Jalen Rose opines that we're going to need another head coach to lead across the Jordan

[sturt]

53 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Has anyone ever watched Jalen and Jacoby?

Can't say I have. Just happened to see the YouTube clip almost randomly.

Glad I can't say I have.

[Thomas]

16 hours ago, kg01 said:

A week ago, half these dudes couldn't stand Jalen Rose.

Still can't. His bias tendencies are pretty transparent but it was an interview about us so just gotta listen at the very least.

[HawkItus]

16 hours ago, KB21 said:

Where is the evidence that players are actually developing under his coaching or because of his coaching?  What player/players have been signed from other teams have gotten better in Atlanta because of the coaching they are getting?

I ask this, because this was ROUTINE under Mike Budenholzer.  

Lloyd Pierce’s reputation as a player developer is largely overblown.  He’s here because he is willing to play young players rather than coach to win.  

By the eye test, he got more out of our centers than their previous and future coaches.  Goodwin seems improved.  Collins defense has improved.  

Edited February 18, 2020 by HawkItus

[macdaddy]

12 hours ago, KB21 said:

It should be fairly clear how well Bud developed those guys, because their best years have been with Bud.  

I am totally interested in this discussion because like you i'm a big Bud fan.  But as others have said, if their best years were with Bud and then afterwards they weren't that good then were they really 'developed' or did Bud just get guys who fit well into his system and taught them that?   Which is great but it's different than taking a raw player and improving their skills.    I think what Bud was exceptional at was finding player's strengths and utilizing them.  Which is a friggin great thing. 

I think we're just defining 'development' differently.    

But if i understand your definition right and apply that to LP we can say that Collins, Len, Dedmon, Bembry, have had their best years with LP.  (not to mention the young guys because they've only been with LP).  So doesn't that show development by  your standard?  And doesn't the fact that Trae has made a massive leap in year 2 show development?

[NBASupes]

28 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

I am totally interested in this discussion because like you i'm a big Bud fan.  But as others have said, if their best years were with Bud and then afterwards they weren't that good then were they really 'developed' or did Bud just get guys who fit well into his system and taught them that?   Which is great but it's different than taking a raw player and improving their skills.    I think what Bud was exceptional at was finding player's strengths and utilizing them.  Which is a friggin great thing. 

I think we're just defining 'development' differently.    

But if i understand your definition right and apply that to LP we can say that Collins, Len, Dedmon, Bembry, have had their best years with LP.  (not to mention the young guys because they've only been with LP).  So doesn't that show development by  your standard?  And doesn't the fact that Trae has made a massive leap in year 2 show development?

Bud bombed with a number of guys, including Lou Williams who was a 6th man stud before he came and left and was a 6th man stud again. Bud is all about his system. That's not a bad thing, LP system is like that too. We constantly bring in young players who fit the system. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by NBASupes

[NBASupes]

2 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

...well said.

Why are we still discussing Bud. He was on board with the rebuild, then he wasn't. He's moved on, so have we.

Let it Go!

Bud liked the idea of the rebuild, not the experience of it. 

[AHF]

Here is how I've seen our players under LP:

Trae - Went from someone who looked like he didn't belong in the league to being a secondary name floated in MVP discussions.

Kevin - Had very positive development from the start of his rookie year to the end; big improvements in just about every area of his game.  This year he has improved most of his numbers but the lack of real development from last season is disappointing given the promise of how much he improved his rookie season.

Cam - Has seen significant month-to-month improvements and looks dramatically better on the floor now than he did to start the season.  

Hunter - Pretty steady.  Jan / Feb looks materially better as far as offensive production but no dramatic improvement.

JC - Improved significantly from his rookie season under Bud in every dimension of his game.

Dedmon - Increased his 3pt shooting (volume although also more accurate) by 66% under LP and improved modestly in most advanced metrics under LP.  Overall, however, largely the same player under LP as under Bud and much better than he was in Sacramento.

Bembry - Bembry has been significantly better under LP than under Bud but the lack of key development remains a disappointment.  

Goodwin - Much better under LP than he was for Denver last season.

