Coach Of The Year

Yes, and there aren't 305-and counting- reasons for a flippin' 3 game "regression".

 

From Ball Don't Lie:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...t=Aogmg4h8UH22nTN1rYOX.C.8vLYF?urn=nba,233908

 

Lol, any one thinking other than Scott Brooks deserves it is crazy. The dude is making money right now and the Thunder could very easily upset the Lakers in 5 games. I guarantee Brooks takes it, watch.

 

Skiles gets my nod; most people had that team pegged as a 25 win squad to start the season.

 

That and they lost their "best" player for the season, in Redd. I thought they were much better off without him even before the season, but still you lose someone you plan to have like that, and a 20 PPG scorer no less, and to still get them where they are is impressive. I know we have lost mroe to injuries, and I think Nate should definitely be up there. Regardless, Brooks will likely win, since it is the biggest jump in wins award, not truly the coach of the year. Or Skiles, who will then burn his players out in two years, like he has done everywhere else he has coached. That guy is meant to be a college coach. Someone in the college ranks should realize that. And he should too.

 

I didn't list reasons, but 54 > 51, at least in my household.

 

Reasons are messy and hard to understand, just like statistics; best to avoid them altogether.

 

Exactly. Net net, 54 > 51, excuses aside.

 

Absolutely its a regression if you compare apples to apples-last year we were relatively injury free. But you're comparing apples to oranges, and also pinning the fact that we won three less games this year on Andre. Do you really think, with all the crap we've had to endure this season, we win 51 w/Blake?

 

Actually, I'm comparing victories to victories. I don't even really like apples or oranges. I'm more of a berry guy. As for winning 51 with Blake, the team won 54 games last year with him. I can only go by history.

 

I'm not sure you're understanding my posts.

 

Then you're on the right track. No need to be sorry. Think about it.

 

OK, I'll bite. Last year we won 54 games in spite of Blake for the most part. This year, we won 50 because of Andre, for the most part.

 

Yes, but if you watch the games, you can't really say Blake is better than Miller, you might say they're equal (if you only remember Blake torching us with the Clippers and not Blake getting-torched, with us) but saying Blake is the better player is a reach, IMO.

Also, I'm not sure our record with Blake and Miller was better than what we had last year, until the same time Blake got traded. are you saying Sergio (whom Miller replaced, until Blake left) was also better than Miller? You can't compare wins and then say that proves one player is better than the other, games are won by teams. I actualy think Miller is MUCH superior to Blake and that this season is a much bigger success than last year, considering everything we had to endure.