In reading an article on yahoo on Brandon Jennings and how well he is doing, this part caught my eye: I'm not saying Skiles is a better coach than Nate, but I'd like to see Nate make some adjustments. Last year when Webster went down, Batum took his place but Nate really didn't adjust the role to how Batum could play (of which we got a much better idea this summer). Oden is playing much better but I really don't see much by way of adjustment for including him as part of the offense. Travis goes down and Nate still doesn't adjust to the personnel, he shifts people around to fit HIS scheme and ideas rather than changing to best utilize the strengths of the personnel he does have available. I've long been in the "give him some time" camp neither strongly pro or con for Nate through the pre-season and early season (I know, we've only just begun), I find myself gradually sliding into "we really need a different coach to make significant gains from here" camp. Gramps...
I have no doubt that different coaches handle rookies in different ways, also depending on what talent level the team has on it. But the one thing that burns me up is when a young player who can flat out "ball" is sat on the bench by a coach because they are young. It's just the fact that some players are naturally gifted or have worked harder to get their basketball skills up in level, and that they will be better basketball players than even players more experienced than them, from day 1 in the NBA. To sit them down because you are blinded by tradition is bullshit. Now that being said, who thought Milwaukee would be 6 and 3 with their current squad? That says a ton about the coaching staff as is. They lost players last year, Michael Redd is hurt right now, and they have a rookie PG. With all that, they are tearing it up IMO. Skiles was an intense player and is an intense coach. His teams take on his personality. I wish we had that here, as this team lacks intensity.
I think you are safe in saying Skiles is a better coach than Nate Gramps. His .513 winning % compared to Nate's .498 shows that. His teams have also played 35 playoff games (5 out of 9 years) compared to Nate's 22 (3 out of 9 years)
Right. Because .513 in the east (which was bad in most of his head-coaching career) is so much better than .498 in the west (which was good in most of Nate's head-coaching career). Context, Please.
Yeah, it's probably best to ignore the situations they coached in, and just look at raw win% numbers. Let stats do whatever you want them to. It's better than understanding meaning behind the numbers.
In all fairness, I consider the lineups that Skiles and Nate have had to coach pretty equal in level. Nate had some good players in Seattle for a couple of years there. Skiles had the same in Chicago. Now Skiles is in the same situation Portland was at 3 years ago. Not a whole lot of good on the team, one good rookie hands down better than the others coming in.