Jones - Enjoying his best season by a lot of metrics.  The fact that his best isn't very good means that any improvement doesn't amount to much for me.

Fernando - Still figuring out the basics.  I think we've seen some development but still very raw.  As an aside, I just noticed that he has huge gaps between his home and road splits.  Interesting.

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Bud liked the idea of the rebuild, not the experience of it. 

My theory is more that Bud liked the idea of keeping a job until a new one could surface.

[macdaddy]

10 minutes ago, AHF said:

Here is how I've seen our players under LP:

Trae - Went from someone who looked like he didn't belong in the league to being a secondary name floated in MVP discussions.

Kevin - Had very positive development from the start of his rookie year to the end; big improvements in just about every area of his game.  This year he has improved most of his numbers but the lack of real development from last season is disappointing given the promise of how much he improved his rookie season.

Cam - Has seen significant month-to-month improvements and looks dramatically better on the floor now than he did to start the season.  

Hunter - Pretty steady.  Jan / Feb looks materially better as far as offensive production but no dramatic improvement.

JC - Improved significantly from his rookie season under Bud in every dimension of his game.

Dedmon - Increased his 3pt shooting (volume although also more accurate) by 66% under LP and improved modestly in most advanced metrics under LP.  Overall, however, largely the same player under LP as under Bud and much better than he was in Sacramento.

Bembry - Bembry has been significantly better under LP than under Bud but the lack of key development remains a disappointment.  

Goodwin - Much better under LP than he was for Denver last season.

Jones - Enjoying his best season by a lot of metrics.  The fact that his best isn't very good means that any improvement doesn't amount to much for me.

Fernando - Still figuring out the basics.  I think we've seen some development but still very raw.  As an aside, I just noticed that he has huge gaps between his home and road splits.  Interesting.

And Len.  By the standard we are using LP should get credit for 'developing' Len's ability to shoot the 3. 

[sturt]

15 minutes ago, AHF said:

Here is how I've seen our players under LP:

Trae - Went from someone who looked like he didn't belong in the league to being a secondary name floated in MVP discussions.

Kevin - Had very positive development from the start of his rookie year to the end; big improvements in just about every area of his game.  This year he has improved most of his numbers but the lack of real development from last season is disappointing given the promise of how much he improved his rookie season.

Cam - Has seen significant month-to-month improvements and looks dramatically better on the floor now than he did to start the season.  

Hunter - Pretty steady.  Jan / Feb looks materially better as far as offensive production but no dramatic improvement.

JC - Improved significantly from his rookie season under Bud in every dimension of his game.

Dedmon - Increased his 3pt shooting by 66% under LP and improved modestly in most advanced metrics under LP.  Overall, however, largely the same player under LP as under Bud and much better than he was in Sacramento.

Bembry - Bembry has been significantly better under LP than under Bud but the lack of key development remains a disappointment.  

Goodwin - Much better under LP than he was for Denver last season.

Jones - Enjoying his best season by a lot of metrics.  The fact that his best isn't very good means that any improvement doesn't amount to much for me.

Fernando - Still figuring out the basics.  I think we've seen some development but still very raw.  As an aside, I just noticed that he has huge gaps between his home and road splits.  Interesting.

Mainly concur with these subjective conclusions, but the point remains... how much of the progress can be objectively proved to be attributable to Pierce, and how much of the regress? It can't. Not because I said so, but just sheer neutral logic. I don't make those rules. They just are. It's a competitive game. One can't know how much time a given player is, himself, committing to becoming better either in spite of bad coaching, or because of good. And the converse is also true. Too many non-quantifiable variables, and that's even if one had the luxury of mics and cameras planted in the practice gyms. Can't see inside people's heads, can't listen to every word said, can't watch every thing a person does in an effort to get better. Eeyore proposes for there to be "evidence" that can't be obtained. It's all subjective. It's all a matter of judgment based mainly on results, and one's sense of what is fair judgment given the circumstances. When the results change, does that necessarily mean that the coaching got better? No. It means the players got better, and perhaps the coaching helped. But there's no objective way to measure that. Again, not my fault. It just is. And we all know this. Nothing being brought down from Mt. Sinai, no great solutions like proposing to split a baby.

