How can he win COY when he coached less than half the season?
I don't really feel strongly about this award anyway, but it does seem odd to give it to a guy who coached less than 1/2 the season, and had a worse record doing so than his assistant coach, who led the team in his absence. I haven't spent any time reviewing Golden State's schedule to see if the quality of opponents for the Warriors was skewed to the part of the season with Kerr on the bench, but I don't think it really matters. In fact, I suspect Byron Scott would have won 60+ games in Oakland this year, if given the chance. Anyway, I like Kerr, but he probably shouldn't have been the choice here.
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67317 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:08 am Post subject:
Should be co-coach of the year. It's a shame Luke gets no reward. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
This is an award that was once given to Doc Rivers for coaching a .500 team.
Rivers had the worst record of any CoTY. But the reasoning was that he confounded expectations -- some people thought Orlando would be the worst team in the league.
It's an award that often goes to new coaches who lead their teams to big improvements from the previous year
I vote for Dave Joerger for the Grizz. He had a roster that had at least 28 different players in it and still made the playoffs. That team could have easily mailed it in.
Brad Stevens would have had my.vote. _________________ How can I get a copy of a Laker game played on Sunday, March 11, 2001 Sonics/Lakers? If you know PM me please
I vote for Dave Joerger for the Grizz. He had a roster that had at least 28 different players in it and still made the playoffs. That team could have easily mailed it in.
Him or Stotts would have been solid choices. Stotts had 4 starters leave the team and Vegas had the over/under on them at 26.5 wins. They went on to win 44.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90299 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 8:51 am Post subject:
I think it was just recognition for the 73 wins. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
I vote for Dave Joerger for the Grizz. He had a roster that had at least 28 different players in it and still made the playoffs. That team could have easily mailed it in.
Him or Stotts would have been solid choices. Stotts had 4 starters leave the team and Vegas had the over/under on them at 26.5 wins. They went on to win 44.
Yeah forgot about Stotts. Another quality suggestion. _________________ How can I get a copy of a Laker game played on Sunday, March 11, 2001 Sonics/Lakers? If you know PM me please
Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3079 Location: Portugal
Posted: Sun May 01, 2016 2:40 am Post subject:
shnxx wrote:
well regular season awards are always strange anyway.
What sense does it make to give guys like Steve Nash and Karl Malone more MVP's than guys like Kobe, Shaq, etc?
Unless you wanted to give Shaq&Kobe co-MVP I can't see why they should have gotten more than they did.
The only team close to beat the Bulls in the finals was the Jazz.
Steve Nash is one of the worst MVPs (if u can call it that) but there was no one really that better. In his second MVP they beat the Lakers in the playoffs overturning a 1-3. And that is the year Amare was injured.
There are always scoring champion titles for others. _________________ -----------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/user/NBAMadeira
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