that as well. Likewise, talent is not solely a function of individual stats, because there are other variables which affect stats like playing time, confidence, environment, and even coaching style.

Those are the basic points behind my argument that you can't completely discount Lenny's part in Toronto's abysmal record.

So far you have not given me an alternative method of measuring talent. You have repeatedly told me that it is easy and quantifiable. You said that you can look at a lineup and tell me what the talent level of that team is. However, I want to know how you are doing this.

If judging talent was so easy, drafting players wouldn't be such an inexact science. Pete wouldn't have anything to be afraid of because everybody could wear a sticker with their player rating on it.

Also, I don't appreciate your condescending attitude or your mud-slinging. If you want to make a point, use facts and logic.