Official Tobias Harris watch thread (The End)

[ackypoo]

just curious... would you say a coach has more or less affect than fans who just watch the game?

on one individual game, probably fans.

there are obviously more things at play throughout a season, and previous seasons etc. im not someone who doesnt believe players cant be affected by their mental condition, and the way they are coached is a huge part of that.

[Ayt]

I still remember the game against Phoenix last season when Harris was guarding Redd and he got picked (not his fault), Redd scored and Skiles yanked him. I'm guessing he's thrilled he doesn't have to put up with that kind of BS anymore.

Many people here will have you believe that coaches on the NBA level really don't matter.

yeah but thats not what they are referring to. im sure a coach can ruin a players career. but in terms have actually having impact on the outcome of a game, their effect is minimal.

Coaches have a massive impact. I think the idea that they do not is one of the biggest misconceptions about the NBA amongst modern fans who purport to follow the game closely. I think the people on this board in particular are fooling themselves if they discount the impact that coaching can have.

Coaches control rotations. Creating lineups and rotations is massively important. It can't be understated. Imagining and utilizing rotations has a gigantic impact on an individual game, and has a gargantuan impact on a team over the course of a season. In an environment in the NBA where specialization is key amongst almost all players except the truly elite, creating lineups and rotations that can accentuate the strengths of the players on your roster while minimizing their weaknesses is key. You also need to be able to do that while factoring in the strengths and weakness of an opposing team on any given night.

Rotations are a juggling act. A coach needs to be creative and fluid in how he handles lineups on a game to game basis. The inflexible types like Skiles on one end of the spectrum, and D'Antoni on the other deserve a massive amount of ridicule. The biggest impact coaches can make on a game on a nightly basis are their rotations and lineups, and both of them are failures in that regard. If they have a round hole and all they see is various shapes of square pegs, they'll try to stuff those square pegs into the round hole and that is that. The best coaches adapt and realize that players come in different shapes. Skiles lacks imagination and sees players in very limited shapes. Coaches like Pop and Phil see players in shapes that a moron like Skiles can't even contemplate.

Coaches also control minutes on the court, period. A rotation can only be so long and there are only so many minutes in a game per night. Most rotations are 9-10 men during the regular season. A coach needs to be able to juggle minutes for his non-star players in a way that keeps them engaged and ready to contribute if they are needed on a given night after not being needed in previous nights. You can't expect a player who hasn't played in a couple weeks to be able to jump in and fulfill a role to the best of his ability after sitting on the bench for an extended period.

Roles are hugely important. In any given lineup, each player will have a role on both ends of the court, and those roles are shaped based on the team you are facing and the players who make up the rest of the current 5 man lineup. A coach needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses of every player on his roster, and put them in a position to succeed as an individual within the framework of a 5 man group in order to fully maximize the potential of the roster he is given that year.

A guy like Dunleavy has an obvious role. He is a great spot up shooter from 3 and a very good off the ball scorer in general (away from the paint). You would not ask him to play in lineups against certain teams where Ellis is the SG because that will leave Dun man to man against LeBron, Durant, Melo, etc. at SF. That would be idiotic. Against those teams, you obviously can't play Dunleavy at SF in a rotation with a guy like Monta at SG because Mike will get obliterated.

We have a ton of players that have a specialized role that they can play and, hopefully, be productive at to help us win games. We won't, for example, run LRMAM off of a double baseline screen like we run so often for Dunleavy. Beyond the obvious positive roles players on the extremes can fill (like Dun and LRMAM) , bad coaches tend to have a very hard time coming up with rotations that can maximize the talent of the non-star talent on a team. Skiles is a perfect example of that. People laud him for getting the best out of role players, but the role players he has gotten the best out of have had an obvious clear cut role. How do you laud an NBA level coach for knowing how to utilize Dunleavy as a shooter or LRMAM as an on the ball defender? That is a high school level understanding of the sport.

Skiles had his favorites. He's a petty, pathetic person. I was going to call him a man in that last sentence instead of a person, but he doesn't deserve it. I think he's a terrible coach and an even worse human being.

He had his favorites while he was here (mainly Baddy), and he had his role players that were smack you in the face obvious when it came to their role. He was completely clueless when it came to the in between guys. Ersan needed to play like Dirk 2.0 before he could even dream of getting 25+ minutes per night, and Sanders needed to be Dikembe reincarnated before he got 25+ minutes per night. I think both of those guys show that a player that was previously in the doghouse, for whatever bizarro reason **** twat Skiles thought up, could not get out unless they went on a complete **** rampage.

