RealGM

At what point do we acknowledge that Scott Brooks isn't a good coach? He's making the same tactical mistakes he made back with OKC, and after a year off reflecting on his time there, he changed basically nothing. He hasn't adapted to the modern NBA in any meaningful way, and at this stage it seems like he's just not a very sharp dude.

Obviously the Wizards will continue to win because they have a talented roster, but let's stop giving Brooks tons of credit here. Any replacement level coach is getting the same production or more out of this roster.

Some obvious Brooks issues:

-The all-bench unit has a Net Rating of -13.8 today.
-Brooks basically refuses to stagger Wall and Beal to mitigate this. The bench is very bad from a personnel standpoint. Playing them together, all at once is a great way of exacerbating this issue!
-Wizards are 5th in the league in mid-range attempts. They readily take a lot of bad shots.
-Brooks' ATO plays are literal garbage. How many times has he called for a Morris or Gortat postup after a timeout?
-The Wizards will do things like light possessions on fire by giving Ian Mahinmi a postup. Why? It's 2017. Smart teams don't do stuff like that.

What is the actual argument that Brooks is a better than replacement level coach? He was fortunate enough to coach KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Wall, Beal and Porter, and he has turned that into one finals appearance in which he gave Kendrick Perkins huge minutes and had James Harden guard LeBron.

The claim that Brooks is responsible for the positive development of all those player is, uhhh, specious, if we're being charitable.

Evidence of lighting possessions on fire:

http://3ball.io/plays?evtt=5&p1id=101133&playId=0021700064_134

The recent post article seems like Brooks knows that the bench sucks, but he's trying to get them PT to get them to improve. He staggered lineups in the playoffs last year, so its not like he's going to play our garbage bench in the playoffs by themselves.

He's saying nice things about Mahinmi to take heat off of EG. Brooks knows Mahinmi sucks. It would look horrible if the 16 million waste rots away on bench despite the fact that Smith is better for the team.

mhd wrote:The recent post article seems like Brooks knows that the bench sucks, but he's trying to get them PT to get them to improve. He staggered lineups in the playoffs last year, so its not like he's going to play our garbage bench in the playoffs by themselves.

He's saying nice things about Mahinmi to take heat off of EG. Brooks knows Mahinmi sucks. It would look horrible if the 16 million waste rots away on bench despite the fact that Smith is better for the team.

He staggers the starters more in the playoffs because he plays the starters more. He can play everyone 40+ minutes in the playoffs, and can't do that in the regular season. It doesn't validate the way he uses the starters in the regular season unfortunately.

And I might believe the narrative that Brooks is covering for EG if he wasn't also doing the same **** in OKC

gtn130 wrote:Evidence of lighting possessions on fire:

http://3ball.io/plays?evtt=5&p1id=101133&playId=0021700064_134

So a play in which one of our best offensive players happens to comit a TO after making his move to the hoop is an example of setting a possession on fire? You should of just showed a Wall mid range brick with less than 7 sec elapsed on the shot clock.

J-Ves wrote:

gtn130 wrote:Evidence of lighting possessions on fire:

http://3ball.io/plays?evtt=5&p1id=101133&playId=0021700064_134

So a play in which one of our best offensive players happens to comit a TO after making his move to the hoop is an example of setting a possession on fire? You should of just showed a Wall mid range brick with less than 7 sec elapsed on the shot clock.

I guess this is sarcasm?

gtn130 wrote:

J-Ves wrote:

gtn130 wrote:Evidence of lighting possessions on fire:

http://3ball.io/plays?evtt=5&p1id=101133&playId=0021700064_134

So a play in which one of our best offensive players happens to comit a TO after making his move to the hoop is an example of setting a possession on fire? You should of just showed a Wall mid range brick with less than 7 sec elapsed on the shot clock.

I guess this is sarcasm?

You don’t think Wall is one of our best offensive players?

J-Ves wrote:

gtn130 wrote:

J-Ves wrote:So a play in which one of our best offensive players happens to comit a TO after making his move to the hoop is an example of setting a possession on fire? You should of just showed a Wall mid range brick with less than 7 sec elapsed on the shot clock.

I guess this is sarcasm?

You don’t think Wall is one of our best offensive players?

John Wall isn't on the court in that video

I gotta say OP you are objectively wrong about Scott Brooks ATO playcalling - I remember seeing that Washington graded near the top of the league in ATO and SLOB execution last season

This has been one of the most jarring differences between the team now and before under Wittman. They almost always get a good shot coming out of dead ball situations. On baseline out of bounds plays, there's this brilliant set they run to isolate Beal in the post that gets him a layup or FTs every single time.

Who is the alternative? I'm not a huge fan of Brooks and I am concerned about the defensive effort of team this year, but Ted is not eating that contract. Who else is out there?