I'll say this much. Anyone who doesn't allow in his assessment for the difference in the circumstances in a rebuild environment versus that of a playoff-purposed environment makes his opinion irrelevant, since it's flawed at a fundamental level. It's just what Eeyores do.

[AHF]

I think the improvement I noted is objectively true but whether LP and his staff is the cause of that improvement is the more subjective / impossible to definitively prove aspect of it.  

[KB21]

20 minutes ago, sturt said:

Mainly concur with these subjective conclusions, but the point remains... how much of the progress can be objectively proved to be attributable to Pierce, and how much of the regress? It can't. Not because I said so, but just sheer neutral logic. I don't make those rules. They just are. It's a competitive game. One can't know how much time a given player is, himself, committing to becoming better either in spite of bad coaching, or because of good. And the converse is also true. Too many non-quantifiable variables, and that's even if one had the luxury of mics and cameras planted in the practice gyms. Can't see inside people's heads, can't listen to every word said, can't watch every thing a person does in an effort to get better. Eeyore proposes for there to be "evidence" that can't be obtained. It's all subjective. It's all a matter of judgment based mainly on results, and one's sense of what is fair judgment given the circumstances. When the results change, does that necessarily mean that the coaching got better? No. It means the players got better, and perhaps the coaching helped. But there's no objective way to measure that. Again, not my fault. It just is. And we all know this. Nothing being brought down from Mt. Sinai, no great solutions like proposing to split a baby.

I'll say this much. Anyone who doesn't allow in his assessment for the difference in the circumstances in a rebuild environment versus that of a playoff-purposed environment makes his opinion irrelevant, since it's flawed at a fundamental level. It's just what Eeyores do.

Bud went through a rebuild year in 2013, and he got much better results from the players he developed during that rebuilding year.

[KB21]

3 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

@KB21 is correct.  Bud is a great head coach.  Bud's system is elite.  He makes players better because he has them following his system.  He moved on from the Hawks because he is not a good developer of rookie and young players, which is what he was facing in Atlanta.

There is a major difference in working with experienced NBA players and the youth that Lloyd P. has had in his first two years.  Bud has, right now, older, experienced players. They are playing "Bud ball" and are looking great.  Atlanta hasn't had the players that they needed to win.  They had veteran players who were signed up to huge, expiring contracts.  They were not brought here to contribute.  They came for the Hawks to acquire assets later.  That's what happened at the trade deadline.

Bud left us, but Atlanta still had him under contract and, as it has worked out, he apparently is still drawing a pay check from Atlanta.  NBA needs to fix this.  Milwaukee should have been required to take Bud's contract when they signed him.

Raised on a farm, I know that you don't sow seeds, then reap a harvest.  No.  You must wait while your crop grows, hoping that the weather goes well and that, in time, a good crop is available to harvest.

Atlanta is waiting for their crop of youth to grow and mature.  Bud has a mature group to work with and he has them at the top of the NBA.  To believe that Bud would be winning here is a fallacy.  He wouldn't be playing our youth.  He would demand older players to insure victories.  

Comparing what Bud has and what Lloyd P. has is comparing a mature farm crop and one in it's early stage of growth.  Apples and oranges.  

If Bud cannot develop rookies and young players, then explain the jump that Donte DiVencenzo has made in his second year.  His rate of improvement is FAR GREATER than what we have seen in Kevin Huerter under Lloyd Pierce.  

[sturt]

15 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Bud went through a rebuild year in 2013, and he got much better results from the players he developed during that rebuilding year.

Okay, Eeyore. We need not only to be on different boards, but evidently, on different planets. Clearly, you refuse to acknowledge the reality that Schlenk did a total tear down of the house. There was never a year when Bud was given a roster by Ferry of college-age starters, or anything even barely close to that.

Like I said.........

  

15 minutes ago, KB21 said:

I'll say this much. Anyone who doesn't allow in his assessment for the difference in the circumstances in a rebuild environment versus that of a playoff-purposed environment makes his opinion irrelevant, since it's flawed at a fundamental level. It's just what Eeyores do.

 

[KB21]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

Okay, Eeyore. We need not only to be on different boards, but evidently, on different planets. Clearly, you refuse to acknowledge the reality that Schlenk did a total tear down of the house. There was never a year when Bud was given a roster by Ferry of college-age starters, or anything even barely close to that.

Like I said.........

  

 

Danny Ferry wasn't stupid enough to tear it all down.  Despite the fact that Pierce has been in charge of a tanking situation, the player development has still not been there.  

[NBASupes]

16 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Bud went through a rebuild year in 2013, and he got much better results from the players he developed during that rebuilding year.

What? We literally won 44 games the season before. Added players like Millsap and DMC and got rid of players who were struggling like Josh Smith. We also had Horford who had another shoulder injury. Even then the games Horford played in was critical for us as well as DMC impact. That wasn't close to a rebuilding year. Dude, you need to get Bud out of your bedroom. You sound bad. The only rebuilding year we had with Bud was his 1st and last one before he dipped to MIL. 

 

[sturt]

28 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think the improvement I noted is objectively true but whether LP and his staff is the cause of that improvement is the more subjective / impossible to definitively prove aspect of it.  

Well, by definition, it's not objective unless you have some objective... free of even slight human prejudices... evidence of it. But I'm splitting hairs in saying that because there is such a thing as subjective conclusion being well-supported by virtue of many people sharing the same subjective conclusions. Still not "objective," though practically as good, you could take a poll, and show objectively just how well-supported the subjective conclusion is. But I'm inclined to think such a poll would turn out to support your conclusions.

And, to the real point, yes... "whether LP and his staff is the cause of that improvement is the more subjective / impossible to definitively prove aspect of it."
 

[AHF]

1 minute ago, NBASupes said:

What? We literally won 44 games the season before. Added players like Millsap and DMC and got rid of players who were struggling like Josh Smith. We also had Horford who had another shoulder injury. Even then the games Horford played in was critical for us as well as DMC impact. That wasn't close to a rebuilding year. Dude, you need to get Bud out of your bedroom. You sound bad. The only rebuilding year we had with Bud was his 1st and last one before he dipped to MIL. 

 

You don't know what you are talking about Supes.

Drew won 44 games with Horford, Smith, Teague, Korver, Lou, and Devin Harris top 6 guys.

Bud won 38 games with Horford, Smith, Teague, Korver, Lou, and DMC  as his top 6 guys.

That is a complete teardown.  What team could survive without Devin Harris?  

[Thomas]

2 minutes ago, sturt said:

Well, by definition, it's not objective unless you have some objective... free of even slight human prejudices... evidence of it. But I'm splitting hairs in saying that because there is such a thing as subjective conclusion being well-supported by virtue of many people sharing the same subjective conclusions. Still not "objective," though practically as good, you could take a poll, and show objectively just how well-supported the subjective conclusion is. But I'm inclined to think such a poll would turn out to support your conclusions.

And, to the real point, yes... "whether LP and his staff is the cause of that improvement is the more subjective / impossible to definitively prove aspect of it."
 

Never did care much for riddles.

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, sturt said:

Well, by definition, it's not objective unless you have some objective... free of even slight human prejudices... evidence of it. But I'm splitting hairs in saying that because there is such a thing as subjective conclusion being well-supported by virtue of many people sharing the same subjective conclusions. Still not "objective," though practically as good, you could take a poll, and show objectively just how well-supported the subjective conclusion is. But I'm inclined to think such a poll would turn out to support your conclusions.

And, to the real point, yes... "whether LP and his staff is the cause of that improvement is the more subjective / impossible to definitively prove aspect of it."
 

Some of what I posted was subjective statements that I think are supported by objective numbers but I also pointed to a lot of objective improvement in my post.

Example:

Dedmon - Increased his 3pt shooting by 66% under LP and improved modestly in most advanced metrics under LP.  Overall, however, largely the same player under LP as under Bud and much better than he was in Sacramento.

Bold is Objective

Italicized text is Subjective that ties out to objective metrics that aren't directly stated