[JimmyTheKid]

Coaches have a massive impact. I think the idea that they do not is one of the biggest misconceptions about the NBA amongst modern fans who purport to follow the game closely. I think the people on this board in particular are fooling themselves if they discount the impact that coaching can have.

Coaches control rotations. Creating lineups and rotations is massively important. It can't be understated. Imagining and utilizing rotations has a gigantic impact on an individual game, and has a gargantuan impact on a team over the course of a season. In an environment in the NBA where specialization is key amongst almost all players except the truly elite, creating lineups and rotations that can accentuate the strengths of the players on your roster while minimizing their weaknesses is key. You also need to be able to do that while factoring in the strengths and weakness of an opposing team on any given night.

Rotations are a juggling act. A coach needs to be creative and fluid in how he handles lineups on a game to game basis. The inflexible types like Skiles on one end of the spectrum, and D'Antoni on the other deserve a massive amount of ridicule. The biggest impact coaches can make on a game on a nightly basis are their rotations and lineups, and both of them are failures in that regard. If they have a round hole and all they see is various shapes of square pegs, they'll try to stuff those square pegs into the round hole and that is that. The best coaches adapt and realize that players come in different shapes. Skiles lacks imagination and sees players in very limited shapes. Coaches like Pop and Phil see players in shapes that a moron like Skiles can't even contemplate.

Coaches also control minutes on the court, period. A rotation can only be so long and there are only so many minutes in a game per night. Most rotations are 9-10 men during the regular season. A coach needs to be able to juggle minutes for his non-star players in a way that keeps them engaged and ready to contribute if they are needed on a given night after not being needed in previous nights. You can't expect a player who hasn't played in a couple weeks to be able to jump in and fulfill a role to the best of his ability after sitting on the bench for an extended period.

Roles are hugely important. In any given lineup, each player will have a role on both ends of the court, and those roles are shaped based on the team you are facing and the player who make up the rest of the current 5 man lineup. A coach needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses of every player on his roster, and put them in a position to succeed as an individual within the framework of a 5 man group in order to fully maximize the potential of the roster he is given that year.

A guy like Dunleavy has an obvious role. He is a great spot up shooter from 3 and a very good off the ball scorer in general (away from the paint). You would not ask him to play in lineups against certain teams where Ellis is the SG because that will leave Dun man to man against LeBron, Durant, Melo, etc. at SF. That would be idiotic. Against those teams, you obviously can't play Dunleavy at SF in a rotation with a guy like Monta at SG because Mike will get obliterated. We have a ton of players that have a specialized role that they can play and, hopefully, be productive at to help us win games. We won't, for example, run LRMAM off of the baseline screens that we run so often for Dunleavy. Beyond the obvious positive roles players on the extremes can fill (like Dun and LRMAM) , bad coaches tend to have a very hard time coming up with rotations that can accentuate the talent of the non-star talent on a team. Skiles is a perfect example of that. People laud him for getting the best out of role players, but the role players he has gotten the best out of have had an obvious clear cut role. How do you laud an NBA level coach for knowing how to utilize Dunleavy as a shooter or LRMAM as an on the ball defender? That is a high school level understanding of the sport.

Skiles had his favorites. He's a petty, pathetic person. I was going to call him a man in that last sentence instead of a person, but he doesn't deserve it. I think he's a terrible coach and an even worse human being.

He had his favorites while he was here (mainly Baddy), and he had his role players that were smack you in the face obvious when it came to their role. He was completely clueless when it came to the in between guys. Ersan needed to play like Dirk 2.0 before he could even dream of getting 25+ minutes per night, and Sanders needed to be Dikembe reincarnated before he got 25+ minutes per night. I think both of those guys show that a player that was previously in the doghouse, for whatever bizarro reason **** twat Skiles thought up, could not get out unless they went on a complete **** rampage.

Very good post. And spot on. What are the chances Skiles gets another head coaching gig in the NBA? I'd say slim to none. Boylan is an upgrade due to the simple fact that he's not Skiles. But I want nothing to do with him after this season. He still has too much "Skiles" in him where he makes the no-brainer substitutions seem like rocket science (see Pryz/Gooden/Daniels occasionally logging minutes, even if its just a few). Boylan has a much better personality than Skiles, and seems to communicate better to his players, but he's not a viable NBA head coach by any stretch of the imagination. All in all, the Bucks W/L record with the current roster probably doesn't get too much better or worse with a different coach. But it'd be nice to get a guy in here with a fresh outlook. Boylan has been Skiles right hand man for so long I doubt he's bringing anything new to the table.