Tier 1: Popovich, Spoelestra, Carlisle.
Tier 1A: Stevens
Tier they have great players: Lue, Kerr
Tier 2: Van Gundy, Thibs, Rivers, McMillan, D'Antoni, Kidd, Stotts, Snyder, Casey, Clifford, Donovan. Brooks took a team to NBA finals so I think he fits in here.

Rick Pitino available.

Illmatic12 wrote:I gotta say OP you are objectively wrong about Scott Brooks ATO playcalling - I remember seeing that Washington graded near the top of the league in ATO and SLOB execution last season

This has been one of the most jarring differences between the team now and before under Wittman. They almost always get a good shot coming out of dead ball situations. On baseline out of bounds plays, there's this brilliant set they run to isolate Beal in the post that gets him a layup or FTs every single time.

Yeah, I read somewhere last year they were like 6th in the league in ATO execution. Still doesn't justify feeding Morris in the post at .88 ppp

gtn130 wrote:

mhd wrote:The recent post article seems like Brooks knows that the bench sucks, but he's trying to get them PT to get them to improve. He staggered lineups in the playoffs last year, so its not like he's going to play our garbage bench in the playoffs by themselves.

He's saying nice things about Mahinmi to take heat off of EG. Brooks knows Mahinmi sucks. It would look horrible if the 16 million waste rots away on bench despite the fact that Smith is better for the team.

He staggers the starters more in the playoffs because he plays the starters more. He can play everyone 40+ minutes in the playoffs, and can't do that in the regular season. It doesn't validate the way he uses the starters in the regular season unfortunately.

Brooks staggers the lineups more as the season goes on.
The thought here is early in the year (First 15-20 games), you want your best players to play together and develop cohesiveness. As they do so, you can then stagger them more with your bench. It also gives you a chance to see who are your 9th and 10th men are and who gets the DNP's.
I agree it is frustrating though

gtn130 wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:I gotta say OP you are objectively wrong about Scott Brooks ATO playcalling - I remember seeing that Washington graded near the top of the league in ATO and SLOB execution last season

This has been one of the most jarring differences between the team now and before under Wittman. They almost always get a good shot coming out of dead ball situations. On baseline out of bounds plays, there's this brilliant set they run to isolate Beal in the post that gets him a layup or FTs every single time.

Yeah, I read somewhere last year they were like 6th in the league in ATO execution. Still doesn't justify feeding Morris in the post at .88 ppp

I think it's one of those things where they want to feed him touches to keep him engaged. Either way, the offensive side of the ball isn't really a problem for Washington. They were a top 10 offense last season and are top 10 again so far.


Brooks seems to have some emotional philosophies in his coaching style that he sticks to. I think he believes in giving players a chance to play freely early on, so he can build trust in them later in the season. At the beginning of last season everyone was excoriating Brooks for playing Jason Smith in those first few games, and as time went on Smith turned out to be one of our more productive reserves.

gtn130 wrote:Some obvious Brooks issues:

-The all-bench unit has a Net Rating of -13.8 today.
-Brooks basically refuses to stagger Wall and Beal to mitigate this....

So you are saying that if Wall and/or Beal play some time with the bench unit, then during that time the bench unit will be more productive? Is that it?

Wow... did you work that out by yourself? Were advanced analytics required? 'Cuz, I just can't imagine why a professional coach like Brooks doesn't understand a simple thing like that!

But, tell me, ummm... what will happen to the productivity of the starting unit when instead of Wall and/or Beal it features Frazier and/or Meeks? You don't think there's any chance it will go down, do you? You don't think, ummm, that it will go down just as much per minute as the bench productivity goes up?

I mean... that is certainly what common sense tells me would happen. After all the productivity of the 5 guys on the floor at any time is the sum of their productivity as individuals. Do yourself a favor & don't try to prove that untrue, b/c it can't be untrue!

So, unless you are saying that the bench players will be more productive & efficient against the other team's starters, while the starters will be more productive & efficient vs. the other team's bench, what you are calling for makes absolutely zero sense & can have no impact on results.

Of course, you might just mean that if the starters played more minutes than they do we would be a better team. Is that it?

gtn130 wrote:The bench is very bad from a personnel standpoint. Playing them together, all at once is a great way of exacerbating this issue!

Really? Gee, you don't have anything like actual data or anything to support that claim, do you? I mean, for example, is Tim Frazier playing worse this year than last? Or is he playing better?

Plus, although it's true that benches differ in quality, of course, every team's bench is less good than that team's starters. If the above were true for the Wizards, then it would have to be true for every team.

