Then again you can say that Pop cost the Spurs another championship when he took out Duncan in game 6. So if Pop can make those kinds of mistakes then we should be somewhat patient with Mchale.
You really think their total minutes is alarming? Parsons at 15th and Harden at 22nd doesn't seem all that bad to me, nowhere near alarming when you look at the rest of the leaders. Spurs are the exception, not the rule. Although it is crazy to go through that list and see that the player on the Spurs with the most total minutes played this season is Duncan who ranks 94 in the league.
I really wish i could edit my posts :/ Ive donated $10 before, does anyone know how exactly we go about getting those edit privileges?
I find it alarming mainly due to their positions, play style and our pace of play. We run one of the highest paces in the NBA in a very fast transition game. This is really brutal on the body in terms of fatigue and leg joints. For example, did you know that Parsons runs the greatest distance per game at 2.7 miles per game? http://stats.nba.com/playerTracking...owsPerPage=25&sortField=DIST_PG&sortOrder=DES And Harden's game is very physical. He takes a beating every time he drives into traffic, whether people are hitting him on the arms, or he's driving his body into defenders. When you run that fast a pace and are taking physical contact every game at high minute usage, it's going to catch up sooner or later. And just because other players are being run monster minutes doesn't mean it's a good idea. There have been multiple studies pointing towards an increased correlation between injury and fatigue. The more you run a player down, the less co-ordinated they become (increasing risk of injury) and the less mentally focused they become (reducing performance and increasing the chance of injury). http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2297 Just because there's a LOT of bad coaches when it comes to managing player minutes doesn't mean that we should be emulating them. At least not if we want these players to perform at a high level in the long term for the Rockets.
Hey torocan, are you on the fire Mchale train? I havent been following this thread that closely and cant search post history.
My position is simple. McHale is average as a coach and we should upgrade him to a higher caliber coach *if possible*. I don't believe that under it's current incarnation the Rockets have sufficient talent to be a dominant team in the Championship race. And I question whether it may even be possible to get sufficient talent given how dodgy a process Free Agency can be. There's just too many high end play off caliber teams right now. While the Spurs will eventually ride into the sunset (I hope), OKC has a LOT of years ahead of it. And you have multiple teams that are aren't far off our roster age in the Clippers, Portland, GSW and Phoenix that will also be fighting for talent and competing at or around the middle/upper seeding over the next 4 years. That means that barring a super star signing to put us over the top, you will probably need an Elite Coach if you are forced to do it with Harden, Howard and role players. Granted, we're not getting Pops, PJax or Doc Rivers. However, there's nothing to say that we wouldn't have a shot at another upper tier coach at some point either this off season or the next. Coaching is just too unstable a job to assume that an upper tier coach won't be available in a reasonable window.
Tell Morey to bring in some better bench players then instead of trying to get by with the bare minimum.
Just a few minor unimportant points: 1: In game X's and O's are not important at all. Offenses suffer greatly after calling a late game time out. NBA coaches would be much better off if they did not ever call a timeout in the last few minutes of a game. 2: System, and player buy in to that system mean everything. Pop. Need I say more? Is McHale on the same level as Pop? Certainly not. But neither is any other coach in the NBA. McHale's successes in that area are easily quantifiable. For instance the Rockets take the fewest mid-ranged jumpers in the league by far. 3: Roster and staff satisfaction is perhaps the most important gift a head coach can bring to a team. I see no possible criticism of McHale here. 4: A large part of a head coaches job is to work with the FO and the media. McHale gets an A there. 5: Mit-Sloan studies have shown the true value of the head coach. It is much much less than fans would guess.
1. I do agree that X's and O's in a head coach are less important (as you can hire excellent assistant coaches, ala Tom Thibodeau in his early career.) 2. Player buy in is a significant factor, which is why changes from a coach that the players like is always a bit of a gamble, unless you're fairly certain that the players will buy into the new coach (ala Doc Rivers to the Clippers). 3. Assuming that you're only bringing in coaches that the players are Willing to play for (obviously a disliked coach creates a toxic environment), I consider that a perequisite factor. I do believe that the greatest impact a Head Coach has is in terms of minutes management, IE making sure that the most effective line ups are on the floor, that players are reasonably rested, and that the players are used to their best ability as often as possible. 4. Working with the FO is important, but once again the assumption is that you hire a coach that is compatible with the FO. No FO hires a coach without the belief that they will work well with the FO. As for media interaction, I believe it's part of the job, but not anywhere near critical in terms of team performance. 5. I realize the impact isn't as large as many think (at least when talking about coaches around the average level). Which is why I believe it's only worth doing if you have a credible upgrade. I am familiar with some of the studies like Berri's analysis of coaching correlation and player improvement. However, that does not discount the value of trying to acquire a coach with a high value correlation IF you can get one that fits the FO and roster. I don't believe in firing McHale for the sake of firing him... I believe in replacing him IF the opportunity to upgrade to a suitable candidate presents itself. And here's a link to the Berri paper for folks who are tagging along on this thread... http://www.suu.edu/faculty/berri/IJSF4-2CoachingPaper.pdf
Unless I am missing something, you heralded DRivers as a very good coach. Celtics when he was coaching: 2008 - Pierce and Allen 36 mins 2009 - Pierce 38 and Allen 37 2010 - Rondo 38 and Allen 36 and Rondo averaged abut those many minutes until he left. This is on a team that was STACKED with very good bench players Clippers this year has Griffin and Jordan averaging 36 mins each and again, a very deep bench.
