Doc Rivers vs Vinny Del Negro (P. 5)

Clippers TopBuzz Forum/Message Board » Clippers News & General Discussions
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

Oh okay, the thumb, yea I remember that, I was thinking you meant something more debilitating like his hip situation the year before and I couldn't remember anything. He certainly had a very nice game 6 despite that injury no turnovers, 69% FG, 28 pts.

I think the thumb is one that of the Clippers don't loose he could have kept playing without ill effects in future games. Blake for example though, I'm not sure about that one. Really hoping for no significant injuries these playoffs.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

I think Doc could have gotten the team past Memphis just because his defensive system would have been there the whole year, so even with Blake being injured for game 5 and 6, the team would be able to pull off 2-3 record against Memphis over the last 5 games after going up 2-0 (assuming hey still go up 2-0, maybe they even win in 5).

Remember the true Achilles heel in the series was atrocious defense. Adjustments like starting Bledsoe, Barnes over Butler would have helped, but mainly a more consistent and reliable defensive system that would have been in place all year would not have put the Clippers in a position where they had to score better than 1.19 pts/possession to beat Memphis. Clippers played defense in that series that put them in position to have to be 10 pts/100 possessions better than their regular season average over 4 games to beat Memphis, it just didn't make sense. There was no realistic way the offense could have beat Memphis on it's own because the Clippers defense made the requirement for offensive production too high to reasonably expect to attain unless Memphis decided to not play defense. You need to balance it out with defense, and really they just needed to play defense as well as the average defensive team did against Memphis in the regular season in order to win, but they played it worse than the worst defensive team would against Memphis.

Look at Memphis' offense in their wins:

    94 pts, 110 Ortg.

    104 pts, 120.2 Ortg.

    103 pts, 118.2 Ortg.

    118 pts, 127.7 Ortg

Even game 6 where the Clippers scored 105 pts and had a 113.6 Ortg, they played such bad defense that they still couldn't win. This season, the Clippers are the #1 most efficient offense in the league and have a 111.9 Ortg. Memphis a below average offense last year were far more efficient than that in 3/4 wins vs the Clippers last playoff than they Clippers are against an average team. That's crazy! The other game they were almost as efficient as the Clippers are against the average team.

So even with the teams second best player last year and secondary scorer out, if there was any semblance of defense, Clippers still had a good chance to win against Memphis, win against OKC and then of course get crushed by the Spurs, lol

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

Read my post again. Doc HAD to give his permission for the mutual termination of his contract with the Celtics. He did so, knowing the Clippers fully intended to trade DJ for Garnett. He and Ainge agreed to tear up his contract in exchange for "compensation" from the Clippers because Doc's talents were considered an asset by both sides.

Ainge couldn't fire him without paying him. Doc couldn't leave without risking Ainge prohibiting him from coaching anywhere else. The Clippers couldn't even speak to Doc without Ainge's blessing. They came to an "everybody wins" agreement where we got Doc, Doc got to go where he wanted and Ainge got a draft pick. All this happened while they were putting together a deal of DJ for Garnett.

The league thought it was fishy because they felt that DJ represented the kind of compensation for a coach that isn't allowed, ie: a player, so they told both teams "no player trades with each other" this season. The only reason DJ is still in a Clippers uniform is David Stern.

Now you can call that an assumption if you like, but it's the same assumption everybody surrounding the NBA holds. Since you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever that Doc wouldn't have come unless DJ stayed, I'll stick with the old scientific mantra of Ockham's razor: "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one."

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15857
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

You must have real long arms cause you're reaching.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10
Read my post again. Doc HAD to give his permission for the mutual termination of his contract with the Celtics. He did so, knowing the Clippers fully intended to trade DJ for Garnett. He and Ainge agreed to tear up his contract in exchange for "compensation" from the Clippers because Doc's talents were considered an asset by both sides. Ainge couldn't fire him without paying him. Doc couldn't leave without risking Ainge prohibiting him from coaching anywhere else. The Clippers couldn't even speak to Doc without Ainge's blessing. They came to an "everybody wins" agreement where we got Doc, Doc got....

