Player The Methodical Meritocracy of Maestro Mitch Johnson and his Many Minions

there is something to him as a coach, but anything above the absolute basic seems to be a pipe dream
 
Mitch is out of his depth and doesn't know how what to do with the guard rotation.

Castle has to play unless he's really stinking it up because he's our best perimeter defender.
Playing Castle and Harper together creates spacing issues because Fox will always close games out and going from one of Champ/Vassell/Barnes to Harper is a big 3pt shooting downgrade.

Not having Harper our there would be excusable if Fox was in his primary role, but he's not.

Since Christmas
Fox: 568 minutes, 241 FGA, 49 FTA, 102 assists, 38 turnovers.
Castle: 574 minutes, 219 FGA, 104 FTA, 128 assists, 55 turnovers.

Castle has a lot of potential, but him having higher usage than Fox in his sophmore season is wrong. Especially since he's at 37% FG during this stretch. And has ball security issues.
As I said like a week ago, we basically hired Fox to be the CEO, gave him CEO salary and then told him to stack boxes in the warehouse while keeping that CEO salary.
It's not his fault we took the ball away from him, it's obviously by design and it's not like Fox is passive and doesn't do anything when he has it.

With Harper being this good and Mitch being unable to incorporate him in enough lineups, it's only going to get worse.

I don't think Mitch has it in him to figure this out in a reasonable timeframe and if we flame out in the playoffs the general consensus will be that Fox should get moved.
Which would be dumb because there are way more inexperienced coaches out there than all-star level NBA players.
 
A lot of Wemby's issues are on him, but Mitch also has to take some of the blame.
Let's not pretend Wemby wouldn't like to get 10 easy points in the paint per game instead of isoing on the perimeter.

Last season Mitch has shown he can create an offense after Wemby and Fox went down, we had 6th ORTG in March and April.
This season we looked fluid while Wemby was out. Not better, but certainly more fluid. With a traditional screen and roll big.

Some coaches just don't know what to do with bigs that aren't traditional rim runners.
 
LeBowen said:
Mitch is out of his depth and doesn't know how what to do with the guard rotation.

Castle has to play unless he's really stinking it up because he's our best perimeter defender.
Playing Castle and Harper together creates spacing issues because Fox will always close games out and going from one of Champ/Vassell/Barnes to Harper is a big 3pt shooting downgrade.

Not having Harper our there would be excusable if Fox was in his primary role, but he's not.

Since Christmas
Fox: 568 minutes, 241 FGA, 49 FTA, 102 assists, 38 turnovers.
Castle: 574 minutes, 219 FGA, 104 FTA, 128 assists, 55 turnovers.

Castle has a lot of potential, but him having higher usage than Fox in his sophmore season is wrong. Especially since he's at 37% FG during this stretch. And has ball security issues.
As I said like a week ago, we basically hired Fox to be the CEO, gave him CEO salary and then told him to stack boxes in the warehouse while keeping that CEO salary.
It's not his fault we took the ball away from him, it's obviously by design and it's not like Fox is passive and doesn't do anything when he has it.

With Harper being this good and Mitch being unable to incorporate him in enough lineups, it's only going to get worse.

I don't think Mitch has it in him to figure this out in a reasonable timeframe and if we flame out in the playoffs the general consensus will be that Fox should get moved.
Which would be dumb because there are way more inexperienced coaches out there than all-star level NBA players.
Click to expand...
aka retarted
 
There’s really not a way that I can see to assess the relative impact of good coaching after controlling for the impact of good players—statistical interactions get in the way. There are good coaches who don’t win a lot because of weak players, and weak coaches who win a lot because of good players. There are also good coaches with good players and bad coaches with bad players. To what extent was Popovich successful because he was a good coach or because he had Duncan, Parker, Ginobili and later Kawhi? I really don’t know. I think it was former Texas Longhorn football coach, Mack Brown, known for his effective recruiting, who told a reporter something like “I’ve had good players and bad players and I find it is a lot easier to win with good players.” Mitch Johnson clearly has good players, though they are not as mature and dependable as the big-3 were when playing the “beautiful game.” As others here in this forum have written, as good as he is, Wemby makes more careless mistakes than Duncan did. Castle, Harper, and Vassell also make more mistakes than Parker and Ginobili did. Maybe Mitch should be more controlling, or maybe the big-3 were smarter and more mature than current Spurs. I have never been a coach, but I found it much easier as a supervisor to manage smart and mature employees.
 
