The Next Coach (SCOTT BROOKS HIRED pg.13)

[Dark Faze]

yall put too much emphasis on x's and o's--if Brooks was the one mostly responsible for the insane development of his picks, then that absolutely trumps x's and o's up until you've got a team that needs to get over that last playoff hump and the core players have already reached a certain level development wise

and its not like Jeff's teams were all that great anyway. Would be silly to prefer him over Brooks.

[Illuminaire]

What about Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka's current skillset would you attribute to Brooks' influence and coaching? That is, can you point to anything he taught them that no other NBA level coach would have?

I struggle to think of any clear identifiers that point to Brooks' being above average at development; pretty much everything I see just points to Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka being damned fine players who worked hard on their games.

[keynote]

What about Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka's current skillset would you attribute to Brooks' influence and coaching? That is, can you point to anything he taught them that no other NBA level coach would have?

I struggle to think of any clear identifiers that point to Brooks' being above average at development; pretty much everything I see just points to Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka being damned fine players who worked hard on their games.

Ibaka wasn't a 3PT shooter as a rookie; he's a decent 3PT shooter now. His 3PT% dipped this year to 32.6%, but he hovered at 37-38% for the previous two years.

I'd also note that Westbrook wasn't a sure thing as a PG. He was a combo guard looking to convert to the PG position. He's certainly developed as a PG over the course of his career.

Both guys worked hard at the games, no doubt. But I suppose Brooks deserves some credit for supervising their development.

[Illuminaire]

Again, I'm asking for examples that go beyond the average coach. We're looking for value over replacement here. Three point shooting is almost exclusively improved by private practice... nothing a head coach does should impact that. Meanwhile, what specifically about Westbrook's game improved after Brooks became the head coach - and how do you interpret that as coming from Brook's instruction?

It's sort of important because we CAN look at Brook's lineup decisions and X&Os ability... places Brooks is generally found wanting. So if we can't show that he is clearly above average at developing player skills, there's no point in considering him.

Unless you really love mediocre veteran retreads with obvious flaws. In which case, let me say you are in for a treat!

[keynote]

Player development will always be a "black box." We as fans don't know much about how or when it happens; we just see the results. Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and Ibaka all blossomed under Brooks. Three of them have outperformed their pre-draft expectations and draft positions (since Durant/Oden was basically a coin flip, I'll say Durant has met expectations). Jackson and Adams are legit starters; they've also outperformed their draft positions. In contrast, Perry Jones III didn't amount to much. Mitch McGary = too early to tell.

Now, we can assume that each of those players hired their own personal trainers, and practiced on their own, and developed without any input or guidance from Brooks. Or, we can assume that the players received no outside help, and Brooks personally developed custom development road maps for each player. My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between. But to deny Brooks *any* credit for the Thunder's player development track record feels like a stretch -- unless you know something I don't.

Brook

[80sballboy]

http://newsok.com/article/5491697

Interesting article about Brooks and KD's loyalty towards him.

[ozthegap]

Interesting that he mentions the number of talented players the thunder have. How do the Wizards compare. #ThanksErnie

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Interesting that he mentions the number of talented players the thunder have. How do the Wizards compare. #ThanksErnie

I know that was a hypothetical question... But I'll answer anyway.

They don't compare. They have one.

[CobraCommander]

Tom Thibodeau or Mark Jackson and not Sam Cassell or Brian Shaw-

[Pillendreher]

You do realize that is the same offense that is being run now by Billy Donovan? Supposedly a "better" coach, than Brooks? OKC has finished in the top ten in offensive rating for the past six seasons.

The main cause for that kind of offensive efficiency is having two of the absolute best offensive players out there. Now I don't know if that was Brooks'/Donovan's idea or if they just catered to the strenghts of Russ and KD, but at this moment I'm not sure if the ISO offense isn't the best option for the Thunder.
I don't think it'd work for the Wizards just like it wouldn't work for the Warriors or Spurs.

