worldK wrote:Kings made a very good move for once with the joerger hiring. I can see joerger getting along fine with cousins and bringing the best out of the kings. Makes the western conference tougher as others have mentioned already.
Perhaps, but I think the conference toughness/strength is still about the same. It's just that the Kings are now a bigger threat whereas the Grizzlies' window is closing, or closed already. I don't see Conley re-signing there and committing the rest of his prime to a situation that is very much unstable in terms of coaching and the roster. Gasol and an old Randolph is about all they have. Memphis needs to rebuild.
There is alot of questions about the Grizz but if they switch Joerger for Vogel that would be pretty good. YOu say they need to rebuild they did move Green this year and Lee also So they have started that somewhat. They will have some cap room and they will have a pretty nice opportunity of a wing to come in and have a big role so thats something. I wouldn't bet on them trending up though. I agree they should rebuild but I don't know if they will be able to do that no matter how they want to do it.
TeamRicky wrote:I kind of think Bird is using the coach as a scapegoat, when the real problem was himself. Paul George is the only super talent they have and he's been injured a lot in the last 3 years. Was it Bird who traded away Kawhi?
Maybe. But a lot of that is revisionist history... it was considered a "win-win" trade at the time and for a couple of years. Consider a few factors:
1. George Hill was/is not a bad player. I think he's been worth the #15 pick in a draft. He was what a team close to a title contender wanted...
2. George Hill was highly regarded by the Spurs, too... and was considered by some sources as Popovich's favorite player. They simply couldn't afford him. (They actually entertained trading Tony Parker instead of Hill.)
3. Indiana loved K. Leonard in that spot too... and nearly stopped the deal with the Spurs to take him. They had him #5 or #6 on their board. Only one problem... they needed a PG and had Paul George and Danny Granger (two best players) already playing Leonard's spot.
4. Most importantly... nobody saw this kind of player in Kawhi Leonard. A top 5 player with the #15 pick? A 25% college three point shooter (19'9") shooting 44% from up to 23'9"...?
TeamRicky wrote:I kind of think Bird is using the coach as a scapegoat, when the real problem was himself. Paul George is the only super talent they have and he's been injured a lot in the last 3 years. Was it Bird who traded away Kawhi?
Maybe. But a lot of that is revisionist history... it was considered a "win-win" trade at the time and for a couple of years. Consider a few factors:
1. George Hill was/is not a bad player. I think he's been worth the #15 pick in a draft. He was what a team close to a title contender wanted...
2. George Hill was highly regarded by the Spurs, too... and was considered by some sources as Popovich's favorite player. They simply couldn't afford him. (They actually entertained trading Tony Parker instead of Hill.)
3. Indiana loved K. Leonard in that spot too... and nearly stopped the deal with the Spurs to take him. They had him #5 or #6 on their board. Only one problem... they needed a PG and had Paul George and Danny Granger (two best players) already playing Leonard's spot.
4. Most importantly... nobody saw this kind of player in Kawhi Leonard. A top 5 player with the #15 pick? A 25% college three point shooter (19'9") shooting 44% from up to 23'9"...?
Good breakdown. To be the bottom line is that George Hill has been a cog in the success the Pacers have had. I can think of a lot worse trades than that one.
TeamRicky wrote:I kind of think Bird is using the coach as a scapegoat, when the real problem was himself. Paul George is the only super talent they have and he's been injured a lot in the last 3 years. Was it Bird who traded away Kawhi?
Maybe. But a lot of that is revisionist history... it was considered a "win-win" trade at the time and for a couple of years. Consider a few factors:
1. George Hill was/is not a bad player. I think he's been worth the #15 pick in a draft. He was what a team close to a title contender wanted...
2. George Hill was highly regarded by the Spurs, too... and was considered by some sources as Popovich's favorite player. They simply couldn't afford him. (They actually entertained trading Tony Parker instead of Hill.)
3. Indiana loved K. Leonard in that spot too... and nearly stopped the deal with the Spurs to take him. They had him #5 or #6 on their board. Only one problem... they needed a PG and had Paul George and Danny Granger (two best players) already playing Leonard's spot.
4. Most importantly... nobody saw this kind of player in Kawhi Leonard. A top 5 player with the #15 pick? A 25% college three point shooter (19'9") shooting 44% from up to 23'9"...?
Good breakdown. To be the bottom line is that George Hill has been a cog in the success the Pacers have had. I can think of a lot worse trades than that one.
That further proves my point. Vogel coached these guys up. He got the most out of Hill, George, Mahinmi, Ellis etc. I am not critical of Bird getting Hill. My example of trading away Kawhi just shows that Bird is not a perfect GM and he gave Vogel ok but not great talent to work with and Vogel got a winning team out of it.
TeamRicky wrote:I kind of think Bird is using the coach as a scapegoat, when the real problem was himself. Paul George is the only super talent they have and he's been injured a lot in the last 3 years. Was it Bird who traded away Kawhi?
