↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Maurice Cheeks’ terrifying thoughts on corner 3s

E. James Beale of Philadelphia City Paper in 2008:

In a recent game against the Orlando Magic, the team fell behind twice in the last minute, both times on a short three-pointer from the left corner. Afterward, Cheeks explained that this had been the strategy: Thaddeus Young (the player covering the shooter) was supposed to help out on penetration. The corner three is "the hardest shot in the game," Cheeks explained, apparently unaware that the Magic, as a team, shoot 40 percent from that spot — a better percentage than from almost anywhere else beyond the arc.

Yikes.

The NBA breaks down shots into five zones: restricted area, paint non-restricted area, mid-range, corner 3s and above-the-break 3s. This season, here’s how many points were scored per shot from each zone

  • Restricted area: 1.15
  • Corner 3s: 1.15
  • Above-the-break 3s: 1.09
  • Mid-range: 0.79
  • Paint non-restricted area: 0.77

I could see an argument that the above list overrates corner 3s, because those shots are unlikely to draw fouls and the kickouts that lead to them can became turnovers with the ball already headed the opposite direction and tailor-made for a fastbreak. But it would be very difficult to build a compelling case corner 3s, essentially tied with shots at the rim for most points per attempt (increase the decimal, and restricted area has a slight lead), are “the hardest shot in the game.”

All our best evidence says corner 3s are one of the best shots in the game.

Look, 2008 was a different time. I certainly didn’t know then how valuable corner 3s were – though I wasn’t coaching an NBA team, either – but statistics have become more widely understood in the NBA since. It’s very possible, maybe even bordering on probable, Cheeks has a better understanding of shot value now.

But has he merely caught up while other coaches advanced their understanding of the game even further? Or has he narrowed, eliminated or even reversed the gap?

That will be up to Cheeks to prove this season.

Update: I probably left my point too understated, and the forest has gotten lost in the trees. I don’t care about this specific game against Orlando. I don’t even care are about corner 3s, per se.

But Cheeks calling corner 3s “the hardest shot in the game” of basketball indicates a potentially bigger problem. Corner 3s being valuable is one of the most basic lessons of the stats-based analysis that has swept the NBA in the league’s recent history, and if Cheeks doesn’t know that lesson, what else doesn’t he know? A failure to understand these numbers would leave Cheeks at a significant disadvantage.

Again, hopefully he’s learned since his last season as head coach, when this Magic game occurred, but the burden is on him to prove this story isn’t emblematic of a bigger issue.

56 Comments

  • Jun 11, 20131:48 pm
    by mike

    Reply

    Maybe he meant the corner 3 is the hardest shot in the game…to defend.

    Because, like you said its the closest of all the 3 pointers, plus its usually the shot most teams choose to leave open, placing the most emphasis on guarding the paint and the top of the key (where most offense is initiated)

    So its that corner 3 that usually gets left open, because you are so worried about the other areas, that you can’t guard everything and it often results in defenders having to sprint out to the corner at the last second to try and contest an open 3. Hence calling it the hardest to defend.

    Not that I agree with that logic, but just saying that could be what he meant.

    • Jun 11, 20131:52 pm
      by G

      Reply

      It’s pretty clear that’s not what he meant. He told Thad Young to leave the corner open because it’s a hard shot to make, not because it’s a hard shot to defend.

      For the record, it’s not that hard to defend either. Sure, it stretches the defense, but if the defender is playing the shot instead of sagging inside, the shooter doesn’t have much room to work with.

      • Jun 11, 20133:51 pm
        by mike

        Reply

        How is it pretty clear what he meant? We’re debating an article from 5 yrs ago, where the only actual quote from Cheeks in the whole article is literally “hardest shot in the game”. That could mean anything, and sounds like it was taken out of context when the article was originally written by whoever/whatever is E James Beale at citypaper.net. Sounds real credble…lol

        Honestly, where did Dan dig up this nonsense? 

        I’m not defending Cheeks, I just rather not criticize him for saying “hardest shot in the game”, as I have no clue what they were actually talking about, just from that quote. 

        • Jun 11, 20133:58 pm
          by mike

          Reply

          Really, he might not be great coach, but I’m pretty sure he knows which shots are considered hardest/easiest, considering he was an all-star PG and NBA Champion. So I’ll just assume this quote was taken out of context by whoever that author is at the time, and misconstrued so he’d have something to write about on his blog.

