John Beilein: Continuing his education

[I'mWithDan]

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.

So you're saying it is hard to do then? Right? I just want you to say yes so we can all move on from this incredibly dumb argument as it pertains to Beilein. You spent a paragraph describing it is hard to do while also not giving him any credit up to this point. You're being condescending with the Clippers comment when these numbers are '19-20 opening day roster figures. That is why it is so funny.

You just said the are so few schools dominating because of the large quantity of NCAA / foreign players and the scarcity of NBA roster spots......so that makes it hard? And yet, here they are, all these shitty unheralded guys, occupying roster spots that Belein coached. Weird.

I still can't believe this is the lane you are choosing in this argument. Go find any NBA personnel person and ask them about Beilein. He will get rave reviews across the board. So, maybe this isn't about him?

 

[Derek]

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.

As Rich said, he does do it sometimes, but I don't agree that immediate correction is the best teaching method. Especially not in the midst of a fast-paced basketball game. That's typically when mistakes are toughest to correct.

It's much easier to correct a mistake when it can be shown to the player on film after the fact when you have time to talk through the entire play.

Now, I'm sure he's trying to make corrections on the fly, but I would bet most of those teaching moments are occurring during timeouts, at halftime, and while they're on the floor, not on the bench.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

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.

That's interesting. So it may be that Beilein just doesn't see Sexton's play as flawed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

As Rich said, he does do it sometimes, but I don't agree that immediate correction is the best teaching method. Especially not in the midst of a fast-paced basketball game. That's typically when mistakes are toughest to correct.

It's much easier to correct a mistake when it can be shown to the player on film after the fact when you have time to talk through the entire play.

I'll just say that I've seen shitloads of NBA coaches yank guys for boneheaded plays as a matter of course, and that Beilein seems to do that much, much less compared to many other coaches. Again, that's assuming that he sees those plays as actually being boneheaded in the first place.

 

[Man Called X]

So you're saying it is hard to do then? Right? I just want you to say yes so we can all move on from this incredibly dumb argument as it pertains to Beilein. You spent a paragraph describing it is hard to do while also not giving him any credit up to this point. You're being condescending with the Clippers comment when these numbers are '19-20 opening day roster figures. That is why it is so funny.

You just said the are so few schools dominating because of the large quantity of NCAA / foreign players and the scarcity of NBA roster spots......so that makes it hard? And yet, here they are, all these shitty unheralded guys, occupying roster spots that Belein coached. Weird.

I still can't believe this is the lane you are choosing in this argument. Go find any NBA personnel person and ask them about Beilein. He will get rave reviews across the board. So, maybe this isn't about him?

You'd be surprised what I've actually heard about Beilein from the couple NBA personnel I do have contact with. It's not flattering. You keep touting the end of the bench players that Beilein got drafted as proof he's some great coach. I'll pay attention to the whole 3 of his drafted players that managed to get a second contract in the NBA.

 

[I'mWithDan]

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.

Possibly......I can see that argument with Love here but 3 of most valuable (recently) expended draft capital asset are guards. So it probably stands to reason that if a guard centric offense does not work or does not work to a reasonable enough degree, that we have some more serious problems.

And as someone who cares more about the draft (generally speaking) than recurring NBA W/L results, it is actually a more sound strategy, IMO, to force the guard centric system.....which Beilein prefers. Why? In order to reach conclusions on our guards as quickly as possible. In rebuilding situations, the worst thing you can do is not find out what you have, as quickly as possible......because it tends to encourage need over talent.

I think the caveat here is the point, today, is not to win the most games. I think if that was the organizational goal, a lot of what were are doing would be very different.

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.

Sure. There is a bit more control over player acquisition in college but I still don't think that is the only reason or even main reason why his system worked. Not when he saw success at different levels, in different conferences, in different regions, etc. His coaching has worked across the spectrum of stops, many very different from the last. It's possible he's not a good NBA coach......he wouldn't be the first college guy for that to happen to but he probably would be the most accomplished (just in career breadth) to flame out, which would be surprising.

