Epicurus wrote:I also suggest that with young teams the more important dependent variable is improvement in offensive and defensive efficiencies.
Agreed. I haven't seen a lot of improvement under Skiles lately. This team still can't beat quality teams. That was a problem post-Ellis trade last season and it remains one today. Also, the Bucks' offense stinks this season just like Skiles' offenses have stunk everywhere he's been. After three separate locations I think we can safely conclude poor offenses are a part of Skiles' coaching DNA.
I never understood Skiles' benign neglect of the offense. Maybe he believed that NBA offensive talk is mostly just talk, and beyond vague exhortations to move the ball or watch your spacing there is little that can be done by those wearing suits on the bench to promote scoring (sort of like one of the Van Gundys' -- I forget which one -- arch explanation of the Phil Jackson triangle offense with the Bulls; when asked to explain it, he went to the whiteboard and wrote this: 23).
Nevertheless, it would have been nice under Skiles to see an effective pick-and-roll once in a while (especially since under current rules it's practically indefensible), or to see the Bucks run a play that got a good shot out of a late game timeout a little more often.
I agree with Epi that a coach is usually a negligible part of the W/L equation. It's probably the realization of that powerlessness that led Skiles to sour on his team and, temporarily, on his profession.
He did what he could and played his bad hand pretty well, I think. Now let's see if Boylan can nurture some of our young bigs by giving them predictable minutes and the freedom to fail.
[The new President] hinted how delightful everything was going to be...[comparing his plan to] a fireman rescuing a pretty girl from a "conflagration"...whether she liked it or not, and no matter how appealingly she might kick her pretty ankles.