The Rockets did some good things that series, but starting big the first game was beyond dumb and a lot of the folks on here (myself included) were saying so at the time. Putting Harden on Ibaka was a good move, but hardly innovative. Coaches cross-match all the time. I'm not sure why some of y'all feel the need to declare McHale either great or awful. Judging coaches is fairly objective, but there's no real evidence/good reason to believe that McHale is either.
It is remarkable the number of ignorant and ill informed fans that show up on this thread. It is like a lemming magnet.
So if McHale gets no credit for a 7 game winning streak, when the Rockets lose in the future he should get no blame, right?
And why not go with what had worked during the season for the first game of a series? And really, is there any instance of a SG guarding Ibaka during the entire season( (except of course for those bad match up defensive switches)? I am not saying McHale is a great coach yet, just that he is the right coach.
Most responses that I have read all agree that McHale is a DELEGATOR and motivator. That has never been the issue with me or most of what I read from others that wanted him fired. It has always been about his inability to coach X's and O's, adjustments, rotations and minute distributions mostly, not to mention some poor judgments in other areas occasionally. He still has to prove that a coach who appears to lack elite level skills in these areas can take a team to a championship with only being a delegator and motivator. I have absolutely ZERO problems with Morey, even with the McHale hire. We were at a difference place then. Whether Morey and Les sticks with McHale for next season and beyond depends on what McHale produces with his delegating and motivating skills in the playoffs, I would imagine.
You do realize that's a statistic, which is first very hard to measure and means almost nothing and second 1 -3 variation makes no sense. What is it 1 or 3. Every statistic is based on averages but those averages include extremes. Everyone has seen a coach who has lost a team and another coach comes in and instantly they go on a major winning streak. It's true coaching is not so much about the X's and O's as it is about the Johnny's and Joe's but all things being equal the right coach can make a lot more than a 3 game swing. That being said I think McHale is doing a fine job and see no reason to replace. He mostly pulls the right strings for his players. They're a good bunch of guys who seem to want to win and want to be coached and McHale seem to garner enough respect to get the job done. As for X's and O's there are other people on the team to handle that.
You are extrapolating the wrong conclusion. I never said that he gets NO credit for the 7 game winning streak, I said that a 7 game winning streak doesn't equate to this thread being shut down or ridiculous. This thread will be ridiculous and should be closed if we make it to the finals or win the championship. If we lose in the first round of the playoffs, this thread is valid. If we lose in the second round, there can still be arguments on both sides IMHO. If we lose in the western conference finals, this thread can probably be closed, but it wouldn't have been ridiculous.
And I am totally good with that. We can agree to disagree. Until the playoffs. Best to you and yours.
By all reports no. McHale drew it up the first time then altered it to make Harden the ball recipient the second inbound. But I would be totally OK with Lin drawing up the play. That type of player involvement is priceless.
McHale is still the head coach. Do you think for a moment that McHale would have a job if Morey wanted a change?
The Asik-Greg Smith frontline really only "worked" for a few games, after the Rockets were essentially forced into that lineup since D-Mo and Jones weren't quite ready yet and Patterson was just traded away. The Rockets clearly were the lesser team and Morey even had stated before the series started needed to "increase the variance" to have a chance of winning. Going small certainly had some risk, but it was a risk that should have been willing to take, given that most of the small lineups were very effective for the Rockets and there probably wasn't a two-man combination less likely to result in increased variance than a frontline of Omer Asik and Greg Smith. Probably not, but the Rockets started a PG-PG-SG-SF-C lineup, so Harden really was the team's SF at that point and the height/strength difference between Harden, Parsons really wasn't/isn't significant. Harden has long arms and a big butt. Parsons is a bit taller, but he has gator arms, no butt and is the better perimeter defender of the two -- hence more equipped of guarding Durant. So, yeah, a good move, but not really innovative. IMHO .
A serious statistical discussion, nothing personal. The study, presented at the MIT Sloan Institute used Phil Jackson as their prime focus. It compared him to other coaches of the era to conclude that in the average season that a head coach contributed less than 5 wins to a franchise over the worst coach. There were of course outlier years. The two primary ones was the first year that Jackson took over the Lakers (after having been let go if I remember correctly) and Pops first year with the Spurs. Both seasons featured huge additions through the draft, trade or players returning from injury. Again I am functioning from memory. Other than POP are there any great coaches left in the NBA? The study was statistically valid IMHO. However isn't today's head coach's job, with all of the statisticians and assistant coaches available, to just get the whole team working for a common goal? The train wrecks in Cleveland and other teams this season seem to point in that direction.
Lin didn't draw anything up. Harden already sank the game winner. Lin taking the marker was after Harden made the winning layup. He was calling out what the Wizards were going to do for the final shot, what kind of play they might have been running. That is what he was trying to mark on the board.
I feel like with this new age of advanced analysis and statistics that coaching will essentially be a whole team of numbers/math guys with charts mixed in with X and O's type guys as the assistant coaches. The head coach will be someone like Pops and dare I say Mchale, who essentially reign in egos as much as possible while preaching team ball. I think in the next couple years you will see more coaches like Brad Stevens who values analytic values but understands the nuances of handling player egos and preaching team work over hero/iso ball. But you also have to realize that there is a time for hero ball when you have certain superstar players on your team like a Lebron or MJ.
You just like stirring s**t, don't you? For the life of me, I cannot understand how you came to that conclusion...
