Why is it that when it comes to coaching, they get none of the credit and all of the blame?

It's just the nature of the business of being a coach on the big stage. How often do we see coaches being fired because the players aren't doing their job well enough and winning games? It's because they are the focal point of the blame when things go south, but it's the players who get the credit when things go well. That's the way it's always been, no matter what sport.

I would almost guarantee that every team's coach where they have a losing record are getting beat up on the team forum sites too.

 

Simple, because every fan thinks they are a better coach and can see things the coaches can't.

 

I tend to look at coaches this way.

VERY few coaches are excellent. There are only a handful of people that have the skills to truly elevate the performance of the team. Coaches like Doc, Pops, and Doug Collins have well established reputations for excelling. Other coaches are well known to be very strong in specific areas like D'Antoni offensively, or Thibodeau defensively.

It is however VERY easy for a coach to LOWER the performance of a team, ie, to Get in the WAY of a team's ability to maximize their potential.

Is McHale excellent? At this point, no. He has no record of excellence as a coach. This is only his 3rd full season as a head coach. In other words, we have very little track record to determine whether McHale is a good coach outside of what we see on the court or hear in the media.

So, what criteria can we use to judge McHale as the head coach?

Works well with players - Maybe. We've heard no rumors of dissension in the locker room THIS year, however last year Lowry wanted out due to conflicts with McHale. The jury is out as Lowry is also having issues in Toronto. In a recent player's only meeting in Toronto, it was rumored that the team was upset with Bargnani (not playing defense) and Lowry (selfish on the court).

X's and O's - Probably not. I've never heard of McHale ever being referred to as a great X's and O's guy. This is probably true as he very rarely calls time outs to call specific plays. I have my doubts as to whether McHale is tactically strong enough to maximize Harden and Lin.

Substitutions - Sub-par. Forget the Lin substitutions (which has many people scratching their heads like in Portland OT, or the Spurs game when he squandered an 8 point lead sitting Lin in the 4th quarter). His sitting of Asik and Parsons during critical stretches, his use of the 2nd unit WITHOUT Harden or Lin handling PG duties, and his high burn rate on Harden (40 minutes AVERAGE) leave me scratching my head. He also has a tendency to NOT call time outs quickly enough when momentum is shifting away from the Rockets.

Defense - Unknown. He is supposedly a defensive coach, but the product on the floor hasn't matched his limited reputation. Late rotations, loss of players off the ball, and mangled coverage (double/triple coverage leaving men open, or people standing and watching a perimeter shooter instead of closing are just examples). The team however is young, so it may be early to pass judgement.

Offense - Unknown. The Rockets offense is the 3rd highest scoring and 7th most efficient, however, it's hard to be sure how much of this is attributable to McHale's sets, how much to some of our players playing well above expectation (making baskets), and how much to the addition of Harden. This is especially hard to judge given the lack of screen action, off the ball cuts, and very limited use of the high and side pick and rolls.

So, how much can I blame McHale?

It's hard to say, but I can say his substitutions leave much to be desired, his calling of plays is nearly nonexistent, his ability to mesh Lin and Harden is in question, his accountability of the defense is worrisome, and the lack of the use of screens, pnr and cuts is alarming.

That said, the jury is out and the sample size is still small. The players ARE inexperienced, and McHale has not had loads of time to implement his particular system with his players.

I'm open to seeing how it goes until the all star break, but unless there are marked improvements in his on the court coaching and the team's on the floor operation, then expect this question to be asked a lot for the remainder of the year.

The rest of the season will tell us what we need to know.

 

So to reiterate the OP's point, despite all these obvious shortcomings, the Rockets are still the youngest team in the league playing at a .500 clip. In your opinion, are they the greatest collection of youth of all time achieving this despite the coaching, who would be playing .600, .700 ball otherwise?

I believe it is very easy to see what the coaches do wrong, especially with the benefit of hindsight. On the other hand, it is much harder to identify what the coaches do right. Are the players playing hard? Are they playing with belief? So much of coaching is simply getting the players to buy in.

With that said, since the start of the season I've maintained that our youth is better than many here gave them credit for, especially those who predicted a bottom 5 record. Should we be a few games ahead of our current record? Maybe, but much of that has to do with the natural feeling out process of the team only being together for 20 odd games. Is Jeremy Lin playing much worse than what he is capable? Sure, but that has as much to do with him figuring how to fit in himself as the coaches figuring out how to best utilize him.

Remember, this is a team that has never played with eachother before with pieces that may be an odd fit needing time to adjust. Most of the issues you bring up will be resolved simply through time and familiarity. On the other hand, there are bright spots you don't bring up resulting in our current record despite all the lack of time and unfamiliarity.