Please log in to view the entire post.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15857
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Sorry, I could lend you that crystal ball but , without the instructions, it'll go wasted on you.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

LMAO, what does it only work off assumptions? I guess if that's the case it might not do me any good, but I could always ask for your help.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108
Nobody is arguing that Doc didn't have to be ok with being traded to the Clippers. The Clippers are here with no KG, Doc never turned around and said "oh, no KG ,no deal". The longer the season has gone, it has looked like Doc maybe was onto something when he said that he had no intentions to trade DJ. It had all fallen through, yet we still have Doc. The Clippers were trying to get Doc and KG, Boston wanted picks, DJ and probably Eric too. This was before Doc had a say in the decisions,....

Please log in to view the entire post.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15857
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

A crystal ball off assumptions? Nope, that wouldn't make it a crystal ball now, Would it?

here ya go:

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

My guess is that CP and Blake were his primary motivation, but I'm going off what he said. I never implied that Doc would pull out of the deal for something like that, just pointing out that he didn't pull out when the deal didn't go through. Let's be real the important pieces are CP and Blake. He could have had preferences, he might have preferred to keep Bledsoe but felt it was better appease CP. That would go away from what you are saying, but the possibilities are endless.

The world was also flat at one point, so the simplest thing to get from that is you might fall off if you go too far.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

@Clipper*Joe, it seemed to be working for you guys. Since assumptions and opinions is all you brought to the table.

Before you give it to me, maybe you should ask it for something more than that. Or we could finish the debate and you could ask it if we are a better team now and it will tell you the same thing that the majority of us have been saying: that yes we are better team now with Doc.

Mistwell
Clipper Starter
Posts: 662
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 15

So Cleepers, the poll is running 90% against your view. Are we all just Doc lovers/ Vinny haters, or you think maybe we're seeing something you don't?

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

The world was never actually flat. It was just a simpler concept for simpler minds to grasp. Proving it was round required evidence that couldn't be gathered at the time. Kind of like how Joe and I are being asked to provide evidence - like a quote from Doc saying that he was fine with trading a player away from a team he wasn't even employed by yet - that just isn't available.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

What's my view?

The poll asks whether Doc is a little better, a lot better or no better than Vinny. I've already stated that I think he's better. How much better, we'll see in the playoffs.

Being a "Doc lover" or a "Vinny lover" are not mutually exclusive. Are we not allowed to like them both? Sorry, I didn't realize that was against the rules.

My whole debate has been about Vinny not being as terrible as he is painted by many members, and that if he was the only impediment to us reaching the WCF for the last 2 years, then this year should be a cakewalk.

And for the record, an unscientific poll that goes against my beliefs on any subject is not going to change my mind. There was a time that a plurality of Americans believed slavery was morally acceptable. I wonder, would you have followed that majority like a little sheep, too?

namzug
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

You brought up Ockham's razor, and now are the bright mind going against it, LMAO. You two are really good for a laugh.

The argument is that we are a better team with Doc, you two said not until it's proven in the playoffs. I don't think we have to wait for anything, it's clear that we are a better team right now. A byproduct of that is us doing better in the playoffs, in probably the deepest conference in years.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

I said "as of right now"... are we western conference finalists yet? I must have missed that.

I've stated numerous times that Doc is the clear upgrade that Joe and I advocated waiting for. But the team hasn't achieved the results yet that Vinny was vilified for being unable to deliver. Vinny's playoff achievements with the Clippers (and lack thereof) are in the books already. Doc's are not... yet. Get it?

And you might want to look up Ockham's razor. I don't think you've quite grasped the concept yet.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

Really? Oh, that sounds like something different.

You two are basing your arguments off assumptions, and I'm the one that hasn't grasped Ocham's razor. It would tend to be that the majority would go with the simplest answer yet you two are the only ones backing Vinny saying he was on par with Doc up to this point.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

david wrote:

Doc Rivers is a way better coach than Vinny Del Negro.

Cleepers wrote:

That sounds very definitive.

What's your basis? Was Phil Jackson way better than Jerry Sloan and Gregg Popovich? ...or did he just have the best player(s) on the planet to work with?

Most people say Sloan would have a couple of rings if it hadn't been for Jordan. Others say that Pop's Spurs would have absolutely dominated the 2000's but for Kobe and Shaq.

Vinny took Doc's (AND Thibs') HOF championship roster to 7 close games with a rookie as his best player. He led the Clippers to their best B2B seasons in franchise history. The man deserves all Clippers fans' respect and gratitude.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15857
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Sorry, us doing better in the playoffs isn't a by-product. How is it a by-product when we haven't even played a playoff game? ASSumptions?

