New Head Coach?

[QPR]

Wins weren't really the goal this year, but if people really think Nurse and Donovan are comparable not sure where to go.

That said, he's a downgrade from Brooks to me, and Brooks was let go. I've given Brooks his props when he was around and he had better rosters so there were more players to credit.

I'm not saying he's comparable to Nurse, I was just pointing out that even with a healthy Paul and Gallo, I don't think anyone would have had the current OKC roster as a 50 win team, which is what they are on track for right now. Whether you put it down to his coaching or something else is another matter entirely.

[bondom34]

Wins weren't really the goal this year, but if people really think Nurse and Donovan are comparable not sure where to go.

That said, he's a downgrade from Brooks to me, and Brooks was let go. I've given Brooks his props when he was around and he had better rosters so there were more players to credit.

I'm not saying he's comparable to Nurse, I was just pointing out that even with a healthy Paul and Gallo, I don't think anyone would have had the current OKC roster as a 50 win team, which is what they are on track for right now. Whether you put it down to his coaching or something else is another matter entirely.

Which again circles back to nothing in particular changed with things that were done. The team still doesn't pass much. The shot profile still isn't great. The wins have been often against generally subpar teams (they're a low ceiling/high floor team and have a bad record vs teams over .500).

Given last year's team and result, and knowing Gallo is well better than the post all star version of PG, and Paul is playing this well, I'm not seeing what it says about coaching given that. And we know Donovan had 2 MVP caliber players plus some solid support and ended up not winning.

[ThunderBolt]

I think this thread is a perfect example of sports philosophy that when things are going well you praise the players and when things are going poorly you blame the coach.

No issue with people not rating Donovan but to take a position that this team is where it should be is disingenuous imo.

There is a quite a bit of lengthy discussion on this topic in this thread. Simply replying that the answer is disingenuous is kind of a lazy response. Do you feel that Donovan is responsible for Chris Paul and Gallo staying healthy? If both players had missed significant time, what do you think the team's record would be?

Paul yeah, not sure Gallo has ever been a significant needle-mover while healthy. I think the biggest factor has been Schroder, as he has gone from a very inefficient player to an very efficient one, which has allowed Donovan to use the three guard line-up extensively.

What do you think the team's record would be with a healthy Paul/Gallo and a coach like Bud or Nurse?

Dennis’ improvement has been unexpected and is also a big factor in the teams success. He’s in his seventh season so it’s even more unexpected. I don’t really attribute his improvement to billy. That would be like saying Nate McMillan is the reason Oladipo made the jump late in his career. If I’m going to give billy credit for something I would say his three pg line up has had success and I didn’t think it would.

I don’t think the teams record would be much better or worse with any coach. Other than lebron, Paul is the one guy in the league that probably least needs a coach. As long as the coach stays out of the way, I think the team will look decent. We’ve also had this perfect storm of circumstances with health and some players making unexpected jumps. This team has maximized their abilities. Although I didn’t expect the teams record to be this good, I didn’t expect all of these things to happen and I genuinely don’t see how most of them are coaching related.

[getrichordie]

5th in FG% and 7th in TS% but our shot profile is a problem?

Oh yeah, we are also #1 in FT/FGA and mid-range FG% (in between 10 ft. - 3pt. line).

We are close to average from 3 which is a success IMO given the personnel.

More passing does not always equate to offensive success... Our ORtg is much better than a whole lot of teams who have more assists.

We played a harder schedule than the Bucks and Raptors.

We've beat BOS x2, TOR, PHI, LAC, DEN, HOU, DAL, MEM, UTA, and a handful of the games we lost, we didn't lose by much...

[bondom34]

They're sub .500 against over .500 teams. So yes listing wins isn't proving anything. Actually they're 9-17 vs teams over .500, which is better than only Memphis among west playoff teams and only Orlando and Brooklyn in the east.

And the shot profile is bad because they're taking worse shots. Taking long 2s is not a good shot profile. They're tied for 2nd to last in shot quality:

https://www.pbpstats.com/totals/nba/team?Season=2019-20&SeasonType=Regular%2BSeason&StartType=All

And they're the 3rd heaviest isolation team in the NBA.