 

Jacque Vaugn is doing fine getting praise in ORL while totting a losing record. People like to use "every coach gets criticism" as the explanation for coaches getting criticism, but the fact of the matter is, coaches get a heck of a lot more extra criticism when they do stupid things. The coaches who do nothing special actually are often praised just for not *$#%ing with their players. Then you have the meddlers with no skill. Those tend to attract the most criticism.

Some coaches just do dumbass things, like Dwane Casey with his silly anti-Ed-Davis crap. He kept on giving guarded reluctant praise to Davis and kept on looking for every excuse under the sun to bench him even with Bargnani out, even though virtually every fan could see that Davis was killing it out there and they would be better off with Davis on the floor, but well, obviously Casey knows better because he's a coach and being coaches excuses him from criticism. Sorry, no, that doesn't fly.

You know what's funny? The Bargnani injury may have just saved Casey from himself and his job. You know what's really funny? He still finds ways to bench Davis for long stretches just for shats and giggles, like this last game against us. They blew out Dallas too. Did you see what happened near the end of 1st quarter against us? Davis out Linus "Airballs for Jesus" Kleiza in to chuck a few clankers, Rockets went on an immediate run to tie it up. TOR went up again with Davis anchoring the defense, then Casey plants Ed's ass squarely on the bench in the 4th to almost allow a Rockets comeback.

Some coaches are just dumbasses and it goe back to Morey's sentiment that positive coaching impacts are relatively minor compared to negative coaching impacts. Coaches are pretty much just stock commodities by and large, while some have a bit of extra premium skills (at a very high cost). The trick is to avoid the coaches with the extra negative "skill" because those can have a substantial impact. This is why you hire established coaches who have had a long track record of no major bad habbits.

Of course, Morey is new to this hiring a coach thing. It's just very easy to fall for coaches who talk a good game in interviews (shoutout to Royce White here, too). It's generally a good idea to let other teams take the risk on short track record head coaches to avoid these bad qualities, otherwise you are just playing roulette. Maybe Les just wants to save a few bucks with Morey telling him that coaches by and large just have neutral impact but failing to warn about the potential substantial negative impact.

 

Story of Clutchfans

 

My only problem with coaching is that we are playing douglas over Lin to close out games.

I know sometimes douglas may give us a better chance to winthe game because of his defense, 3 pt shooting, and aggressive penetration...but we are NOT winning a championship this season...we should give the PT to Lin so that he can further develop and live up to the contract he signed.

 

I don't think they'd be .600 or .700, however I do believe there were multiple games that got away from us due to coaching decisions. While maximal potential is an ideal, there is a big difference between getting closer to optimal and getting sub-par performance from your roster.

I do think .530 or .550 is within the skill range of these players if you don't screw it up too much. As for bright spots, those appear to be bright spots on the roster more than obviously great decisions by the coach on the floor.

And let's also recognize that this often isn't hindsight. I (as well as many other posters) have questioned McHale's substitutions and lack of time out usage DURING games in progress, even when we are in the lead.

A bad coach decision is *STILL* a bad decision, irrespective of the win, loss OR draw.

 

Everything you talk about is standard expected minimum for NBA coaches.

That's like praising your waiter for taking your orders and bringing you your food. Yeah, I'm sure most waiters can wait tables better than the average diner. Quite frankly there is not a whole lot of extra improvement to your dining experience with a "premium" high-end super-friendly super-knowledgeable super-experienced super-waiter, but it sure as heck is going to kill your dining experience when you get a bad waiter.

 

I think forcing Lin to actually play well enough to close out games would benefit his development much more than anything you can hand him on a silver platter.

 

That would make sense, except Lin was sitting for multiple games when he WAS playing well. Like in Portland, or Boston, or the long period sitting during SA's 4th quarter while SA destroyed an 8 point lead.

And that doesn't seem to stop McHale from playing Harden 40 mpg, even on nights where he's playing horrifically.

I'm fine with sitting Lin longer when he has an off night. I have more issue with sitting Lin on the nights that he's playing well (like Boston).

 

One reason is that the two coaches before McHale had proven themselves at previous head coaching jobs and somewhat earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

Firstly, I am not denying that there has been coaching mistakes. News flash, every coach in the league makes coaching mistakes. Teams that have been together for years tend to know eachother a bit better, and their coaches tend to make less coaching mistakes compared to those who are still figuring their team out after being together for a grand total of 20 games. Funny how that works.

Secondly, so you think they are underperforming their talent level by a whopping 5 percentage points. Despite never before playing together before this season. Sounds like they are going to be A-OK. I think there is a high likelihood that they start playing at atleast a .530 clip as the season progresses.

 

^This

 

Yet both of them were fired after only a few years at the position. It still tells me that despite their credentials or past successes, they are scapegoats for the poor or mediocre performance of the team.

 

not just fans. the owner and/or the FO would do same. normally coaches are first to leave.

 

It is hard to credit coaches when the team is just mediocre.

Unless there are stats for coaches, coaches will always be judged by team record.