Lionel Hollins joins Lakers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Judah
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 4195

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:09 pm    Post subject:

trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.
_________________
“Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Car54
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 12394

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:33 pm    Post subject:

pjiddy wrote:
If you're hiring Hornacek to run a new offense you haven't seen him run, what are you hiring him for? "Hey man, liked that offense you ran in Phoenix 5 years ago! Wanna come up with something new for us??" Wtf???

Sigh. I give up. Yeah, what am I complaining about? This FO clearly knows what they're doing. Just look at all the evidence of great moves

...
..
..


Now you’re making (bleep) up I haven’t said that nor have they. We don’t even know if they’re interested in Hornacek but here you are complaining about him Nancy. I rest my case.
_________________
Coach Vogel, Kidd, Hollins
Max slot : Kawhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45051

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:53 pm    Post subject:

Judah wrote:
trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.


Just wanted to commend you for a thoughtful post before you get called a “Nancy.” We share the same concerns.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4550

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:54 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Judah wrote:
trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.


Just wanted to commend you for a thoughtful post before you get called a “Nancy.” We share the same concerns.




That dude is delusional
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vancouver Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 16621

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:08 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Judah wrote:
trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.


Just wanted to commend you for a thoughtful post before you get called a “Nancy.” We share the same concerns.
+1
_________________
Music is my medicine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:14 pm    Post subject:

It's okay to have multiple ex head coaches on the same staff. GS and other teams have been doing that for years. Problems occur when the head coach doesn't get to choose his own staff. Whether the assistants have people trying to take the head coach's job or not. You want the coaching staff to have 1 vision coming from the head coaching spot.

With all that said. I still prefer Vogel, Hollins, and Kidd over Luke and Mermuys. Luke and particularly Mermuys are that bad.
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45051

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:19 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
It's okay to have multiple ex head coaches on the same staff. GS and other teams have been doing that for years. Problems occur when the head coach doesn't get to choose his own staff. Whether the assistants have people trying to take the head coach's job or not. You want the coaching staff to have 1 vision coming from the head coaching spot.

With all that said. I still prefer Vogel, Hollins, and Kidd over Luke and Mermuys. Luke and particularly Mermuys are that bad.


I think it’s perfectly reasonable to prefer Vogel/Hollins/Kidd over Luke’s crew so long as we understand that it wasn’t a binary choice. Upgrading from Luke while avoiding the new issues they’ve created was on the table for them. They tend to get in their own way as they figure out how to do the job.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 20296
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:23 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
kikanga wrote:
It's okay to have multiple ex head coaches on the same staff. GS and other teams have been doing that for years. Problems occur when the head coach doesn't get to choose his own staff. Whether the assistants have people trying to take the head coach's job or not. You want the coaching staff to have 1 vision coming from the head coaching spot.

With all that said. I still prefer Vogel, Hollins, and Kidd over Luke and Mermuys. Luke and particularly Mermuys are that bad.


I think it’s perfectly reasonable to prefer Vogel/Hollins/Kidd over Luke’s crew so long as we understand that it wasn’t a binary choice. Upgrading from Luke while avoiding the new issues they’ve created was on the table for them. They tend to get in their own way as they figure out how to do the job.


Agreed
_________________
Turn your losses into lessons. - Mike "The Situation"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bluehill
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 416

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:44 am    Post subject:

Judah wrote:
trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.


Yep. Also extends to the FO in terms of the kinds of players they draft, how they develop them as well as who the kinds of players that target and acquire through FA.

There are teams where these functions seem pretty integrated and coordinated because there is overall strategy/view on what offenses and defenses can be successful. This guides the types of coaches and players the team pursues. With the Lakers, given the changes in FO and head coaches, it's hard to see if there's an overarching strategy or process. There's a goal of win a championship in a few years, but not an outward appearance of a thoughtful plan to get there.

The coaching hires seem to be in same vein of our FA approach - if one former head coach is good, two must be better and three is moar. Granted, I have no idea how much input Vogel had and if his assistants are on the same page in terms of how Vogel wants to run the offense and defense.