Maybe. But a lot of that is revisionist history... it was considered a "win-win" trade at the time and for a couple of years. Consider a few factors:
1. George Hill was/is not a bad player. I think he's been worth the #15 pick in a draft. He was what a team close to a title contender wanted...
2. George Hill was highly regarded by the Spurs, too... and was considered by some sources as Popovich's favorite player. They simply couldn't afford him. (They actually entertained trading Tony Parker instead of Hill.)
3. Indiana loved K. Leonard in that spot too... and nearly stopped the deal with the Spurs to take him. They had him #5 or #6 on their board. Only one problem... they needed a PG and had Paul George and Danny Granger (two best players) already playing Leonard's spot.
4. Most importantly... nobody saw this kind of player in Kawhi Leonard. A top 5 player with the #15 pick? A 25% college three point shooter (19'9") shooting 44% from up to 23'9"...?
Good breakdown. To be the bottom line is that George Hill has been a cog in the success the Pacers have had. I can think of a lot worse trades than that one.
That further proves my point. Vogel coached these guys up. He got the most out of Hill, George, Mahinmi, Ellis etc. I am not critical of Bird getting Hill. My example of trading away Kawhi just shows that Bird is not a perfect GM and he gave Vogel ok but not great talent to work with and Vogel got a winning team out of it.
Fair enough. There isn't a GM/POBO out there who hits on every decision. I was just adding context to that particular decision to show that it wasn't Kahn-like. Vogel largely did a good to very good job with that team.
As noted, his ousting has more to do with Bird's philosophy on coaches/teams needing a change of scenery in general than anything else (right or wrong).
[Note: I'm not certain Vogel got anything more out of Ellis than Carlisle or others did... his stats actually went down in many ways significantly. Then again, maybe that's on both the coach and GM.]
TeamRicky wrote:I kind of think Bird is using the coach as a scapegoat, when the real problem was himself. Paul George is the only super talent they have and he's been injured a lot in the last 3 years. Was it Bird who traded away Kawhi?
Maybe. But a lot of that is revisionist history... it was considered a "win-win" trade at the time and for a couple of years. Consider a few factors:
1. George Hill was/is not a bad player. I think he's been worth the #15 pick in a draft. He was what a team close to a title contender wanted...
2. George Hill was highly regarded by the Spurs, too... and was considered by some sources as Popovich's favorite player. They simply couldn't afford him. (They actually entertained trading Tony Parker instead of Hill.)
3. Indiana loved K. Leonard in that spot too... and nearly stopped the deal with the Spurs to take him. They had him #5 or #6 on their board. Only one problem... they needed a PG and had Paul George and Danny Granger (two best players) already playing Leonard's spot.
4. Most importantly... nobody saw this kind of player in Kawhi Leonard. A top 5 player with the #15 pick? A 25% college three point shooter (19'9") shooting 44% from up to 23'9"...?
Good breakdown. To be the bottom line is that George Hill has been a cog in the success the Pacers have had. I can think of a lot worse trades than that one.
That further proves my point. Vogel coached these guys up. He got the most out of Hill, George, Mahinmi, Ellis etc. I am not critical of Bird getting Hill. My example of trading away Kawhi just shows that Bird is not a perfect GM and he gave Vogel ok but not great talent to work with and Vogel got a winning team out of it.
Fair enough. There isn't a GM/POBO out there who hits on every decision. I was just adding context to that particular decision to show that it wasn't Kahn-like. Vogel largely did a good to very good job with that team.
As noted, his ousting has more to do with Bird's philosophy on coaches/teams needing a change of scenery in general than anything else (right or wrong).
[Note: I'm not certain Vogel got anything more out of Ellis than Carlisle or others did... his stats actually went down in many ways significantly. Then again, maybe that's on both the coach and GM.]
You are right that some of Ellis stats got worse (notably points and shooting percentage) but many of his stats were slightly better than career averages on a per minute basis (3s made, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FT%). However, I think Ellis overall game got better as I think he played better defense in Indiana. His DRPM improved drastically from 2014 to 2016. And given that he's over 30 any improvement is commendable.
TeamRicky wrote:I kind of think Bird is using the coach as a scapegoat, when the real problem was himself. Paul George is the only super talent they have and he's been injured a lot in the last 3 years. Was it Bird who traded away Kawhi?
Maybe. But a lot of that is revisionist history... it was considered a "win-win" trade at the time and for a couple of years. Consider a few factors:
1. George Hill was/is not a bad player. I think he's been worth the #15 pick in a draft. He was what a team close to a title contender wanted...
2. George Hill was highly regarded by the Spurs, too... and was considered by some sources as Popovich's favorite player. They simply couldn't afford him. (They actually entertained trading Tony Parker instead of Hill.)
3. Indiana loved K. Leonard in that spot too... and nearly stopped the deal with the Spurs to take him. They had him #5 or #6 on their board. Only one problem... they needed a PG and had Paul George and Danny Granger (two best players) already playing Leonard's spot.