Is that what you're claiming? I.e. that every team ought to, as you call it, "stagger its starters?" If not, what possible reason would any team have *not* to do that -- given your insights I mean.

gtn130 wrote:-Wizards are 5th in the league in mid-range attempts. They readily take a lot of bad shots.
-Brooks' ATO plays are literal garbage. How many times has he called for a Morris or Gortat postup after a timeout?
-The Wizards will do things like light possessions on fire by giving Ian Mahinmi a postup. Why? It's 2017. Smart teams don't do stuff like that.

What is the actual argument that Brooks is a better than replacement level coach? He was fortunate enough to coach KD, Russ, Harden, Ibaka, Wall, Beal and Porter, and he has turned that into one finals appearance in which he gave Kendrick Perkins huge minutes and had James Harden guard LeBron.

The claim that Brooks is responsible for the positive development of all those player is, uhhh, specious, if we're being charitable.

I see you do want to cite data -- just not data that means anything or supports any claim you make.

But, you do end w/ a key point that is totally correct, & also very important: Scott Brooks is not responsible for how good (or bad) any of his players is. The players are who they are. The ones who are more gifted have a higher ceiling. The ones who work the hardest get closer to whatever their ceiling is.

&, for that exact reason, every NBA team is exactly as good as its players. The better they are the better the team. Very very few coaches have any measurable effect on their team results -- & especially not over any length of time.

For that reason, I'm sure you are right: Scott Brooks is no better than any other professional NBA coach -- with very very few exceptions. E.g. when the Cavs brought back LeBron, they got a lot better. When they brought in Ty Lue as coach, they didn't get any better. Duh.

PIF, there's a lot going on with that post, but it appears that your working thesis is that coaches have zero impact on basketball. You are wrong.

gtn130 wrote:PIF ... You are wrong.

I'd like to invoke the entirety of doclinkin's RealGM post history as empirical evidence of this assertion in all cases when it is made against PIF, regardless of context. QED.

trast66 wrote:Who is the alternative? I'm not a huge fan of Brooks and I am concerned about the defensive effort of team this year, but Ted is not eating that contract. Who else is out there?

Tier 1: Popovich, Spoelestra, Carlisle.
Tier 1A: Stevens
Tier they have great players: Lue, Kerr
Tier 2: Van Gundy, Thibs, Rivers, McMillan, D'Antoni, Kidd, Stotts, Snyder, Casey, Clifford, Donovan. Brooks took a team to NBA finals so I think he fits in here.

Rick Pitino available.

I'd put Vogel in that Tier 2 group, probably near the top. He's real good. Budenholdzer is also in Tier 2. And I see no reason why Stevens is a half-tier below Pops and Carlisle.

But I agree with your basic premise. Brooks is a solid, mid-tier coach. Yeah, he's not Carlisle or Stevens, but he's not a bottom feeder either. There really isn't anyone available who would be an upgrade.

gtn130 wrote:PIF, there's a lot going on with that post, but it appears that your working thesis is that coaches have zero impact on basketball. You are wrong.

First off, it's not my working thesis. & it doesn't matter whether I am wrong or you are wrong. But, actually, the subject has been studied extensively -- & it's you who are wrong.

Secondly, the question isn't whether "coaches have... impact on basketball." How could they not? They choose who plays, for example. But "impact" isn't the same as "positive impact." & "impact" also isn't always consistent.

The important question is whether which coach you choose can/does have a statistically significant & lasting positive impact on team results. Here are just a few links:

http://freakonomics.com/2012/12/21/is-changing-the-coach-really-the-answer/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703506904575592363492225220
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2008/11/change_you_cant_believe_in.html
http://wagesofwins.com/2012/01/26/evaluating-the-coaching-the-coach-is-wrong-redux/

And, if you think changing coaches is a good idea, you may want to look at this: http://chance.amstat.org/2016/11/coaching-tenure/

Unless you think these academics, statisticians, etc. are faking their numbers, we have to accept their results -- as we would if they were studying a completely different subject.

It's worth noting that a few coaches do have that positive impact. But, it's not b/c they make players better, but b/c they are better at figuring out which players are their best players. I.e. they tend do do a better job of playing their best players more.

Unfortunately, these kinds of coaches are very few in number! Phil Jackson was one. Jerry Sloan was another.

So, the answer to the important question is that only a very very few NBA coaches have a statistically significant & lasting positive impact on team results.

IOW, get better players & you'll have a better team.

The Wizards won 49 games last season, most since the 70s, in his first season in spite of the leagues worst bench. Beal showed marginal improvement in 4 years under Wit, but exploded under Brooks. Porter and KO have made big leaps as well.

I would say he gives players a longer leash than many other coaches. Over an 82 game season i have noticed that authoritarian coaches seem to lose their effectiveness. Players tune them out after awhile.

He has staggered the lineups at times, but doesn't do it consistently. That doesn't mean he refuses to do it though.