Daily Thunder.com

comment4,

comment1,

comment2,

comment3,

I see collison as a good coach

Actually Jax, it goes much deeper than that FWIW: Phil Jackson wasn't a star player, nor was George Karl or Larry Brown. All some of the best coaches. The same goes for Rick Carlisle and Pat Riley, Nate McM, Doc Rivers...

Some very good players however have made very good coaches. Larry Bird was a pretty fair coach his few years, and we know he was a great player. Isaiah Thomas always had a winning record in Indiana, but couldn't do it in NYK, with the team he built. Lenny Wilkins was a star, and is the all time winningingest coach until Don Nelson breaks his record this year.

It seems to me that if you put it in a nutshell, the guys who didn't have th highest level of skill and athleticism, had to be smarter, pay more attention, and give greater effort than the guys with a world of natural ability. Hence guys like those in the first group learned a lot on the way up, fighting for a NBA paycheck.

@Clark Matthews

Maybe coaching talent is an inverse correlation to on-the-court talent.

Isaiah Thomas: Awesome on-court talent, Horrible coaching talent.
Scott Brooks: Average on-court talent, Good coaching talent.
Kevin Ollie: Below average on-court talent, ...

Kevin Ollie is the truth.

Dang it...who's the Un-Anonymous idiot now?

*specifically

@Clark Matthews
I've read that about Ollie somewhere else...and specifially heard Grant Long mention it when he did an interview on the Animal the other day...

and by Animal I mean NBA Idiots Un-Anonymous

Does Kevin Ollie have a reputation as a player who will some day be a coach? I say this because if he doesn't, I am not too confident that his career as a mediocre backup makes him the best guy to help RW vault to becoming a real PG.

Like everyone else, I'm excited about our starters, but I'm probably more hopeful about our bench. How many times did we see a second- or third-quarter lead evaporate when the bench rotate in? When you have a kid like Weaver - solid rookie season with good D whose main problem was hesitating before shots - on the end of your bench instead of your second-string and even starting some games, I see that as a significant improvement.

As far as the speed of the game, I don't think we're better off by pushing the tempo because we're young and athletic. I think we're best when we use that speed and athleticism once we get in the halfcourt. If Harden truly gives us a perimeter threat, just think of how quickly Russ and KD can exploit an opening in the lane. Provided they can finish and cut down on the number of times they were stripped going to the rack, it's going to be an exciting brand of basketball.

@Joe
See that's the other reason that it's obvious I'm a college convert. I didn't even know Brooks coached under Karl.

I like a good full court D (like OU under Tubbs) against teams that operate best in a half court offense and against teams with superior players. Anything to break their rhythm.

@Bryan

Oh it happens. George Karl uses the trap quite a bit, and he really used to use it a whole lot back when he had Gary Payton. He teaches and preaches it, but as he has gotten older and been in the league longer, he uses it as a changeup. Conversely, coaches who have been in the league know that Karl will trap and press and so prepare for it. It is totally a cat and mouse thing with NBA strategy. Brooks coached under Karl for a season and I've been waiting for Brooks to unroll the trap, but I've yet to see it. However, Brooks defense is a far departure from P.J.'s funky zone crap.

KB :
Royce, I think it would be awesome to see a game by game prediction by you much like the Laker guy, whaddya think……?

I whipped something up similar today to it. It'll be up soon.

DSMok :

Just read up more on the baseball side… there are a lot more articles about baseball management than basketball.

Statistics are more advanced and more widely used in baseball than in basketball because in baseball they are more easily quantified. Baseball is, with a few exceptions, a purely individual game. How do you quantify a wing guard shutting off a passing lane and forcing the offense off its planned set? How do you quantify the fact that the wing guard is more aggressive in shutting off the lane because the 7'1" center behind him is athletic enough to prevent a back-door alley oop? What's a guy like Collison -- who's always in position, sets solid screens and communicates on defense -- worth?

There are obviously many more (and likely better) examples, but the interdependency of basketball makes individual statistical evaluation much more difficult.

I think that in sports stats, as with some social sciences, there is actually more to learn from explaining the outliers. It's like the David Lee rebounding debate we all listened to on the BS report last week. While Lee is in the top five rebounders in the league, some think it's just because of the system he's in and the fact that the players around him don't pound the glass as much as others might. Explaining why David Lee over-performs is more valuable to me than his raw rebounding stats.

I think the hardest part of building a good NBA team is how to figure out when a great player actually hurts your team, or when an average player might suffice instead. Player efficiency and similar stats help, but stats can't account for chemistry or offensive and defensive systems or other variables. Stats can only take you so far, the rest takes case study and analysis and, yes, a flare for the anecdotal.

@DSMok
I actually work with statistics so I understand the value of hard empirical data. But I don't really need stats to tell me that KD is under paid. I suppose if I was a GM, or if I was doing some sort of fantasy league that operated under actual NBA salary rules, I might see the added value of being able to quantify a players value relative to others. That way I might be able to get the most bang for my buck.

