Scott Brooks Got a Raw Deal

The inconsistent logic applied to coaches is often times worse than that used to evaluate a superstar player, especially in the NBA. Coaches are often in a no-win scenario because they can’t win without elite talent, but once surrounded with elite talent they receive little to no credit for winning. Instead coaches are often the first to be blamed when a team goes south.

Is there any doubt that David Blatt’s seat will be burning if the Cavaliers fail to at least reach the NBA Finals? Yet Jason Kidd and Brad Stevens can receive Coach of the Year consideration for finishing with mediocre 41 and 40 win records. The fact is Blatt had to deal with exponentially more pressure, manage bigger egos and adjust on the fly when Cavs General Manager David Griffin brought in an entire new supporting cast in January.

The result? Blatt took a team that started 19-20, found roles for those new guys, navigated the manufactured Kevin Love drama to a 53-win season — that’s a 34-9 record in the second half. Oh, and a 20-game improvement compared to 2013-14, which is better than Steve Kerr managed in Golden State and two games shy of the Coach of the Year winner, Atlanta’s Mike Budenholzer.

I’m not saying that Kidd and Stevens didn’t do great work in their respective situations, they did and they certainly deserve praise. Though I was a bit critical of Stevens when we dished out NBA awards during our NBA Playoffs Preview podcast. But why does overachieving from bad to mediocrity bring more credit than meeting exceptionally high expectations?

It’s through this prism of twisted logic that Scott Brooks now finds himself unemployed. And it’s a shame, because he deserved so much better.

Brooks had a rocky start in his first year with the Thunder, taking over for P.J. Carlesimo after a 1-12 start to the 2008-09 season and finishing with his worst record as a head coach — 22-47. But in every 82 game season until 2014-15 he won 50 or more games, even an impressive 47-19 record in a 66-game lockout shortened season.

He led the Thunder to the NBA Finals and two other Western Conference Finals, but never won the NBA Championship. Under his tenure, the Thunder won 338 games for a .620 win percentage and four-straight division championships.

Truth be told, had the Thunder not traded James Harden they probably would have at least one more NBA Finals appearance. Not to mention the extreme misfortune of losing Russell Westbrook to injury in the first round of the 2012-13 NBA Playoffs — the year the Thunder had their best regular season record at 60-22 — and playing without Serge Ibaka for the first two games of the 2014 Western Conference Finals (a 4-2 loss to the Spurs).

But what’s odd is that despite all that success, Brooks’ Coach of the Year award came during his first full season with the Thunder — in 2009-10. Oklahoma City improved from a 23-59 to 50-32 — good enough for No. 8 in the West. Certainly an impressive turnaround, but why did his second-worst full season as a head coach get the most acclaim?

Brooks received a lot of criticism, especially on his offensive philosophy. But I see a coach who helped develop two of the finest superstars in the game, three if you count Harden. Not to mention Ibaka’s emergence as one of the league’s best front-line defenders and countless other roll players — like Reggie Jackson, Steven Adams and Jeff Green — into solid options.

This year may have been Brooks’ best coaching job. Despite being without Durant and Westbrook for a combined 70 games, the Thunder finished with a 45-37 record and tied New Orleans for the No. 8 seed in the Western Conference. But the Thunder came this close to possibly breaking the tie:

If that shot doesn't go in, and the Thunder win in overtime, does Brooks keep his job?

My biggest problem with the Thunder firing Brooks is that Oklahoma City will unlikely find a better coach.  Is there anyone on the coaching market better than Brooks? I’d rather take a guy who has proven he can succeed managing the egos of superstars, developing players and winning a lot of games than a big-named college coach, with all due respect to Kevin Ollie and Billy Donovan.

(By the way, Donovan’s last NBA coaching tenure lasted seven days…)

And if Oklahoma City can't woo a big name out of the college ranks because of the uncertainty surrounding the impending free agencies of Durant (2016) and Westbrook (2017), it will likely have to settle on a little-known assistant who will come in with massive expectations — a lot like Blatt did in Cleveland (though Blatt was no assistant, he was still relatively unknown). A coach who may not mesh with the Thunder's superstars.

If the Thunder had kept Brooks, they’d have the best coach on the market without worrying about whether or not he fits well with the team. Both superstars have defended Brooks, Durant especially.

Besides, wouldn’t the Thunder want Brooks to lead the rebuilding effort should Durant, Westbrook or both decide to leave? Who better than a coach who hasn’t underachieved in any season he’s been at the helm? A coach that has shown he can develop both roll players and superstars while handling the intense pressure of high expectations and massive egos.

Brooks did all of that and won a ton of games during his seven-year tenure. Apparently that wasn’t good enough for the Thunder.