Check out this direct quote from page 61 of Moneyball: Sound familiar? It's what I meant in this thread, and it seems I was right: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6137370&postcount=48 I think most of us are a little disappointed with the McHale hiring at face value, but if you look a little under the surface, you realize that McHale is just a figurehead that won't really be doing much in the way of significant coaching. Looking at it that way, I feel a lot better about the decision. Worst case scenario you can just fire McHale and promote Finch - you've got your sacrificial lamb. That is, of course, assuming Les and the fanbase doesn't lose all faith in Morey at that point.
I'm not comfortable with this approach for the game of basketball. I think it is a very different thing to manage a baseball game and coach a basketball game.
I think that had a lot to do with it, but I don't think McHale will just be a puppet. They brought him in here to be a leader of the players and a guy that the players can like and respect (and also can work with the bigs). I think he will certainly follow what the numbers suggest is working, but I have a hard time seeing an NBA coach agree taking a job in which he has no freedom with on-court decisions, especially an established NBA guy like McHale who isn't desperate for a job.
Well I guess I overstated my feelings on his leadership role. I guess what I'm saying is that I perceive McHale as more of a "leader of men" role, and less of an X's and O's guy. I imagine the assistants are going to be doing a lot more film watching, scouting, etc., whereas McHale will be more of the psychological and emotional leader. And sure, I'm sure he has a lot to teach the bigs. But so does CD, and he's not really head coach material either.
That's why the Rockets are intent on finding qualified assistants that have strong experience coaching winning basketball.
True, but isn't that basically what Phil Jackson has done all of these years? Tex Winter has always been the x's and o's guy. I think you could probably say the same for Doc Rivers. If we get some serious talent on this roster, I think McHale could flourish as well as anyone else with the right staff. I don't necessarily think he's just here to bide time for Finch or anyone else. This has Morey's outside-the-box thinking written all over it. Perhaps McHale is even weaker than those guys when it comes to the x's and o's (and apparently he is according to the press about him leading up to the hiring), but that's why we're looking at bringing in offensive and defensive experts to help in that area.
About the McHale = Morey Puppet line of thought. I don't think it's true. I think McHale and Morey are just in tune with each other and believe they make a good team with neither one of them having to have his hand stuck up the other one's butt to "puppeteer" him. Human relations is a little more complicated than just a game of "Who's the Alpha Male?" I think McHale's experience running the rather "mom and pop" operations in Minny (I don't think Glenn Taylor is paying for even one analytics guy) makes him appreciative of the resources that Alexander, Morey and the front office staff bring to the table. On the other hand, I think while Morey believes in the value of analytics, he also knows the limitations of it-- and has repeatedly stated it during interviews and even at the MIT conference. I think Morey appreciates having someone who is open to analytical input but also brings the "basketball lifer/ex-player" perspective that Adelman had brought.
I don't understand why people have to make it out to be some sort of dominant/submissive sort of argument. It's not like all head coaches are geniuses at Xs and Os. Just because a HC is more a motivational speaker than a genius tactician doesn't make him a puppet. If anything, it makes him a good head coach. By far the most important part of being an NBA head coach is dealing with player egos. If McHale can do that, does it really matter where his playcalling comes from? Does it matter where he learned to use certain offensive set or defensive substitutions? I honestly don't care if McHale isn't coming up with his own plays. He just need to be the person who can relay them to his players, and allow them to play their best.
This! How good a coach is should be determined by how well they bring out the best in the players, not by wether he's a tactical genious. We could have the greatest tactician of all time sitting on our sidelines, but if nobody listened to him because he was also awkward, it wouldn't matter.
We're following the model the Pacers used when they made Larry Bird coach, and it went very well for them. I'm all for it. 99% of coaches out there are flawed in some manner (JVG's offense, etc) and generally bring in their own like minded proteges that usually share the same blindspots. By building the staff like he builds the roster, Morey can put together a balanced team of coaches and teachers. So long as they can sit in the offices, get along, and not splinter over agendas, personalities and ambitions, this is a fantastic move.
let me ask a question. do those assistant coach candidates mentioned in media have potential to be very very good coaches? if yes, what's the problem with mchale taking the job? his coaching experience is very short, two stints with t-wolves. i don't think he has any favorable list of ppl he wants them to be on his coaching team. he may agree with morey's evaluation on those assistant candidates. it may happen that they are on the same page. don't try to assume mchale is a puppy of morey.