But, I also distrust sports stats because there are so many intervening variables that just can't be operationalized.

Bryan :@DSMok1

But those are all things that are plainly obvious without all the stats.

Obvious, I hope so... quantifiable without stats, no. One must be able to quantify with some degree of accuracy to really weight A vs. B accurately when doing trades. It's not the best to just say, "this is their value above the contract within +/- 30%". A little more precisions is rather useful! Just read up more on the baseball side... there are a lot more articles about baseball management than basketball.

*throw
shouldn't type so fast

@Vince
You can tell we are all college ball converts. I can't even remember the last time I saw extended full-court D in the NBA. It would sure be fun to mess with teams once in a while, especially when they are on the tail end of a long road trip or back-to-back.

If it's someone like the Lakers, through the whole bench at them and wear them out.

Or maybe that's just the mentality of someone (me) who has to substitute effort for skill when it comes to basketball.

@GAP
As far as the lineups, they're not exactly well thought-out -- just rambling out loud, for the most part. I do like the pressing (not necessarily full-court, but also trapping/zone) lineup with Green -- because he's one of the more athletic 4's in the league -- and Collison is more athletic and more agile than most guys his size. I realize that the press is pretty much an anachronism in the NBA but I'd be interested to see what guys like Thabo and KD -- with 14 feet of wingspan between them -- could do flying around the court. Obviously, we're not running that 30 minutes a night but it'd be interesting in spurts, and it might cover Green's weakness in half-court defense (which is the bigger issue for an undersized 4) for a spell.

My larger point was just that with the players we have, Brooks can do basically anything he wants (look how many lineups we've come up with already). Short-term, I'm not sure it's worth more than a win or two or season, unless Brooks turns out to be a world-class coach. But when you start talking 7-game series down the line, where the series hinges on 6-8 possessions over 2-3 games, and where coaching adjustments become more important, the ability to run out a lineup suited for almost any situation can be very valuable.

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
I don't know. It's really hard to pin down his coaching style at this point - at least for me. He really tried a lot of different things last year. He almost looked a bit like he had ADD.

They look really nice in transition sometimes, or at least flashy. But, with a bunch of young, turnover-prone guys I think you would want to keep the pace pretty reasonable. They seemed to do best when they had those low-scoring grinder games, like those against the Spurs.

Although, when you are David fighting Goliath, sometimes it helps to bend the rules a bit. I would love to see them frustrate the big teams that they just can't beat - like the Lakers - by throwing the whole bench at them and keeping the pace up and the press on. If nothing else, you can wear them out and make them dread every time they have to play you - especially on your turf with the crowd behind you. Nothing like playing a team that hates you because you make them work too hard. Eventually it's going to break them down.

@Bryan

I wonder if Brooks will go for an up-tempo pace due to our new personnel. Last year, we didn't fare well AT ALL when we played at a fast pace. I don't know if it's because of personnel, or because it isn't the style of play that the coaching staff pushes.

Royce, I think it would be awesome to see a game by game prediction by you much like the Laker guy, whaddya think......?

@Jax Raging Bile Duct
I can't wait to see the transition game with Ibaka on the floor. He is so athletic for a big guy, and I've watched his Spainish dunk contest highlights about a dozens times now. He will electrify the Ford Center if he can manage to win some minutes and improve his overall play.

@DSMok1
But those are all things that are plainly obvious without all the stats.

"Shoals was having none of that from Berri and wrote a little retort: "

Did the article from Shoals make as little sense to me as to the rest of you all? The science of calculating how much value a team has because of a restricted salary is critical in conducting trades in baseball.

Why is it strange to do the same with the NBA? The team that owns the contract of the "Underpaid" has a huge advantage... and vise-versa. In baseball, this value is how one calculates trade value--the difference between the player's production value for your team and the contract price (See this post for an example) shows whether a trade is good for you. If KD is worth 50 wins and costs 20 wins price over the duration of his contract, no way should you trade him for a guy that could (this year) give you 20 wins and cost 10 wins price. (This is critical when comparing player with different lengths of contracts!)

@Vince

I like your lineups, but would make a couple of adjustments. If we're gonna run, I wanna see Ibaka instead of Krstic. That may be small, but we could really run.

If we want 3 guards on the floor, I'd put White at the 4 and Collison at the 5. If we're going that small, I'd like one guy to rebound like a banshee, and one guy who isn't a guard who can hit a mid-range jumper.

And as for pressing, do you mean a press defense? Like a full court press?

@Vince
I'm not really feeling that lineup that u say would press, with green and Collison involved. I just don't think it would be a very effective one with an Collison dat doesn't strike me as too mobile at all and with the way that Green has played defense up till this point. Hopefully Green and my boy KD has substantial improvements in the defense department this season and we at some point get rid of collison like we were gonna with that supposed trade to Memphis last season to get more atheletic at his position.

