Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Why Hockey Fans Should Root For Devils Vs. Kings

Talkin' Bout Larry.

Coaches are some of the hardest people to judge objectively. There really are no coaching stats outside of wins and losses. Coaches can't make players be successful individuals, so their stats have no bearing either. The main focus of a head coach is to create that "winning" atmosphere in the locker room. To make the individuals collect their efforts into a single entity. But even then, those efforts are the composition of the individuals work.

So how can we rate a coach? An even harder question is how can we rate a coach of a team that we knew wouldn't be successful in that win/loss column? Truthfully it is purely subjective. The only good way is to compare/contrast him to other coaches of similar situations and to compare the opinion of the masses.

So we move on to Coach Lawrence Frank. He received a nasty situation right off the bat. His team three seasons previously had been coached by a first time coach in Michael Curry and the previous two seasons by the seasoned Jon Kuester. By most "expert" accounts these coaches didn't create cohesion and lacked a high basketball acumen.

Frank also lost his off season to the NBA lockout. He lost his time to teach his philosophy. To work with his youth more individually. To prove his acumen. Essentially the only thing that he had going his way was the knowledge that at any given moment he could just turn his Moose loose.

Star-divide

For now I feel it's important to ignore the debacle that was the off season. I'm just gonna focus for now on the only measure that the team itself knows, how Lawrence Frank stacks up against Michael Curry and Jon Kuester.

Michael Curry came into a pretty good situation to have. He had a set starting rotation that included one of the best point guards of the past decade in Chauncey Billups and a (at the time) rising star in Rodney Stuckey off the bench. But right as the season began Joe Dumars traded Billups away for The King of Team Cohesion himself, Allen Iverson. To make a long story short, about the only good thing to come out of that season was "The Fiverson Deal" and this blog.

But what made Curry a bad coach? It's hard to point a finger at any one thing but my biggest beef was how much he lost the locker room. Yes Iverson was and is a Prima Donna but that is his responsibility to control and to punish. Did he? No. I personally feel like that alone made him a bad coach. Lineups were another thing, but I'm gonna talk about those with Coach Q.

So now we make ourselves to Jon Kuester Era of Pistons basketball. Expounding itself over a period of two years we got to witness bufoonery, small ball lineups, and egotistical player behavior. All I'm gonna put here is Tayshaun Prince continually played power forward while Jon Kuester was coach. Also CV got minutes and Rip was allowed to be a bitch.

So yeah, those are incredibly simplified, subjective measurements to describe three total seasons, but I was looking more to establish that line ups and locker room behavior are important factors in judging a coach.

So what haven't we heard this season? Prince hasn't said "buffoonery" yet, nobody has skipped a practice, and I have to see anybody ignore Frank during a game. There are no headlines saying a player won't be playing due to behavior. There aren't any headlines describing that sort of locker room discourse.

Really, that sort of behavior in a locker room is only destructive to a young team. The head coach is the team manager. In a normal business world he would be handing out the probations and diciplining accordingly. It's reassuring to see that we now have a coach who at least takes this aspect of his job seriously.

So we move onto lineups, how can we judge this? Well, he seems to be starting to right players. Greg Monroe, Rodney Stuckey, Brandon Knight, Tayshaun Prince, and currently Jason Maxiell are the everyday starters. I don't think we'll find anybody who can accurately argue somebody else starting over any of those guys, especially when we consider the recent results of that starting lineup.

More importantly with that lineup is that nobody is apparently out of position. The guard spots are basically interchangeable, Prince is a small forward, and Jason Maxiell is a power forward. Monroe's current "true" position is currently debatable, but he's find mucho success as a center so why not just call him a center? At their core, these lineups are sound. It's spotty player production that has been affecting those wins and losses. Not the matchups themselves.

Another measure that would be nice to use on judging Frank would be crunch time play calling. Two minutes left of a close game, what does he do? Unfortunately I can't say that I can even subjectively say anything on the matter. The spotty play has basically removed Frank from having to coach in those situations. All I can truly say is that I have confidence in Frank to at least make the right move. I guess that alone is saying something because I never could say that about Curry or Kuester.

So now we look at what we have before us. We have a team that is winning some games, staying competitive against good teams. Stuckey says he loves playing with Knight and that Moose is becoming increasingly golden. All of this done without those preseason workouts. The summer league games. A slurry of meaningless exposition games. Cohesion is being gained in the absence of a normal situation. Players are learning and gelin' like felons. Players don't seem to concerned about their numbers, but the team itself. Jonas could be whining up a storm about a drop in minutes, but I haven't heard a peep. Behind the losses there is a tad bit of beauty to the situation. Even more so when you think about what the past few seasons were like.