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

Ockham's razor is not a poll, where we all just guess and the majority opinion becomes fact. It is literally ALL ABOUT reasonable assumptions. If there are multiple theories on the cause of an event, but no empirical evidence, assume the simplest explanation is the correct one. To me, the fact that we lost in a 4/5 matchup against a tough team with an identical record with players injured and an average coach is a much more reasonable assumption than our being some superteam who just happened to have the worst coach in NBA history screwing the pooch at every single turn despite the players doing everything right and their injuries being a non-factor.

We have empirical evidence that Vinny's W/L% with the Clippers was 68% last year and that Doc's is 71% at this point, so Joe is right that the numbers indicate that so far, he is marginally better in terms of results. We will have further evidence during and after the playoffs which can then be examined, and coaching performances analyzed and graded accordingly.

Right now, you "think" that Doc will be a better playoff coach for this team than Vinny was. I AGREE WITH YOU! The debate is how MUCH better. You haven't quantified a number, but whether it's 1%, 100% or 1000% it doesn't matter what you or I "think", "hope", "believe" or wish upon a f**king star - if it doesn't happen!

Nobody is backing Vinny as being better than or equal to Doc. Can't you grasp that?

If a man - Let's call him "Doc" - has $250,000,000 in the bank, I think it's safe to assume we all agree he is rich. The debate here is "how much money did Vinny have, relative to Doc?". Well right now, those numbers suggest that he had 3% less. Vinny-haters have always insisted he was "broke". THAT is where my opinion diverges from theirs... and apparently, yours.

With a larger sample-size, trends and evidence become more pronounced... We were 0-1 to start the season, but reasonable people assumed that we wouldn't finish 0-82. We are certain the sun will rise tomorrow because it has every single day for billions of years. Flip a coin 3 times and you may get all "tails", but it becomes unlikelier the more times you flip and eventually it becomes obvious that the chances are 50/50.

The playoffs will help broaden Doc's sample. If the team can't do any better than they did for the last 2 years, the numbers will indicate that maybe Vinny wasn't broke after all. He was actually pretty rich. Maybe still not as rich as Doc, but rich nonetheless.

Just because I like chocolate Ice-cream, it doesn't mean I hate all the other flavors. It doesn't even mean that chocolate is my favorite flavor. You don't have to cut off Vinny's legs to make Doc look taller. It doesn't change Doc's height! And putting Doc on a pedestal doesn't make Vinny shorter. He took us from being a lottery team to a division championship. Now, I hope Doc can take us to an NBA championship, because that's what he was brought here to do. I don't know why you can't just be happy with how far we've come in such a short time instead of ungratefully badmouthing the guy who drove us halfway here. Vinny helped put us in the position to even GET Doc, because there's no way a top tier coach was coming here when Vinny signed on.

You'll never convince me that he doesn't deserve to be remembered well by Clipper-nation.

EDIT: Thank you for reposting my exchange with David. It illustrates my point perfectly. Nowhere do I have a bad word to say about Doc, just that Vinny's inferior roster gave Doc & Thibs' championship team all they could handle. Now, how would you explain that if Vinny is so, so bad? Because Ockham's razor would lead me to believe that the simplest explanation is that that young Bulls team played hard and had a pretty decent coach.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

We can go back and forth on this all you want. I think Doc is a much better coach then Vinny. I think we peaked as far as what we could do with Vinny at the helm. Ockham's Razor- in layman's terms is the simplest answer is usually the correct one. The majority tends to lean that way as well. There are only two of you going against this.

Who has said Vinny was the worst NBA coach ever? I've said that he couldn't help us get over the hump, that we had peaked last season.

My honest opinion of Vinny as a coach is he is average to slightly below average as a NBA coach, he would be better in the front office in my opinion. That doesn't take away from what his team accomplished while he was the coach, and nor would I want it too. That doesn't meant there aren't some coaches that are worse, but there are clearly some I think are much better Doc being one of them.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

^ We'll never know if we peaked under Vinny last season, so your opinion will always remain no more than an opinion... no more or less valid than anybody else's.

And no, Ockham's razor is not "majority rule". The little actual EVIDENCE we have suggests that Doc is marginally better in terms of results. There is NO measurable evidence that points to him being "much better", "way better", or "light years ahead"... only opinion. I'll wait for the rest of the evidence to come in before I trash innocent people.

If you change one component in an experiment and your results are 3% better, the "simplest explanation" - according to Ockham's razor - is that that one component is 3% more effective. But like I said, the sample-size is relatively small at this point. With more repetitions of the experiment (ie: playoffs, additional seasons) the results have more validity.

