Minnesota Sports Forum

But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Did you really take the time to look that up?

Indeed I did, I was curious.

(there is also this newfangled thing called "the internet". It allows for really fast access to certain types of information, data, and facts. You should try it sometime!)

I didn't think you took me all that serious.

Huh? It took me a couple of minutes, not a few hours. It's not that hard.

Mikkeman wrote:

Q12543 wrote:
My point is that offense is more a factor of sheer talent and ability than something that is easily influenced by coaching strategies and tactics. Since GMs are responsible for assembling the talent, they are therefore more influential on team offense. A coach can take the raw goods and impact it up or down some, but there is more of a natural limit in my opinion of what they can do.

I believe the range of influence is much greater on defense. Yes, there are limits here too as it relates to the sheer talent and physical abilities given to the coach, but I still think the "elasticity" of defensive effectiveness is much more pliable for a coach.

(by the way, Thibs had the 5th ranked offense in the NBA in 2011-12 and D'Antoni's NYK teams were a bottom-half of the league offense for all but one of his seasons there. When he was in Phoenix, it probably helped that he had Nash and Stoudemire in their primes).

Q, I have at least one counter example. Atlanta and Mike Budenholzer. Atlanta had 15th best offense before him and without major roster changes they have moved to 6th place. But maybe just replacing Josh Smith with Millsap does the thing. I think that coach can affect quite a lot for offensive efficiency but it takes more time, roster stability and correct players that are able to execute coaches game plan properly before results are visible. Even mighty San Antonio didn't have this year as good offensive efficiency as normally because of injuries and I think no one could make current Philly roster play efficient offense.

I think that quite typically people tend to think that the amount points scored is same than offense and since it is quite common that certain coaches play fast pace game, they get the reputation of being good offensive coaches but in reality their teams have just more possessions.

Good example, but not as dramatic as some of the defensive transformations I've seen.

Skiles in Year 1 in Chicago (vs. year before) - 16th to 2nd
Skiles (again) in Year 1 in Milwaukee - 30th to 15th
Steve Clifford Year 1 in Charlotte - 30th to 5th (and that's with Al Jefferson being their major offseason addition!!!)
Thibs Year 1 in Chicago - 11th to 1st

That's the fairly recent past and all are double digit moves in terms of defensive efficiency versus the rest of the league, without big changes in player personnel.

Probably the one guy I can think of that rivaled these sorts of changes recently on the offensive side of the ball is what Jeff Hornacek did with Phoenix the year before last. Nearly everyone on the squad had career years in TS% when he took over as coach. That's a rarity.

Camden wrote:But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

Actually, now that I look at Mikkeman's Hawks example, that leap in offensive productivity happened in his 2nd year with the team, not his first. In fact, their offensive efficiency in Year 1 under him was the same (relative to other teams) as it was the year before under Larry Drew.

As for Josh Smith he was gone two seasons ago to Detroit, in MB's first year, and the offense didn't get better or worse without him. It was this past season - 2nd year without Smith and with Milsap and Budenholzer - that they took the leap forward. I do agree though that in the long run, they were better off without Josh Smith.

The examples I cited for defense were instantaneous in Year 1 of the coach's tenure. Other than Hornacek, I just don't see those types of improvements happen on the offensive side of the ball without coinciding with major player personnel moves.

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

Actually, now that I look at Mikkeman's Hawks example, that leap in offensive productivity happened in his 2nd year with the team, not his first. In fact, their offensive efficiency in Year 1 under him was the same (relative to other teams) as it was the year before under Larry Drew.

As for Josh Smith he was gone two seasons ago to Detroit, in MB's first year, and the offense didn't get better or worse without him. It was this past season - 2nd year without Smith and with Milsap and Budenholzer - that they took the leap forward. I do agree though that in the long run, they were better off without Josh Smith.

The examples I cited for defense were instantaneous in Year 1 of the coach's tenure. Other than Hornacek, I just don't see those types of improvements happen on the offensive side of the ball without coinciding with major player personnel moves.

A I was just thinking more about your premise which you have said and given solid reasoning literally for years. Could defensive coaching be able to make quicker impact right away be partially the function of it being more simple to get everyone on the same page defensively because you play your defensive concepts all the time? Offensively sure you have offensive concepts but you run a variety of sets and plays etc. That has to take longer to get rolling than defense right?

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

Actually, now that I look at Mikkeman's Hawks example, that leap in offensive productivity happened in his 2nd year with the team, not his first. In fact, their offensive efficiency in Year 1 under him was the same (relative to other teams) as it was the year before under Larry Drew.

As for Josh Smith he was gone two seasons ago to Detroit, in MB's first year, and the offense didn't get better or worse without him. It was this past season - 2nd year without Smith and with Milsap and Budenholzer - that they took the leap forward. I do agree though that in the long run, they were better off without Josh Smith.

The examples I cited for defense were instantaneous in Year 1 of the coach's tenure. Other than Hornacek, I just don't see those types of improvements happen on the offensive side of the ball without coinciding with major player personnel moves.

That's the reason why I wrote that effect on offense requires time and roster stability. I checked again Atlanta rosters and noticed that they also replaced Stevenson with DeMar Carroll, Pachulia with Pero Antic/Elton Brand and Devin Harris with Dennis Schroder (who was at least statistically horrible in his 1st year. Gives some hope that Lavine might also learn to play point in future).

