How many coaches in the NBA do you feel is good at rotations?

Out of the teams I watch a substantial number of games, I would probably say half of the coaches are good with rotations. The overwhelming trend is that coaches without extensive head coaching experience are bad with rotations. In fact, I can't really think of a single coach good with rotations who has fewer than three years under his belt.

Even brilliant inexperienced coaches like Tom Thibodeau are not good with rotations (and to a lesser degree, matchups). Long time head coaches like Pop, Karl, Jackson, Carlisle, etc. tend to be good with rotations and matchups. I think generally speaking experienced coaches have learned the hard way not to go full retard trying to be brilliant with rotations and matchups.

Some coaches simply learn that lesson faster than others. New coaches with stubborn blind spots don't last, but some coaches learn that lesson too in time to save their careers. I mean, there is hope for McHale yet considering that we didn't see a single second of Garcia tonight.



Keith Smart, yeah, there is hope for him yet; Dwane Casey, on the other hand, there is no hope for redemption for that guy. At the end of his natural life, Casey is going straight to basketball hell for all the terrible things he has done...

 

I am sick & tired of this coaches know more than we do nonsense that people like to spout to stop fans from critiscing useless coaching decisions. Keith Smart legitimately knows nothing, played Monte more minutes that Curry & Acie Law over Lin, Brooks of Thomas etc. Lindsey Hunter is still learning on the job. Ty Corbin is clearly a moron for not playing his bench guys over his starters. Rick Carlisle was an idiot this season playing Derrick Fisher over Darren Collison. Scott Brooks was dumb for not using his final timeout on tonights game in OT. When Rocket fans were saying why don't we just put Harden & Lin on the wings opposite to there dominant hand early in the season. What did McHale say immediately when he came back from his family issues, that he was going to do exactly that. NBA coaches are not infallible & fans are know more than you are giving them credit for.

 

So here's what you're not understanding... When coaches talk about things, it's the same as anyone in a particular vocation talking to a layman about it. They don't talk over their audiences heads and don't ever get in to very detailed specifics.

The few times they do, fans hear their comments and it flies over their head because they don't know how to assign a particular amount of significance to small details (need to hip grab the screener and slide over or have to stay connected to the ball through the screen). The Spurs kill teams by running the same play over and over and doing counters off the other team's defensive counter. The difference between defending that play well vs. poor is very small (squaring your hips on the re-screen is a no-no for example).

Additionally, anyone who is talking to the general public is not going to divulge their entire specific philosophies regarding certain aspects of the game. "Hey team XX, here's how we defend all our mid screens. And while we're at it, here is exactly how we handle shooters in the weak side corner on strong-side post entries..."

These are all things that teams do differently. If you can't see them during the game, someone talking about them in a 8 second blurb probably won't inform you to everything you need to know.

When coaches do say something the fans understand (like the example you said), the fans all go "see I told you", but the game is so much larger than that. It is small details at the highest level.

The best example I could give was when I went to college and all of a sudden running the plays correctly (i.e. moving to the right spot) was not nearly enough. The TIMING of the play was paramount to anything else. Everyone could go to the right spot, but if a very small amount of timing was off, the play blew up and looked horrible. If everyone timed their cuts/screens/ball fakes etc. correctly, the play would look masterful.

How many fans notice these details?

 

Er...Collison was doing absolutely terribly for almost a month stretch and he got injured before DAL got Fisher to start; Collison also got his starting job back basically as soon as he was fully healthy.

Case in your other point though, I agree with you that the point of "since all coaches receive some rotation criticism from somebody, some rotation criticisms must be unjustified" is a pretty weak point. I mean, obviously some rotation criticisms are unjustified. What's the point of pointing out that out? Oh, yeah, it may potentially be possible that any given unspecified rotation criticism may be unjustifed.

If you have a compelling argument on why a particular rotation criticism is unjustified, then by all means present it. Spit it out. If you don't have a compelling argument on why a particular rotation criticism is unjustified, then yeah, I suppose pointing out the obvious fact that there are some unjustified rotation criticism floating around is all you have.