They've beaten bad teams on the strength of a veteran heavy roster that for the first time since 2017 has been healthy and functional. There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a coaching accomplishment.

[getrichordie]

Lol at the shot quality stat. Knew it was going to be based off Moreyball. Really obscure stat...

Taking the 9-17 stat @ surface level doesn't really do much for me

[getrichordie]

Hell, what would the team need to be doing for it to be considered a coaching accomplishment? At this point, it feels like Donovan can't do anything to earn respect from some guys...

At this point, it feels like there is always going to be a BUT or a subjective negative that can be pointed out to diminish the value he adds as a coach.

[bondom34]

It feels like some people won't do anything but credit him as well oddly enough. There's nothing that can be pointed to that's in any way concrete showing anything done. Wanted less isolation basketball? 3rd in the league. Wanted passing? Nope. Wanted shot profiles to be good? Here's midrange (CP3 is excellent from midrange).

A team was entirely healthy for a season for the first time in forever. Schroder having a wildly good year in his mid 20s and Chris Paul being healthy along with Gallo for the first time in years isn't something I credit a coach with.

He's not a good one, and he's shown he can't win with high end talent. This franchise should know more of the same won't get there. They already messed up with 2 MVPs on the roster and they know he can't win with that. He's not Jim Boylen bad. But he's a slightly worse Brooks. Who was let go.

I forget Hollinger and Duncan's exact ranking but if I recall he was like the 17th best coach when they did their rankings.

[getrichordie]

It feels like some people won't do anything but credit him as well oddly enough. There's nothing that can be pointed to that's in any way concrete showing anything done. Wanted less isolation basketball? 3rd in the league. Wanted passing? Nope. Wanted shot profiles to be good? Here's midrange (CP3 is excellent from midrange).

A team was entirely healthy for a season for the first time in forever. Schroder having a wildly good year in his mid 20s and Chris Paul being healthy along with Gallo for the first time in years isn't something I credit a coach with.

He's not a good one, and he's shown he can't win with high end talent. This franchise should know more of the same won't get there. They already messed up with 2 MVPs on the roster and they know he can't win with that. He's not Jim Boylen bad. But he's a slightly worse Brooks. Who was let go.

I forget Hollinger and Duncan's exact ranking but if I recall he was like the 17th best coach when they did their rankings.

Why isn't it the player's fault that they lost? Why is it Donovan's? When you say Donovan can't win with high-end talent, what runs are you referring to? Because if it's losing to the 73-win Warriors in his first year as a coach, that's a low blow. If OKC wins one more game and get into Finals, does it change your opinion, or are we giving all credit to the players still? Are we expecting Donovan to win with the enigmatic and declining Westbrook (who many feel could never be apart of a championship team) and an up and down George?

The case can easily be made from both sides and you can't fault Donovan for having Chris Paul and you can't fault him for Paul making mid-range shots. What is the point of this? I don't really care how we get our points as long as we get them. I think for you, bondom, it's a stylistic preference. You prefer a different flavor of basketball and that's fine... Outside of Gallo, all of Schroder, Paul, and SGA are better on-ball players. What's wrong with tapping into that?

[bondom34]

Why isn't it the player's fault that they lost? Why is it Donovan's? When you say Donovan can't win with high-end talent, what runs are you referring to? Because if it's losing to the 73-win Warriors in his first year as a coach, that's a low blow. If OKC wins one more game and get into Finals, does it change your opinion, or are we giving all credit to the players still? Are we expecting Donovan to win with the enigmatic and declining Westbrook (who many feel could never be apart of a championship team) and an up and down George?

It was, Durant and Westbrook didn't close the series either. But that team consistently looked lost that entire season and greatly underachieved their talent level. They had no business looking as poor as they did most of the regular season and right here we were all rightfully calling out the terrible rotations for the entire season.

And your Westbrook statement is wild, he outplayed Durant for 2016. But no, Durant certainly couldn't be part of a championship roster (oh wait until he joined a better roster with a better coach).