[paulpressey25]

What are the chances Skiles gets another head coaching gig in the NBA? I'd say slim to none.

He will get another job. And I'm still willing to venture that ten years from now, people will look back at the 2008-2012 Milwaukee Bucks and come to the conclusion that Scott Skiles had the most successful (and ten years from now continuing) long-term NBA career among everyone associated with the team during that period, including Hammond, Kohl, Bogut, Redd, etc.

Not saying much I know. But when you've got your front office going hard after Gustavo Ayon, the bar is pretty low.

[dedned]

Very good post. And spot on. What are the chances Skiles gets another head coaching gig in the NBA? I'd say slim to none. Boylan is an upgrade due to the simple fact that he's not Skiles. But I want nothing to do with him after this season. He still has too much "Skiles" in him where he makes the no-brainer substitutions seem like rocket science (see Pryz/Gooden/Daniels occasionally logging minutes, even if its just a few). Boylan has a much better personality than Skiles, and seems to communicate better to his players, but he's not a viable NBA head coach by any stretch of the imagination. All in all, the Bucks W/L record with the current roster probably doesn't get too much better or worse with a different coach. But it'd be nice to get a guy in here with a fresh outlook. Boylan has been Skiles right hand man for so long I doubt he's bringing anything new to the table.

And of course the most obvious Bucks move is extending Boylan.

[JayMKE]

Skiles should just go coach college ball, his insanity would be more accepted down there and he'd have total control over what players he has.

[trwi7]

"You know Jon, we've seen Tobias Harris have some really nice games for the Magic since the trade. But what fans need to realize is that Orlando wasn't going to trade a proven commodity like J.J. Redick without receiving something significant in return.

Some commentators felt that Redick was worth not only a top prospect like Tobias but also a first round pick. The fact the Bucks were able to get him for only one of those assets speaks to the great job the Bucks front office did in making that deal. So when you see Tobias doing well down in Orlando, realize that in life you have to give up something to get something and the Bucks did here. To get a proven starter like Redick in midseason is a tall order and the Bucks were able to accomplish it.

Just reading through this now. So sad, yet so true.

[europa]

More shocking is that you've disregarded 25 years of inept rosters that went with them.

I did no such thing. I was talking about the poor head coaches this team has had. The poor GMs the team has also had is a separate discussion. At no point have I ever disputed the lack of talent argument. All I've said is that coaching matters and it's up to the head coach to utilize the talent he does have properly. Skiles was a massive failure in that regard the last few years, just like he was in Phoenix and Chicago before coming to Milwaukee. Again, go read the Kelly Dwyer article I posted last night. It illustrates all the issues some of us had with Skiles and why it wasn't a surprise the same issues that got him fired in Phoenix and Chicago ultimately spelled his demise in Milwaukee.

[PedroGrande]

Coaches have a massive impact. I think the idea that they do not is one of the biggest misconceptions about the NBA amongst modern fans who purport to follow the game closely. I think the people on this board in particular are fooling themselves if they discount the impact that coaching can have.

Coaches control rotations. Creating lineups and rotations is massively important. It can't be understated. Imagining and utilizing rotations has a gigantic impact on an individual game, and has a gargantuan impact on a team over the course of a season. In an environment in the NBA where specialization is key amongst almost all players except the truly elite, creating lineups and rotations that can accentuate the strengths of the players on your roster while minimizing their weaknesses is key. You also need to be able to do that while factoring in the strengths and weakness of an opposing team on any given night.

Rotations are a juggling act. A coach needs to be creative and fluid in how he handles lineups on a game to game basis. The inflexible types like Skiles on one end of the spectrum, and D'Antoni on the other deserve a massive amount of ridicule. The biggest impact coaches can make on a game on a nightly basis are their rotations and lineups, and both of them are failures in that regard. If they have a round hole and all they see is various shapes of square pegs, they'll try to stuff those square pegs into the round hole and that is that. The best coaches adapt and realize that players come in different shapes. Skiles lacks imagination and sees players in very limited shapes. Coaches like Pop and Phil see players in shapes that a moron like Skiles can't even contemplate.