For me, it's far more likely he just needs better players. Not even the best but league average talent, that fits his system, would probably lead to far different results than what we currently have.

 

[inliner311]

That's interesting. So it may be that Beilein just doesn't see Sexton's play as flawed.

He might not see it as much of a flaw as a long time NBA coach would. Clearly it isn't enough for him to pull Sexton. That could just not be his method of teaching and correcting it.

Consistent volume scoring is the hardest thing to find in college basketball. For this team, he can almost take a college approach to it because no one but Sexton is really up for that scoring load right now. Hopefully he can adjust as the roster changes and guys develop.

 

[I'mWithDan]

You'd be surprised what I've actually heard about Beilein from the couple NBA personnel I do have contact with. It's not flattering. You keep touting the end of the bench players that Beilein got drafted as proof he's some great coach. I'll pay attention to the whole 3 of his drafted players that managed to get a second contract in the NBA.

With the things you are trying to drive home here as winning arguments, it's pretty clear you don't have a good grasp on how hard it is to send players to the NBA.....there aren't caveats to that that make you a good coach. It isn't how many All-Stars you produce, it isn't how many starters you produce, it is what degree of success does the talent you bring in see.....and if it is being on a select list with basketball factories that year in and year out, routinely do things to attain those results that your school(s) will not allow you to do, then I'm still not understanding why it isn't a wildly positive feather in his cap? I seriously don't even get what you're arguing.

I'm not arguing that specifically is why he's a great coach......it's just one of the many qualifications he has. I'm trying to understand how any of it is somehow negative? He's by far, the most accomplished head coach the Cavs have ever hired. Maybe give him more than 4 months and the least talent in the league to see if he can apply 40+ years of coaching success to the NBA.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Possibly......I can see that argument with Love here but 3 of most valuable (recently) expended draft capital asset are guards. So it probably stands to reason that if a guard centric offense does not work or does not work to a reasonable enough degree, that we have some more serious problems.

And as someone who cares more about the draft (generally speaking) than recurring NBA W/L results, it is actually a more sound strategy, IMO, to force the guard centric system.....which Beilein prefers. Why? In order to reach conclusions on our guards as quickly as possible.

I get that. I'd just say that it is possible for guards to be successful in the NBA without being in a guard-centric system, especially if they are not natural distributors. Putting guys in a system for which they are not best suited may not be the best way to evaluate their talent.

And honestly, it's kind of scary to think "well, we want to run a guard centric system, and this guy/guys didn't work in it, so we need to draft some more guards." I suppose my core issue is the apparent bias in favor of running a "guard centric" system.

I don't like it.

 

[Man Called X]

With the things you are trying to drive home here as winning arguments, it's pretty clear you don't have a good grasp on how hard it is to send players to the NBA.....there aren't caveats to that that make you a good coach. It isn't how many All-Stars you produce, it isn't how many starters you produce, it is what degree of success does the talent you bring in see.....and if it is being on a select list with basketball factories that year in and year out, routinely do things to attain those results that your school(s) will not allow you to do, then I'm still not understanding why it isn't a wildly positive feather in his cap? I seriously don't even get what you're arguing.

I'm not arguing that is specifically is why he's a great coach......it's just one of the many qualifications he has. I'm trying to understand how any of it is somehow negative? He's by far, the most accomplished head coach the Cavs have ever hired. Maybe give him more than 4 months and the least talent in the league to see if he can apply 40+ years of coaching success to the NBA.

Year after year, I have to listen to the "wait and see" approach for every mishiring any Cleveland franchise makes. But those same arguments are never applied elsewhere.

It took Brad Stevens 2 years to make it to the playoffs with arguably just as shitty a roster. 3 years for Atkinson with arguably an even worse roster.

There's your baseline. I would expect to see the playoffs within 3 years. If that's not happening, then we clearly didn't make the right hire. Only in Cleveland is 20 years of irrelevance an accepted outcome.

 

[I'mWithDan]

I get that. I'd just say that it is possible for guards to be successful in the NBA without being in a guard-centric system, especially if they are not natural distributors. Putting guys in a system for which they are not best suited may not be the best way to evaluate their talent.