A scientific mind will trust measured results over guesswork every time. When there are actual numbers to compare, the words "I think" would get you laughed out of every laboratory on the planet.

I guess we're done here until Doc goes 16-0 in the playoffs, demonstrating beyond doubt that Vinny was the only thing holding us back these last two years.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5990
votes: 10

Honestly I have only seen Clippers fan say that VDN is anything more than an average coach. Most people don't even consider him average.

Doc is an elite coach and VDN is an average coach in my eyes. Now what could possibly be up for debate is how much good coaching can influence games.

Ultimately, talent trumps all. Even a team like the Thunder which has a mediocre coach will do great simply because it has the best player in the league(this season, not saying he is better than Lebron yet) and an elite PG.

Not to mention elite defenders like Ibaka, Sef, etc.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

^ I agree. The 5 guys on the court affect the outcome more than any coach ever will.

CP3Heliflopter
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 5990
votes: 10

Generally having a great coach will only give you a few more wins. The only exceptions in my mind are maybe the Spurs with Pop and the Bulls with Thibs.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

@Cleepers, try reading my posts completely.

What I said: "Ockham's Razor- in layman's terms is the simplest answer is usually the correct one. The majority tends to lean that way". Are you a scientific mind trying to apply this to basketball?

Last time I checked we are talking about basketball and what I've seen on the court is better than what I saw last year; and the main difference is Doc. If you talked to any basketball analyst or the majority of NBA players they would probably laugh at you when you walk into the room and insinuate that Doc is only marginally better then Vinny.

So if we win the title are you coming back in here to use your exit route and say that's what we had in mind the whole time in waiting for Doc. I've noticed you kept that open. Nothing like not really sticking to anything, leaving an exit clause. So if we win a title and this comes up again, are you going to say Vinny could have done it?

The real question if the season where to end today are we a better team today in a large part due to Doc? I say yes and it's noticeable, you from what I can gather are saying no. Yet, great organizations like the Spurs, Heat, Championship Lakers and/or Bulls weren't that worried about the overall records; but playing good basketball going into the playoffs.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

^ All I know for a fact is that the Clippers have improved every year, no matter which of them has been coaching... from 39% W/L, to 60%, to 68%, to 70%... so I'm happy.

That leads me to two conclusions:

  1. That who is coaching has a smaller effect on the outcome of games over the long term than some here believe.

  2. That Vinny del Negro wasn't AS inferior to Doc Rivers as his haters like to believe.

Results are what count. You can coo all you like about Doc's system, but if it yields the same results as the "Chris Paul" offense, then how is it really better aside from simple aesthetics?

Winning matters. Ask all the players with superior stats who missed out on MVP's and All-star appearances to other guys whose teams had better records. Attractive play is no guarantee of success. There will be no asterisk in the record books that says *but the Clippers "LOOKED" much prettier than the previous year. Until we actually get to the WCF, we are not a WCF team.

I enjoy watching Miami basketball much more than Pacers basketball, but only one of their systems will prevail this year. I prefer watching this year's Suns to this year's Grizzlies, but it seems like only one of them will make the playoffs. Whichever team prevails will be remembered in history as the better team. Miami are the reigning champions, regardless of how many people may have believed that the Spurs were better. Opinion doesn't count for sh!t in sports. Bragging rights go to the winners.

Many non-Clippers fans still call us a second-round out and it pisses me off, but if we lose in the second round, then they are right and I am wrong. It's that simple.

I think Doc is an upgrade. I've said it time and again. But just because I defend Vinny, people moronically assume that I'm attacking Doc. That's not the case. I'm actually preemptively defending Doc, too! Doc can't put the ball in the hoop for the players. Doc can't run out and block a shot or get a steal, and despite his name he can't make our players' injuries disappear... and neither could Vinny.

I'm just not convinced that an upgrade at the H/C position (which I consider less influential to the outcome of games and series' than playing positions) - or the magnitude of the upgrade - will make as huge a difference to the actual results as some people think. Maybe I'll be proven wrong, but the evidence isn't in yet.