As they're told, by the GM? Otherwise, the point of this makes no sense. If Art Howe had assistants that were doing the real coaching, then it would be insignificant to say the GM was the one really exacting the control of how the team was to be coached.
This! How good a coach is should be determined by how well they bring out the best in the players, not by wether he's a tactical genious. We could have the greatest tactician of all time sitting on our sidelines, but if nobody listened to him because he was also awkward, it wouldn't matter.
This thread is BS and so is the McHale hate. Maybe he had great interviews, maybe the fact that he is defensive minded and loves the motion offense is the reason he got the job. If he was not a great coach Kevin Garnett whose won several DPOY awards would not be praising him as the most influential coach he had while developing.
IIRC, when he stepped down as coach, Bird said that players would normally tune out a coach after 3 or 4 years. The motivational thing can only get you so far, especially on the pro level.
For what it's worth, this thread is about me coming around on the McHale hiring, mainly because I think it will create a situation in which the team as a whole can succeed. My reservations (and I believe many other people share my feelings) of McHale as a coach center around the fact that I don't believe he has all the tools in and of himself to take an NBA team where it needs to go. Not only does he lack a proven track record of success, you can legitimately argue that he in fact has a track record of failure. That being said, we're not going to have to rely on McHale to stretch himself into areas where he's not comfortable. He'll have plenty of Morey hand-picked stats guys, scouts, and specialists around him doing much of the dirty work. Meanwhile, he can focus on the more motivational side of the game, where he likely excels as a proven winner himself. In the end, McHale will likely come across as looking like a great coach, whereas in reality he will probably deserve less credit than he's getting, but that's why he takes this job in the first place. This is pretty much the scenario that I'm expecting. On the flip side, as I mentioned in my first post, if things DON'T go well for whatever reason, who cares? It's not like McHale has a big track record anyway. You can just chalk it up to a nice experiment and bring in the guy you've been grooming anyway. The Art Howe comparison comes in because this is exactly what Billy Beane did in Oakland. You bring in a guy for a low cost, make him look good, and in return you get to run the team "your way." I mean - look - you either believe in Moneyball or you don't. But clearly that's the way that Morey is running the team right now. Only time will tell whether or not it will prove to be successful in basketball, but I don't know how you can really read this situation any other way. I mean, do you really believe that Daryl Morey hired Kevin McHale over coaches with a proven successful track record over a great verbal interview? Really?
Would moneyball have Morey's computer on a hot seat? What is getting lost in all of this is how the sabermetrics genius' computer failed to shut down properly. It did not get a serviceable center and it did not process vital information, like other GMs being more interested in the Nets assets*. It's not all the computer's fault. Yao got injured and who saw that one coming? Free agents want to be cute and form their super alliances and other teams had the old fashion lottery pick to offer for so called superstars. The computer always tries but we're in win big mode and trying isn't good enough. Personally, I like Moneyball when used to evaluate talent but not other things... like coaching. You can give Thabeet and Terrence all the minutes you want, but until they decide to be better..there is nothing money ball can do. I need some aspirin..maybe something much stronger.
I absolutely think so. From my standpoint, Morey has a season or two left to prove himself and his methods, but I honestly think we'll see some success. The problem is that basketball is such a star driven sport, it's really hard to find "untapped" talent out there. I mean, Battier was a good example of someone who was probably undervalued when the Rockets picked him up. Unfortunately, you're still going to need superstars to truly succeed, and they don't exactly grow on trees. And unless something dramatic changes at the Collective Bargaining table, I think we're going to see more and more of what happened in Miami where you have stars converging on one team on their own. Not much you can do about that other than cross your fingers, and it's not like Houston is really a destination city like Miami is. I guess we'll see what Morey can do calling all the shots.
Which do you think is more likely? A) That Daryl Morey has become so entranced in his video games that he's become completely unmoored from reality and doesn't understand that good centers are valuable. OR B) None of the available centers were enough of an upgrade over Chuck to be worth the cap space they'd eat and the assets they'd take to acquire. You and I would love for the Rockets to have an All-Star center. So would Morey. But most of the centers available are mediocre players on bloated contracts like Dalembert. And there's a reason the other GMs were more interested in the Nets' assets: the Nets had better assets. If we had sucked enough to draft Derrick Favors and traded away enough talent for those first rounders, we too could have made a trade for Deron Williams.