And honestly, it's kind of scary to think "well, we want to run a guard centric system, and this guy/guys didn't work in it, so we need to draft some more guards." I suppose my core issue is the apparent bias in favor of running a "guard centric" system.

I don't like it.

Don't guard centric systems work though at the NBA level? Or wings functioning as guards in a guard centric system?

I'd just argue Beilein's style works at the NBA level......and for him, it is far more important to understand if he has any engines for that system at this point. If Sexton or Garland aren't an answer for what he wants to be doing, the way you find that out is by injecting them in to the system you want to run.....in order to try to start somewhere and build.

When you don't have talent, I really don't think it is about crafting system to players......it is about putting a stake in the ground and saying "this is the system I believe in, here are its' principles, find me players who can play in it". One of the first steps to that is ruling out those currently at your disposal.

My view on this is largely colored by my own assessment of our roster. If I thought we had the roster talent of someone like Minnesota, with these results, I would wonder what the fuck we were doing......but we have a collection of nothing right now, so it is more important, IMO, to make a determination on wether we have anyone worth keeping in Beilein's preferred vision. We just don't have the talent to system on the fly......and try to win with what we have, while keeping an eye on a future vision. We first just have to scorch the earth and let Beilein determine or have a large say in who stays from a personnel perspective.

 

[Cavatt]

Do we want him catering the whole team to Kevin Love? That's the big question to me. Love showed up only when he was contractually obligated, and despite his talent, he has not led the team on the court like he even did last year. TT has been the leader, and Beilein gets him opportunities. I think there might be an ego thing going on with Beilien and Love. Everyone knows Love is being shopped, so why should Beilein cater to this pouty guy.

I want him developing the young guys for sure. I really do want him to help Collin become a better decision maker. People say he doesn't pass or doesn't have vision, I am not sure that is the problem. I think he sees himself as the best basketball play every time, when really he should be taking advantage of guys he can take off the dribble, and when the drive isn't there pass the ball. That's it.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

When you don't have talent, I really don't think it is about crafting system to players......it is about putting a stake in the ground and saying "this is the system I believe in, here are its' principles, find me players who can play in it".

Okay, then that's exactly where we disagree. First, Beilein apparently is not a guy we expect to be running the show in 5 years, so drafting talent to fit his specific vision of how a team should be run seems a dicey proposition to me. But second -- and perhaps more importantly -- it's not like the draft is a smorgasbord of equal talent at every position, so you can mix and match whatever you want to get the same quality talent to fit every system. Maybe the most talented guy available is a guard who doesn't fit Beilein's system, or maybe he's not a guard at all. Maybe it's someone like Jokic, or Zion or Giannis. Do you bypass greater talent to get a certain type of guard, just because that's what your preferred system requires?

My view on this is largely colored by my own assessment of our roster. If I thought we had the roster talent of someone like Minnesota, with these results, I would wonder what the fuck we were doing......but we have a collection of nothing right now, so it is more important, IMO, to make a determination on wether we have anyone worth keeping in Beilein's preferred vision.

And my view is that when you have a collection of nothing, the first and only order of business is to acquire the greatest amount of talent you can, regardless of position, and regardless of the system you prefer to run. Talent before system-fit. I'd actually say that changes as you get further into the rebuild, because you'll likely have developed a system around the talent you've already acquired. But when you're just starting off...talent is everything.

To be honest, I knew very little about Beilein when he was hired, so I'm really going solely off what his advocates are saying about him having a system and preferred kind of player to fit it. If that's true, it's just not my preferred way to rebuild a team.

 

[Derek]

I'll just say that I've seen shitloads of NBA coaches yank guys for boneheaded plays as a matter of course, and that Beilein seems to do that much, much less compared to many other coaches. Again, that's assuming that he sees those plays as actually being boneheaded in the first place.

If we were trying to win games, I'd agree. I just don't think yanking guys out of games is conducive to player development, and that is currently our primary goal.

 

[Sir'Dom Pointer]

If we were trying to win games, I'd agree. I just don't think yanking guys out of games is conducive to player development, and that is currently our primary goal.

How is it not?