I just believe that there are many more larger factors in play... quality of players, roster-fit, performance of players, individual and team matchups, injuries... I could go on and on. As much as some Vinny-haters would have me believe that basketball is a chess game where both coaches start out exactly even, and the better mind wins... it just isn't so. And because of all of those other factors, I believe that anybody claiming that Vinny del Negro "held us back" from reaching the Western conference finals has a naive and simplistic view of the Clippers, and of basketball as a whole.

proverbs
Clipper D-League Pickup
Posts: 40
votes: 4


Repped High Quality Post

I do believe Doc is a better coach than VDN, and we will win a championship with him. But I don't think there's any way we would've got past the Grizz without Blake last season. The Clip's front court would've been mighty thin and a "system" would not be enough to overcome the Grizz without our superstar. I don't think you have to look at the numbers for this one.

I'd be pretty surprised if someone really thought that the Clips could've pulled out that series without Blake, just because there was a different coach. That is putting A LOT of weight on the coach. Phil Jackson has 11 rings, but we would have lost that series even if he was coaching.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

Someone who gets it. Hallelujah!

JQuick32
CTB MVP X1
 Avatar
Posts: 3084
votes: 10

I strongly doubt Doc would have run the over-the-top practice that got Blake injured in the first place, considering how his teams rarely ever practice to begin with, so it would have been a non-issue.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

Blake got injured in practice before game 5, he wasn't injured the whole series, so it depends on where you think the series would have been after game 4. In game 1, he had foul trouble and scored only 10 pts and only played 25 mins. In games 2-4 he averaged 18.7 PPG / 33 MPG, that's an excellent scoring rate, basically what he was doing during the regular season.

Could the Clippers have been up 3-1 if they could have played any semblance of defense in the 2 games in Memphis? Possibly. Hypothetically, let's say they could, then we're talking about going 1-2 vs Memphis over the last 3 games if it goes to game 7 in order to win. It wouldn't be about being better than them the last 3 games, but about being able to win 1/3 games, could be that we go 1-1 and if ends in 6. Let's say it's still 2-2 after 4 games, could the Clippers have gone 2-1 vs Memphis with Blake playing 17 MPG and with 2 home games to 1? Possibly, still nothing crazy.

If Doc is the coach, the defense is better. Blake is still playing backup minutes while hobbled. If Clippers can actually defend Memphis well enough because of the different defensive coaching, even without Blake, they can produce enough offense to win games if they defended and even more so if Bledsoe is starting along with Barnes for example. The Clippers produced 106.7 Ortg and 113.6 Ortg in game 5 and 6 while Blake was injured, that's actually very good offense against the #2 ranked defense in the league, so if their efforts on defense weren't rendered futile, that's more than enough offense to win even both of those games.

Remember, Paul's averages in games 5 and 6 were:

31.5 PPG, 5.0 RPG, 6.0 APG, 0.5 TPG, .645 TS%

Yea, if Paul is single-handedly doing that much scoring on that efficiency, you just need a couple of guys to make some shots, and to play solid defense and you certainly have a pretty good chance to win both those games even. If you play defense like a college basketball team facing an NBA team, then yes, sure, no chance at all, I agree.

The way you phrases made it sound like Blake got injured at the start of the series. No, we had a healthy Blake for 4 games and then we had GOD mode Chris Paul for the next two and wasted his performances because the bigs couldn't play defense, but the team as a whole had a broken defense.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

Blake got injured because he landed on Odom's foot, that really doesn't have much to do with the intensity of the practice and is just a freak accident injury type situation that sucks.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
 Avatar
Posts: 15857
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

I think it was more than just Blake. We lacked shooters which is what we had the season before. It was our shooting that got us out of the first round the first time. Our bigs did nothing and we didn't have the bigs that could contain theirs. Plus, we had better back-ups the first year than we did last season. One of the first things Doc did was go out and find shooters. That was more of a dire need than back-up bigs. I think the lack of shooters made us predictable and easy for the Grizz defend against.

JQuick32
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 3084
votes: 10

Considering that Vinny was a part of the front office that offseason, our lack of shooters was partially his fault. On to the next excuse, because that one's not working either.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15857
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

I'm pretty sure CP3 had more of a say than VDN. He was a lame duck coach so I doubt his word had much weight.

Plus, Mo wanted out. Foye wasn't asked to come back, and Nick Young wasn't that great for us until the playoffs.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

While that is true and would have been important against SA, the Clippers still scored very effectively against them in game 5 and 6, a good part because of Paul's 32/5/6 on great percentages, but some others contributed too (eg: Barnes in game 6). The Clippers offense in games 5 and 6 was as efficient as the regular season offense and that was with Blake being limited, and for example in game 5 scoring 4 points on 2/7 FG.