4. Most importantly... nobody saw this kind of player in Kawhi Leonard. A top 5 player with the #15 pick? A 25% college three point shooter (19'9") shooting 44% from up to 23'9"...?
Good breakdown. To be the bottom line is that George Hill has been a cog in the success the Pacers have had. I can think of a lot worse trades than that one.
That further proves my point. Vogel coached these guys up. He got the most out of Hill, George, Mahinmi, Ellis etc. I am not critical of Bird getting Hill. My example of trading away Kawhi just shows that Bird is not a perfect GM and he gave Vogel ok but not great talent to work with and Vogel got a winning team out of it.
Fair enough. There isn't a GM/POBO out there who hits on every decision. I was just adding context to that particular decision to show that it wasn't Kahn-like. Vogel largely did a good to very good job with that team.
As noted, his ousting has more to do with Bird's philosophy on coaches/teams needing a change of scenery in general than anything else (right or wrong).
[Note: I'm not certain Vogel got anything more out of Ellis than Carlisle or others did... his stats actually went down in many ways significantly. Then again, maybe that's on both the coach and GM.]
You are right that some of Ellis stats got worse (notably points and shooting percentage) but many of his stats were slightly better than career averages on a per minute basis (3s made, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FT%). However, I think Ellis overall game got better as I think he played better defense in Indiana. His DRPM improved drastically from 2014 to 2016. And given that he's over 30 any improvement is commendable.
You might have a point on the defense thing. To be honest, I don't know enough about that stat to know how much of a drastic change it is to go from - 0.6 to +0.9. I don't know if he was helped by Vogel, teammates, his own effort or what on that end.
As for the offensive improvement you cited...
78.6% from the line compared to 77.4% for his career.
1.1 vs. 0.9 three pointers (virtually identical percentage)
5.0 ast vs. 4.8
2.7 TO vs. 2.8
So, he basically was right on career averages in those categories while dropping significantly in PPG and a bit in efficiency.
I guess it's all about how impactful that -0.6 to +0.9 really was.
In light of the recent movement with Joerger, I was thinking about what could have been had he been available to the Wolves. Now I have always been on board with the Thibs hire and he was my first choice but I liked the idea of Joerger here. He's the home grown guy obviously but he also is a workhorse like Thibs and is a top notch Xs and Os coach that demands defense.
The more I analyze the situation though I feel going after Joerger would have been a mistake. I was thinking back to a couple years ago when Joerger was all but hired as Adelmans successor. After it fell through and Flip took over, I remember a report that Rubio was not a fan of Joerger and preferred Flip. Why was that? Was it his style of play? I know there are concerns about Thibs playing a grind type style here based off reputation and Ricky, by all accounts, is thrilled to have him here. With recent reports that Conley and Gasol were not big on Joerger, I am thinking that Gasol had been sharing his opinions with Ricky about him as coach. Then I examine how quickly he jumped aboard in Sacramento when Houston or Indiana would have probably gladly interviewed him, and I question his mindset. Sacramento has a kooky bunch running things and Dave saw eye to eye with them immediately. Maybe it was just the money, or maybe he is dysfunctional himself. I can see him wanting out of a crazy situation in Memphis but it seems like he hopped right back on the train that is arguably more unstable. Either way I am so very happy Thibs wanted to come to Minnesota. We may have dodged a bullet. Or maybe I am reading too much into it.
Phenom's_Revenge wrote:In light of the recent movement with Joerger, I was thinking about what could have been had he been available to the Wolves. Now I have always been on board with the Thibs hire and he was my first choice but I liked the idea of Joerger here. He's the home grown guy obviously but he also is a workhorse like Thibs and is a top notch Xs and Os coach that demands defense.
The more I analyze the situation though I feel going after Joerger would have been a mistake. I was thinking back to a couple years ago when Joerger was all but hired as Adelmans successor. After it fell through and Flip took over, I remember a report that Rubio was not a fan of Joerger and preferred Flip. Why was that? Was it his style of play? I know there are concerns about Thibs playing a grind type style here based off reputation and Ricky, by all accounts, is thrilled to have him here. With recent reports that Conley and Gasol were not big on Joerger, I am thinking that Gasol had been sharing his opinions with Ricky about him as coach. Then I examine how quickly he jumped aboard in Sacramento when Houston or Indiana would have probably gladly interviewed him, and I question his mindset. Sacramento has a kooky bunch running things and Dave saw eye to eye with them immediately. Maybe it was just the money, or maybe he is dysfunctional himself. I can see him wanting out of a crazy situation in Memphis but it seems like he hopped right back on the train that is arguably more unstable. Either way I am so very happy Thibs wanted to come to Minnesota. We may have dodged a bullet. Or maybe I am reading too much into it.
Good observations Phenom. Yeah, we don't really know how Joerger is like behind the scenes, but the results speak for themselves. He did a hell of a job in terms of squeezing wins out of that Memphis roster. But you do have to question his judgment on the Sacramento gig. He's got some real characters in both directions of the reporting chain - Cousins underneath him and ownership above him.