You have to keep in mind a few things that look at minutes per game doesn't show. First, the Boston Celtics was running a MUCH slower pace than the Rockets. Pace 2008-9 90.4 2009-10 91.6 2010-11 90.4 Rockets 2012-13 96.8 2013-14 96.1 Second, Rivers actually runs his main guys LESS total minutes played for the season due to reductions in total games played. Total season minutes played Pierce 2008-9 3035 2009-10 2411 2010-11 2774 Garnett 2008-9 1772 2009-10 2060 2010-11 2220 Rondo 2008-9 2642 2009-10 2963 2010-11 2527 Harden 2012-13 2985 2013-14 2653 (so far with 4 games to go after missing multiple games with injury) Over all, Rivers is running both Pierce, Garnett and Rondo fewer minutes every season on an offense that also runs considerably slower (half court). Yes, he plays them heavy minutes when they do play, but he also rotates their games so they get games off. Aside from game rest, Doc Rivers is also one of the most aggressive in terms of resting players during off days by skipping practices. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/de...pers-doc-rivers-practice-versus-rest-20131221 Long story short, don't let the minutes per game fool you. Doc Rivers is always acutely aware of resting his players, young and old. Whether that's on the court or off. And he freely admits when his players look fatigued or are looking sluggish due to fatigue. You'll never see Doc Rivers say, "Fatigue is not an excuse."
I don't see the Clippers not putting up just a little fight if they have the chance to push Portland into the six spot.
I did a little reading on that topic a while back. It really is surprising. And, like others have noted it would be worthwhile to grab a clear upgrade to McHale. But the whining about how awful he is, how he never runs plays or makes adjustments, etc. is just hot air. I hate to have a hair trigger on the ignore button but it's hard not to get jaded quickly around here.
Has there been any studies which concludes that pace creates more injuries? The Phoenix suns has always had the reputation of playing at a high pace yet they also have the reputation of having the least injured players for years. They have attributed that to their trainers and medical staff. During the DRivers era with the celtics, Rondo was always on the top 3 for mins played in the league. The same concerns were voiced for Garnett (when healthy) and Pierce. You excuse Doc for mins played per game and yet Mchale doesn't get a pass? It has been shown to you that the other coaches you considered good not named Popovich employed the same thing but you will make excuses for them but can't find a single one for our coach. I am presuming that your conclusions of those great coaches came from their records. Why can't Mchale be measured the same way? Is it because he doesn't have a championship ring? I am not saying he is great but he was done a wonderful job for this team given the record, development of the players and team chemistry. Other coaches might have different techniques to achieve their goal but as the saying goes, there are different ways to skin a cat.
MPG is less meaningful than total minutes played. If I play you for 38 minutes then rest you for 2 days, it's *Very* different than playing you for 38 minutes and then rest you for 1 day. While greater minutes played per game increases injury risk in terms of in-game fatigue, it's to a lesser degree than total minutes played. It's like trying to compare driving your car for 100 miles then not using it for a day against driving your car 70 miles every day. For example, take a look at this analysis of team minutes allocation... http://8points9seconds.com/2014/04/09/numbers-consider-pacers-fatigue/ Notice that the Clippers are nowhere near the top 5. The other difference is that you're trying to directly compare Doc Rivers from 5 years ago (when analytics was significantly newer and had less credibility) to today's coaches who have WAY more information in terms of injury and fatigue. 5 years ago Morey's moves and many areas of analytics were considered cutting edge and radical. Old school coaches don't change all their approaches overnight, and this shows in the declining minutes demands that Rivers put on his players in each subsequent year. McHale has no such excuses today with the amount of data and the impact of analytics on the NBA today. Do you really think that Morey isn't making sure the McHale gets the appropriate data? However Morey has also said that it's ultimately McHale's decision in terms of how he runs the team on the floor. As for McHale's record... Based upon Pythagorean analysis 1) McHale actually underperformed Last year (expected win/loss of 52, actual win/loss of 45) http://espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi/_/year/2013 2) McHale has performed at what I consider to be expected levels this year (+-3 of EWL, ie within margin of error), IE he has not hurt the team. http://espn.go.com/nba/stats/rpi As for studies specifically addressing pace correlated to increased injury risk, I have not come across any specific scholarly articles. Intuitively one would think that running greater physical distances per game would have a different impact on the body than running shorter distances. At what point you begin to see pace affecting needed recovery time is not something I can speak authoritatively about. And there's nothing wrong with being "average". Most NBA coaches are average. However, it doesn't change the fact that you should get a top shelf coach IF you can.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10767625/kevin-durant-not-expected-rested-oklahoma-city-thunder Oklahoma City Thunder coach Scott Brooks has no plans to give Kevin Durant a day of rest over the club's final four games, according to the Daily Oklahoman. "It's nothing that I've talked about and worried about," Brooks told the website. "Fatigue is not an issue with our group. His minutes are right at 38 to 39 minutes a game. During this stretch, we've had eight games in 12 nights, so there's some time off that we give in practice and shootaround. We're talking 39 minutes of your day. I think he can handle that at age 25." ====================== Guess Scott Brooks should be fired also for playing Durant with this type of minutes.
Personally, I think Scott Brooks is a fairly mediocre coach, and at best slightly above average. Amazingly, there's no shortage of OKC fans asking for him to be gone as well. Apparently ESPN didn't disagree either. They rated him #10. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10717235/2014-nba-front-office-rankings-coaches Burning out Durant at this point of the season is just silly. They've pretty much got the 2nd seed locked in. Using the "He's 25" excuse is a perfect example of questionable logic.
it's not just about fatigue that makes this questionable, but also the risk of your star player getting injured in what are essentially meaningless games. harden's scare just a couple nights ago is a reminder of how wobbly the quest for a title can be.
Harden and Durant are different players in terms of durability. At least this year, harden has been shown to have suffered several minor setbacks (which should be taken into consideration when managing minutes). While Durant, seems like a more durable player at the moment.