If the goal is to score more effectively against an elite defense than you were capable against the average team, then that's a hard road to treat. I've said it many times, but we talk so much about offense, but the Memphis series was decided on the defensive end primarily, not the offensive end because even with better shooters, the amount of offensive effectiveness needed to outpace how easily we let Memphis score was crazy. If the Clippers scored at the same effectiveness as this season's offense, but allowed Memphis to score as easily and effectively (especially from the FT line) they would still have lost game 4, 5 and 6.

The Clippers scored more than effectively enough in 4/6 games to win them, but basketball is a two way sport, you can't score as much and well and effectively as you want, if you don't defend your opponent better than you can score, you lose, that's what the Clippers did that series.

I don't believe that this current team is one to put themselves in a situation where they have to score at such a ridiculous pace to win a series because the defense is so porous.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

For that particular series, I'd go with the better bigs (especially defensively) over shooting if I had to choose... but you mentioned all the ingredients there (or rather lack thereof) that cost us the series.

The previous year, we had better shooting AND better defense from our front court and we won, so which was more important is debatable to me. Still... without a healthy Blake, we were no match for the Spurs and I don't see us beating OKC... even without Westbrook... and even if we'd had Doc.

The man's a coach, not a wizard.

JQuick32
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 3084
votes: 10

All the talk that summer was about Vinny, Sacks, and Roeser as the "three-headed monster" of the front office, with Vinny recruiting and selling free agents on the team. Sorry to burst your bubble, but he was very involved with that offseason.

Vinny: inexplicably saw no need for shooters in the modern NBA.

Doc: brought in Redick.

Advantage: Doc.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

You missed a couple:

If Vinny had signed Oden instead of Odom, Greg would have been sitting down instead of standing there when Blake landed... so it's on Vinny.

If Vinny had farted at just the right time, Blake might have cracked up laughing instead of jumping at all... so it's on Vinny.

If Vinny had dressed up as a sexy woman, Blake might have fallen in love with him and been out buying him flowers instead of practicing... so it's on Vinny.

Just let me know if you need any more "evidence" to support your cartoon vendetta. I could really have some fun with these.

cleepers
CTB MVP X2
 Avatar
Posts: 8750

us.gif
votes: 108

Yeah, what f**king idiot who needed shooters would want a guy called Mr. Bigshot? ...especially if your best player who was about to enter free-agency wanted him too... screw that guy, right? And of course, there is only ever one candidate for 6th man of the year... the guy who finishes second is always a scrub.

We had 5 guys shoot over 36% from deep in the regular season. Nobody managed that in the playoffs... at least, not until Barnes hit 6/7 in game 6 after going 1/10 in games 1-5, thereby raising his average from 10% to 41% in what was essentially garbage-time..

Our 3pt% was actually slightly better last year than this year. What was Vinny thinking? Why would he coach the guys to start bricking everything as soon as the postseason started? roll

Terrible strategy.

Still... I'm pretty sure Doc will tell them that throwing the ball in the hoop is better than not throwing the ball in the hoop... Phew!

BaadMaster
Clipper Starter
 Avatar
Posts: 492
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 5

Although I just quoted a small snippet of cleepers post, it was an exceptional analysis.

Ultimately, to win an NBA title, you need (in what I think is the order of importance):

  1. A real good team with a serious "Big Three" or at least an All-Star "Big Two."

  2. At least one go-to crunch time scorer.

  3. A real good coach. One who gets the team peaking at the right time.

  4. Health.

  5. Fair or helpful reffing.

  6. LUCK!!!

I think the coach is factor number three in a title run. An important factor, but not the whole ball of wax. Even if Doc is the better coach, and he is, you still need all these factors to work to some degree to win it all.

Numbers four, five and six can often be the difference and it can drive fans CRAZY when they break in the wrong direction.

Thus, it is hard to codify or predict anything before it happens. My take is the Clippers are a lock for the Finals. But Number Five is going to be tough against Mr. Mount Rushmore, whom the NBA loves for some odd reason.

BEAT THE HEAT! (I do not like LeBron, obviously.)

Addendum: I did not intend the numbers to be THAT big. The new feature did that!

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

Vinny was very aware of the need for shooters. Green, a 44.2% shooter his previous season in ATL was brought in and shot 42.8% 3PT. Jamal was brought in and shot a career 3rd best 37.6%. Billups was retained, but his injury lingered. But even he still shot 36.7%.

