John Beilein: Continuing his education

[Man Called X]

He's been here a few months, with a roster full of players he didn't choose. I'm not sure what people expect? Just look at his track record resurrecting programs and players.....he's unequivocally a good coach.

This is going to be a generally lost year. Probably next year as well. It seems like younger players like Sexton, Garland, MPJ, etc. are getting more attention and more leash and veteran players are being rubbed the wrong way by that, which I get.

Belein's job, at this point though, is to see what longer term answers we have.....and it's possible that is none. We really just don't have good, young, NBA talent. When Sexton appears to be the best player, that will stick long term and he's a 6th man type on a good team, you are in a lot of trouble from a talent standpoint.

There's certainly things he can do better and will learn to do better.......but he's developed lots of NBA talent, he's revived awful situations, he's really evolved as a coach in ways very, very few guys do.......maybe give him more than 5 months to decide if he's the problem? My guess is he is not....but I understand the frustration on some levels.

Stop this idea that he developed NBA talent. He managed to develop 2 players that play a role for their teams(only one entered the league as a useful player), and a bunch of garbage that flamed out of the league quickly. Getting shitty players drafted in the late lottery is not the same as developing NBA players.

 

[I'mWithDan]

The best coaches change their system to fit the players rather than shuffling players in and out to fit a system.

That is true but only to some degree.

This was a total gut job......the point was not to win immediately. The point was to assess what players are worth investing time in and which players are not. And giving the players who are worth investing in the appropriate runway to learn, grow and get better......or enough time to (later) move them out of the investment bin.

In development situations, the two most important aspects are 1. deciding who should stay and 2. deciding what you need.

Once you answer 1 and 2, then you can start considering system changes IMO.......because #1 (who should stay) is most likely to effect it......and understanding what you need will also shape how a system ebbs and flows.

If you haven't even completed a season of step 1, I'm not sure what X's and O's even matter all that much.....other than just generally not doing blatantly dumb things?

 

[Derek]

Rotations are the go-to complaint.

I'm pretty sure Ive seen Los complain that his substitutions are both set in stone AND random.

Its remarkable.

Team is missing its 1st, 2nd, and 3rd big man, just traded its most productive guard, and was already talent deprived, and people think theres some magical substitution pattern that can mask all of that.

I've never actually heard a coach praised for his rotations

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

So a system no one seems to know, robotic substitutions, and doesn't hold players accountable.

So basically we hired a 60 year old white Lue.

Come on, we've got two 19-year-old rookies out there, one who barely played in college and one who didn't play at all and didn't play this summer due to injury. We're going up against bigger, longer, more experienced teams almost every night and we still having a winning record against under .500 teams.

We had no rim protection until Henson returned and he plays limited minutes. Love is very slow getting back on defense and he commits more turnovers than 81% of the bigs in this league.

The coach is not the problem, neither is the "system". As for "robotic" substitutions, Exum got hot last night so Beilein left him in and he ended up with 28 points. Delly played like crap, got jerked after four minutes, and didn't play in the second half. We've seen Beilein ride Porter when he got hot as well. When somebody gets a hot hand they get extra minutes.

 

[Wham with the Right Hand]

If you haven't even completed a season of step 1, I'm not sure what X's and O's even matter all that much.....other than just generally not doing blatantly dumb things?

Exactly.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The easiest way to teach young players is to let them play through mistakes, and show it to them on film later.

And again, that's something I've never seen before. I'm not talking about generally letting guys play through mistakes, which is fine. Rather, I'm talking about never yanking guys for repeatedly making the same mistake. Prompt correction of a mistake is often much more effective than correcting it many hours later, because it gives the player the opportunity to immediately return to the game and apply the correction.

I've never seen a coach who doesn't do that.

 

[Rich]

Btw he absolutely holds players accountable.

Ive seen him bench Sexton early in a 2nd half. I commented on it. Ill go back and look to see if I can find the game but he came and played a particularly awful first couple of minutes and then rode the pine for the next 15-20 minutes of game time. I loved it. He benched Thompson early in the year.

So none of this accurate about him not holding people accountable.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If you haven't even completed a season of step 1, I'm not sure what X's and O's even matter all that much.....other than just generally not doing blatantly dumb things?

I think it is tougher to evaluate/develop young players when they are playing in a dysfunctional system that isn't working. That's the rationale for keeping around a guy like Love, right? To show the younger guys how things should be done within a functioning offense.

Again, I'm not saying that it true with Beilein specifically. I was making a general point about "system" coaches in the NBA, and I'm now making a general point about why the X's and O's do matter when you're trying to evaluate and develop young players.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Stop this idea that he developed NBA talent. He managed to develop 2 players that play a role for their teams(only one entered the league as a useful player), and a bunch of garbage that flamed out of the league quickly. Getting shitty players drafted in the late lottery is not the same as developing NBA players.

This is really the discussion you want to have? Which coach gets the most players drafted and how good they eventually are?

Only seven schools — Duke (24), North Carolina (14), UCLA (13), Arizona (11), Kansas (11), Texas (11) and Michigan (10) — have double-digit representation across the league.

The fact that Michigan makes that list is a testament to how good he is at developing players. He hasn't gotten the quality of recruit of any of those other schools.....save maybe Texas (and he never got someone like Durant) but he has turned them in to guys who can stick in the league. Trying to brush that off is laughable based on some arbitrary quality metric you have in your head.