The coaching staff is a team too, and from the outside, it seems like a fantasy league where you're trying to pick the best players available and don't have to worry about how they function as a team. It can work in the real world, but I think odds are lower than allowing the coach to pick his coaching staff. The key is to hire the right coach.

If the FO forced Kidd and Hollins on Vogel, it basically means the FO doesn't know who the right coach is, so they are hedging their bets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
pjiddy
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Dec 2005
Posts: 22793
Location: North Hollywood

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:54 am    Post subject:

Car54 wrote:
pjiddy wrote:
If you're hiring Hornacek to run a new offense you haven't seen him run, what are you hiring him for? "Hey man, liked that offense you ran in Phoenix 5 years ago! Wanna come up with something new for us??" Wtf???

Sigh. I give up. Yeah, what am I complaining about? This FO clearly knows what they're doing. Just look at all the evidence of great moves

...
..
..


Now you’re making (bleep) up I haven’t said that nor have they. We don’t even know if they’re interested in Hornacek but here you are complaining about him Nancy. I rest my case.


Still not clear on why I'm a "nancy" other than you're unable to argue any substantive points, you're easily frustrated by it, and have to resort to name-calling. Address my post or move on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45051

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:56 am    Post subject:

Quote:
If the FO forced Kidd and Hollins on Vogel, it basically means the FO doesn't know who the right coach is, so they are hedging their bets.


Yep. They obviously want Kidd but recognize the blowback they’d receive, so everything else has been a weird dance trying to force these pieces to fit. Of all the candidates they talked to Kidd is the worst coach of them all, and he’s the only one they can’t live without.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Car54
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 12394

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:19 am    Post subject:

pjiddy wrote:
Car54 wrote:
pjiddy wrote:
If you're hiring Hornacek to run a new offense you haven't seen him run, what are you hiring him for? "Hey man, liked that offense you ran in Phoenix 5 years ago! Wanna come up with something new for us??" Wtf???

Sigh. I give up. Yeah, what am I complaining about? This FO clearly knows what they're doing. Just look at all the evidence of great moves

...
..
..


Now you’re making (bleep) up I haven’t said that nor have they. We don’t even know if they’re interested in Hornacek but here you are complaining about him Nancy. I rest my case.



Still not clear on why I'm a "nancy" other than you're unable to argue any substantive points, you're easily frustrated by it, and have to resort to name-calling. Address my post or move on.


I guess you haven’t read any of my post if you think I haven’t given reason. *shrugs* oh well
_________________
Coach Vogel, Kidd, Hollins
Max slot : Kawhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Staccatos
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Jul 2002
Posts: 2302

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:57 am    Post subject:

I wouldn't be on board with Lionel Hollins as a Head Coach but I'm fine with him as an assistant.

People seem to think all these former head coaches will create conflict and it probably will when you have multiple voices with strong differing opinions.

However according to this Harvard Business Review article, this can actually be a good thing:

https://hbr.org/2009/07/hire-people-who-disagree

Quote:
Leaders who solicit opinions from people who disagree with them are smart enough to realize that they do not have all the answers. Such leaders also must make it safe for others to disagree; otherwise the exercise is moot


Quote:
Look for character. From a leadership position, character is the willingness to do what is right for the team. Every team needs people who will stand up for their ideas. That requires backbone. Integrity and virtue are also essential, but what matters is not what you are, it is what you do . Character is leadership put to good purpose.

Look for strength of ideas. It is not enough to disagree; executives need alternate viewpoints that are based on facts as well as reason. Good ideas that are contrary to the boss’s ideas must be carefully thought-out, supported by data, and argued from a viewpoint of doing what is best for stakeholders.

Look for ambition. When bringing on someone who disagrees with you, or at least is not afraid to do so, make sure they have an ambition to move up in the organization. They aren’t just contrarian; they want to make a positive difference, and they’re in it for the long haul.