It seems that they in all those roster changes the new player was offensively more effective (except Schroder) than the one he replaced. So maybe I gave too much credit for Budenholzer. Anyway I think it required typically more from coach to have dramatic improvement for offense than for defense. Your Phoenix and Hornacek example was a good one but even in that case about half of the roster was changed, so we don't know how well that roster might have performed under different coach.

Maybe Golden State and Steve Kerr is the best example. Goldes state had ranked 10th (Ortg 104.2) and 12th (Ortg 105.3) under Mark Jackson and in 1st year with Kerr they ranked 2nd with Ortg 109.7 with only Livingston and Barbosa as additions.

Camden wrote:But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

That was the reason why I wrote "But maybe just replacing Josh Smith with Millsap does the thing." :)

Actually Smith was not that bad in Atlanta during 2012-13 season.

His stats:
17.5 pts, 8.4 rbs, 4.2 asts, 1.24 stls, 1.79 blks 3.0 tos .465 FG% .303 3P% .52 FT% in 35.3 minutes
Millsap stats in next year:
17.9 pts, 8.5 rbs, 3.1 asts, 1.74 stls, 1.05 blks 2.5 tos .461 FG% .358 3P% .73 FT% in 33.5 minutes

Of course difference in 3P and FT accuracy makes quite a big diffeernce in offensive efficiency. Smith had TS% .501 and Millsap's TS% was .545.

Mikkeman wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

Actually, now that I look at Mikkeman's Hawks example, that leap in offensive productivity happened in his 2nd year with the team, not his first. In fact, their offensive efficiency in Year 1 under him was the same (relative to other teams) as it was the year before under Larry Drew.

As for Josh Smith he was gone two seasons ago to Detroit, in MB's first year, and the offense didn't get better or worse without him. It was this past season - 2nd year without Smith and with Milsap and Budenholzer - that they took the leap forward. I do agree though that in the long run, they were better off without Josh Smith.

The examples I cited for defense were instantaneous in Year 1 of the coach's tenure. Other than Hornacek, I just don't see those types of improvements happen on the offensive side of the ball without coinciding with major player personnel moves.

That's the reason why I wrote that effect on offense requires time and roster stability. I checked again Atlanta rosters and noticed that they also replaced Stevenson with DeMar Carroll, Pachulia with Pero Antic/Elton Brand and Devin Harris with Dennis Schroder (who was at least statistically horrible in his 1st year. Gives some hope that Lavine might also learn to play point in future).

It seems that they in all those roster changes the new player was offensively more effective (except Schroder) than the one he replaced. So maybe I gave too much credit for Budenholzer. Anyway I think it required typically more from coach to have dramatic improvement for offense than for defense. Your Phoenix and Hornacek example was a good one but even in that case about half of the roster was changed, so we don't know how well that roster might have performed under different coach.

Maybe Golden State and Steve Kerr is the best example. Goldes state had ranked 10th (Ortg 104.2) and 12th (Ortg 105.3) under Mark Jackson and in 1st year with Kerr they ranked 2nd with Ortg 109.7 with only Livingston and Barbosa as additions.

Right, I still think coaches can definitely impact an offense, but just not to the same degree as they can a defense. One is easier to coach up versus the other.

monsterpile wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:But... replacing Smith with Millsap is a huge move, though. Right? Or am I just thinking differently?

Actually, now that I look at Mikkeman's Hawks example, that leap in offensive productivity happened in his 2nd year with the team, not his first. In fact, their offensive efficiency in Year 1 under him was the same (relative to other teams) as it was the year before under Larry Drew.

As for Josh Smith he was gone two seasons ago to Detroit, in MB's first year, and the offense didn't get better or worse without him. It was this past season - 2nd year without Smith and with Milsap and Budenholzer - that they took the leap forward. I do agree though that in the long run, they were better off without Josh Smith.

The examples I cited for defense were instantaneous in Year 1 of the coach's tenure. Other than Hornacek, I just don't see those types of improvements happen on the offensive side of the ball without coinciding with major player personnel moves.

A I was just thinking more about your premise which you have said and given solid reasoning literally for years. Could defensive coaching be able to make quicker impact right away be partially the function of it being more simple to get everyone on the same page defensively because you play your defensive concepts all the time? Offensively sure you have offensive concepts but you run a variety of sets and plays etc. That has to take longer to get rolling than defense right?

Monster, I just think it's easier to coach up defense because you can improve without necessarily having fundamental skill-set transformations. Simply playing harder and hustling is one example. Offensively, it's hard to coach up things like ball handling, floor vision, and shooting. Offense is more a function of raw skills. Again, I'm not saying a coach can't do anything to impact the offense; it's just a smaller range of possibilities in my mind, constrained (or enabled) by the inherent talent the GM gives the coach.

Q12543 wrote:
Right, I still think coaches can definitely impact an offense, but just not to the same degree as they can a defense. One is easier to coach up versus the other.

I agree with that. I'm pretty sure that we have not ever seen coach to have as big effect on offensive end with almost same group of players than Kidd and his staff had in defensive side at Milwaukee. Last year they were 29th in Drtg with 108.9 and this year they were 2nd with 99.3. Also Philly had quite a leap from 27th (107.5) to 11th (102.1) but since Noel didn't play last season that improvement was not just coaching related. Also Utah with Snyder made impressive leap from 30th place (Drtg 109.1) to 11th (102.1) but I think that was at least partially because of improvement of Gobert and getting rid of Kanter was addition by subtraction.