Coaches also control minutes on the court, period. A rotation can only be so long and there are only so many minutes in a game per night. Most rotations are 9-10 men during the regular season. A coach needs to be able to juggle minutes for his non-star players in a way that keeps them engaged and ready to contribute if they are needed on a given night after not being needed in previous nights. You can't expect a player who hasn't played in a couple weeks to be able to jump in and fulfill a role to the best of his ability after sitting on the bench for an extended period.

Roles are hugely important. In any given lineup, each player will have a role on both ends of the court, and those roles are shaped based on the team you are facing and the players who make up the rest of the current 5 man lineup. A coach needs to understand the strengths and weaknesses of every player on his roster, and put them in a position to succeed as an individual within the framework of a 5 man group in order to fully maximize the potential of the roster he is given that year.

A guy like Dunleavy has an obvious role. He is a great spot up shooter from 3 and a very good off the ball scorer in general (away from the paint). You would not ask him to play in lineups against certain teams where Ellis is the SG because that will leave Dun man to man against LeBron, Durant, Melo, etc. at SF. That would be idiotic. Against those teams, you obviously can't play Dunleavy at SF in a rotation with a guy like Monta at SG because Mike will get obliterated.

We have a ton of players that have a specialized role that they can play and, hopefully, be productive at to help us win games. We won't, for example, run LRMAM off of a double baseline screen like we run so often for Dunleavy. Beyond the obvious positive roles players on the extremes can fill (like Dun and LRMAM) , bad coaches tend to have a very hard time coming up with rotations that can maximize the talent of the non-star talent on a team. Skiles is a perfect example of that. People laud him for getting the best out of role players, but the role players he has gotten the best out of have had an obvious clear cut role. How do you laud an NBA level coach for knowing how to utilize Dunleavy as a shooter or LRMAM as an on the ball defender? That is a high school level understanding of the sport.

Skiles had his favorites. He's a petty, pathetic person. I was going to call him a man in that last sentence instead of a person, but he doesn't deserve it. I think he's a terrible coach and an even worse human being.

He had his favorites while he was here (mainly Baddy), and he had his role players that were smack you in the face obvious when it came to their role. He was completely clueless when it came to the in between guys. Ersan needed to play like Dirk 2.0 before he could even dream of getting 25+ minutes per night, and Sanders needed to be Dikembe reincarnated before he got 25+ minutes per night. I think both of those guys show that a player that was previously in the doghouse, for whatever bizarro reason **** twat Skiles thought up, could not get out unless they went on a complete **** rampage.

Great Great Post. The thing that pissed me the most with skiles was that he wasn't coherent... What was Gooden, Ellis, Jennings doing to have different standards than Ersan, Sanders and Harris?

Skiles could be a great coach, he can squeeze wins of bad teams very very well. He's elite on the defensive end. But he has massive faults. He could get better with those. Hell maybe with a good Assistant he can go deep in Playoffs.

And yes its true that his GM was awufull in bringing assets for him to work with. And yess we didn't, at least until now, lose any player that would be great on another team (although i believe that if Sessions could stay he would be very good).

In the land of the blind who has one eye is the king. Just because skiles is maybe the best coach we had in the last 12 years doesn't mean he can't be blamed, and Harris (i hope so, he seems to be a good guy) is a good example of an asset that he didn't use properly and was unfair with.

[trwi7]

Skiles falls into the same class as a bunch of other coaches in other sports fall into. They love veterans. They know they can trust them to protect the ball, they know what they're going to get from them every night. With young players and rookies, it's uncertain. You could get 20 points on 8-10 shooting or you could get 4 points on 1-10 shooting.

They're so afraid of what they may do wrong that they don't give them a chance to show them what they can actually do and all the positives they can bring to a team.

Same thing happened with Ken Macha and even Roenicke and Sveum with the Brewers. Jason Kendall had to play 135 games even though he was terrible because another guy might be worse. Frank Catalanotto had to play more than Mat Gamel because Catalanotto was a 10 year vet, you knew what you were getting. Suppan had to start over Gallardo in the playoffs in 2008 because he was a veteran who had been in must win playoff games before even though it was clear to everybody that he was a gas can at that point. Roenicke had to stick with McGehee and Betancourt at 3B and SS even though both were awful because what if Taylor Green was worse?

Skiles is an idiot and an awful communicator, don't get me wrong but he does the same thing every other coach in every other sport (for the most part) does.