Look at their track record. I have yet to see a recruitment advertisement that says, “Wanted: People to Disagree with Boss.” So look for managers who have shepherded projects to positive ends when the odds were against them. For example, if they achieved something in the face of new competition, diminished resources, or even organizational change, these are indicators of an ability to think and act for themselves.

Hiring someone who is opposed to your ideas is not the same as hiring someone who is opposed to you. The former is a good thing; the latter is a threat. The latter will disrupt the team in order to achieve his personal ambitions at your expense. Such a person will cause more grief than glory — so keep him on a short leash or ask him to find work elsewhere. In any organization, the designated leader must have the final say in strategic decisions, otherwise the organization loses focus and direction.

Having a strong oppositional voice is the mark of good leadership. Rather than a sign of weakness, it demonstrates force of character and the ability to think and act strategically. More importantly, oppositional views can clarify the leader’s own thinking, sometimes changing his mind, other times sharpening a course of action.


Hopefully Vogel is a strong enough leader and Kidd/Hollins are both on the positive side of this to make it work. In any case, it's better than having a bunch of "Yes" men who bring nothing useful to the table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133638
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:07 am    Post subject:

The quality of opinions is what matters. I am not anti-Hollins but the last we saw of him, he had no use for analytics. So him giving opinions based on gut feel might be successful some of the time but wouldn’t you rather that decisions are based on some kind of information? But it is no surprise, no matter how much lipstick the FO puts on it, they aren’t invested in analytics.
_________________
How about those Blues!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Car54
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 12394

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:17 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
The quality of opinions is what matters. I am not anti-Hollins but the last we saw of him, he had no use for analytics. So him giving opinions based on gut feel might be successful some of the time but wouldn’t you rather that decisions are based on some kind of information? But it is no surprise, no matter how much lipstick the FO puts on it, they aren’t invested in analytics.


I don’t think you can rely on analytics 100% and I don’t think you can be at your best without using them either. I believe there should be balance.
_________________
Coach Vogel, Kidd, Hollins
Max slot : Kawhi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 1781

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:21 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
The quality of opinions is what matters. I am not anti-Hollins but the last we saw of him, he had no use for analytics. So him giving opinions based on gut feel might be successful some of the time but wouldn’t you rather that decisions are based on some kind of information? But it is no surprise, no matter how much lipstick the FO puts on it, they aren’t invested in analytics.


I believe Vogel specifically discussed the use of analytics during his introductory press conference. I would assume that was part of the discussion during his interview process so the FO should be aware of his intentions and approved of this approach as he was hired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 45051

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:26 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
The quality of opinions is what matters. I am not anti-Hollins but the last we saw of him, he had no use for analytics. So him giving opinions based on gut feel might be successful some of the time but wouldn’t you rather that decisions are based on some kind of information? But it is no surprise, no matter how much lipstick the FO puts on it, they aren’t invested in analytics.


Yep. They pay lip service to it but the Lakers have never been invested in analytics, and hiring a slew of anti-analytic coaches confirms it.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bandiger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 11892

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:41 am    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Judah wrote:
trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.


Just wanted to commend you for a thoughtful post before you get called a “Nancy.” We share the same concerns.


Bravo sums up why I really have doubts and kinda pessimistic about the whole thing but its for Lebron and whatever vets they bring in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 1781

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:41 am    Post subject:

Staccatos wrote:
I wouldn't be on board with Lionel Hollins as a Head Coach but I'm fine with him as an assistant.

People seem to think all these former head coaches will create conflict and it probably will when you have multiple voices with strong differing opinions.

However according to this Harvard Business Review article, this can actually be a good thing:

https://hbr.org/2009/07/hire-people-who-disagree

Quote:
Leaders who solicit opinions from people who disagree with them are smart enough to realize that they do not have all the answers. Such leaders also must make it safe for others to disagree; otherwise the exercise is moot


Quote:
Look for character. From a leadership position, character is the willingness to do what is right for the team. Every team needs people who will stand up for their ideas. That requires backbone. Integrity and virtue are also essential, but what matters is not what you are, it is what you do . Character is leadership put to good purpose.