          • Jun 12, 201312:41 pm
            by G

            It’s possible that it was taken out of context, but judging from what I know & can put together, he meant exactly what it says and was of the impression that the corner three is the toughest shot in the game.

  • Jun 11, 20131:48 pm
    by G

    Reply

    I always thought the corner shot was tough because the backboard doesn’t provide the depth perception. Now it’s common knowledge that it’s a very efficient shot to take & spreads the defense, so players practice them a lot more.

    The 3 wasn’t as much a weapon in Cheeks’ playing days, and you NEVER saw guys setting up in the corner like you do now. I can give him a pass for his misconception of the corner three, since it was 2008 & people didn’t love the shot like they do now. What I CAN’T excuse is Cheeks not being aware of his opponent’s strengths and weaknesses. At that point he’d been coaching 7 years and he still didn’t know how to game plan? Yeesh.

    • Jun 11, 20132:11 pm
      by Huddy

      Reply

      I think it is less about not knowing an opponent’s strengths and more about making a decision about which one to focus on during a given game.  I don’t think the point was that corner 3s are irrelevant, it seems more likely Cheeks chose to focus on stopping restricted area points, which means helping out on Howard, instead of allowing the ball inside and stopping the 3.  Its a pick your poison situation and a lot of teams were picking the 3 and doubling up on Howard in Orlando, which is probably the reason for the 3 pt success that team had during its run with Howard.  Allowing the ball inside means high percentage shots, safer (IMO easier for a player like Dwight) offensive rebounds, and higher chance of and-1s.  Allowing Orlando to shoot 3s meant taking the ball out of the star player’s hands and making the rest of the team beat you, which isn’t a bad strategy.  In this single game example I can’t specifically say it was that absolute best choice, but a short piece of an interview from a game 5 years ago with two lines of copy to explain the situation…not even sure what the point of digging this up is.

      • Jun 11, 20133:01 pm
        by GEORGIO

        Reply

        You need look no further than the article’s writer to know what the point was, same old same old

      • Jun 11, 20133:08 pm
        by G

        Reply

        The problem with that point of view is the actual quote. Cheeks justifies helping off the corner 3 by saying it’s “the hardest shot in the game”. Since it was actually Orlando’s BEST shot, he based his strategy off a faulty premise. Also, Thad Young wasn’t sagging in to double Howard (according to the article), he was supposed to help defend dribble penetration, which would’ve been either Jameer Nelson or Hedo Turkoglu. Having Thad Young leave Rashard Lewis alone in the corner was DUMB.

        The point of digging this up is it’s an example of what Cheeks provides as a HC. Why do we have to go back so far? Because this is one of the more recent examples of Cheeks’ performance in a HC role.

        • Jun 11, 20134:01 pm
          by Huddy

          Reply

          It wasn’t their BEST shot it was their best shot behind the arc.  Their BEST fg% wasn’t from the corner 3.  I get we want to know how he performed in past jobs, but this is such a short piece out of context it seems like too much speculation.  Was Nelson or Hedo hot that game justifying collapsing to stem their scoring inside?  Was he having the wing help on D instead of the big man down low so that Dwight wasn’t getting open repeatedly? (I get the article says to stop the drive, but that can mean a number of things are happening). 
           
          “Cheek’s terrifying thoughts on corner 3′s”….come on really the title makes it sound as if Cheeks wrote a book on outlawing the defense of the 3 ball when in reality it is about 2 possessions in a single game of a 500+ game career.  How is it ok to say one game means he is unable to adjust or doesn’t understand his team, but thinking he was a important factor in player development for Russell Westbrook is strictly speculation?  I am optimistic and hope we see something good from the hire, but totally understand that a team in our situation doesn’t draw amazing coaches so I don’t really see the point in nit picking to this extent with the guy.  His most recent work is only able to be speculated on since he wasn’t in charge so we really can’t know that much until we see him in action with the Pistons.

          • Jun 11, 20134:34 pm
            by G

            The three was their 2nd best shot (eFG%-wise) after the dunk. Since the corner three was their best three, I’m guessing it qualified as a “strength”. Additionally, the Magic generated 1.39 points per shot at the rim and 1.48 points per three, so yes, it was their best shot.