The case can easily be made from both sides and you can't fault Donovan for having Chris Paul and you can't fault him for Paul making mid-range shots. What is the point of this? I don't really care how we get our points as long as we get them. I think for you, bondom, it's a stylistic preference. You prefer a different flavor of basketball and that's fine... Outside of Gallo, all of Schroder, Paul, and SGA are better on-ball players. What's wrong with tapping into that?

No, you can't fault him for CP3 being really good. But its not his credit CP3 is really good either. It's not a stylistic preference, its that he was a bad coach. He didn't change anything. His players stayed healthy and performed how they've generally performed when healthy other than Schroder. None of that is his doing.

Also...if all those players are good on ball, you'd probably want to play them all on ball and not in a 3 man lineup together where 2 are forced offball. Oh wait that's been the best lineup they've had.

[getrichordie]

...

I didn't say the couldn't play off-ball. I said they are better on-ball. There's a difference. All 3 can do both which is why it works. Not sure why you made the comment about Durant joining a better team. How come we are giving Kerr so much credit? He's better than Jackson, but that's not saying much... I'm sure if you swapped Westbrook out for Curry, suddenly Donovan is a better coach... Oh, that'd be a hell of an alternate timeline...

How can you can definitively say that Donovan had zero impact on Schroder improving as an off-ball player and defender? How can you say that? We don't know what goes on in film sessions or in practice or what conversations are being had on the sideline...

What we do know is all of Noel, George, Schroder, Grant, Waiters, and Nader looked or look a whole lot better under Donovan relative to how they played in prior seasons under different coaches...

[bondom34]

...

I didn't say the couldn't play off-ball. I said they are better on-ball. There's a difference. All 3 can do both which is why it works. Not sure why you made the comment about Durant joining a better team. How come we are giving Kerr so much credit? He's better than Jackson, but that's not saying much... I'm sure if you swapped Westbrook out for Curry, suddenly Donovan is a better coach... Oh, that'd be a hell of an alternate timeline...

How can you can definitively say that Donovan had zero impact on Schroder improving as an off-ball player and defender? How can you say that? We don't know what goes on in film sessions or in practice or what conversations are being had on the sideline...

What we do know is all of Noel, George, Schroder, Grant, Waiters, and Nader looked or look a whole lot better under Donovan relative to how they played in prior seasons under different coaches...

No...because Kerr entirely revamped Golden State's offense to something unlike Donovan has ever done. That's actually ridiculous.

Schroder is a veteran, and his main improvement was that he's making shots.

Grant actually did improve. Noel did as well, and yet Donovan kept him glued to the bench for years, so good job not playing the guy who is so good. George was actually an MVP caliber player and won MIP under another coach. And Nader still sucks.

I'm sorry but this whole post is just wrong.

[getrichordie]

Please tell me how you would revamp an offense with Westbrook as your lead guard and only 2 real outside shooters on the floor at any given time... help me see the light here...

And you are really faulting Donovan for only playing Noel 14 minutes per game last year?



And George CLEARLY had his best season under Donovan... and furthermore, he didn't really get any MVP love until that year...

[bondom34]

Please tell me how you would revamp an offense with Westbrook as your lead guard and only 2 real outside shooters on the floor at any given time... help me see the light here...

And you are really faulting Donovan for only playing Noel 14 minutes per game last year?



And George CLEARLY had his best season under Donovan... and furthermore, he didn't really get any MVP love until that year...

If Noel was this good and Donovan didn't play him, that's not good. Imagine right now if Brandon Ingram made his leap this year and Gentry decided to play him 14 mpg. Also, I don't see anyone crediting Gentry.

And George is full on a veteran. Hard stop. Crediting Donovan who George literally said didn't run an offense for that is wild.

And the offense isn't revamped now! The light is that the offense didn't change!

[bondom34]

If you're happy with a below average coach, cool. If you're happy with a below average team, cool.

If you don't think Kerr entirely changed the Warriors or that George having an MVP season is because of coaching (oh wait he was healthy for like 1 of the prior 3 seasons) I don't know what to say.