[Jez2983]

There's a lot of reasons this season that as a non-Wisconsinite I should not support this team anymore. Crap like this trade is so frustrating.

Ellis-redick-Harris-Ersan-Sanders could have been a step in the right direction. In the short term at least I could have lived with Ellis.

[Baddy Chuck]

What if Skiles went to Orlando .

[paulpressey25]

What if Skiles went to Orlando .

Good call. That would be rich.

Agree with Twirl. These guys don't have the motivations we do on this board. They only care about what their career W-L looks like in a given season. They can't look down the road on anything.

One reason the Bucks were able to lure Mike Dunleavy back from the Lakers in 1992 was because Herb promised Dunleavy they could blow the entire thing up and tank for 3-4 years to build a talent base. Otherwise Dunleavy doesn't take that job without that assurance and also with it being known publicly among his peers and other people in the league that the tanking was the plan.

[Kerb Hohl]

Ayt, my point is that coaches are very key on the micro level. On the macro level, Phil Jackson or Adelman or whoever would likely have zero championships with this Bucks roster if they coached here 25 years with the same roster. Maybe Adelman would have done a better job developing Tobias Harris or something, but I think it's pretty obvious that you need the talent.

My whole argument about "coaching doesn't matter" was in a completely different thread where Skiles was being blamed to the nth degree back late last season. I agree with basically 100% of what you're saying, but Hammond was still hiding behind Skiles for a fair amount of the blame. I don't care about the micro-level coaching in some of those aspects. If Tobias was really blocked by Skiles, then that is definitely a domino in the franchise's long term viability or attempt to build through the mid-level draft, though.

I appreciate bringing a good coach in for the micro-level things, but my whole point before was that it didn't matter on the grand scheme. There were 100s of arguments last trade deadline that were about "Phil Jackson couldn't coach this team to a 4 seed."

I think we have differing opinions on how stifled some of these guys would get by Skiles (I never was a Skiles fanboy by any means) but that was all I had said about "coaching doesn't matter."

[paul]

What if Skiles went to Orlando .

Seriously don't even joke about it.

The one sliver of positive energy I've maintained out of our last two just straight moronic trades is that my two favorite players are at least now away from both our insane former head coach and this POS franchise.

Skiles ending up in GS or Orlando might seriously end the NBA for me forever.

[H2tObes]

Orlando has a seriously long way to go on this rebuild, landing parker or wiggins would speed it up quite a bit though.

Also, I hate seeing Magic fans rave about Tobes. He should still be ours

[Baddy Chuck]

Orlando has a seriously long way to go on this rebuild, landing parker or wiggins would speed it up quite a bit though.

Being left with the remnants of a team built around the best center in the league certainly doesn't help. Jameer, Hedo and Glen Davis taking up damn near 30 million would hinder any teams development.

[paul]

Orlando has a seriously long way to go on this rebuild, landing parker or wiggins would speed it up quite a bit though.

Being left with the remnants of a team built around the best center in the league certainly doesn't help. Jameer, Hedo and Glen Davis taking up damn near 30 million would hinder any teams development.

Yeah their previous admin tired desperately to convince Dwight to stay over about 3 years by overpaying useless-without-him vets to surround him, the real problem with that comes when he leaves.

Hennigan will be working hard to dump all 3 of those guys over the next season while trying to find his young superstar and his couple of young all-starrish types. Look at Houston and realize it can happen in a huge hurry when done well.

[Wooderson]

These Magic games haven't been close, Tobes's production is meaningless /green

[H2tObes]

Orlando has a seriously long way to go on this rebuild, landing parker or wiggins would speed it up quite a bit though.

Being left with the remnants of a team built around the best center in the league certainly doesn't help. Jameer, Hedo and Glen Davis taking up damn near 30 million would hinder any teams development.

Yeah their previous admin tired desperately to convince Dwight to stay over about 3 years by overpaying useless-without-him vets to surround him, the real problem with that comes when he leaves.

Hennigan will be working hard to dump all 3 of those guys over the next season while trying to find his young superstar and his couple of young all-starrish types. Look at Houston and realize it can happen in a huge hurry when done well.

It's all gonna ride on how there picks pan out in the next 2-3 drafts, just like any other rebuild.

But I don't think they have anyone on the roster who has more upside then just a starter atm, maybe vucevic but he needs to improve a lot on D.