But truly, if I could find this many words to say something as simple as "Lawrence Frank is doing a pretty good job" for my college classes, my stupid online class would be a breeze. But I hope the discussion doesn't end here, now your thoughts.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the Detroit Bad Boys community and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all fans or the staff at DBB. The DBB staff reserves the right at any time to edit the contents of FanPosts as they reasonably see fit.

Comment 38 comments  |  Add comment  |  3 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I agree Frank's doing a fine job

Which is a lower winning % than either year with Kuester. Even though the roster isn’t all that much different.

I think this season, if anything, should be a vindication to Kuester. He never deserved the JKIAFI monkier – there was no lipstick to smear on that pig. Any way Kuester would have gone would have been deemed a mistake. Play Tay at 3? Well, then Rip’s on the bench, which caused the locker room uproar. Play Tay at the 4? Smallball, JKIAFI.

A bit more about the locker room, a coach is basically a middle-manager who can’t fire someone. Without legitimate executive level support, he’s neutered – and since the previous middle-manager was fired after a year, it was clear that support didn’t exist. He can’t make a shitty roster any better. His hand is forced with rotations by salary (so as not to make his boss look bad in his horrible spending moves) and bitchiness.

His biggest problem was communication. However, this seems to be something that most young coaches struggle with, a trait that takes developing. Carlisle struggled with it in both Detroit and Indy, then the first thing he did in Dallas was to go overboard with reaching out to Dirk, Kidd, and pals.

Bottom line is that while I agree Frank’s doing a fine job, it’s with worse w/l results than Kuester or even Curry. Makes me question, is Frank’s perceived success the result of redefined expectations or legitimately improved performance?

by Shinons* on Feb 19, 2012 9:11 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

You can't ignore Frank's shortened training camp to start the season.

The team’s recent record suggests they’re getting better now, and they may yet finish with a better record than Q’s teams (much as we wish they wouldn’t…)

As for your last question – I’d say both. He’s somewhat better than the last couple of coaches (though I agree many of their difficulties were Joe’s fault), and yes, expectations are definitely lower this year.

Anybody can happen!

by Tom Y. on Feb 19, 2012 1:18 PM EST up reply actions  

The team's recent record also suggests

a schedule that would make the Fort Wayne Mad Ants blush.

My blogs: pakagankarachi.livejournal.com (dormant)
burmahunkalove.livejournal.com (occasional signs of life)

by MrHappyMushroom on Feb 22, 2012 9:43 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Kuester was not a great coach, but I always thought that he actually did an okay job considering the shitty hand he was dealt. So far, Frank hasn’t screwed up too noticeably so I guess he’s at least a decent coach.

My federal building is way cooler than your federal building.

by bugman222 on Feb 19, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions  

His biggest problem was communication. However, this seems to be something that most young coaches struggle with, a trait that takes developing.

Are we talking about Kuester or Curry here? Curry I could possibly agree with. But Kuester had 20 years as an assistant under his belt.

by madpoopz on Feb 19, 2012 4:50 PM EST up reply actions  

I think this season, if anything, should be a vindication to Kuester.

I think we’re probably the only two on DBB who feel pretty strongly this way, but I’m totally with you on this one. I think Frank managed personalities poorly, but X’s and O’s were never a problem for me.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Feb 21, 2012 10:31 AM EST up reply actions  

i didn't think Kuester was all that bad

but he didn’t handle the adversity within the locker room well. He did get a hard group to manage though.

Still appreciate the way he handled Monroe. Demanded that he do the dirty work to get playing time. Some players respond to tough love better than others.

Just think if we had drafted Cousins and threw him in that locker room last year, and had Kuester place the same demands on him he did on Monroe? Holy shit. That would have been ugly.

by mcflies on Feb 21, 2012 11:25 AM EST up reply actions  

I never minded Kuester, but then I never minded Flip, either.

by Birdman84 on Feb 21, 2012 11:56 AM EST up reply actions  

I liked Flip, except for his refusal to play his bench enough. I thought he was a brilliant offensive coach.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Feb 21, 2012 1:17 PM EST up reply actions  

agreed.

Flip seemed to run his starters too much. By seasons end they seemed to be a bit more tired than they should have been.

by madpoopz on Feb 21, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions  

When you get rid of Rip and Mcgrady

Mcgrady, who just made the comment “I’m sick of this shit” in regards to his playing time in Atlanta, its probably going to create a much more manageable situation than Kuester had. So I give him little credit for the locker room to this point, but at least he hasn’t fucked anything up so he’s good there.