[getrichordie]

Lol. Do you realize that offense and rebounding was worse when Noel was on the court? Not better.

Also, can we stop putting spin on PG's quote? He said he didn't want plays run for him. Not that Donovan didn't run an offense...

So which is it? Is it Donovan's offense that is leading to ISOs or is it the players? You can't have both. Also, not sure why there is anything wrong with ISOs if it is effective...

[bondom34]

I thought Noel improved? I was told he improved? So either he improved and Donovan won't play him or he's not good?

Either:

What we do know is all of Noel, George, Schroder, Grant, Waiters, and Nader looked or look a whole lot better under Donovan relative to how they played in prior seasons under different coaches...

Is true, and Noel looked better and should play, or the team wasn't good with him and he shouldn't. Can't have that both ways.

And what PG said is essentially the same:

Spoiler:

"I like it when I can kind of manipulate and be on attack mode where they don't know what to do, as opposed to a play other teams [can] scout."
"At times he's like, 'Stop—just let me get it,'" Donovan said, per Young. "I had to learn him. I can watch things on film and say, 'Oh, that's a good play and he made that shot, let's run that,' but there's a lot more to it than that."

PG told him he didn't want anything but to freestyle. So he did. That's saying he didn't want an offense run.

And there isn't anything wrong if its effective. But for years we found it wasn't effective in the postseason, even for Durant. It's why they lost to GSW and why GSW almost lost to Houston. The entire premise of firing Brooks was that the offense was stagnant. So they did and got an equally stagnant offense. He's Brooks again with I'd say worse player development.

The idea that they're doing literally nothing different now but making shots isn't a credit to a coach when the offense was a scheme issue for years. Nothing changed, they still have a relatively stagnant offense with a poor shot distribution.

[getrichordie]

Noel improved in his second year under Donovan. And he is being played by Donovan. Are you suggesting we cut Adams' minutes?

Not sure what you are getting at saying that Donovan isn't playing him, because he is...

So... Donovan adjusted to a star player's needs? That's a bad thing? Where in the quote does it show that George said he never wants him to run plays for him? George said sometimes he just wants to call his own. We've seen this done before... the most notable example being LeBron.

This is what I mean by fans taking quotes and running with them...

And where's the evidence that the offense hasn't been better under Donovan? All evidence that suggests our offense is better is just going to get written off by you due to players.

It goes back to its the players if they are succeeding expectations, not the coach. If they are underperforming, it's the coach. Donovan can never win due to this...

[getrichordie]

Yet, if we had a young roster, and the roster showed considerable improvement, it's the coach...

What would Donovan have to do get respect as a coach?

[bondom34]

Noel improved in his second year under Donovan. And he is being played by Donovan. Are you suggesting we cut Adams' minutes?

Not sure what you are getting at saying that Donovan isn't playing him, because he is...

So... Donovan adjusted to a star player's needs? That's a bad thing? Where in the quote does it show that George said he never wants him to run plays for him? George said sometimes he just wants to call his own. We've seen this done before... the most notable example being LeBron.

This is what I mean by fans taking quotes and running with them...

And where's the evidence that the offense hasn't been better under Donovan? All evidence that suggests our offense is better is just going to get written off by you due to players.

It goes back to its the players if they are succeeding expectations, not the coach. If they are underperforming, it's the coach. Donovan can never win due to this...

1. Yes, Adams wore down every year the last 3 seasons. That's exactly Noel's purpose.

2. The entire criticism of Brooks was that he didn't run an offense and let stars iso. So Donovan did the same. And it failed.

And no, I've given coaches credit in the past when due. See Brooks. Donovan just hasn't changed a thing since he started really and the only reason he's getting any credit now is a healthy roster and lowered expectations. We've seen player development decrease and the things the last coach was actually fired for haven't changed. So if we're being consistent there's no logical reason he's still around other than he's friends with the GM.

Yet, if we had a young roster, and the roster showed considerable improvement, it's the coach...

What would Donovan have to do get respect as a coach?

Show improvement as a coach.

If a student guesses C on every answer on a test and gets a 25, then does the same the next test and gets a 50, he didn't actually improve.