If Coach Adelman couldn't get it (he deserved COY, IMO), then Brooks was who I wanted to take the award. He's done an outstanding job.
I disagree. To me, Nate McMillen head coach of the Portland Trailblazers, far and away deserves the award, given his ability to have multiple injuries throughout the season (including himself) and still make the playoffs with only one legit superstar talent, that missed games himself. Scotty Brooks had Durant, a possible future legend in the making, for the whole year. McMillen has gone a few games without nearly every player in the team's original starting lineup.
Durant has the biggest win share improvement in the whole league. I think people "snub" Durant for MIP simply because they assume a 25-ppg guy can't improve too much. The fact is, he has changed from a very good player into a great player who not only scores points but truly leads his team to wins. Like I said, I am not saying Scotty doesn't deserve it. But I think Adelman has done more with less. It is arguable that the Thunder's improvement is as much due to Durant's improvement as to the coaching change.
Much more? With $40 million in suits? With a bunch of role players and kids? Adelman's job was amazing.
durant definitely improved, but his improvement wasn't as big or significant when compared to others....the award is for the most improved player, so you have to look at his play as an individual and not as much as how he affects the team. houston had a severe disadvantage, but some people looked at this team as if it were the twolves or something, but the vet leadership on this team alone could/did give us 10-12 wins. We still had two guys capable of scoring 20 per the whole season and a great bench...it wasn't as bad as it seemed
relax buddy, I think you are taking it too seriously also, no, Parker and Ginobili were not on that team
I don't understand why you separate "as an individual" and "how he affects the team." Are you saying being able to help the team win is not an individual achievement? Are you saying that selfish players who care only his own stats should be awarded over players who make their teams better? Note that Durant's improvement is not just more wins. It's Win Share, which is supposed to measure how much a player impact the team's winning.
Adelman does NOT deserve COY.. No way. Durant could be deserving of MIP, though. He went from good, to great.
Sloan, Jackson, and Popovich have 2 coty awards between the three of them, meanwhile the last four have been brooks, brown, scott, and mitchell. Shows how much that award means.
the award went to the wrong scott! scott skiles should have been coty... the thunder didn't really exceed reasonable expectations. they were a team that was considered for one of the last playoff spots before the season and for 45 - 50 wins. they got 50 wins and the 6th spot. but they also hadn't any injury problems at all. their 3 best players played in all 82 games and their other core players all played at least 73 games. also, durant made the expected step from star to superstar so that did help, too. i know they just won 23 games last year, but come on, that was really a shame and obvious tanking (and shouldn't be rewarded). scott skiles on the other hand had a bucks team without a real star player. it was run by an inconsistent rookie point guard. their best player was andrew bogut who is a 16-10-2.5 player and didn't even play 70 games. they had other injury problems as well. so, given those situations the bucks winning 46 games seems like a bigger achievement than the thunder winning 50 games. btw, nothing against scotty brooks. he had a great season, no doubt. but it seems that every year the coaches with the most hyped up teams win the award while the coaches who really did the best job do not. well, i guess awards are useless anyways.
I'm not going to argue for Brooks over Skiles, but for you to say the Thunder didn't really exceed expectations is ridiculous. Even if you asked most of their fans, they would have said 40 wins was a stretch-goal. Most expected 33-35. No sane person expected them to win 50 games. Of course after the fact, it's easy to say KD's explosion was expected. But to many people, he was just a "chucker" on a bad team. Not even I expected him to grow this fast. IMO, Westbrook's level of improvement was more unexpected than KD's. There was a stretch of the season for about 6 weeks where Westbrook was at the very least equal to KD. Perhaps more than anything, their improvement on defense was the most surprising. Their formula for winning became: (1) Toy with the other team in the 1st half + (2) At some point in the 2nd half, choke the living daylights out of them with defense and take control of the game. The Thunder started last season 3-29 and ended up winning 23 games. They didn't sign a single significant free-agent, but added 3 rookies to their rotation (Harden, Maynor, Ibaka). Not exactly the standard way to get better. They are the youngest team in the NBA. If someone could calculate the age of a team by weighing the age of players with the minutes played, my guess is they would be the youngest team by a very wide margin. So, yes, they very much exceeded expectations, even with the magic carpet ride on injuries.
Congrats to Brooks, although it's kind of ironic he wins Coach of the Year the day after his decision to go for three (with KD no less -- was there a person in the building that didn't expect him to take that shot?) when only down by two ended up burning his team. On the first night of a back-to-back in January I can understand that strategy. But April? Playoffs? You take the highest percentage shot to extend the game. P.S. A_3PO is absolutely right. There is no sane or intelligent argument to be made suggesting the Thunder were anything but the biggest surprise in the league by a WIDE margin.
have you read my post? they won 4 games more than the bucks. so you sane and intelligent posters predicted the bucks winning 46 games (up 12 from last year) after losing their 4 top scorers of last season and while having no star player at all and handing their offense to an inconsistent rookie pg? awesome. meanwhile you also expected the thunder to win maybe 35 games at best after the ridiculous season they had the year before? with all that talent? i really don't know what to say. come on, guys, it was really obvious to see that the thunder were a much better team than their record of last season suggested. it was also pretty obvious that they would be fighting for one of the last playoff spots this season and that to get there they needed to win about 45 games. well, maybe i'm just smarter than most. ok, let's get this straight. 1. the thunder had a much more talented team than the bucks. right? 2. the thunder had an optimal season because they hadn't any injury problems at all while it was completely different for the bucks. right? 3. the thunder hadn't any significant additions last offseason but they were the youngest and one of the most talented teams in the nba so it was a reasonable expectation that they would get better from within, especially after that shame of a season in 2008/09. right? 4. the bucks didn't have any significant offseason additions, either, and they actually lost their 4 best scorers of 2008/09. right? but you guys still tell me the thunder were a bigger surprise than the bucks? i just don't get it. the thunder were supposed to be a good team. with all that talent less than 40 wins would have been a big dissapointment. 45 wins was expected. but they had an ideal season and so they pushed it to 50 wins. again, great season and a couple more wins than expected. but you can explain that with not having any significant injuries (besides the good coaching and the growth of the team that i don't deny). the bucks on the other hand were supposed to be a lottery team. 30 - 35 wins seemed like a best case scenario under an ideal situation. but they didn't even have that. and still won 46 games! if you can't see that, well, i'll stop arguing...
ROFL at those saying Adelman deserves COY. Coach of the year for a coach whose team didn't make it to the playoffs.
I can't believe this point even needs to be argued. THE THUNDER WON 23 GAMES LAST YEAR! 23 wins turned into 50 means they're +27 on the year. Sure, the Thunder have two budding stars but who in their right actually expected them to finish above .500? Let alone win 50 games and make the playoffs. Anybody? Did even the coaching staff believe this was a possibility? You aren't helping yourself when you make these dubious claims about how [in your opinion, clearly] the Thunder didn't "exceed" expectations. As A_3PO stated, the only acquisitions they made were to acquire three rookies. Clearly, this was supposed to be a developmental year. By and large, expectations were low and to suggest anything otherwise badly exposes your lack of familiarity with the NBA landscape.
Gotta agree with giving it to Skiles. OKC has 4 guys who were taken in the top 5 in the draft, one of which who is probably top 10 in the league. Half their team were lotto picks. They should be good. Has anyone even looked at Milwaukee's roster? If you ask me why OKC wins games, I have an answer; if you ask me how the Bucks win any games, I have no idea.
