Are you after KT's job?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
1. I fail to see how its an ironclad universal precedent.It would also have set the precedent that, under sufficient pressure from members, the club is happy to flip-flop on any matter, on- or off-field.
PAFC is already all about Facebook Mums and happy clappers and have been for years, thats the precedent thats dangerous and it already happened.That probably feels exciting when you remember BF's push to get Fishing Rick onto the board, but it also means you risk handing the keys to the Facebook Mums and happy clappers.
1. I fail to see how its an ironclad universal precedent.
2. So what if it is.
It feels like we’re already most of the way towards unprecedented mismanagement, except that its taking the form of board non-interference at a point that they absolutely should be stepping in and doing something (eg, piss KT off)"Slippery slope". Either the football department keeps lying down, or it sets up an unproductive and acrimonious spill.
If it's an ironclad, universal precedent, that empowers the board to interfere with team selection in pursuit of short-term commercial goals.
Sack Hinkley and I renew 3 memberships. Simple as that.
BS decisions should be overturned by the board and CEO. That doesn't mean you change every decision because of the facebook crowd - most are bloody happy clappers not road ragers, so that probably says something there.Yes.
Co-captains was a bad decision that our football department should not have made. But, once that mistake was made, the CEO or board directly intervening to appoint a sole captain would have been worse. It would have undermined the authority of the eventual captain, and undermined the coaches, players, or both. As though that group needs any further challenges to cohesion and function.
It would also have set the precedent that, under sufficient pressure from members, the club is happy to flip-flop on any matter, on- or off-field. That probably feels exciting when you remember BF's push to get Fishing Rick onto the board, but it also means you risk handing the keys to the Facebook Mums and happy clappers.
But once the analysis was done - how do you fit it around the players you have and who do you go and recruit?Lacob wasn’t the only team owner in sports to delve into statistics — baseball has been doing it for years — and the Warriors weren’t the first NBA team to see the potential of the three-pointer. Starting in the 1990s, a string of teams with brutally effective defences had prompted teams like the Phoenix Suns and San Antonio Spurs to search for different ways to score, and that meant shooting more three-pointers. More recently, as the data improved, it became clear that teams weren’t taking nearly enough of them.
The difference between the Warriors and everyone else was what the team decided to do with this information.
For many years after James Naismith invented basketball in 1891, the prevailing view was that the most important area of the court was near the basket. From Wilt Chamberlain’s finger-rolls in the 1960s to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s sky hooks in the 1970s to Jordan’s soaring dunks in the 1990s, the NBA was the dominion of players who owned the rim.
But as they built the team from the analysis the tech milionaires reckon they have to sack the coach to find one that can take advantage of their game plan and get the players to implement it - ie a guy who shot a lot of 3 pointers.When the Warriors, under their previous owners, drafted Curry in 2009, he wasn’t a prototypical NBA superstar. Though his father, Dell, had played in the NBA, Stephen Curry was so lightly recruited out of high school that he had attended tiny Davidson College near his hometown of Charlotte, North Carolina. He only emerged as a tantalising NBA prospect after his team made an improbable run to the regional finals of the 2008 NCAA tournament.
Even after his first two seasons with Golden State, Curry wasn’t a sure thing. Still, as the team’s new executives settled on their plan to exploit the three-point line, they became convinced Curry would be their centrepiece.
And they keep recruiting and playing 3 point shootersBy the time the 2014-15 season began, the Warriors had padded their roster with Australian Andrew Bogut, a 213cm (7ft) centre who protects the rim and shores up their defence; the position-defying Draymond Green, the steal of the 2012 draft; and rangy guards Andre Iguodala and Shaun Livingston, whom they acquired in free agency. “They complemented shooting, even though they’re not shooters,” Myers said.
The Warriors then had a chance to trade for one of the league’s premier players, Minnesota Timberwolves forward Kevin Love. The move would have been a no-brainer for most basketball people. But the Timberwolves wanted a player in return whose departure would have scuttled the Warriors’ master plan. “They kept asking for Klay, and we kept saying no,” Lacob said. “We weren’t going to trade Klay, and they weren’t going to do a deal without Klay.”
The team doubled down on its three-point plan by replacing coach Mark Jackson with Steve Kerr, a member of five NBA championship teams who had retired with a 45.4 per cent shooting rate on three-pointers, the highest in league history. It was his first NBA coaching job.
Looking like 10 people so far happy with that.
But how could the Port Club do it without arousing suspicion...It's a way to wipe out 10 trouble makers in one hit.
It's a way to wipe out 10 trouble makers in one hit.
Fair thee well fellow non-believers.It's a way to wipe out 10 trouble makers in one hit.
Or it’s a way to let people voice their concerns in a face to face manner and articulate genuine care or concern.
It’s easy to sit here and type away Hinkley is s**t, it’s another thing to invest ones own time to articulate Hinkley is shot
Driving to Alberton to tell Ben and Matt in person that Hinkley is s**t will have exactly the same effect as posting it here. They: 1) already know and 2) can't do anything about it.Or it’s a way to let people voice their concerns in a face to face manner and articulate genuine care or concern.
It’s easy to sit here and type away Hinkley is s**t, it’s another thing to invest ones own time to articulate Hinkley is shot
Who is stupid enough to do that?Driving to Alberton to tell Ben and Matt in person that Hinkley is s**t will have exactly the same effect as posting it here. They: 1) already know and 2) can't do anything about it.
Looking like 10 people so far happy with that.
BigFooty only, need to provide your username and post count at the door to get in.Fishing Rick, can non Big Footy people attend or is it exclusively for BF posters?
People pleasing 101 - you try to please everyone and you will please no oneThe way I heard the process of deciding on the co-captain issue is somewhat different than the football department being too involved as stated / presumed. Six months before Boak resigned as captain, I was told in confidence that he was prepared to resign the captaincy in order for Wines to re-sign his contract during 2018 and as a carrot, the captaincy offer was used to gain the signature which was supported by the coach. When the time came, unnamed people did not consider Wines quite ready for the role, and suggested a co-captaincy arrangement. I was told the team selected the other. Both were then approved by the football department. One captain was wanted by the coach, the other wanted by the players. The club sent out feelers re co-captains but had no intention of listening to members because the promise and decision had already been made, even prior to a skiing accident.
The club has never explained in any detail exactly how having co-captains could increase the chance of more wins or playing finals, winning a premiership. They just said it would in the hope of silencing the members and supporters due to the very unpopular decision. If a statement is made but then not qualified, I question the statement. For me, so be it is not quite good enough.
.
BS decisions should be overturned by the board and CEO.
I'm sick of failure. I want our leader to do what Joe Lacob, get the board to be a brains trust and go and solve our problems
What about the like to post ratio?BigFooty only, need to provide your username and post count at the door to get in.
If they were prepared to appoint co-captains then why not appoint co-coaches, co-ceos co-chairmans. Where is the data to say that shouldn't be tried?I'm very much in favour of data-driven decision making, and I'm familiar with the power of analytics in sport.
Assuming we could construct a footy brains trust, and operate it outside of the football department soft cap, what data would they refer to when reviewing proposals like a co-captaincy model? There's no historical precedent.
You have to reliably forecast the effect of retiring the number 1 guernsey on fan engagement and memberships (probably over multiple years). The impact (good or bad) of co-captains on the playing group. The expected blowback if you overrule an already professionally delinquent coach. The impact that loss of agency (real or perceived) may have on a playing group already subject to the toxicity of an environment that, for instance, conflates "young and talented" with "lazy or bad for the group". Above all, how does the net effect translate into wins and losses?
If you can't measure these things, a decision overruled by the board is no more data-driven than the co-captains catastrophe we arrived at in the first place.
As are we all. The sooner we replace our leader (be that coach or chairman) with somebody not pathologically afraid of anyone smarter than them, the better.
The thought of two Kens and two Kochies makes me shudder.If they were prepared to appoint co-captains then why not appoint co-coaches, co-ceos co-chairmans. Where is the data to say that shouldn't be tried?
In a data driven environment you would measure all seasons from all teams with co-captains results against all teams with single captains.I'm very much in favour of data-driven decision making, and I'm familiar with the power of analytics in sport.
Assuming we could construct a footy brains trust, and operate it outside of the football department soft cap, what data would they refer to when reviewing proposals like a co-captaincy model? There's no historical precedent.
You have to reliably forecast the effect of retiring the number 1 guernsey on fan engagement and memberships (probably over multiple years). The impact (good or bad) of co-captains on the playing group. The expected blowback if you overrule an already professionally delinquent coach. The impact that loss of agency (real or perceived) may have on a playing group already subject to the toxicity of an environment that, for instance, conflates "young and talented" with "lazy or bad for the group". Above all, how does the net effect translate into wins and losses?
If you can't measure these things, a decision overruled by the board is no more data-driven than the co-captains catastrophe we arrived at in the first place.
As are we all. The sooner we replace our leader (be that coach or chairman) with somebody not pathologically afraid of anyone smarter than them, the better.
YesFishing Rick, can non Big Footy people attend or is it exclusively for BF posters?