The Official NBASupes, Sothron, and theCampster Insider Thread - NBA 2022-23 Season

[sturt]

1 hour ago, akay said:

Demonizing Nate like he's a bad person is going too far

 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Final_quest said:

Not even one?

Not even one.

Tell me today that we can change out our current starting 5 for the All-NBA first team... tell anyone that... and, like world peace, you'd have no one  balking at that as long as there's no other downside to consider.

That's why we end up talking "details" around here. Some basis in reality is a legitimate, common sense pursuit.

[yungsta]

Going all in and mortgaging your future to acquire a 2nd tier star only makes sense to me if you are already on the cusp of contention and need an extra boost to get the Chip. It makes zero sense to make such a risky move when you are a fringe playoff team that could easily fall into the lottery with a little bit of bad luck.

 

[Sothron]

My plan B if Brown/KAT aren't happening would be moving Capela to give OO the start at center. I know we're also kicking the tires on a certain tall Euro player for the Wizards. Not sure how I feel about that one.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

I don't think anyone here has ever accused Nate of being a bad man. 

Can't expect any given person to read every post here... so, let me speak to that.

Mac, say we work together. We're peers in middle management. Okay? Now, say, we both have hired our team of employees. Let's say your team has outperformed my team. And let's say you come to me and tell me that our bosses seem to think, unlike you, I've purposely not hired the best possible people, and let's say that the word is out that I'm too scared for my own job, and the suspicion, nay the conclusion, is that that's because I'm so preoccupied with the possibility that if I'd hired someone top-notch, s/he might push me out.

I shouldn't take that as an insult, though, right? Making decisions for the good of myself ahead of the good of my employer, that's no black mark on my character. Surely.

Do you think?

 

Well, of course, that's what Demon Nate has been charged with around here in the last several days. And it's even gained approval.

No one (except me) has recoiled in any explicit way in his defense.

(Seems I don't take the most popular positions sometimes.)

 

[RedDawg#8]

13 minutes ago, Sothron said:

My plan B if Brown/KAT aren't happening would be moving Capela to give OO the start at center. I know we're also kicking the tires on a certain tall Euro player for the Wizards. Not sure how I feel about that one.

Health aside, I am down with Porzingy.

His skillset meshes perfectly with Trae and what we need (size, shooting, defense)

It would allow OO to stay at center but give us the size needed for certain matchups.

He is a much better defender than I recall. Not CC level, but definitely no less than JC.

[RedDawg#8]

22 minutes ago, yungsta said:

Going all in and mortgaging your future to acquire a 2nd tier star only makes sense to me if you are already on the cusp of contention and need an extra boost to get the Chip. It makes zero sense to make such a risky move when you are a fringe playoff team that could easily fall into the lottery with a little bit of bad luck.

 

Sadly, we already started on this path with Murray. We should see it through and not just stop with him.

[Final_quest]

1 hour ago, yungsta said:

Going all in and mortgaging your future to acquire a 2nd tier star only makes sense to me if you are already on the cusp of contention and need an extra boost to get the Chip. It makes zero sense to make such a risky move when you are a fringe playoff team that could easily fall into the lottery with a little bit of bad luck.

 

Well, I get this, but the east is pretty soft right now.  A guy like Jaylen Brown has helped Tatum get to 4-5 ECFs.
People think you need prime Lebron or Curry to get to the upper tier. We have to trust that Trae is our guy.  I watched Tatum and Embiid.  Bring a 2nd tier like JB over to us and it could shift the balance in our favor.  
NBA is about the best 5 players on the court.  With Trae, Murray, and JB you got a shot that guys like Jalen Johnson won’t be able to match.  I wouldn’t keep guys like him over guys like JB.

[macdaddy]

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

My plan B if Brown/KAT aren't happening would be moving Capela to give OO the start at center. I know we're also kicking the tires on a certain tall Euro player for the Wizards. Not sure how I feel about that one.

It might be worth the risk.  He's only 27.  I'd rather have Lauri but i could see it as a high ceiling gamble.  Especially if we still have JJ and OO. 

[macdaddy]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Can't expect any given person to read every post here... so, let me speak to that.

Mac, say we work together. We're peers in middle management. Okay? Now, say, we both have hired our team of employees. Let's say your team has outperformed my team. And let's say you come to me and tell me that our bosses seem to think, unlike you, I've purposely not hired the best possible people, and let's say that the word is out that I'm too scared for my own job, and the suspicion, nay the conclusion, is that that's because I'm so preoccupied with the possibility that if I'd hired someone top-notch, s/he might push me out.

I shouldn't take that as an insult, though, right? Making decisions for the good of myself ahead of the good of my employer, that's no black mark on my character. Surely.

Do you think?

 

Well, of course, that's what Demon Nate has been charged with around here in the last several days. And it's even gained approval.

