Scott Brooks is a good coach

USATSI

Scott Brooks did a rare extended Q&A with Jared Zwerling of Bleacher Report, and what came out is one of the most insightful looks into Brooks’ coaching we’ve ever seen.

I’ve been around Brooks, listening to him talk, hearing his explanations, for seven years now. And he’s never opened up quite like this to at least show a glimpse of his approach to coaching the Thunder the way he does.

Talking about Scott Brooks is such a polarizing topic, to the point where it’s difficult for it to even be a rational discussion. Like I promise you, when I tweet this out, I’m going to get a rush of immediate responses telling me how no, he’s actually a terrible coach. The comments will probably be filled with the same stuff, with most people not even making it to this paragraph.

Most already have made their minds up that he can’t coach, that he’s holding the Thunder back, that he has to go for this team to take the next step. He’s become the primary Thunder scapegoat, the person that gets piled on first. Even when he does his job exceptionally well, he doesn’t get much credit or recognition. I wrote about that during last year’s playoffs where he made a number of excellent coaching decisions that no one wanted to talk about. Instead it was, “Why didn’t he do this sooner?” or “So what he still sucks.”

It’s a crutch I think too many fans use. Instead of actually asking why the Thunder lost, they just immediately assume it was Brooks’ fault. That his offense is too elementary, that his players haven’t bought in to him, that he’s taken the team as far as he can. I think Brooks is a very good NBA coach. That’s not the question. The question should be, is he the right coach? I don’t play the blind blame game after each game. Which means I get painted as some Brooks apologist, but in reality, it’s just that in terms of coaching an NBA team, what he’s accomplished with a roster with the core still 26 and under is remarkable. And so I think he’s earned the chance to put the Thunder over the top. He helped build this. He should get to see it out until it becomes obvious he can’t anymore. All his failures have caveats, but there’s no question he’s on thin ice. An early postseason exit, or gasp, missing it altogether can quickly change that perspective. But we’re not there yet.

Even this season as the temperature started to rise to new levels around him, there was strange selective reasoning. Bad losses on the West Coast were definitely really bad, but the extra panic only stemmed from the Thunder’s ugly record. Which had a very clear and obvious explanation to it, that so many were, and still are, conveniently ignoring to bang their narrative drum. They didn’t win as many games as they wanted to in November, but four more shot fall in and they might’ve gotten out of it near .500.

That’s the thing with NBA coaches. There narrative is so easy to follow with some of them, with many just buying into the common groupthink.  Tom Thibodeau is regarded as a coaching god by some despite the Bulls never really improving their offense. People are talking about Steve Kerr like he’s some kind of coaching wizard, but he hasn’t even been to the postseason yet. Brooks has been to five straight postseasons, three conference finals and an NBA Finals.

Everyone is in love with Mike Budenholzer and what he’s doing in Atlanta in his second season (for good reason!). He’s not the best example because the Hawks are wrecking everyone, but would he be getting the same plaudits for the same results if Al Horford and Jeff Teague were both considered top 10 players? It’s a weird dynamic — the better your players are, the more games you win, but the less credit you get. Coaches that have had less success than Brooks and won fewer games are thought more highly of simply because they have less talented players. Something to remember: Brooks took a bunch of 21-year-olds to 50 wins in his second year. Jerry Sloan is a great, legendary coach, right? The Jazz went to two Finals, and six conference finals. The first Finals trip came when Karl Malone was 33. Kevin Durant is 26, and has already been once, at age 23.

The way you change the narrative? You win it all. Doc Rivers knows that. Erik Spoelstra knows that. If Brooks wants any shred of recognition, he’ll have to do the same.

But in reading Brooks answers, I came away with an improved perception of what he does, and how he does it. Five other thoughts on his thoughts:

1. This was interesting:

I try to challenge guys all the time that way, especially the veterans. I’ll say, “Hey, Russell, what do you think about this right there? Is this guy in the right spot?” And he’ll say, “No.” And I’ll say, “Add to that. Tell him what he needs to do.” Our guys are pretty sharp that way, like Kevin, Russell or Perk [Kendrick Perkins]; they’ll say, “Come on, man, that’s your man, quit trying to look for an out” or something like that. Film sessions have been great with really developing our team.