[fishercob]

Tom Thibodeau or Mark Jackson and not Sam Cassell or Brian Shaw-

If Jackson is hired, I'll truly resign my fandom. But I'm not worried; I don't think Ted would sign off.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Tom Thibodeau or Mark Jackson and not Sam Cassell or Brian Shaw-

If Jackson is hired, I'll truly resign my fandom. But I'm not worried; I don't think Ted would sign off.

Right, because Ted has shown himself to be such an astute basketball man.

[keynote]

Tom Thibodeau or Mark Jackson and not Sam Cassell or Brian Shaw-

If Jackson is hired, I'll truly resign my fandom. But I'm not worried; I don't think Ted would sign off.

Right, because Ted has shown himself to be such an astute basketball man.

If Ted doesn't sign off on Jackson (which would mean that EG wanted him, but Ted overruled EG), I don't think it'll be because of Ted's basketball acumen. It'll probably be because Jackson has made some controversial public statements, and Ted would rather not get his franchise involved in rehashing it in a progressive market like DC.

[Wizardspride]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jorgeccastillo/status/720965969330499585[/tweet]

[McFilthy]

Among the retreads, Thibodeau is my favorite choice. This team really needs a coach that will get them to pay attention to detail.

I'm not really in favor of a retread coach, though. I'd rather take an up-and-comer from the assistant coaching ranks. Better to gamble on finding the next Brad Stevens rather than settle for a guy who has been fired at least once.

The attention to detail is great. It's the other things that come with Thibs I don't like.


The stubbornness, lack of creativity on offense etc.

Honestly, in general I'm not a fan of "defense first" coaches.

I like defense-first coaches as long as they have assistants who are better with offensive schemes and listen to them. I say no to Thibodeau because a fear Bradley Beal will be carried off on a stretcher with all the minutes he plays under Thibs.

With Ernie at the helm, I expect a retread coach. I am with Nate and others who look to find the next Brad Stevens - young up and coming coach who might actually be a difference maker. The only problem with a younger coach might be can they hold players accountable.

Or...I prefer whatever coach KD wants if he decides, despite the logic of it, to sign with Washington.

[Illuminaire]

No, no, running Beal into the ground is a bonus. Medical retirement is the only way the team will escape from the crippling max contract Ernie has already drafted up for the kid!

[Ruzious]

Cassell would be my last choice among the 5 that Jorge mentioned. He's made too many foolish old-school comments over the years, and his style of play as a player did not make me think - this guy's a future head coach... or assistant coach, for that matter.

[thricethefun]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jorgeccastillo/status/720965969330499585[/tweet]

Interesting that Wall has said he prefers Brooks

[DCZards]

Cassell would be my last choice among the 5 that Jorge mentioned. He's made too many foolish old-school comments over the years, and his style of play as a player did not make me think - this guy's a future head coach... or assistant coach, for that matter.

Don't quite understand the last part of your comment about Cassell's "sytle of play" making you think he was not a future head coach. I recall him as a heady player and an oncourt leader who was often responsible for getting his teammates in the right position on the court.

[Illuminaire]

I listened to the Zach Lowe podcast last month that had Brooks on it. He came across as a man with a strong understanding of chemistry and personalities. And sure, a reasonable amount of basketball acumen! But he defended the decision to keep playing Perk with a straight face, arguing that having Perkins in the lineup made the team better for intangible reasons... despite how the numbers showed that wasn't true.

He's an old school coach who has a knack for connecting with players and making them happy. So yeah, players like him! That doesn't mean he will make a team better.

I think it's worth reminding ourselves of the research done by Kevin and other statisticians. The evidence we have is that there is a broad middle class of coaches that don't change much, and then a minority who are true needle-movers (for good or ill). Brooks has a track record, it's pretty clear he's in the middle class of non-entities. So why go for the reliably eh guy you know will never take your team to the next level, when you could take a shot at finding the next difference maker?

(Yes. I know I just explained why EG is already faxed Scott's agent a contract. SMH.)