It was reported that they were really impressed by McHale's interview. Did you see any report of them being really impressed by his 30-some games of coaching? If anything, those raised big player-side red lights despite his winning record. They interviewed him, said he sounded like he really knew his shat, and they hired him. It doesn't exactly require any unreasonable inference from there. You see this sort of interview-impression hirings all the time in the league, see Rob Hennigan/Paul Westphal in the previous post.
So basically, in your opinion, McHale doesn't know shat but is capable of fooling multiple Rockets personnel who all spend their working days on basketball. If that's the case, and McHale is a freaking genius at making people think he's awesome, then isn't he the perfect head coach for an NBA team? It would make him similar to Rudy T in terms of being a motivator. I personally think you're making ridiculous inference, but if McHale really could fool people like that, then I just might like him even more.
Analytics is only one potential advantage among many. There doesn't need to be a case where analytics overrides all other advantages for it to be an advantage. Teams like OKC and SAS may have used analytics more heavily and/or earlier than other teams, but that one advantage is not enough to make them elite. Having lucked into Tim Duncan helps, but having identified Ginobili for cheap also helped. People really like to trumpet the fact that baseball is a simpler game and advanced analytics is more predictive in baseball, therefore advanced analytics is less useful in basketball. However, this logic actually works the other way around. Why? Because analytics in baseball is so much simpler, baseball analytics has become very much commoditized. There isn't an advantage to be gained when everybody has easy access to it. All the advantages the A's have gained through their use of advanced metrics were quickly and easily reproduced by teams with other advantages with just a wee bit of investment. Once everybody and their dogs have it at a high level, it no longer is a substantial advantage. While Hollinger-style "advanced" metrics and thereof in basketball may be a commodity, they are also not that predictive. More predictive cutting edge analytics in basketball are not as reproducible given the more complicated problem that is basketball, so they actually net a less reproducible advantage for the teams which have it. Teams are starting to learn that good basketball analytics is not something they can just buy off the shelves and being one of the "have nots" actually puts them at a substantial disadvantage.
Right now it's certainly looking like it given what I see on the court last season and this season. You can only learn so much from an interview. It's like I said, even Royce friggin' White can fool a whole lot of people who live and breathe basketball for a handful of stinkin' interviews, let alone one. There is only so much you can "metric" a coach with 30-some games under his belt at the time (and the interview apparently trumped all other redlights from there, too). Once again I submit glorified ballboy Rob Hennigan over Weaver and completely clueless fraud Paul Westphal over Thibodeau on the strength of their interviews. It's just unfortunate how much weight leadership decisions are given to the strength of interviews.
And when would an organization say anything other than than "really impressed by the interview" about any hire? Or any non-hire for for that matter. I can't wait to hear a "we hired him in spite of his interview". Never going to happen. "We hired him partially because we loved him in the interview" is NBA speak pablum, words religiously repeated about every hire. It means nothing just because it is a canned remark. It is said about every hire, and therefore it is completely worthless in any analysis. McHale is a well known commodity around the NBA. While he only coached 30 games, do you know the circumstances surrounding him assuming the head coach mantle? And who is McHale and why would the Rockets hire him? Well respected, almost adored top 50 player ever in the NBA. GM for many years, and he did a good job, even drafting some of the best big men in the NBA during his tenure. Underfunded though by a small market team. Stepped in to coach when disaster was besetting a team, and surrendered the position ASAP. And a great corporate man, a coach that Morey can depend on to implement the GM's view of the team. A very good, well respected and talented man. And that is why he was hired.
And who is McHale and why would the Rockets hire him? Well respected, almost adored top 50 player ever in the NBA. GM for many years, and he did a good job, even drafting some of the best big men in the NBA during his tenure. Underfunded though by a small market team. Stepped in to coach when disaster was besetting a team, and surrendered the position ASAP. And a great corporate man, a coach that Morey can depend on to implement the GM's view of the team. A very good, well respected and talented man. And that is why he was hired. Good point...and this is why the assistants were selected by Morey to provide the additional specific support - Sampson on D and Finch on O with McHale leading the team. It is the assistants that are failing him at the moment, and Morey for changing his team constantly.