It's not much, but I suppose it's slightly more compelling than technical handwaving.

 

I am no Collison fan by any stretch of the imagination but he is A LOT better than Fisher irregardless of his terrible play. And Collison is still not the starter for Dallas. Mike James is. DC comes off the bench.

 

Certainly not for that month, especially after the hand injury. Collison may be one of the most overrated player in the league right now, despite most people not even thinking much of him in the first place, just from the sheer "potential" people thought he had from his early days. I mean, he is a good shooter, but he is horrendous at almost everything else, which basically means that when his shot is off, there is not a single player in the NBA he is "A LOT better" than, not even Royce White or Jimmer Fredette, let alone Fisher, who is by no stretch of the imagination the worst player in the NBA.

That's another can of worms and he just got demoted recently. A lot of why Collison sucks so much doesn't readily show up on the stat sheet, like dribbling down the clock then passing it off at the last second and falling asleep on the court and losing his man completely even more frequently than Mayo does (which is quite an accomplishment if you watch a lot of Mayo). Also, watch Collison's man help in the paint while Collison is parked at the top of the 3-point line and still beat Collison down the court.

Let's put it this way, barely a DAL fan even batted an eyelash over Collison's latest demotion to the bench. In fact, you can probably find more DAL posts hoping to see Beaubois starting over James and Collison. That's how bad Collison is. Carlisle is basically choosing between mediocre on a good day and mediocre on a good day on this one. DAL just signed another PG in Chris Wright barely a week ago no doubt hoping that something will stick. There certainly is no coaching atrocity committed no matter which PG Carlisle started.

 

i agree with the OP in the sense that coaches are usually criticized for their adjustments, even the best coaches in the NBA make stupid decisions occasionally. just like a player, coaches are human too and make better decisions some nights and bad other nights. i think trust in players is also a big issue with coaches, some coaches trust certain players more than others especially veteran players over younger players in the final minutes.

heres how i see it:

ive definitely noticed one thing about the good coaches is that they are usually stubborn and let the team play on the floor longer than what the fan wants them to. i think its a team ball thing where the players are more responsible for making the adjustments on the court than the coaches. the coaches can scout the other team and point things out to players and make them aware before the game starts and during time outs, but in the end the coach is more responsible for not an individual player adjustment but more of a team adjustment. i think that is more important than subbing a player in or out because of a mismatch on the floor, like when one player starts lighting up another player. but the team when playing has to have the smarts and chemistry to recognize when they are starting to get scored on and why? and how? they need to adjust. this is why i think the coach chooses to play some players over others, if he thinks that player is getting out of control or not adjusting to the situation while a player on the bench sees and hear's from an outside perspective what is going on.

i think this is why when lets say: the rockets are holding a steady 15 point lead and suddenly the momentum shifts, and the other team starts coming back, and fans are like "WTF call a time out coach?!" depending on the situation, this is when a coach will call a time out sooner than others. i think when the coaches dont call out a time soon, its to make the team learn how to adjust to the run themselves on the court making them think together instead of just helplessly losing control of the game. this is team chemistry, and on defense i think this is extremely important.

jmo because ive heard so many criticisms of coaches not doing this and not doing that, which is a factor but in the end it is the players on the court that make the adjustments that the coach tells them to make.

 

Yeah, the guy who made one of the most questionable "rotation" decisions of all-time by inserting Nelson back into the starting lineup at the start of the Finals, which they lost.

 

I think most of the times we as fans just think in the short term with regards to substitutions. Lin not playing well? Beverly! Beverly still can't do the job? Aaron Brooks! We just want to fix whats 'wrong' as soon as possible.