Is this the official Mitch sniffer thread? As a proud sniffer, its been hard excusing the rookie coaching wall Mitch has hit.
 
I guess it will change back to mundane mediocracy or wherever it was if the last 10 games record drops to 5-5 or worse
 
Em-City said:
I guess it will change back to mundane mediocracy or wherever it was if the last 10 games record drops to 5-5 or worse
Click to expand...

O_V said:
This is a mercurial bunch. The good news is, so was the 2003 Spurs team.
Click to expand...
@O_V said it best in the game thread, the Spurs are mercurial.

The Spurs just gotta get on a run and get their confidence back up and try and be more consistent throughout the game. I hope they can come good like that 2003 team (they went on a huge run in the second half of the season).
 
Last edited:
RC_Drunkford said:
some good analysis from Tim Legler. They are breaking down film of some sets that we like to run.

Click to expand...
Good analysis, but, quite contrary to the general consensus here. Interesting points about having so many ball handlers that can attack and on ball defenders. Will make the trade deadline all the more telling about the type of team they are building.
 
Ice009 said:
@O_V said it best in the game thread, the Spurs are mercurial.

The Spurs just gotta get on a run and get their confidence back up and try and be more consistent throughout the game. I hope they can come good like that 2003 team (they went on a huge run in the second half of the season).
Click to expand...
I'm pretty excited that this team has slipped into contender status ahead of schedule.

The goal now is the same as it was for the Duncan teams: be healthy and playing good basketball by tournament time. We all know when they're supposed to peak.
 
O_V said:
I'm pretty excited that this team has slipped into contender status ahead of schedule.

The goal now is the same as it was for the Duncan teams: be healthy and playing good basketball by tournament time. We all know when they're supposed to peak.
Click to expand...
Yeah, them slipping into contender status (even if it's a very slight chance) is why I'm tough on them as I believe they can make run in the playoffs. If they can get some consistency and go on a bit of a winning streak/run (just for their own confidence), they have the potential to cause some real damage in the playoffs.
 
ginobilized said:
Good analysis, but, quite contrary to the general consensus here. Interesting points about having so many ball handlers that can attack and on ball defenders. Will make the trade deadline all the more telling about the type of team they are building.
Click to expand...
Spurs FO has been preaching this since we started tanking. Even before we got Wemby. It's what they meant when they were talking about positionless basketball. Everybody can handle the ball and attack closeouts, resulting to more drive and kick plays. No one dimensional players. So if we trade for anybody, he has to be able to somewhat have a decent handle.
 
God damn. After an off-season spent wondering whether the Spurs would even be good enough to finally reach the playoffs after a 6-year drought, we are now sending our rookie HC to coach the All-Star Game -- and it's not a handpick nomination, but instead a direct result of the Spurs holding on to the 3nd best record in the entire league.

It's been an insane turn around, and we'd do well to appreciate these moments and take it in, before the inevitable frustration comes along. Mitch & Co have their flaws, but I don't think even the most optimists here could've foreseen this. Amazing work done, and it's been the most fun season to watch in IDK how many years...

:st-flag:
 
Sugus said:
God damn. After an off-season spent wondering whether the Spurs would even be good enough to finally reach the playoffs after a 6-year drought, we are now sending our rookie HC to coach the All-Star Game -- and it's not a handpick nomination, but instead a direct result of the Spurs holding on to the 3nd best record in the entire league.

It's been an insane turn around, and we'd do well to appreciate these moments and take it in, before the inevitable frustration comes along. Mitch & Co have their flaws, but I don't think even the most optimists here could've foreseen this. Amazing work done, and it's been the most fun season to watch in IDK how many years...

:st-flag:
Click to expand...
No. I want my championship and I want it now. :st-madrun:
 
Ice009 said:
Yeah, them slipping into contender status (even if it's a very slight chance) is why I'm tough on them as I believe they can make run in the playoffs. If they can get some consistency and go on a bit of a winning streak/run (just for their own confidence), they have the potential to cause some real damage in the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Home court through much of the playoffs and a young team means they're playing with house money. If they play loose they could do some damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top