Frank’s lack of dead ball play calling skills have been well documented at Nets are Scorching. Kuester was actually good at this aspect. But again he hasn’t had many opportunities to showcase his aptitude here so he gets a pass.

Mostly I think Frank is average at best, but he’s kind of a funny dude so I say keep him around.

by mcflies on Feb 19, 2012 12:31 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

if anyone is curious

Sabastian Pruiti’s critique of Frank at the end of his Nets tenure

http://netsarescorching.com/2009/11/30/lawrence-frank-revisited-again/

He talks about his roster mismanagement and his voice wearing thin as time went on, neither of which we’ve witnessed any of at this point. He questions his play calling ability the most. Still interesting.

by mcflies on Feb 19, 2012 3:24 PM EST reply actions  

Michael Curry was probably the worst NBA coach I’ve ever seen. He’s in his own category.

But, IME Kuester and Frank are just average NBA coaches. If they have good players, they will win. If they have bad players, they will lose. If they have average players, they will be around .500 or so.

Squinting hard and trying to analyze them closely is tough because they’re not Phil Jackson and don’t have a specific philosophy. They basically run stock NBA offenses and defenses, just like the majority of coaches in the league.

by Gabe F-B on Feb 19, 2012 7:00 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

I can’t say enough bad things about Kuester. Curry was a joke and just makes me laugh because he was such a bumbling failure. But Kuester has been in the league since 1990 and it seemed like every.single.decision he made was the wrong one. Whether it was not taking a timeout when he should, taking a timeout when he shouldn’t, flubbing a drawn-up play with no time left, saying the wrong thing to players, saying the wrong thing to media, mismanaging his players’ positions, mismanaging their minutes, everything a coach could possibly do wrong, he did wrong. At least IME.

There was that one time he had a nice inbounds play along the baseline. But that was about it.

by garrettelliott on Feb 19, 2012 8:02 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

I'm with MFGE here

In my eyes, Kuester was a mess. While he had little to work with, his lineups, rotations and management of close finish situations were horrible at worst, mediocre at best. He started last season with Austin Daye as Detroit’s starting power forward— and it took him 11 games to realize that this was a horrible idea. It was a stupid bet, a failure set up that anyone could have seen coming. A supposed playbook genius, his late-game sets were often ridiculous, called for a poor shooting player on offense and for a shit defender on the other end.

I do credit Kuester for running an effective offense over all, despite the fact that when it came to running plays, he was garbage. But the way he ran that team, the way he mismanaged its personalities, and the way things exploded in his face were not entirely Joe Dumars’ fault.

by Mike Payne on Feb 19, 2012 10:19 PM EST up reply actions  

So far so good

I think we have to be pleased thus far with Frank. Only time will tell if he can take this team to a high level given sufficient talent. What I like most is how he’s using the players and trying to keep as consistent a rotation as possible. He’s tinkered with it some, and seems to have found a line-up and substitution pattern that makes the best of what we have. I’m glad Knight is getting to play a lot, because we needed to give him a chance to develop.

What irked me the most about Coach Q was starting Daye at power forward when Jonas went down. That made even less sense then playing Prince there for “small ball.” There was no way Daye was equipped for that position as a starter.

by revken on Feb 19, 2012 9:40 PM EST reply actions  

poopz

rec’d for "By most “expert” accounts these coaches didn’t create cohesion and lacked a high basketball acumen."

ICWUDT!!

by Mike Payne on Feb 19, 2012 10:26 PM EST reply actions  

and re: Frank

I’m on board with your sentiment buddy. So far, I’ve had nothing to really complain about. And we all know how I looooove to complain.

by Mike Payne on Feb 19, 2012 10:28 PM EST up reply actions  

I had to really.

I think I’m gonna make “What Would Hubie Brown Do” bracelets.

by madpoopz on Feb 19, 2012 11:10 PM EST up reply actions  

BUT

Hubie Brown wouldn’t do that. His fashion sense is as elite as his coaching.

by TDP on Feb 20, 2012 10:39 PM EST up reply actions  

if you're going to do that...

just make sure you make a high percentage of them.

I could give a flying fuck whether you follow me or not on Twitter.

by V. on Feb 21, 2012 7:59 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

The only thing I fault Kuester for is mismanging personalities. I don’t agree with all of his rotation decisions, but I also don’t fault him for throwing shit against the wall to see if anything would stick. He had a crappy group of players, and he tried everything he could to get wins. I could imagine him doing the opposite, i.e., starting the same guys for 82 games, and taking just as much heat for it. E.g., “JKIAFI. Anyone can see that the starting lineup he’s using isn’t working. Why doesn’t he change anything!?!?!”

He was doomed to failure from day one. He could have done everything perfectly, and he’d still have been out of a job, IMHO.

W/r/t Frank, I think it’s sort of obvious who should be playing where, and he’s doing that right, mostly. So yeah, he’s not FUBAR’ing the rotation, but OTOH, it’s not all that hard to get it right either. I have two minor critiques. First, I think Tayshaun plays too much, and I think they run too much for him. I’d reduce both. Second, Macklin deserves to get an extended look. Perhaps this will happen during the last 10 games or so when Playoffs are clearly out of the question. That wouldn’t surprise me. Especially now that Ben Wallace has hit his big milestone, I want some Vernon.

One other thing. I think it’s sort of ballsy to start Stuckey and Knight over Gordon. In my eyes, BG is clearly a bench player, but he’s certainly not so in Dumars’ eyes. I think it takes some stones to use him in the role he’s suited for, regardless of the fact that he’s the highest paid player on the team.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Feb 21, 2012 10:38 AM EST reply actions  

I can agree with this statement to a degree.
I don’t agree with all of his rotation decisions, but I also don’t fault him for throwing shit against the wall to see if anything would stick.

Yes, messing with lineups can be a positive. Kuester however would only ever turn it into a negative by overdoing it. Playing Daye at PF isn’t tinkering with a lineup, it’s making a dumbass decision. But if he had done it at the end of a blow out to see how it worked, than I wouldn’t care at all because then it is tinkering. However, playing that lineup for games at a time goes beyond tinkering. It’s one thing to tinker, it’s another to just be a fucking idiot with it.

He was doomed to failure from day one. He could have done everything perfectly, and he’d still have been out of a job,

Yes, but I think we’re objective enough around here to not hold it against him.

Just in regards to your paragraphs on Frank, I agree (and probably everybody does) agree about Tayshaun. However, how do you work out less minutes for Tay? His backup(s) play worse than he does. Daye is best suited right now in a 3pt lineup and Wilkins is too spotty to take anymore minutes away from him. But still, Frank could at least give him less plays.

I’ve been hoping to see more of Macklin for awhile now. And hope for the reasons you stated that we can see more of him. If he can be an energy rebounding big than trading Maxiell is more palatable from a roster standpoint. Especially since Macklin is cheaper.

by madpoopz on Feb 21, 2012 11:01 AM EST up reply actions  

I have very vivid memories of very vocal Pistons fans question pretty much everything Kuester did during game threads. “Why is Maxiell on the floor? Why is Stuckey guarding so-and-so? Why another isolation? Why is Rip on the bench? Why why why???” I do agree that he was doomed to fail, though, and put in a pretty crappy position. He certainly didn’t make it easier on himself, though.

by garrettelliott on Feb 21, 2012 1:09 PM EST up reply actions  

I think it was a snowball effect with Kuester, to be honest, especially in DBB game threads. I also think some of his in-game decisions look worse in hindsight because they didn’t work. Kuester draws up a good play that gets Ben Gordon the ball in a good scoring position, but the team sniffs it out and doubles him, and BG dribbles it off his foot, for example.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Feb 21, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions  

You won’t find me defending Austin Daye at PF. Situationally, it may not be a bad move, but as a full-time start it’s obviously silly.

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Feb 21, 2012 1:22 PM EST up reply actions  

Pretty sure I defended it at the time, and still think it was worth a try. Daye rebounded surprisingly well in college and was an excellent shot blocker. I can understand giving him an extended look at PF based off those two factors to see how he would fare. Obviously the experiment didn’t work, but it wasn’t a dumb move IME.

by Gabe F-B on Feb 21, 2012 9:13 PM EST up reply actions  

Obviously the experiment didn’t work, but it wasn’t a dumb move IME.

Putting a contact-shy beanpole at power forward was easy to predict as a bad move. Sure, he rebounded well on the wing in college, but does that justify placing him up against starter NBA bigs on opening night?

I give Kuester credit for trying Daye out at shooting guard, but was on the record before it happened that Daye at the 4 was absolutely a dumb idea.

by Mike Payne on Feb 21, 2012 10:37 PM EST up reply actions  

I don’t remember if I was on record as saying anything about the move at the time, but in hindsight I think Kuester’s biggest mistake was pulling the plug on his somewhat crazy experiment:

In Daye’s last 5 games at the 4, he had a DRTG of 110 and an ORTG of 148. He was averaging 12.4 points (on 22-for-33 shooting) and almost 5 rebounds in about 22 minutes per game. Looking back, it doesn’t appear Daye did anything to warrant losing his starting job. Unless I’m missing something here.

by Packey on Feb 22, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions  

In Daye’s last 5 games at the 4, he had a DRTG of 110 and an ORTG of 148.

Source? Not sure how to pull ratings from stretches of games based on position.

Looking back, it doesn’t appear Daye did anything to warrant losing his starting job.

Daye’s offense at the four wasn’t the problem. It was a complete inability to rebound or defend. He was alright when his matchup was Ryan Gomes or Vlad Radmanovich, but then he’d get his ass glassed by Lamar Odom, Josh Smith, Kevin Garnett and LaMarcus Aldridge, all people he started against. It was not pretty…

by Mike Payne on Feb 22, 2012 1:03 PM EST up reply actions  

Basketball Reference >> Game Log >> Advanced Game Log. I just added up individual game ratings from his last 5 starts (all at the 4) and averaged them out.

All I’m saying is that he was a net positive in each of his last five starts, by a lot, so Kuester’s biggest mistake (after the initial mistake) may have been cutting the experiment short.

by Packey on Feb 22, 2012 2:30 PM EST up reply actions  

All I’m saying is that he was a net positive in each of his last five starts

I wouldn’t put much value in that, if at all. Like +/-, those numbers usually don’t become effective until you’ve got a pretty long sample.

If you look at the individual box scores, those o/d ratings don’t make any sense. That stand-out, 187-104 o/d performance? LaMarcus Aldridge was his man that night, and Aldridge grabbed 17 rebounds— his second best performance on the glass last season. Daye shot extremely well, with all but one of his baskets coming from the perimeter or the charity stripe.

His other two o/d rating games were against Vladimir Radmanovich and a hobbled David Lee, respectively. But if you look at the spike in O-rating, it had a lot to do with his lights-out three point shooting. The high TS numbers in those games, driven mostly by three point shooting, drove up the O ratings. That’s not, however, indicative of being a good power forward.

by Mike Payne on Feb 22, 2012 5:12 PM EST up reply actions  

I always thought o/d ratings were much better than +/- because it focuses more on the individual. That, to me, helps explain why Daye had a net positive in o/d rating and a minus-15 in the +/- department.

Looking at the individual box score for that Blazers game, the o/d rating makes sense to me, even if it does have a lot to do with Daye’s hot, unsustainable shooting. Aldridge only scored 4 more points than Daye on 14 extra shot attempts.

That said, I’m not trying to argue Daye was/is a good power forward. My intention was to pile on Kuester — not only did he put Daye in that position in the first place, but he pulled him from the rotation entirely after five of his better games as a PIston. I just looked at his game log on Yahoo and it shows that after start No. 9 he got a DNP-CD and then 2 more after his 11th start. Whether it’s at the 4 or the 2 or wherever, I don’t see how a coach can take a guy who is shooting 67-percent over a five-game span and then chain him to the bench.

by Packey on Feb 22, 2012 7:25 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, Q had a few times when players went directly from starting to DNP-CD without any explanation. That was really messed up.

My federal building is way cooler than your federal building.

by bugman222 on Feb 22, 2012 7:47 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Maybe.

I honestly don’t recall. If I did, I probably said something like Gabe said. Or maybe I was just glad he was getting extended minutes. ???

"With logic he attacks. With statistics he defends."

@brgulker

by brgulker on Feb 22, 2012 10:59 AM EST up reply actions  


User Tools

A Detroit Pistons blog with completely fair and unbiased opinions of 29 of the Association's 30 teams. Read up and share what's on your mind.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Swedish_chef_small
Draft Day Dreams - Kyle O'Quinn Norfolk State (2nd Round, Houston Pick)
2ur2zk7_small
We Already Are The Next Indiana Pacers, As Long As We Don't Screw It Up

Recent FanPosts

Small
Move outta way JoD - My mock season
Small
OT Thread - More Diablo than Heat?
Small
Pistons' Kyle Singler helping out Real Madrid overseas
Small
Well it is draft time!
Onions_fom_chile_stocks_small
Pistons-Pacers Recap: Where no one really gave a crap
Img_0538_small
Fantasy Basketball Conundrum
Small
Wolves at Pistons: The Vernon Macklin experiment continues
Small
Draft Day Nightmares

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Screen_shot_2012-01-22_at_2 Packey

Mattw-h_small Matt Watson

Featured Contributors

Largelogo_gurk_small brgulker

Darko_milicic_small Sean_Corp