            Rashard Lewis and Pietrus were DEADLY from the corner three, and Hedo was pretty good there too.

          • Jun 11, 20134:45 pm
            by G

            Sorry, that’s incorrect. I didn’t realize I was using the eFG% for threes instead of the regular FG%. If they shot 40% from the corner 3, they averaged 1.2 points per shot from there and 1.39 points per shot at the rim. So it was their 2nd best shot.

          • Jun 11, 20136:42 pm
            by Huddy

            Missing a lot of the overall point.  Seems hyped for more than it is.  A short quote from years ago is being stretched in the post to “maybe he’s behind the times” “maybe he caught up in the last few years”…how does this article start with how “terrifying” Cheeks ideas about corner 3s are and end with, “maybe it’s important maube it’s not…guess we’ll find out.”

            even if this one quote was somehow telling of the Mo Cheeks we wwill see in the fall.  I’m more concerned with player development than adjustments against the leagues top teams (Orlando was one at the time) that’s not thr stage we are in.  When our team is clicking enough to make the playoffs we can attract the kind of coach that takes a team over the edge. 

          • Jun 12, 201312:42 pm
            by G

            Right. I’m going back to my original point, which was that whatever he thought about corner threes, he certainly did a terrible job of setting his defense up for the situation.

  • Jun 11, 20131:49 pm
    by patrick the troll

    Reply

     I really wish something else was tied to the espn Pistons team page. I try to read everything Pistons related but you make it very hard. So now your digging five years into the past to find anything at all negative to say? What was your opinion of Joe D five years ago in 07-08 season? There has to be some balance between negative and positive. I’m not one of the people that thinks everything has to be roses and sunshine but it just seems the more and more people are asking for less negativity the more you right negative articles.

    • Jun 11, 20132:03 pm
      by G

      Reply

      Since you’re admittedly a troll I probably should reply, but against my better judgement, here goes…

      The above article is taken from the 2008-’09 Sixers season, not 2007-’08. It’s relevant because that’s the last time Cheeks was a head coach. He was fired 3 days after that article was written. Here are a few relevant points from the article that should concern you about Cheeks’ coaching ability:
      - Failure to identify an opponent’s strengths and weaknesses
      - Failure to identify his OWN TEAM’S strengths and weaknesses
      - Rigidly clung to a system that did not fit his personnel
      - Jerked around the rotation (quickest way to piss players off)
      - Was in his 8th year as HC, way too late to be missing basic stuff like this 

      • Jun 11, 20132:03 pm
        by G

        Reply

        *shouldn’t reply

        • Jun 11, 20133:08 pm
          by danny

          Reply

          Give me the stats to back this up, since its what you always do.  The magic strength was dwight in the center and philly had no bigs that could handle him.  THATS THEIR STRENGTH!  Pulling someone off the wing to double was the strategy.  Stats will show when dwight left they werent as good. 
          Tell me what his teams strengths were, since you know everything tell me G how he was supposed to run philly?  Iggy never played much until he got there and encouraged him tobe more aggressive and then he developed.  Guess thats not knowing your personnel.
           
          Tell me what system he ran that was so awful, all you do here is say what is wrong and how it should of been done a different way.  I want to know what you would of done since you know every stat in the book. 

          • Jun 11, 20133:17 pm
            by G

            Read the fucking article. He wasn’t doubling Dwight, he was sagging in to stop dribble penetration. Philly had Sam Dalembert (who always did a good job on Howard) and Elton Brand. So they had bigs.

            KYP. Elton Brand & Dalembert weren’t runners, yet Cheeks tried to use the same strategy he used the year before. It predictably didn’t work & he got fired. Why do I need stats to prove my point? 

             

          • Jun 11, 20133:33 pm
            by danny

            Do some fucking research instead of looking at things blindly.  Brand played 23 games that season so he was not in the game.  SD usually only can play 27 mins a game and you know sometimes slower bigs get into foul trouble.  His average for 25 mins is 3 fouls a game.  Going head to head against dwight can cause him to get into trouble. You said they werent doubling so that most likely is the case.  So just because they had bigs doesnt mean they were playing or able to play that game.  You assume so fucking much. 
            When someone gets into the paint they dish to dwight or alley oop.  When guards cant stop the penetration the bigs are supposed to step up and stop the ball.  Young was to come off his man and pick up dwight its called defense.  Instead of giving up an open dunk he elected to have them shoot for it. I’d rather risk someone with an open 23 footer than a wide open dunk.