Butler was a 38.8% 3PT shooter, a career high. The 3PT% was actually brought down by Paul's 32.8% which was his lowest since his rookie year as well as Odom taking 90 and making 18 (20%), and even Blake making 17.9% (5/28).

Here's the 3PT% for the SG/SF:

Green : 2.3 3PA (5.0 per 36), 42.8%

Crawford: 5.2 3PA (6.4 per 36), 37.6%

Butler: 4.2 3PA (6.3 per 36), 38.8%

Barnes: 4.1 3PA (5.7 per 36), 34.2%

Billups: 4.1 3PA (7.8 per 36), 36.7%

All taking 5+ 3PA/36 and all but Barnes were >36.7%. Those were the guys playing the majority of minutes at SG and SF.

Doc wanted a runner and to get even better shooting, but to say the team was devoid of shooting or lacking in any significant way is not accurate. The team was lacking a big man that could shoot. We assumed coming back to LA would resurrect Odom and didn't think he was having substance abuse issues, so he should have been that guy, but he wasn't.

Vinny made a lot of solid moves along with the other two front office guys, some didn't pay off, but Doc is still using the heck out of a Crawford, brought Hollins back, still values Green as a guy playing in a professional manner, though he hasn't gotten the same productivity from him that Vinny did. Just because Vinny wasn't great doesn't mean anything good he did needs to be downplayed and we need to act like everything he did was bad.

illastrate
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1637

us.gif
votes: 13

Who cares about VDN? He's old news. Time to move on with Doc.

TheDude
CTB MVP X1
 Avatar
Posts: 2681

wz.gif
votes: 31

Good post.

BaadMaster
Clipper Starter
Posts: 492
Location: Los Angeles
votes: 5

Great avatar. The Big Lebowski is one of the funniest movies of all time. Just to have the pic of The Dude staring me in the face makes me happy I "baandwagoned" over to the Clippers. "The Dude abides."

Beat The Heat!

jarca
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 7964

rp.gif
votes: 35

You can have shooters all you want but if the offense is predictable the other team will have a better chance of defending the shooters and those numbers will go down

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4051
votes: 37

While that is a fine point which I've already agreed with in previous posts, we have a context.

"Vinny: inexplicably saw no need for shooters in the modern NBA. Doc: brought in Redick."

This is just not true at all

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

Finally we agree, it's all Vinny's fault.

There is mutual fault to be had, but if you are the coach it should be on you to steer in the right direction. I might put more or less in some cases on Vinny, but regardless there is enough blame to go around that I'm sure he deserves his fair share.

I say let's agree to disagree, because we obviously have a difference of opinion on how important it is to have a great coach. I don't remember seeing a team win with an average coach. I also don't think Doc is only marginally better, but much better.

Vinny is part of the past, and a successful portion relative to our past. Whether he actually had a major hand or limited the success is a futile argument since we will never really know. As much as I enjoy the banter, I think we could all agree that we want to win the Championship and Doc seems to be doing a great job so far.

JQuick32
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 3084
votes: 10

Chris Mannix Show ‏@ChrisMannixShow Apr 6

Dwane Casey on competing for a job with Vinny Del Negro in the future: "If he is interviewing for a job, I probably won't go."

Vinny is literally the joke of the coaching profession.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

I could see Casey being a little bitter for losing out two jobs to Vinny.

Here is some more for you @JQuick32

http://www.celticstown.com/tag/vinny-del-negro/

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba,254301

There is a ton of this stuff out there with analyst saying we were crazy for choosing Vinny over Casey, LMAO. Now we are discussing if Doc is only marginally better than Vinny. I wanted Vinny, and thought he got a bad rap in Chicago; but once he was here I grew tiresome of a lot of the trends I saw. Either way he's gone, we got Doc and are ready to make a run. Let's all hope for the best.

Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home

or Comment Using FB

Post new topic   Reply to topic


← Doc Rivers Promoted To President Of Basketball Ops.

→ Alvin Gentry Leaving Clippers For Warriors

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

register
You are an anonymous user- Register now!


Follow our Los Angeles Clippers RSS Feed, plus the Clippers Rumors RSS Feed, the LA Clippers News RSS feed, and the Clippers Forum RSS feed to get the newest updated Clippers News and Trade Rumors plus Clippers Game update in your RSS/XML reader!