Look for strength of ideas. It is not enough to disagree; executives need alternate viewpoints that are based on facts as well as reason. Good ideas that are contrary to the boss’s ideas must be carefully thought-out, supported by data, and argued from a viewpoint of doing what is best for stakeholders.

Look for ambition. When bringing on someone who disagrees with you, or at least is not afraid to do so, make sure they have an ambition to move up in the organization. They aren’t just contrarian; they want to make a positive difference, and they’re in it for the long haul.

Look at their track record. I have yet to see a recruitment advertisement that says, “Wanted: People to Disagree with Boss.” So look for managers who have shepherded projects to positive ends when the odds were against them. For example, if they achieved something in the face of new competition, diminished resources, or even organizational change, these are indicators of an ability to think and act for themselves.

Hiring someone who is opposed to your ideas is not the same as hiring someone who is opposed to you. The former is a good thing; the latter is a threat. The latter will disrupt the team in order to achieve his personal ambitions at your expense. Such a person will cause more grief than glory — so keep him on a short leash or ask him to find work elsewhere. In any organization, the designated leader must have the final say in strategic decisions, otherwise the organization loses focus and direction.

Having a strong oppositional voice is the mark of good leadership. Rather than a sign of weakness, it demonstrates force of character and the ability to think and act strategically. More importantly, oppositional views can clarify the leader’s own thinking, sometimes changing his mind, other times sharpening a course of action.


Hopefully Vogel is a strong enough leader and Kidd/Hollins are both on the positive side of this to make it work. In any case, it's better than having a bunch of "Yes" men who bring nothing useful to the table.


At least in the business world I agree with this viewpoint. It all depends on the individuals involved.

For Kidd and Hollin I believe they will not want to sully their reputation in their attempt to become head coaches again.

Kidd in particular should be self aware of his reputation and any additional incidents will further diminish his ability to secure another head coaching job.

Hollin may realize his time has past and just wants to be involved in the game and this may be his last chance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PlantedTanks
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Posts: 1781

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:01 am    Post subject:

Judah wrote:
trablos wrote:
Can someone explain what was wrong with our coaching search of taking the time to interview several candidates and not just Divac our way into a mediocre hire? It looks like Rob, Jeanie and whoever learned from putting Luke and his frat bros in charge of a professional basketball team and wanted to put together a team with lots of experience. I'm really not understanding what all the fuss is about?

It's pretty simple to explain what the problems are, actually. I don't have much to add to what pjiddy has already said, though:

Just throwing in a mixed bag of former head coaches who have ”experience” is not the recipe for success with a coaching staff. You know why Vogel made sure to sell himself well during his presser as having an evolved understanding of the game? Because he has enough self awareness to know that his most successful run as a head coach during his young career was when the league was merely in the process of evolving into what it is now. He recognizes that the elite defensive schemes he implemented in Indy during those years has to be significantly modified because of how long ago that was.

You want Exhibit A of what it could look like if a coach doesn't have that recognition? Look at Minnesota during the Thibs era. Thibs is largely responsible for the pace and space style of today's game. He was the one who designed Boston's defensive schemes back when they were contending (i.e. loading up on the strong side). They were the best defensive team in the league because of him. But the league adjusted to it, led by Gregg Popovich, MDA, and Kerr. Thibs hasn't done much by way of tweaking his scheme, which is a major reason why his teams have sucked on defense, despite him being known as a defensive mastermind.

I say all of that to simply make the point of just how crucial it is for a coach like Vogel to adjust, which he seems to understand. On the other hand, if his philosophies have truly evolved, he needs to build a staff that also sees the game in the same way. Lionel Hollins is one of the last coaches that should've ever been considered, if at all. It's not enough to have an ”experienced” staff. You need the right people to comprise that staff. Byron is an ”experienced” former coach. Would you want him anywhere near Vogel’s bench just on that basis? I would certainly hope not. A head coach needs true X and O gurus on his staff. Neither Kidd or Hollins fit that bill. In fact, Kidd doesn't even fit the bill when it comes to experience coaching wise.