          • Jun 11, 20133:37 pm
            by danny

            http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=howardw01&p2=dalemsa01
            There are you stats for sd vs dh.  Sam plays 23 mins against dwight and averages about 4 fouls a game.  Dwight averaged 19-13 board against him, around his average.  Yeah great job.  There are more to the game than you look into. 
            The many things you over look is when he became coach of the team.  How many of his players were older or hurt.  Star players were traded and had players with huge attitude problems. 

          • Jun 11, 20133:44 pm
            by G

            Check the box score. Brand played 33 minutes and scored 21 pts. He didn’t get injured until February, long after Cheeks was fired.

          • Jun 11, 20133:49 pm
            by G

            You keep saying Thad Young was doubling Dwight. I don’t know where you get that from. Nowhere in the article does it say anything resembling that. What it does say is he was there to help stop penetration. That generally mean a PERIMETER PLAYER that dribbles into the paint (ie not Dwight Howard).

          • Jun 11, 20133:59 pm
            by danny

            Yeah elton brand plays the four and even if he moved to the 5 he wouldnt be able to guard dwight so that point has no merit.  Basically mo was worried about guard penetration and open dunks.  I like the game plan.  Brand was in the game but he was coming off injuries to shoulders and I believe his knee.  He never had the foot speed for dwight before the injury and no where near after. 
             
            Scoring points doesnt really matter on the defense end now does it?
            “It was announced on February 5, 2009 that Brand would have season ending shoulder surgery for the injury he sustained on December 17, 2008″

          • Jun 11, 20134:02 pm
            by danny

            I said that one time and I meant coming over for the help.  The article states and I quote
            “This is not an over-reaction to a slump; the Sixers’ problems are systemic. In a recent game against the Orlando Magic, the team fell behind twice in the last minute, both times on a short three-pointer from the left corner. Afterward, Cheeks explained that this had been the strategy: Thaddeus Young (the player covering the shooter) was supposed to help out on penetration” 
            Young was supposed to pick up dwight, not double my mistake, when 6er’s centers step up for penetration. 

          • Jun 11, 20134:10 pm
            by G

            Since Cheeks was fired before Dec 17th, so I fail to see why you’re still bringing it up. Since you mentioned it, scoring points actually DOES matter on the defensive end, because it causes the other guy to have to work harder. Brand was a really good defender before that injury, so don’t start acting like all he did was make buckets.

            You don’t sound like you know a lot about basketball strategy, so I’ll fill you in: leaving a good 3pt shooter wide open in the corner so you can hedge on the guy with the ball is STUPID. I bet SVG was laughing his ass off, since his offense was built around a bunch of perimeter shooters and D12 in the middle. 

          • Jun 11, 20134:12 pm
            by danny

            basically everyone point you tried to bring up has no merit or doesnt apply to this situation. 

          • Jun 11, 20134:16 pm
            by G

            Where the hell does it say Young was supposed to pick up Dwight? Wait, stop, I’ll answer that. IT DOESN’T SAY THAT. What it says is he was supposed to help out with penetration. This is called HEDGING, and it looks like THIS

            To to be clear, Young (probably playing the 3) was HEDGING, not covering Dwight, when he left either Hedo or Lewis open in the corner. Twice.

          • Jun 11, 20134:42 pm
            by danny

            Once again brand plays the 4 so it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Ok so brand was not hurt when we are talking about this, I can admit I’m wrong.  
            I know the system that they ran in Orlando.  Brand never had the foot speed to keep up with dwight.  Yes he can bang low but dwight will run past him every time.  Surprised you know the term hedging.  So letting a guard penetrate and going 2-1 on dwight is a better idea?
            That’s how their team is built.  I’d rather have them make the extra pass and try to have someone close out or cause a to.  So you’d rather have a dude have an open dunk than an open 3?
            I think it’s funny that you say I don’t know too much about ball.  When every rebuttal you came up with here is irrelevant.  First you say SD always does good one dwight.  I prove that wrong and elton is a 4 that is too small and slow to guard dwight.  Yes he can guard people like zbo better since he is wide and strong.  Then you attack my basketball knowledge and it seems kiddish and that you’re trying to win your argument by trying to make me look stupid.   

          • Jun 11, 20134:49 pm
            by G

            Elton Brand played center when Dalembert was out. If you look at the play-by-play, Brand actually WAS playing center when Rashard hit the game winner. Young was playing the 4 and hedged on Turkoglu, who kicked it out to Lewis for the corner 3.

          • Jun 11, 20134:58 pm
            by G

            The Dalembert argument is weird because you include stats from after the game in question, when Dalembert was pretty played out. The bulk of the games in the comparison (almost half) took place after that game. My impression from watching (not based on stat comps) was that Dalembert was tough on Dwight when SD was in Philly. Dwight was a beast, what do you want? Shut down?

          • Jun 11, 20135:10 pm
            by danny

            I brought up the salembert stats because you’re the one that said he does a good job on him.  He puts up his average so I dont think thats very good.  You can not shut a player down but when he puts up what he normally puts up then its not a good job.  It’s average.  If you look at your box score it shows that dalembert fouled out, as I suspected.
            So brand is forced to play out of position and guard someone bigger and faster than him.  Plan and simple.  You bring things up and then wonder why i respond I dont get it. So when brand is playing the center he can not guard dwight so MO had the insight to have someone come off the wing and try and provide some help, good god.

          • Jun 12, 201310:07 am
            by G

            For the last time, nobody was doubling Howard. Young hedged on Hedo, Hedo passed to Lewis and Lewis drained the game winner. Your failure to grasp this is astounding.

          • Jun 12, 20132:20 pm
            by G

            Fyi, Orlando didn’t run too many game winning plays through Howard (other than that alley oop off the in-bounds). They tended to go to Lewis or Turkoglu.

      • Jun 11, 20132:07 pm
        by Crispus

        Reply

        Good points, but shouldn’t Dan have put them in the post already? His article seems more like “He’s incompetent” innuendo than a complete case.

      • Jun 11, 20132:23 pm
        by patrick the troll

        Reply

        As you can see by my post, I was not attempting to debate the points of something that happened 4-5 years ago, it was more to the manner in which he decides to provide information. All writers are free to their own opinion. Is he writing for a paycheck or to provide information to Pistons fans? He could be doing either and that’s okay… however if a large number of people stop reading the paycheck goes away. So either way you would think that he should at least try to write things people want to read. That is the goal of being a writer is it not? For people to read what you write. If Pistons powered wasn’t linked from ESPN and something replaced it tomorrow I wouldn’t mind at all. Since I’m lready on ESPN I click the link and here I am.

        • Jun 11, 20134:07 pm
          by danny

          Reply

          Sometimes writers are biased as well and have an agenda like selling papers.  I live in san antonio and writers always talk about dumping tony and wondering why pops is or isnt playing certain people.  They have an opinion and thats fine but does not make it right.  Yeah mo messed up but that doesnt mean he didnt learn from his experience. 

  • Jun 11, 20131:49 pm
    by freywagg

    Reply

    :/

  • Jun 11, 20131:57 pm
    by mixmasta

    Reply

    Scratching my head.
     
    Still a fan though.

  • Jun 11, 20132:06 pm
    by Oracle

    Reply

    Seems like a player’s superstitious thinking.  Remember in college basketball when they interviewed all the final 4 teams about how difficult it is to play in a dome?  Same idea, nothing really factual.  Less depth perception without a backboard.  The shorter shot still makes it easier/higher percentage than other 3s though.

  • Jun 11, 20132:11 pm
    by Jon

    Reply

    really? you’re digging around in articles from years ago to try to find any evidence of cheeks being a bad coach. i’m not a supporter of the hire. i think dumars won’t make it because of the hire among other things but isn’t there anything else you could be doing with your time than digging around in old articles to try to prove your point. there’s a good chance your point will prove itself next season so there’s no point in trying to make his old coaching habits relevant now

    • Jun 11, 20132:39 pm
      by EMan

      Reply

      I like Dan’s negativity. It balances out my unrealistic optimism.
       
      I think the point here is that was his last head coaching stint. Has he learned from that? Or is he still the same? Answering these questions lets us know what to expect this coming season.
       
      I’m okay with Cheeks for now, but only because of how he helped that girl sing the national anthem. Maybe the Pistons Glee Club will lead the league. That’s something.

  • Jun 11, 20132:31 pm
    by Rodman4Life

    Reply

    Dan, come on! I’m not thrilled about Cheeks, but you’re going down a dark path here.  You help to shape a part of this teams’ community culture, and a lot of your readers take cues from your writing and your mood.  The negativity seems vindictive, as if you’re piling a whole list of bad character traits on Cheeks before he even gets started here.  He’s going to start well behind the starting blocks when you’re done with him. But I question what you hope to accomplish?  You think you’re pointing out something we’re all unaware of? Do you think that some of us think that we got the creme-de-la-creme of coaching candidates? 
    What you’re doing is stewing in your own negativity over this selection.  But your forum drives the masses, and an unwinnable, unreasonable, unenjoyable season awaits us where perceptions will make no one a winner.  I don’t expect you to sugar-coat anything, but your reference to our new coach as incompetent accomplishes nothing. I expect more from you than this! You’re better than this!

    And by the way, it wouldn’t matter what coach we got.  It’s only a difference in buzz.  The only person that will get us where we want to go is Andre Drummond. Here’s to him being as good as we hope. 

    • Jun 11, 20133:22 pm
      by The Golden Child

      Reply

      Very well said. The writers do shape a lot of the local sports community’s “flavor” or atmosphere. For instance, I have stopped listening to 97.1 the ticket entirely. Other than Gator and Doug, the rest of them are intensely negative. I tune in to hear informed (allegedly) somewhat insiders tell me more about the team I love. It is frustrating to always hear the negatives, especially when one digs in, finds a selective negative piece of information, and highlights it to be sensational and attention grabbing.
      Maybe Dan is just kind of a negative guy in general, I don’t know him. But what I do know is that his articles seem to frequent a dark/negative tone. In my life, I’ve faced a lot of adversity as have most people. I have learned that by being realistic and fair but choosing to focus on the positives you tend to do better in life. It makes it easier to succeed through the down times and keeps you more energetic and effective.
      I would prefer not to be a negative doubter and disbelieve in the team and its management until the last second ticks off of the clock for our next championship. To do so would be to miss enjoying the ride to get there. It isn’t just about results and winning, although that is the goal. You have to enjoy the journey of life because that is the best part! You don’t want to be down throughout the journey, never having fun or getting much joy (my perception of Dan’s approach). Its like racing through your life just to get to the end.
      For me, the Pistons journey, whether a winning era, rebuilding era, era of entropy of just plain losing era, these are all part of the story! Yes, we’ve had the down times, but that just makes the up times to come even sweeter! I’m not sad, for instance, about the teal era or even the Ron Rothstein era. We could in theory have two more championships, Larry Bird stealing that inbound pass, or vs the lakers the next year, or if Sheed hadn’t left Horry. Whatever, those bitter times were part of the bigger story.
      So, you know, stop and smell the roses, everyone.

  • Jun 11, 20133:20 pm
    by G

    Reply

    Everybody’s bitching about this quote being 5 years old… THAT’S THE LAST TIME CHEEKS RAN A TEAM! If anybody has more recent info on Cheeks’ head coaching resume, I’m all ears, but for now this is what we have to go on.

  • Jun 11, 20133:23 pm
    by Hook shot

    Reply

    Lets see how the roster changes which are coming and the system Cheeks will implement. Dumars has got to get him a point guard or the team will be dead in the water. Any news on Shabazz? How are his workouts going?

    • Jun 12, 201312:13 am
      by jacob

      Reply

      I’m hoping for Shabazz, KCP, or now there is starting to look like a possibility of getting Burke. Also I heard the Pistons may be interested in MCW.

    • Jun 12, 201312:26 am
      by oats

      Reply

      I’ve not heard anything from his workouts with teams, but the group that is working on his development is really happy with him. They are working on his lateral quickness a lot, and supposedly making progress. They are also focusing on his shooting mechanics as they feel it needs some work, and they think that will improve his consistency on 3s. They’ve also done some work on his ball handling, especially with his off hand. Those are probably the 3 things I’d most like him focusing on, and he is supposedly doing well. Of course those reports are coming from a group with a vested interest in selling Muhammad to teams, so you can decide how much weight to put on them. I trust it about as much as any workout information though, considering everyone has a reason to lie about things right now.

      • Jun 12, 20132:52 am
        by jacob

        Reply

        Yup you are right but I do like the fact that he is working and from what I’ve heard he is working really hard.

  • Jun 11, 20133:56 pm
    by RyanK

    Reply

    Lets dig a bit further and see if we can find something legitimate to post about.  If you have ever dealt with the media, what get published and what was actually said often are two very different things.  If you have personal knowledge of a situation and the media reports on it, you would be shocked how inaccurate the report is.  This is why players and coaches often are at odds with the media…they do a terrible job and everyone believes what they read. 

  • Jun 11, 20134:09 pm
    by mshansky

    Reply

    I think a team of veteran stars would be more complementary to the Cheeks coaching style, in the mode of Jackson,Carlyle,and others. These players seem not to need persistent motivational ploys since their teams usually have a floor leader, among the top players. Tuese teams do not need to be assigned roles, since they all KNOW their roles for different situations.
    I beleieve a young team like Detroit needs, for want of a better term, a “screamer” like Collins, Skyles, Riley , SVG, etc. These kinds of coaches will not let their teams wilt for several games, or even a couple, without getting in their faces. I think these coaches also make better teachers, since they are willing to put it out there. 
    The two things a coach can influence, imo, is the individual players roles on the floor and the overall team competitiveness. They cannot make the team more entertaining, more talented individually, or even win most games through coaching. I think the screamer is a better 2 year choice for a team like Detroit, even though they will outlive their welcome and move on. Their succesor, however, will benefit alot and move the team to a higher level. THAT couldbe Cheeks.
    Finally, I am not a fan of this combo guard crap of Joe’s. I think players perform exponentially better when they KNOW their roles and dont worry about which role they should play. Some players, like Joe D and Sheed seemed more flexible, but i think they are the exception .

  • Jun 11, 20134:10 pm
    by Russell C

    Reply

    This is really, really stupid. There is enough negative things happening today than to bring up something this old to make a point. We get it Cheeks was not your choice. That’s who they chose. Not my choice with Karl and Hollins out there but he could do OK. We would all be rich if we could tell the future.  

  • Jun 11, 20139:43 pm
    by Desolation Row

    Reply

    Ughhhhhhhhh this is worrying…. not surprising a Dumars hire would be so statistically clueless

  • Jun 11, 201311:00 pm
    by D_S_V

    Reply

    I’ll say it again if there becomes a more in depth look at the hiring choice, but to me Cheeks is a hire that says Joe D is trying to win now and I don’t think the Pistons are ready for that. They’ve already wasted time trying to hang on instead of truly bottoming out and going young and even this past season saw too many vets with no trade value getting PT. We’re many assets away from being in position to go for it, so an unknown to me would’ve been the choice rather than a coach proven to dwell in mediocrity despite having much more complete rosters than the Pistons have currently. 

    • Jun 12, 20132:59 am
      by jacob

      Reply

      What are you trying to say here? I’m not sure you even know. I don’t even know how to prove a different point, because you don’t make one.

      • Jun 12, 201312:20 pm
        by D_S_V

        Reply

        I agree, it’s a confused statement, because I’m confused by the front office moves. Clearing out for cap space typically means going for the big splash in free agency, and at this point I haven’t seen any moves Joe has done to indicate otherwise (such as taking on another team’s big contract with an asset attached). Joe has done the opposite just recently. I think there are two solid pieces on the team and the rest are expendable, with perhaps Knight being the only other arguable asset. Detroit is not ready to go for it, mostly because we held on trying to over the previous years rather than a bottoming out youth movement and gathering first round picks. If Cleveland can have 5 this year and the ‘Stones are potentially without one next year, something is wrong. To me, the Cheeks hiring is the “safe” move (indicated in the ‘retread’ study), but we’re in no position anyways, so I guess I’d have preferred throwing something at the wall and taking a chance for the next good assistant turned head coach.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here