No one (except me) has recoiled in any explicit way in his defense.

(Seems I don't take the most popular positions sometimes.)

 

Yeah i don't think saying someone hired less than top talent is demonizing them.    He was free to hire whoever he wanted and folks are free to call it out.   I don't think any of it is a character judgement.   It's a job performance issue. 

[ShooterSays]

Glad to hear we have interest in Porzingis. I’ve been driving that train and mocked him in my offseason thread.

There’s no one better (who’s actually available) to pair with OO in the front court imo. He has the size, spacing, and rim protection to be really good here.

If you have doubts, go watch the YouTube highlights of our game against Washington where he dropped 43 on us. 

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Can't expect any given person to read every post here... so, let me speak to that.

Mac, say we work together. We're peers in middle management. Okay? Now, say, we both have hired our team of employees. Let's say your team has outperformed my team. And let's say you come to me and tell me that our bosses seem to think, unlike you, I've purposely not hired the best possible people, and let's say that the word is out that I'm too scared for my own job, and the suspicion, nay the conclusion, is that that's because I'm so preoccupied with the possibility that if I'd hired someone top-notch, s/he might push me out.

I shouldn't take that as an insult, though, right? Making decisions for the good of myself ahead of the good of my employer, that's no black mark on my character. Surely.

Do you think?

 

Well, of course, that's what Demon Nate has been charged with around here in the last several days. And it's even gained approval.

No one (except me) has recoiled in any explicit way in his defense.

(Seems I don't take the most popular positions sometimes.)

 

When you think a coaching staff is under qualified (note that this is the starting position for people talking about his staff in these recent discussions you reference) there are three basic options for the guy who did the hiring:

(1) He deliberately hired people with whom he was comfortable but who weren't the top candidates in the market

or

(2) He is a bad judge of talent and inadvertently hired people who weren't the top candidates in the market.

or 

(3) He was handicapped from hiring the people he otherwise would have hired and couldn't make lemonade out of the lemons there were available to him.

Those boil down to:

Low standards

Lack of competence

Inability to succeed within the constraints of the job

Feel free to let me know if I'm missing any broad categories. 

 

Given those judgments, there isn't one of these conclusions for which you apparently won't blast the people who hold it. You seem to think we had a top notch staff of assistant coaches or at least one that was on par with other teams that wanted to make noise in the playoffs.  To the extent that it is a difference of opinion on the quality of the coaching staff, I don't really see how you can accuse people of "demonizing" Nate simply for not agreeing with you on how good the game planning, player development, etc. that the staff delivered last year was.  

If you agree the staff was below par for a team that wanted to contend but you blame that on TS or ownership, I think that is a difference in baseline assumptions since none of us have great visibility into the specific hiring process  and more just base that on the degree of freedom we've seen in Atlanta coaches hiring their staffs in the past and present.

IMO, you simply think Nate was doing a better job than many of us did when we were calling for the team to make a change at the head coaching position.  That is totally fair to present your case but I don't think it is fair to claim that people who thought he wasn't meeting expectations are "demonizing" him anymore than it would be fair to accuse you of "simping" for him because you have a more favorable view of his performance than they do.

EDIT:

If you are focused on the idea that people said he didn't hire someone specifically to avoid a situation where the team would have a replacement for him for a midseason change then I can see that being tied to character.  But I can also see someone pushing back on that even being unreasonable given that was how Nate ended up in the head coaching role himself.  I will say this.  I think Nate would have been let go earlier in the season if we did have someone who presented as a good replacement ala how Nate looking on LP's bench.

[capstone21]

1 hour ago, Sothron said:

My plan B if Brown/KAT aren't happening would be moving Capela to give OO the start at center. I know we're also kicking the tires on a certain tall Euro player for the Wizards. Not sure how I feel about that one.

Porzingus is ALWAYS injured

[AHF]

11 minutes ago, capstone21 said:

Porzingus is ALWAYS injured

Not much different than Hunter over the last 4 years:

Porzingus

65

51

43

57

Hunter

67

52

23

63

[REHawksFan]

2 hours ago, Sothron said:

My plan B if Brown/KAT aren't happening would be moving Capela to give OO the start at center.

I would hope that's the starting point for the offseason, rather than a Plan B.  Do this and then fill out the team from there.  

[Jody23]

Porzingis is definitely intriguing.  But, how would the Hawks acquire him?  He's not a free agent unless he chooses to opt-out and the Hawks don't have any cap space.

[sturt]

1 hour ago, macdaddy said:

Yeah i don't think saying someone hired less than top talent is demonizing them.    He was free to hire whoever he wanted and folks are free to call it out.   I don't think any of it is a character judgement.   It's a job performance issue. 

 

That's all well taken. But, pardon the observation, that scenario is not the scenario laid out.

Allow me to try again?