2. This is a great perspective about how he got Westbrook and Durant to buy in:

It has to be based off of effort and the dirty things. I always tell our guys, “The dirty job, garbage-pail mentality is not for Perk and Nick Collison; it’s for Kevin and Russell.” If they’re not defending and they’re not getting on the floor for loose balls and they’re not trying to win every free throw block out, and they’re not trying to win every jump ball, why is it important for the other guys to do it?

3. Brooks on offense:

There’s no question you can spin the numbers any way you want, but I look at the fact that we’ve won a lot of games and our offense has been in the top five the last few years. But I’ve challenged the guys: “Let’s change how we score,” because in 2011-12 we were 30th in assists and we’ve improved every year. Our goal this year was to get in the top 10; it hasn’t happened because it’s an asterisk season for us with injuries.

We’ve always wanted to be a high-scoring team, but implement more screening and passing. And Kevin and Russell stepped up. We like to call it more of an attack-spots-on-the-floor offense. Trust me, it drives me crazy when they do dribble too many times, and we’ve worked to correct that behavior. I’ve told them, “Think of better ways to score without using the dribble as much.” We’re not where we want to be, but we’ve definitely gotten better.

They absolutely have gotten better. But they are still a long ways off. What drives me crazy about the constant piling on of Brooks is that there’s this carte blanche criticism every night. If the offense isn’t producing, like against the Wizards, it’s immediately about how terrible his offense is. To me, it looked like outside of some rushed shots, they were getting pretty good looks. Sometimes, it really is as simple as the ball didn’t go in. If the Spurs have a bad night shooting, do we say Gregg Popovich’s offense is terrible? Or if the Thunder have it all click, like it did against the Warriors and Magic, do we say that Brooks’ offense is great? Too many stay on message with Brooks, locking in on the bad and dismissing the good as outliers.

Are there areas he could do better? Of course. The offense is still often static, the defense inconsistent. Those things need to improve and its Brooks’ job to make sure of it. Yet with a still young roster, Brooks’ offense has ranked extremely well the past five seasons. Sure, you could say that’s a given considering the offensive talent he has. But one of his highest usage players is an erratic, often inefficient player. And the other, while brilliant, has to make the shots created for him, otherwise the whole thing breaks down and looks terrible.

4. On analytics:

I’m getting more into analytics—I think it’s important—but the only thing I always question is the plus-minus. Some [writers] say, “Why did you play this guy? He was a minus-15.” I’m, like, “How did I know he was going to be a minus-15 until the game was over,” or, “It’s Kevin Durant and he had a bad game. What are you going to do, not play him?” I think [five-man] units are more important than one guy.

Brooks has definitely come a long way. I remember asking him about pace a few years ago and how the Thunder were fourth or fifth at the time, and he took that to mean that they were the fourth or fifth best in pace. Like it was a ranking or something.

But he’s certainly right about units over individuals. I think individual plus/minus can tell you a lot, but we get caught up in the small sample sizes. It’s all confirmation bias. Like if Perk had a game he was -11, people would use that to say what a waste he is. But against the Wizards, he was a +8, second only that night to… Andre Roberson who was a +9.

The way basketball is, a lot of players need the right chemistry on the floor for them to be successful. So individually, if he’s in the wrong units he might not be productive. That’s why finding the right mix is more important than taking a guy that’s got a great adjusted plus/minus and just sticking him on the floor. Often times, when a guy is a proven plus no matter the circumstance — like Nick Collison used to be — then units don’t matter. But most of the time, the five-man groups are what are important. Brooks pays attention to who’s playing with who a lot more than you think.

5. This line:

“And George Karl is one of the best basketball minds. He’ll definitely get back into coaching; he’s just waiting for the right moment.”

DUN DUN DUN.

(George Karl is not going to be coaching the Thunder.)