It is not a coincidence that Kidd and Hollins are on Vogel’s staff. Both of those guys interviewed/had the interest of the FO for being hired as the head coach before Vogel won out. That is not normal. People are assuming he's going to be responsible for the defense. Okay, but why? Isn't that Vogel’s strong suit? Do we even know if Hollins understands how and why the modern game is different now? We can't assume that given the knuckleheads who are in charge. It takes a special kind of idiocy to impose two assistants onto a coaching staff who wanted the head job.

Make fun of Luke and his ”frat buddy” staff (which is a wildly incorrect and shallow criticism of his staff, which I've demonstrated countless times on here), but at least he understood the importance of putting together a staff of coaches with the same basketball philosophy that he had, which puts him miles ahead of our inept FO who thinks putting together a bunch of coaches with ”experience” regardless of whether or not they compliment each other, is the key to success. The fact that so many fans are mindlessly calling this Hollins hire a slam dunk is also showing that they're equally inept.


I understand your train of thought and reasoning but you lost me with that last paragraph. Coaches with same train of thought but unproven and inexperienced got us exactly what in 3 years?

Hiring supposedly bright young minds from progressive teams does not guarantee success. Also assuming ex or older coaches cannot adapt is also a reaching assumption.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bluehill
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 416

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:55 am    Post subject:

PlantedTanks wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The quality of opinions is what matters. I am not anti-Hollins but the last we saw of him, he had no use for analytics. So him giving opinions based on gut feel might be successful some of the time but wouldn’t you rather that decisions are based on some kind of information? But it is no surprise, no matter how much lipstick the FO puts on it, they aren’t invested in analytics.


I believe Vogel specifically discussed the use of analytics during his introductory press conference. I would assume that was part of the discussion during his interview process so the FO should be aware of his intentions and approved of this approach as he was hired.


If there ever was an opportunity, it would be interesting to hear how Vogel uses analytics when making decisions. Same with the FO. I think at this point you almost have to say that you're using analytics as a signal that you're a good coach/FO. It's kind of like Jeanie going to the MIT Sports Analytics Conference. How they actually use the data and their willingness to invest in getting different data is the underlying question.

Two things that provide some insight into how teams incorporate analytics into their decision-making -

"Sam Hinkie worked for more than a decade in the NBA with the Houston Rockets, and then most recently as the President and GM of the Philadelphia 76ers. He helped launch basketball’s analytics movement when he joined the Houston Rockets in 2005, and is known for unique trade structuring and a keen focus on acquiring undervalued players. Today, he is also an investor and advisor to a limited number of young companies in which he feels his experience can improve outcomes.

At one point in our conversation, Sam mentions that he tracked success via future financial outcomes, so I did some research and found many interesting stats about the 76ers surrounding Sam’s tenure. When he took over the franchise, it was 24th in ESPN’s franchise rankings, and today it is 4th. This is the result of an impressive crop of young talent—players like All-Star Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons—which resulted in large part from unconventional decisions Sam and his team made."

http://investorfieldguide.com/hinkie/

"We’re Ben and Travis, and we wrote a book. It’s called The MVP Machine: How Baseball’s New Nonconformists Are Using Data to Build Better Players, and it comes out Tuesday, June 4. The book tells the behind-the-scenes story of the players, coaches, and teams that are driving baseball’s current revolution in player development, which is transforming the sport from the Moneyball model of finding preexisting talent to one in which teams are competing to create talent. What follows is a condensed excerpt from a chapter about the Houston Astros, who have used new techniques and technology to maximize players’ potential. We hope you’ll want to read the rest."

www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/6/3/18644512/mvp-machine-how-houston-astros-became-great-scouting
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133638
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:16 pm    Post subject:

PlantedTanks wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
The quality of opinions is what matters. I am not anti-Hollins but the last we saw of him, he had no use for analytics. So him giving opinions based on gut feel might be successful some of the time but wouldn’t you rather that decisions are based on some kind of information? But it is no surprise, no matter how much lipstick the FO puts on it, they aren’t invested in analytics.