@KB
I actually think we should try more of that, but only if it is used properly. Phoenix was actually a top 15 defensive team in its run and gun days because they wore out the other team and incited them to move early in the shot clock. If we use that lineup and absolutely sprint up and down the floor, we could use it with significant results. If we use it and sit around in half court sets, though, it would get demolished.

@KB
The Defense would look pretty rough. It might work if you tried it when the opposing team sits down their starting big.

Either way, it would be fun to watch both teams score at will.

What about running RW, Harden, Livingston, KD, and Green at the same time. Its a match up nightmare for an opposing team to put their 4 on KD and 5 on Uncle Jeff. The question is would that grouop be able to defend and rebound at all? I would like to see this experiment sometime. I think they would score a lot.

@Vega
You are most likely correct. If Harden turns out to be the player we think he is, it would be pretty silly not to use Thabo or Kyle as trade bait, so long as they are going after a serious interior player.

I really like Thabo and Weaver, but they are pretty much the same player. One of them will probably be traded sometime down the road.

@Vince
Versatility is defenitely a key advantage to the Thunder roster. And it will be nice to see how DJ White and Thomas contribute this year. There are just so many options and new pieces, Brooks must feel a thousand times better than when he first took over.

@Bryan
Good point about Green and I also like Weaver. I think his spot on the active roster is a sure thing. He or Sef could be a valuable trading piece down the & they need to be on the court enough to prove it.

Bryan :
I still like my “all D squad,” RW, Weaver, Sefolosha, Collison and Thomas for late stops in tight games.

I like that lineup, too, and I think that's part of Presti's plan. Royce could write a 15,000 word-column about the flexibility the current roster offers. Want to play D? Those 5. Want to press? How about RW/Thabo/KD/Green/Collison (ooh, I like that one)? Want to run? RW/Harden/KD/Green/Krstic. Want 3 point guards on the floor? RW/Weaver/Livingston/4/5. We can big, we can go small, we can run, we can put 5 shooters on the floor.

As far as Livingston/Ollie, I think Livingston is the 2nd-stringer for now. Knee or no knee, though, Livingston has never stayed healthy, so it is an issue. I think Ollie is there as insurance, because he's an absurdly low-turnover guy, and to be a coach for Russ, Livingston, Weaver, and even Harden.

@Nix
Agreed. Mostly I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe I'm just dreaming up reasons to keep Weaver on the active roster because I like his potential. The Thunder may be running out of room for him, but he could be valuable to a team that is lacking depth at the 2 and 3.

I would also say that one of the big X factors this season, will be Green. We know he can score and he really came through for the Thunder is some tight games last year. But, we all know that he is not a natural 4 and I'm not sure the team can be truly successful with him as the first option at that position.

@Bryan
Honestly our entire team depends on Durant's D and where it's at. The truth is this will be the first offseason for them to really focus on what they need to do to improve.

Last summer they were trying to figure out where they would be living. Not to mention changing coaches in the middle of the season. I'm sure Brooks changed his defensive sets completely from what P.J. was doing. If I was a young player during that transition I'd just go out there and do what I do best. For KD that would be putting the ball in the basket.

You could also blame all that transition on Russ taking some time to get his defense together. Notably, the one thing we improved on last year throughout the year was defense.

And it's not like LBJ was the best defender in the world at first either

@Nix
Yeah, she could have easily projected that stats out based on the ave of the other ROY's third-year improvments. I'd like to see that.

Mainnneeee...

That Susan Bible article is excellent. I just wish she would have taken a leap and attempted to project KD's stats for this coming season.

I really hope he gets his +/- up to +2 at least. I'm really not sure what I think about that stat in the end though.

@Nix

I see your point. Most likely in a close game, you're gonna call a time out as soon as you get the ball back. At that time you bring in Harden and Durant.

I think I just like the idea of using RW, Weaver and Sef together because they are all such good defenders. And I hope that Thomas can serve that same D roll that Sefolsha plays, pulling Green or Kirstic out when they just can't get the stops. Hopefully, with respect to the Weaver/Sefolosha combo, Durant steps up his D and makes it a moot point.

Nix :@Bryan I wouldn’t do that lineup late game…But I could see starting the first couple minutes of the 4th with it.

I agree with you there.

@Bryan
I wouldn't do that lineup late game...But I could see starting the first couple minutes of the 4th with it.

@Bryan
Problem with that line-up is what happens after they get a turn over. RW sees he has no one on the court he can trust to shoot the ball so he jacks up a jumper, or drives and misses...then makes the free throws. So I guess that's ok.

The fact we didn't try to take a pt guard in the draft is sign enough they believe Livingston will fully recover...

Think of it this way, Tyson Chandler's toe scared the doc away from him. How not scary does that make Livingston's knee?

And with RW on the court, you could still run in transition.