 

In the case that the specific accusation is made that I didn't hire talented team members because  I was personally fearful that if I did that, one of them would be able to take my job away from me.

What would that say about me? About my interest in my employer's profit? About my character? Is there something positive that should be taken from that? Is there anything you'd say is negative?

 

[kg01]

Somebody get me Brook Lopez.  

[macdaddy]

58 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

That's all well taken. But, pardon the observation, that scenario is not the scenario laid out.

Allow me to try again?

 

In the case that the specific accusation is made that I didn't hire talented team members because  I was personally fearful that if I did that, one of them would be able to take my job away from me.

What would that say about me? About my interest in my employer's profit? About my character? Is there something positive that should be taken from that? Is there anything you'd say is negative?

 

I'd say that's very common and shows that person isn't that confident in their abilities or job security but doesn't make them evil. 

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

When you think a coaching staff is under qualified

Can push pause right here, my friend.

 

We're all so good at putting others' motives under the microscope, aren't we? As-if we have insight.

 

In this case, you start with this premise, and ask "So what are the possible explanations for this situation arising?"

Upstream of your question is this question... "So what are the possible explanations FOR THIS CONCLUSION (ie, that the staff was under qualified) arising?"

 

a) The Objectivity Explanation: A person has some objective standards that are widely accepted as being congruent with the conclusion... and and and... has some objective measures/evidence to assess progress toward those standards that are widely accepted as being congruent with that conclusion.

b) The Demon Staff Explanation: A person is him/herself hostile, emotionally predisposed to presume the conclusion out of a spirit of negativity toward the assistant coaches themselves.

 

c) The Demon Nate Explanation: A person is him/herself hostile, emotionally predisposed to presume the conclusion out of a spirit of negativity toward the head coach.

 

d) The Sheep Explanation: A person has agreed with the conclusion because one is predisposed to agreeing with people who agree with the conclusion.

 

Let's start with where we agree, shall we?

 

With regard to "A"...

We agree that if you find assistant coaches are some day hired as head coaches, such as with Bud's ATL crew, that's a widely accepted objective standard, ie, albeit of the opposite of the "under qualified" conclusion... staff of such high quality were hired that they became head coaches.

Standard = High regard of an assistant coach by at least one of the 30 teams

Objective Measure I = Assistant coach X offered a head coaching position with one of the 30 teams

 

(That said, it's not the only measure that could be applied in the interest of assessment against that standard, now is it?)

Objective Measure II = Assistant coach X interviews for multiple head coaching positions

Objective Measure III = Assistant coach X interviews for one head coaching position

Objective Measure IV = Assistant coach X is sought out to interview for other assistant coach positions

Objective Measure V = Assistant coach X offered the highest salary among assistants on one of the 30 teams

Objective Measure VI = Assistant coach X offered promotion to the assignment as the #1 assistant on one of the 30 teams

Objective Measure VII = Assistant coach X assigned greater practice and/or gameday responsibilities

Objective Measure VIII = Assistant coach X's annual performance review shows top marks in every category

Objective Measure IX = Gun put to the head of every person in the building, and from owner to players to custodian, there's not a single one of them who doesn't speak in glowing terms of their regard for assistant coach X

 

We can use these (and maybe others) to support the conclusion that a given staff was highly qualified when they were hired... though, even in that, there would be some room for debate... did they come to the staff already highly qualified, or is it more the case that their boss developed them into being highly qualified?

 

Here's the fatal flaw for "A" however: We cannot use these to support the conclusion that a given staff was deficient, under qualified.

Why's that.

Obviously, we don't know what we don't know. We can't know what we can't know... insufficient, if any, information.

And what we do know may be misleading... incomplete information.

 

A is not a possible explanation for reaching the conclusion, then. Not even possible. There is no way to adequately assess whether the standard is reached or not. There are too many ways that evidence could show it could be legitimately met, and we do not have the full access necessary to make an objective judgment.

 

As for B and C...

On both counts, of course, those are explanations that can apply or not apply from one Hawksquawk poster to another. There's no way to make a blanket statement as-if all posters think the same.

What we do know is that we have solid evidence that some Squawkers do not demonize Joe Prunty, and to a lesser extent, others on the staff... yes, even McMillan Jr.

What we do know is that we have solid evidence that some Squawkers do demonize Nate McMillan... hence my ranting and raving and calling out the unjustified attitude/behavior specific to the allegation here that he "hired scared."

(I mean if you're that scared you're going to get fired, isn't that more reason  to hire the best staff you can, since your own fear that you're not all that great is likely to show up in the W/L column if you don't get some serious help from the best staff you can put together?)

 

And we have D. Same applies... will vary from one poster to another, but worse, we have zero way of determining who is just taking a side because it's a matter to them of who is posting rather than what is posted. And, could be, that number is zero, but we're all left to our suspicions regardless.