Rick Carlisle is a cheat code. It's almost not fair

[zimpy27]

Personally, I think Rick Carlisle might be one of the most underrated coaches in NBA history. In 23 seasons, he has brought 3 different franchises to the conference finals a total of five times and could possibly on his way to winning both of his Finals appearances.

Agreed, that's really hard

[HotelVitale]

Risk of being a little preachery here, I never think it's useful to see a positive outcome in the NBA and say 'that's all because of the coaches/front office!'

I think the talent of players trumping coaching/ownership is overblown. It is not just about talent. I have zero faith that Sacramento would have put Haliburton in a situation where he might win a title.

Of course, ideally it takes everyone on board, from stars to role players to FO to ownership pulling in the right direction to win a championship.

No one said it was just pure talent that figures everything out, stupid position no one should take. I'm saying that the opposite extreme view--a good coach takes water and turns it into wine--is also dumb, in addition to being pretty annoying. I think and have said here for years before that Carlisle is a legit difference-making coach, and he did difference-making stuff in game 3. For sure. But his adjustments and staggered looks etc absolutely would not have won the Pacers that game on their own--like I said above, most of those new strats very rarely make a play on their own (e.g. help d gets so confused they let an easy dunk go), and they're mostly just going to give a little more room or opportunity for shot creators if they execute them well.

My preachy point was that these players are skilled af and coaches are kind of stewards of their talent, trying to find ways to put it in the best position and situations to win. The NBA is so fast and space so contested that players have to be able to read every second of every play, and then go out and win their battle. The Pacers were extremely impressive at that and OKC is an incredibly tough defense to do that against.

Reason I'm bringing it up here is that the Pacers clearly and obviously did some new stuff last game, and it seemed like it helped break up the stagnation on both ends from game 2 without a doubt. Lesser coaches wouldn't have come up with as much, or wouldn't have been able to get their players to buy in as completely, or wouldn't have kept tinkering on every couple minutes. But we also saw the Pacers making sweet plays on nearly every possession, really impressive passing, reads, finishes, fadeaways, etc. That was so obvious that last game that it seemed like a weird time to give Carlisle lion's share of credit.

[oversteerdawg]

A coach being around for so long and never being denigrated for a almost unheard of.

[flow]

Carlisle IS one of the few legit good coaches but let's not give him more credit than he deserves. The Pacers have arguably the deepest team in the league and a well-constructed rotation of complimentary pieces. They're a very good team. Yes the Thunder have more talent but it's not an overwhelming advantage and wouldn't be them choking if they lost. Credit should go to the Pacers

To be fair - the reason those complimentary pieces are contributing is they got decent minutes in the RS and so far in the postseason as well (yes, I'm looking at you, JJ - your team played such an abysmal basketball that Delton Knecht couldn't make it any worse)

It's not just JJ. The vast majority of NBA coaches, both now & throughout history, feel the need to shorten their benches come playoff time, even when they were prominently utilized during the regular season. It's something I have never understood. Carlisle has 3 guys, all who have made significant contributions during this playoff run, that many coaches (including my team's coach, Bickerstaff) would have stapled to the bench once the playoffs started - McConnell, Sheppard & Bryant. Kudos to Carlisle for sticking with his rotations and leaning on his bench, instead of shying away from it while needlessly taxing the stamina of his starters.

.

....And then Game 4 happened. Where Carlisle did needlessly tax his starters in the 2nd half. And it cost his team the game. It made no sense. Neither did benching Mathurin for all but 4 minutes of the 2nd half, and all but the final 40 (miserable) seconds of the 4th quarter. He hadn't been playing poorly or missing a bunch of shots. You don't freeze a guy who had a game-high performance the night before. You give him an opportunity build on the outing and stay hot. Instead, Nesmith and Nembhard played the entire 4th quarter and Hali wasn't far behind. They were gassed in the closing minutes. And for what? You're up by 7 entering the 4th. Lean on the bench for the first few minutes so the starters can come in fresh at the 7 or 8 minute mark, which is what they often do & did in Game 3. Still love Carlisle. But that game was his low point of the playoffs.

[Slimjimzv]

Carlisle is a good example of why they should wait to vote on some of these awards. He's the clear coach of the year, IMO. That wasn't so obvious at the end of the regular season.

[Mirotic12]

He'd be a typical coach in EuroLeague.