But I think as a coach you have to think in the long term, your substitution patterns have to give your players some consistency to rely on, so that they will be able to play knowing in their minds that their coach has confidence in them. So when you think about the short term AND the long term effects of your substitution patterns, I think most coaches (excluding the teams that tank) do try their best to win, both in the short term AND the long term. (Of course you could bring out how Mchale is not playing Lin in the 4th and all that...but I think that all that a coach really does is try to win, again in the short term AND the long term)

I think another thing we should look at is not just how many minutes a coach allocate a certain player. I feel that something that makes a coach great is how they use their bench players to impact the game, matchup wise, energy wise, spacing wise...whatever. Some thing Greg Popovich is GREAT at. Just look at how he uses Gary Neal, Boris Diaw, Stephen Jackson, Tiago Splitter.

 

I can definitely find a post of yours where someone implies it is stupid. But I don't need to see it for confirmation. I can judge for myself.

The fact is, of all days, you choose today (when again, it is obvious that McHale made poor rotations) to post this thread makes it obvious you're either agenda-driven, or you're just plain stupid.

 

I think this about cover it.

 

greg popovich

 

Coaches know more than you do. Stop the useless criticism of coaching decisions. While coaches certainly make mistakes, I have no confidence in your ability to correctly identify them.

 

Word.

I said it before, but when I got to college and all of a sudden we focused on a whole new set of things, I was a bit amazed considering I thought I knew the game very well for a high schooler. I can only imagine what the next step up the ladder is like in that regard.

People who watched our games in college would at times ask about the coach's decisions (that includes "why isn't he playing my buddy XYZ, he's ****ing awesome at ball"), and they would almost never align with what we saw as a team in practice and film every day.

 

LOL

 

Yes. This.

I kind of roll my eyes whenever people yell at coaches to call plays when I don't think that a coach should do that for a player.

Do you still ask your parents how to dress each morning? Do you still have to be fed with a spoon? Of course not.

While I agree that sometimes the team gets into a rut there needs to be a play called, or if there's a particular mismatch that the coaches see but that the players (because they're young or for whatever reason) don't see. But I don't think that a coach should constantly micromanage the game.

The Rockets in particular seem to value a philosophy where the players have the freedom on offense, and you know what: that makes them STRONGER, in the long run. It makes each player able to make decisions, and quick decisions; it means that as a 'parent' the coaches have raised a successful 'adult'. But this means having to suffer through growing pains and mistakes.

Something that I think gets overlooked when fans are yelling for a coach's head about rotations is that the coaching team is also responsible for instilling a team culture. Sometimes I think that's what's happening with the 'mysterious' benchings: if a player isn't playing well, if they're turning the ball over, if they aren't hitting their rotations, if they're cheating too much and not recovering fast enough for their cheat, they should be sat down.

Because guess what? That produces players in the long-run who are more focused, who know to take care of the ball, who know better when and how to cheat, and do all the little details.

But it's tricky balancing this out with trying to win each individual game.

However, if losing one game because you benched a key player means that the player is pissed off and focused for the next three-four-five games for wins, then that's what's necessary to produce a winning season. The alternative is never having the player learn and grow.

How many of you guys were yelling for Lin to have the ball more in his hands and to stop shooting threes early in the season? But guess what, he learned how to move without the ball, he honed his 3pt shot, he's improved his handle and decision-making, and he's doing this alongside Harden. Lin's become more of a well-rounded player and I don't doubt that he was driven by the need to prove himself trustworthy enough to stay on the floor. To force McHale to put him on the floor.

And hasn't that paid off?

 

Phil Jackson was always terrible on purpose. He would look for rotations that just didn't fit together and make his players suffer through them. Or at least he was that way in the early part of his stint with the Bulls; while he was building them into a champion. Believed in adversity.

 

Ahhh so McHale and Sampson are employing the same strategy? Delfino to play PF and Asik on the bench when we need a critical defensive rebound on a free throw? TD and Beverly to finish games instead of Lin, and making Lin play off the ball as well? Delfino to lead the fastbreak, tossing in Parsons from time to time as well? Genius. Let the rings roll in baby.

 

We don't really know what goes on behind the scenes. Some coaches are under pressure from management and ownership to play certain players.

 

Adelman is supposed be one of the league's best coaches, but his substitution patterns are mind-boggling and that assessment has followed him to every fan base that he has been connected to.