If what you describe is so easy......just "get some shitty guys drafted".....how have only 7 schools made that double digit list? This is such a bad take on all levels.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Btw he absolutely holds players accountable.

Ive seen him bench Sexton early in a 2nd half. I commented on it. Ill go back and look to see if I can find the game but he came and played a particularly awful first couple of minutes and then rode the pine for the next 15-20 minutes of game time. I loved it. He benched Thompson early in the year.

So none of this accurate about him not holding people accountable.

If true, that's great. But it also sounds like an extremely rare occurrence, and it routinely is not what happens when Sexton gets tunnel vision.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I think it is tougher to evaluate/develop young players when they are playing in a dysfunctional system that isn't working. That's the rationale for keeping around a guy like Love, right? To show the younger guys how things should be done within a functioning offense.

Again, I'm not saying that it true with Beilein specifically. I was making a general point about "system" coaches in the NBA, and I'm now making a general point about why the X's and O's do matter when you're trying to evaluate and develop young players.

Is it a chicken or egg thing?

Does it suck because there is no system or does it suck because the players aren't any good?

I just fail to believe it sucks because there is no system, with the track record of someone like Beilein.

This isn't some former player quality controlling his way to a HC gig. He's spent 40+ years winning at a near identical clip at all stops. And he's done so with less heralded and lower ranked talent. How can any coach do that without a proven system or an ability to find one?

There's only so much you can do, at the onset of a bad situation, in a league predicated on talent. Too many people who are riled up about results or process are just not realistic about roster construction at this point. That is my main sticking point here.......give the coach time to assess what he has and then put a plan in place to remedy it. This team absolutely sucks.....what is being done in a 3-4 month window of time is pretty inconsequential until the coach has had time to make determinations on the current roster and then communicate what he wants going forward.

 

[Jordan]

We will learn a lot about Beilein after the trade deadline. This team should start to play like the Sixers and Nets during their rebuilds: taking efficient shots, moving the ball, and probably lots of losing while playing the way that will turn these young guys into net-positive players.

That means if Beilein chooses to play Sexton, Garland, and Porter together, there had better be a strategy and way for the three guys to generate offense together. It also means that, if healthy, one of those three should always be on the floor. In addition, players that can increase their trade value for next year while also encouraging appropriate play - guys like Exum, Cedi, and Nance - should see an uptick in minutes.

The trick will be for Beilein to manage all of this without letting Sexton, Garland, Porter, and Windler get away with selfish and/or inefficient basketball. I am just not sure if that part is possible to evaluate with a substantial number of veterans seeing playing time.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Is it a chicken or egg thing?

Does it suck because there is no system or does it suck because the players aren't any good? I just fail to believe it sucks because there is no system, with the track record of someone like Beilein.

I don't think the argument as it pertains specifically to the Cavs and Beilein is that there is no system at all. I think the claim is that a heavily guard-centric system doesn't fit these particular players.

This isn't some former player quality controlling his way to a HC gig. He's spent 40+ years winning at a near identical clip at all stops. And he's done so with less heralded and lower ranked talent. How can any coach do that without a proven system or an ability to find one?

Again, speaking generally, it is entirely possible that he focused his recruitment on guys who fit the system he wanted to run in college, so it worked.

 

[Man Called X]

This is really the discussion you want to have? Which coach gets the most players drafted and how good they eventually are?

Only seven schools — Duke (24), North Carolina (14), UCLA (13), Arizona (11), Kansas (11), Texas (11) and Michigan (10) — have double-digit representation across the league.

The fact that Michigan makes that list is a testament to how good he is at developing players. He hasn't gotten the quality of recruit of any of those other schools.....save maybe Texas (and he never got someone like Durant) but he has turned them in to guys who can stick in the league. Trying to brush that off is laughable based on some arbitrary quality metric you have in your head.

If what you describe is so easy......just "get some shitty guys drafted".....how have only 7 schools made that double digit list? This is such a bad take on all levels.

Let's be real here, your entire argument is shit because you somehow forgot Kentucky. But oh boy, they broke the double digit mark because the Clippers grabbed a 3rd string PG that didn't stick in the league after his rookie season. You're literally talking about a sample size of 1 decent player *I attribute his success to Atkinson*, 1 legacy player, a career journeyman and 6 end of the bench guys that could be rotated out at any time.

As for why only 7 schools have double digit representation in the league, because there's 351 D1 schools, 300+ D2 schools, and countless other leagues where players are drafted from. With a whole 450 total spots in the league (guess it's closer to 480 now with the 2 way contracts) it stands to reason you aren't going to see a few schools dominating the league.

 

[inliner311]

If true, that's great. But it also sounds like an extremely rare occurrence, and it routinely is not what happens when Sexton gets tunnel vision.

The stuff that Beilein says when he has had a microphone on him have been interesting. He seems to encourage Sexton's scoring. The interesting one I remember clearly is he said to Delly "keep feeding Clarkson and throw a bone to Kevin (Porter) every once in a while".

I think for Beilein it's some of the college coach in him with the way he wants to ride guys. At the start of the season he wanted Love to post up alot, which is a very college basketball type thing. With Sexton and Clarkson (before he was traded), he is willing to live with the flaws more so than other coaches because of the scoring they give. If you have a guy that can score like either Clarkson or Sexton in college, it's likely you only have them for a year or maybe two if you are lucky. A college coach would take full advantage of that scoring while they have it.

I do hope he can develop Sexton better after the deadline.