I believe Vogel specifically discussed the use of analytics during his introductory press conference. I would assume that was part of the discussion during his interview process so the FO should be aware of his intentions and approved of this approach as he was hired.


Vogel discussed it, Pelinka discussed it, Magic discussed it and Jeanie attended the Sloan conference. Did we see much use of analytics with our roster? Hence the lipstick on the pig comment, it’s a talking point that doesn’t seem to be implemented.
_________________
How about those Blues!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 133638
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:25 pm    Post subject:

Thanks for the links Bluehill, that Astro excerpt was very informative.
_________________
How about those Blues!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Juggernaut
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 4550

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:28 pm    Post subject:

PlantedTanks wrote:
Staccatos wrote:
I wouldn't be on board with Lionel Hollins as a Head Coach but I'm fine with him as an assistant.

People seem to think all these former head coaches will create conflict and it probably will when you have multiple voices with strong differing opinions.

However according to this Harvard Business Review article, this can actually be a good thing:

https://hbr.org/2009/07/hire-people-who-disagree

Quote:
Leaders who solicit opinions from people who disagree with them are smart enough to realize that they do not have all the answers. Such leaders also must make it safe for others to disagree; otherwise the exercise is moot


Quote:
Look for character. From a leadership position, character is the willingness to do what is right for the team. Every team needs people who will stand up for their ideas. That requires backbone. Integrity and virtue are also essential, but what matters is not what you are, it is what you do . Character is leadership put to good purpose.

Look for strength of ideas. It is not enough to disagree; executives need alternate viewpoints that are based on facts as well as reason. Good ideas that are contrary to the boss’s ideas must be carefully thought-out, supported by data, and argued from a viewpoint of doing what is best for stakeholders.

Look for ambition. When bringing on someone who disagrees with you, or at least is not afraid to do so, make sure they have an ambition to move up in the organization. They aren’t just contrarian; they want to make a positive difference, and they’re in it for the long haul.

Look at their track record. I have yet to see a recruitment advertisement that says, “Wanted: People to Disagree with Boss.” So look for managers who have shepherded projects to positive ends when the odds were against them. For example, if they achieved something in the face of new competition, diminished resources, or even organizational change, these are indicators of an ability to think and act for themselves.

Hiring someone who is opposed to your ideas is not the same as hiring someone who is opposed to you. The former is a good thing; the latter is a threat. The latter will disrupt the team in order to achieve his personal ambitions at your expense. Such a person will cause more grief than glory — so keep him on a short leash or ask him to find work elsewhere. In any organization, the designated leader must have the final say in strategic decisions, otherwise the organization loses focus and direction.

Having a strong oppositional voice is the mark of good leadership. Rather than a sign of weakness, it demonstrates force of character and the ability to think and act strategically. More importantly, oppositional views can clarify the leader’s own thinking, sometimes changing his mind, other times sharpening a course of action.


Hopefully Vogel is a strong enough leader and Kidd/Hollins are both on the positive side of this to make it work. In any case, it's better than having a bunch of "Yes" men who bring nothing useful to the table.


At least in the business world I agree with this viewpoint. It all depends on the individuals involved.

For Kidd and Hollin I believe they will not want to sully their reputation in their attempt to become head coaches again.

Kidd in particular should be self aware of his reputation and any additional incidents will further diminish his ability to secure another head coaching job.

Hollin may realize his time has past and just wants to be involved in the game and this may be his last chance.


All of this may be true but what does Hollins bring to the coaching staff that isn't already there with Kidd and Vogel? Hollins' time has past, the game is way beyond him and his style of coaching. They should have went with an offensive minded assistant coach
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bluehill
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 416

PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:39 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Thanks for the links Bluehill, that Astro excerpt was very informative.


If you have the time, I thought the podcast with Hinkie was really good. They talk about other stuff than basketball, but it gives you an idea of where analytics can provide an edge and how he incorporated into some of his big decisions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 14 of 16
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB