The ultimate litmus test for Mike Woodson
Through 5 seasons, it's still tough to get a good grasp for what Mike Woodson is as a head coach. On the one hand, the team's record has improved every year he's been a head coach, but on the other hand, when you start off with a 13 win season, it's tough not to improve. And then again, you can't hold the 13 win season against him because that team had literally nothing-you can make the case that Tyronn Lue was the best player on the 2004-2005 Hawks.
You can also disparage his player development, but it's not as though Josh Smith and Marvin Williams haven't improved while they've been in the league. Additionally, the players that the Hawks have severed ties with haven't lit the world on fire since leaving. And Woodson has also done a great job of stating goals and then reaching those goals. In 2007-2008, the goal was to reach the playoffs, and the Hawks squeaked in and played in one of the most lopsided 7 games series ever. In 2008-09, the goal was to approach 50 wins and take home court in the first round. The Hawks did that, used home court to their advantage in winning their first round series (even winning a playoff road game, which I felt was a doubtful proposition) before being predictably squashed by Cleveland.
Even looking at last season, there's a lot of mixed data. All in all, the season was a success, but you still have Josh Smith continuing in his refusal to recognize what makes him a good player by attempting to do things that he can't. Marvin Williams went from below average to legitimate league starter, but he remains under/mis-utilized. Zaza Pachulia had a tough time earning minutes despite being among the best rebounders in the NBA (especially on the offensive end). And then there's Maurice Evans, who was billed as a decent defensive 2 guard with a solid jumpshot, but for us he was a very poor defensive 3 who was constantly the last offensive option on the floor (let's not even acknowledge that he played about 9% of his minutes at PF last season alsol...yeah). And so the Hawks remain a very average defensive team in spite of a coach who talks about nothing but good defense.
But then there's Flip Murray. A Peachtree Hoops favorite, he had a career year in every meaningful way last year. Woodson experimented with using him as the back-up PG, but then he actually recognized it wasn't working and he limited Flip's offensive role to scoring. His overall management of RFM was nearly flawless. Woodson even did things, on occasion, that I didn't think he was capable of, like recognizing when Flip was having a bad shooting night and pulling him early, and riding his hot streaks when he was hot Flip. And most tellingly, Flip became a plus defensive player last year for us.
Through most of his first several seasons, Flip Murray was a below average defensive player. He was certainly capable of playing defense, as he's proven at times, but he was never committed to it. So here's some numbers.
| Team/Year | Defensive Efficiency ON | Defensive Efficiency OFF |
| Seattle 2003-04 | 110.8 | 109.6 |
| Seattle 2004-05 | 113.9 | 109.4 |
| Seattle 2005-06 | 114.7 | 115.8 |
| Cleveland 2005-06 | 104.7 | 107.4 |
| Detroit 2006-07 | 105.2 | 104.8 |
| Atlanta 2008-09 | 106.4 | 110.3 |
Stats courtesy of 82games.com.
I left off the 2007-08 season in which he played not a lot of minutes for two different teams (mostly because I was too lazy to do any more columns). As you can see, he was actually a detriment to Seattle's defense in his first pair of full seasons, most especially in 2004-05. The following season, he was actually a good defensive player for both Seattle and Cleveland-in Cleveland, he posted a net defensive efficiency of -2.7, which is pretty good. But the following season for Detroit, he was mostly neutral.
Then there's last season with the Hawks. He was -5.9 in net defensive efficiency, which is extremely significant. It can't be ignored that he spent a significant about of time substituting for Mike Bibby, who was simply atrocious defensively. But he also played nearly half his minutes alongside Bibby, which would help to skew his numbers the other way. Even considering that, it's another feather for Mike Woodson's cap. There's a career defensive year for a veteran player who's been with a lot of different teams.
Which brings us to Jamal Crawford. The comparisons between Flip circia 2008-09 and Jamal Crawford have already been made. But defensively, my initial thought was that Flip was a superior defensive player to Jamal Crawford, who's been disinterested in defense for a long time. But there's evidence that, in his past, he's at least been capable of playing defense. Here's another nice, shiny table:
| Team/Year | Defensive Efficiency ON | Defensive Efficiency OFF |
| Chicago 2002-03 | 97.4 | 103.4 |
| Chicago 2003-04 | 105.8 | 106.4 |
| New York 2004-05 | 111.6 | 107.3 |
| New York 2005-06 | 112.9 | 111.0 |
| New York 2006-07 | 111.2 | 107.9 |
| New York 2007-08 | 113.4 | 112.4 |
| Golden State 2008-09 | 117.1 | 110.9 |
Stats again courtesy of 82games.com.
As you can see, when he played for the Bulls, he was actually a solid defensive player. He was uneven in his time with the Knicks, having some years that were bad, and some that were not so bad. Then, last season for Golden State, he was atrocious. You could try to blame in on playing for a coach who doesn't care about defense at all, but the fact is that they gave up far fewer points per 100 possessions when Jamal Crawford was out of the game. In short, he simply didn't play defense at all.
This is Woodson's litmus test. Jamal Crawford is certainly capable of being a good-or at least average-defensive player. That is, he has been in his past, and he's certainly not at the point where guards begin to lose their first step quickness and become less effective. Flip Murray had a season that was an outlier in so many respects that Mike Woodson can't begin to take credit for it, but he might be able to take credit for the defensive improvement we saw in RFM. If we see the same kind of defensive improvement from Jamal Crawford this season, he will likely provide more value than the man he's essentially replacing (albeit, at much greater cost). And I'll be forced to acknowledge that Mike Woodson does at least one thing well.
0 recs |
19 comments
|
Comments
???
Great points . However,please can you provide stats to prove that Woodsen does not develop GOOD players? I keep hearing it on this blog. I would love to see the stats of Marvin and Josh from year 1 to dated and also Joe and Zaza before he came to Atl vs now.
Acie and Salim did not exactly or will not exactly light up the league after they leave or left the team so what exactly is the evidence to prove that Woodsen does not develop GOOD players. The only guy to leave Atlanta and become a better player was Diaw and you can say it was the Nash effect (playing with a very good PG makes the other players better). Besides as we can see based on his contract , it turns out he was overpaid.
What do you want him to do? Develop players with average or below average ceiling at the expense of the team?
by dkrib on Jul 16, 2009 3:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We've had a lot of first round picks
over the past several years, and we’re not getting a ton of mileage out of them.
Boris Diaw is one great example of how a guy was square-pegged as a PG, was horrible, and was shipped out because the team didn’t think he’d be anything if he wasn’t a PG. Since then he’s had success in both Phoenix and Charlotte as a point forward.
But the biggest problem with Woodson isn’t that people have left and had success, it’s the people we haven’t had a chance to see develop under any other coach. Marvin Williams could very well be a useful player if he weren’t the 4th/5th option a lot of the time he’s on the floor (with the pecking order being JJ isolation, Bibby spot-up three, Josh Smith catch and shoot, then whatever’s left for Marvin and Horford). We’ve seen Marvin Williams take over 2 games in which JJ was injured and he attempted 34 free throws in just two games, and put up 42 points in those two games without shooting particularly well by his standards. When JJ is the game, Marvin Williams is an afterthought.
The other big problem is Josh Smith, who continues to play and act like a 14 year old. He doesn’t rebound as well as he should with his strength and athletic ability because he doesn’t stay in the paint. He also fails to play in the paint, even though he’s very effective as an interior player. He continues to see himself as a perimeter oriented PF like he’s Rashard Lewis or Charlie V when he’s at his best in the paint.
There aren’t any good stats for comparison because these guys, along with Childress and Horford, have never played in the NBA under any other head coach. Childress perhaps arrived as a fully developed player, but we never got the chance to see him play for another NBA coach, so there’s no telling if he had any growing as a player to do or not. And with Horford, a lot of people see 20/10 potential in him, but he, like Marvin, is very underutilized, and his treatment when he earns 2 or 5 fouls most games seems to suggest he’s never going to be allowed to deal with foul trouble.
by Bronn on Jul 16, 2009 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I realize my writing style in this comment looks butcherish, but I meant to sound extremely redundant and repetitive because we’ve talked about and seen this stuff time and time again.
by Bronn on Jul 16, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem is
that effort, not skills, are the problem for 80% of NBA players who aren’t good on defense. Defending takes away energy from your offensive game.
An interesting thought experiment might be to identify players who were not good on defense but improved at some point in their careers. Who can we think of, and what variable enabled/motivated them to improve?
by rbubp on Jul 17, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree with your first paragraph
I just think that coaches set the tone that defines what a team’s defensive effort is. It’s obvious that no one in Golden State really cares about playing defense under Don Nelson, they just want the ball back so they can score sooner. The team reflects the coach in that regard.
In 2002-03, the Detroit Pistons had a defensive rating of 99.9 (that’s 99.9 points per 100 possessions) while being out rebounded. The following year under HC Larry Brown, they posted a defensive rating of 95.4, and grabbed 200 more rebounds than their opponents. Aside from shipping out Clifford Brown, they had virtually the same players.
Let’s be honest, NBA coaches aren’t teaching fundamentals-they aren’t going through teaching guys to dribble, or what a good defensive posture is, or how to pass effectively. Occasionally you might take a guy with poor shooting fundamentals and attempt to rebuild his jumpshot (someone like Joakim Noah), but that almost always negatively impacts a guy. Their purpose is to manage who’s playing the minutes, set up a few plays, and make sure players are giving their best efforts.
by Bronn on Jul 18, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will be interesting to see what Crawford does on defense, because I really don’t think he is bad because of lack of ability. Effort is the problem, and I wonder how the other players will respond if someone on the team blatantly mails it in for half his time on the court.
I’ve always thought that allot of issues like that are policed by other players. But I think that does or doesn’t happen based on the environment the coach creates.
by thirdfALCON on Jul 16, 2009 3:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Woody continues his strategy of always switching no matter how bad the match ups created and taking players out of the game in the first half if they get 2 fouls, it won’t matter if he slightly improves Crawford’s defense. The Hawks’ team defense will still suck.
by redwards95 on Jul 16, 2009 6:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
??
Okay Bronn. Lets look at the stats of players that have played with other coaches( since we cannot judge Josh and Marvin). Joe, Flip and Bibby have played their best basketball under Woodsen so your argument does not hold.
I WOULD LOVE FOR SOMEONE TO PROVE TO ME THAT WOODSON DOES NOT DEVELOP PLAYERS WITH ACTUAL STATS NOT JUST OPINION.
by dkrib on Jul 17, 2009 10:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's certainly not true for Bibby.
Come on, at least be rational.
by rbubp on Jul 17, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One could also argue that JJ’s best season was actually his last season in Phoenix, and since then he’s just been shooting more. That’s probably not true, as he’s having to do a lot more and he’s having to do a lot more in Atlanta his partial season in 2006-07 was overall outstanding…but his 47.8% from 3 in Phoenix is a number he’ll never touch again, for certain.
by Bronn on Jul 18, 2009 1:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good D
Hawks can play really good D, especially at home. I watch every Hawks game with the exception of maybe 3 last year and it is for certain that the Hawks must improve on the road. I must be missing something because the Hawks have not done a single thing to really improve defensively over the off-season. I guess there so caught up trying to work something out with that guy that they wasted the #2 pick on that they are forgetting that there are other free-agents out there. Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, or New Jersey is gonna jump over the Hawks for the 4th spot if this complacency continues.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jul 19, 2009 3:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And the poor dead horse continues to take a beating...
(sigh)
I have six locks on my door all in a row. When I go out, I only lock every other one. I figure no matter how long somebody stands there picking the locks, they are always locking three.
Elayne Boosler
by NaGaNole on Jul 20, 2009 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most teams in the NBA play a lot worse on the road than at home.
by redwards95 on Jul 20, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
P.S. Mike Woodson
Has nothing to do with the Hawks not getting any defensive help this off-season. I guess Sund wants the Hawks to look like the Ray Allan, Rashard Lewis Sonics rather than the Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp Sonics.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jul 20, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just fire his ass and we don’t have to keep rehashing this tired idea.
by Dammit JIm on Jul 20, 2009 5:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Can you imagine what a motivator
Like Doug Collins could do for these Hawks? Collins is known for squeezing out 50 wins on a team that has no business doing so. I think Atlanta should be looking for any excuse to fire Woodson (possibly plant some Boston Celtics jerseys in his office?). A good motivating coach may be exactly what the young guys need.
Greetings from a Detroit Fan :D
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 21, 2009 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Possible
It’s possible that Sund is trying to bury Woodson with his lack of moves. Look at Orlando and Toronto. I don’t understand what Detroit is doing as far as defense either, but New Jersey could be a sleeper team to make the playoffs this year. I like the look of Devin Harris and Courtney Lee in the backcourt.
by Hawks-Semi Fan on Jul 21, 2009 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that might be true.
The teams is all Woody’s; if you ever wanted to make a case on the merits or demerits of a coach, this is the way to do it, because there has been no interference from the GM and the off-season has followed Woody’s request to “bring everyone back.”
Sounds like a good way to make a case against renewing the coach even if he has another winning team—if they get hammered in the playoffs again or do not progress, Woody’s out.
by rbubp on Jul 22, 2009 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not getting a contract extension
after a 10 game improvement and home court in the playoffs is not a good sign if you are coach.
by hawksdawgs on Jul 22, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs














