Setting aside how relevant my career is to this discussion (weird and not part of my post), the rotation is only really a story in Boston and on X where you can find enough mad folks + bots to make a case that the entire universe is big upset with Kerr. But I just did this Google search:
<Image>
What am I missing? The USA is advancing to the gold medal game and aside from here I am not seeing too much about Kerr's coaching.
I understand why folks are big mad here but people seem to be losing the plot. Team USA is very likely getting a gold.
That said, if the lose to France Kerr may not be allowed back in country.
We're not losing to France. We just played the second best team in the tournament, who went on a heater, and it still wasn't enough. It'll be worth watching because there will be a few Wemby Moments but it won't be a game in the 4th quarter.
But I brought up your career because I would think that a focus on being right-process-oriented, instead of purely results-oriented, as a way of viewing events, would be a default viewpoint of yours. Certainly one that would be intuitive to you. And yet here you were pushing back on people who were talking process, and saying "but the results speak for themselves!", and that struck me as doubly weird for that reason.
Kerr came within a Curry supernova of losing to a team where the median expected result of this game is USA +15-20. And did so while committing, to experienced ball-watching eyes here and elsewhere, a number of glaring coaching errors. We can walk and chew gum at the same time here, so we can celebrate a thrilling, dramatic win and how great our big 3 are, while also talking about how Kerr very nearly screwed up the surest thing at the entire Olympics (Ok, other than our women's basketball team). There's room for both, and it's not weird to do so when it's this glaring, not is it surprising that the news articles will focus on the former. The former is the news story. That's fine. I'm stoked we won too. But the latter is also a story, at least among the ball intelligentsia.
If you think Kerr's coaching was within rounding error of normal / optimal, that's a position you can feel free to argue. But there's a bunch of people here saying it was like two sigmas to the negative, and explaining why. I'd be much more interested to read why you think they're wrong or valuing the wrong things, than trying to un-ask the question in the first place.