Hawks Interviewed Nate McMillan

[Guest]

Even if his teams didn't underachieve, did any of his teams overachieve? He had some nice regular seasons but he's never had a single postseason that LD or really even Woody would be proud of and that's with some pretty talented teams. When it counts the most he is 14-20 for a .414 winning percentage and that's just more of the same in Hawk land (LD .417 & Woody .353), only with a more well known name and probably a higher salary than what we've seen here.

Seattle teams consistently overachieved. I think he had Drobnjak as his starting center on a team that finished .500. Peja Drobnjak. Didn't he also have the 3rd best record in the league with Ray Allen, Rashard, and Bones? That was an overachiever.With Portland, his teams always had injuries to key players.

[Admin]

Seattle teams consistently overachieved. I think he had Drobnjak as his starting center on a team that finished .500. Peja Drobnjak. Didn't he also have the 3rd best record in the league with Ray Allen, Rashard, and Bones? That was an overachiever.With Portland, his teams always had injuries to key players.

Overachieve in the regular season isn't all that impressive to me when you consistently underachieve in the postseason. He was abysmal with the Blazers in several seasons where they should have gone much farther than they did. If you are a team that can't get out of the 2nd round why would you hire a coach who can't get out of the 2nd round?

[MaceCase]

Seattle teams consistently overachieved. I think he had Drobnjak as his starting center on a team that finished .500. Peja Drobnjak. Didn't he also have the 3rd best record in the league with Ray Allen, Rashard, and Bones? That was an overachiever.

With Portland, his teams always had injuries to key players.

Look at the wonders that he did for this guy. He went from bumming off the $1 menu at MacDonalds to having a table permanently reserved at the Cheesecake Factory.

[Guest]

Overachieve in the regular season isn't all that impressive to me when you consistently underachieve in the postseason. He was abysmal with the Blazers in several seasons where they should have gone much farther than they did. If you are a team that can't get out of the 2nd round why would you hire a coach who can't get out of the 2nd round?

You asked, I answered. Now you are changing criteria. Excusodus, is that you?

[Admin]

You asked, I answered. Now you are changing criteria. Excusodus, is that you?

When did I change criteria? I specifically mentioned his failure in the postseason in my earlier post. I guess we can safely assume that your barometer for success ends with regular season success then.

[Guest]

When did I change criteria? I specifically mentioned his failure in the postseason in my earlier post. I guess we can safely assume that your barometer for success ends with regular season success then.

How far were those teams expected to go in the first place? You are ignoring who they had healthy and the teams they were facing. It is not like they were expected to win series and did not. But you make it seem as if they were supposed to.I pointed out the overachievments and am still waiting on where he underachieved. A big part of coaching has to do with motivation and Nate is better at that than anyone we have had recently. Now you can point to Xs and Os, but that falls on assistant coaches more so than we would like to admit.

[Admin]

How far were those teams expected to go in the first place? You are ignoring who they had healthy and the teams they were facing. It is not like they were expected to win series and did not. But you make it seem as if they were supposed to.

I pointed out the overachievments and am still waiting on where he underachieved. A big part of coaching has to do with motivation and Nate is better at that than anyone we have had recently. Now you can point to Xs and Os, but that falls on assistant coaches more so than we would like to admit.

Okay well let's see.

2001-2002 #7 seed Sonics lost in 5 games to the #2 seed Spurs in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 24 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to lose to the Lakers in 5 games in the next round.

2004-2005 #3 seed Sonics beat the #6 seed Kings in 5 games in the 1st round. They go on to lose to the #2 seed Spurs in the 2nd round in 6 games with an average margin of defeat of 14 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to win the finals that year.

2008-2009 #4 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #5 seed Rockets in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 12 points in the losses. The Rockets go on to lose to the Lakers in 7 games in the next round.

2009-2010 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Suns in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 19 points in the losses. The Suns go on to lose in the WCF to the Lakers in 6 games.

2010-2011 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Mavericks in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 10 points in the losses. The Mavericks go on to win the NBA finals.

So in 12 years of coaching in the NBA McMillan has taken his team to the playoffs 5 times and advanced past the 1st round once and in those 5 years his teams have had a -16 point margin in the losses. Does this sound familiar to you at all? Because it sounds an awful lot like the Woody / LD years except with a lot less playoff appearances. Lots of disappointing playoff performances and a lot of blowout losses. Doesn't sound like they were all that motivated to me.

Summary:

[*]5 playoff appearances in 12 years

[*].412 winning percentage in the playoffs

[*]Average margin of defeat of 16 points in the losses

[*]Only once made it to the 2nd round and never advanced past there

Tell me again why we should want him coaching the Hawks?

[gsuteke]

It's the San Antonio guy all this is window dressing.

[Sothron]

I am honestly surprised anyone wants Nate. Dolf nailed it in his post above showing the horrible playoff track record Nate has. This guy is literally just Woody all over again with one exception: he ran literally the slowest pace in the NBA pretty much every year in Portland. He only runs an isolation offense which as we saw with our Hawks might cut it in the regular season but come playoff time it will simply get you killed. You simply can NOT just run isolation after isolation in the playoffs with how much more prepared defenses are for that.

There is zero upgrade other than "name" factor with Nate and LD. Honestly about the only coach I think that is available and would realistically come here is SVG. Everyone else is either a retread, a really old guy (Sloan or Fratello) that while I do respect as coaches you have to seriously wonder how much they have left in them, or another assistant coach like the Spurs guy.

I remember when we talked about the Magic firing Stan last year and I made the same comment I made for all sports when a good if not great coach gets fired: who are you getting to replace them that is an actual upgrade over what you had in them?

[DocWilkins]

Okay well let's see.

2001-2002 #7 seed Sonics lost in 5 games to the #2 seed Spurs in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 24 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to lose to the Lakers in 5 games in the next round.

2004-2005 #3 seed Sonics beat the #6 seed Kings in 5 games in the 1st round. They go on to lose to the #2 seed Spurs in the 2nd round in 6 games with an average margin of defeat of 14 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to win the finals that year.

2008-2009 #4 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #5 seed Rockets in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 12 points in the losses. The Rockets go on to lose to the Lakers in 7 games in the next round.

2009-2010 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Suns in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 19 points in the losses. The Suns go on to lose in the WCF to the Lakers in 6 games.

2010-2011 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Mavericks in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 10 points in the losses. The Mavericks go on to win the NBA finals.

So in 12 years of coaching in the NBA McMillan has taken his team to the playoffs 5 times and advanced past the 1st round once and in those 5 years his teams have had a -16 point margin in the losses. Does this sound familiar to you at all? Because it sounds an awful lot like the Woody / LD years except with a lot less playoff appearances. Lots of disappointing playoff performances and a lot of blowout losses. Doesn't sound like they were all that motivated to me.

Summary:

[*]5 playoff appearances in 12 years

[*].412 winning percentage in the playoffs

[*]Average margin of defeat of 16 points in the losses

[*]Only once made it to the 2nd round and never advanced past there

Tell me again why we should want him coaching the Hawks?

Burn!! I am with Dolf on this one...Nate McMillan is an average coach but not an upgrade to LD...Let's keep on looking...

[Plainview1981]

Okay well let's see.

2001-2002 #7 seed Sonics lost in 5 games to the #2 seed Spurs in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 24 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to lose to the Lakers in 5 games in the next round.

2004-2005 #3 seed Sonics beat the #6 seed Kings in 5 games in the 1st round. They go on to lose to the #2 seed Spurs in the 2nd round in 6 games with an average margin of defeat of 14 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to win the finals that year.

2008-2009 #4 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #5 seed Rockets in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 12 points in the losses. The Rockets go on to lose to the Lakers in 7 games in the next round.

2009-2010 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Suns in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 19 points in the losses. The Suns go on to lose in the WCF to the Lakers in 6 games.

2010-2011 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Mavericks in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 10 points in the losses. The Mavericks go on to win the NBA finals.

So in 12 years of coaching in the NBA McMillan has taken his team to the playoffs 5 times and advanced past the 1st round once and in those 5 years his teams have had a -16 point margin in the losses. Does this sound familiar to you at all? Because it sounds an awful lot like the Woody / LD years except with a lot less playoff appearances. Lots of disappointing playoff performances and a lot of blowout losses. Doesn't sound like they were all that motivated to me.

Summary:

[*]5 playoff appearances in 12 years

[*].412 winning percentage in the playoffs

[*]Average margin of defeat of 16 points in the losses

[*]Only once made it to the 2nd round and never advanced past there

Tell me again why we should want him coaching the Hawks?

correct.

[HawkItus]

Okay well let's see.

2001-2002 #7 seed Sonics lost in 5 games to the #2 seed Spurs in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 24 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to lose to the Lakers in 5 games in the next round.

2004-2005 #3 seed Sonics beat the #6 seed Kings in 5 games in the 1st round. They go on to lose to the #2 seed Spurs in the 2nd round in 6 games with an average margin of defeat of 14 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to win the finals that year.

2008-2009 #4 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #5 seed Rockets in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 12 points in the losses. The Rockets go on to lose to the Lakers in 7 games in the next round.

2009-2010 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Suns in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 19 points in the losses. The Suns go on to lose in the WCF to the Lakers in 6 games.

2010-2011 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Mavericks in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 10 points in the losses. The Mavericks go on to win the NBA finals.

So in 12 years of coaching in the NBA McMillan has taken his team to the playoffs 5 times and advanced past the 1st round once and in those 5 years his teams have had a -16 point margin in the losses. Does this sound familiar to you at all? Because it sounds an awful lot like the Woody / LD years except with a lot less playoff appearances. Lots of disappointing playoff performances and a lot of blowout losses. Doesn't sound like they were all that motivated to me.

Summary:

[*]5 playoff appearances in 12 years

[*].412 winning percentage in the playoffs

[*]Average margin of defeat of 16 points in the losses

[*]Only once made it to the 2nd round and never advanced past there

Tell me again why we should want him coaching the Hawks?

People see the other guys grass and automatically think greener.

[BrazilianHawk]

Only exception is he made it to the playoffs in the West... That's WAY more difficult thatn making it in the east, and Portland never really had a roster which would make them contenders.

I'd take McMillan over LD and Woody in a heartbit. That said, I'd still prefer Sloan. We know nothing of this Budenholzer guy, but I probably wouldn't mind him as well. As long as he brings Splitter...

[Buzzard]

Summary:

[*]5 playoff appearances in 12 years

[*].412 winning percentage in the playoffs

[*]Average margin of defeat of 16 points in the losses

[*]Only once made it to the 2nd round and never advanced past there

Tell me again why we should want him coaching the Hawks?

I am not saying Nate is the end all be all but he lost 3 of those 5 times to the eventual WC Champ. Portland's record with him is 266 and 269. Without him they are 41 and 64. He lost Brandon Roy and then was made the scapegoat for all the bad expensive acquisitions that ensued. Even with that, he was 20 and 23 the strike season when he got the axe. His fill in finished 8 and 15. Stotts has not done any better at 33 and 49.

[Guest]

Okay well let's see.

2001-2002 #7 seed Sonics lost in 5 games to the #2 seed Spurs in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 24 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to lose to the Lakers in 5 games in the next round.

2004-2005 #3 seed Sonics beat the #6 seed Kings in 5 games in the 1st round. They go on to lose to the #2 seed Spurs in the 2nd round in 6 games with an average margin of defeat of 14 points in the losses. The Spurs go on to win the finals that year.

2008-2009 #4 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #5 seed Rockets in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 12 points in the losses. The Rockets go on to lose to the Lakers in 7 games in the next round.

2009-2010 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Suns in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 19 points in the losses. The Suns go on to lose in the WCF to the Lakers in 6 games.

2010-2011 #6 seed Blazers lost in 6 games to the #3 seed Mavericks in the 1st round with an average margin of defeat of 10 points in the losses. The Mavericks go on to win the NBA finals.

So in 12 years of coaching in the NBA McMillan has taken his team to the playoffs 5 times and advanced past the 1st round once and in those 5 years his teams have had a -16 point margin in the losses. Does this sound familiar to you at all? Because it sounds an awful lot like the Woody / LD years except with a lot less playoff appearances. Lots of disappointing playoff performances and a lot of blowout losses. Doesn't sound like they were all that motivated to me.

Summary:

[*]5 playoff appearances in 12 years

[*].412 winning percentage in the playoffs

[*]Average margin of defeat of 16 points in the losses

[*]Only once made it to the 2nd round and never advanced past there

Tell me again why we should want him coaching the Hawks?

Well call me stupid to think that the Higher Ranked Seed should win a series. And so AGAIN I will ask, where did he underachieve?

Nate only lost one series he was favored to win. That was in 08-09 where Brandon Roy was coming off his first knee surgery. And that was to the #5 Rockets who were one game behind them in the standings. You say underachieve where it really is randomness.

Also, do I really have to explain to you how the vast majority of coaches in the NBA have a below .500 winning percentage in the playoffs? I would take the time to do that, but it involves math so the point probably won't get across.

[frankthetank966]

Why doesn't SVG want to come back to coaching? If he expecting to land a gig with the Lakers or something along those lines?

[Guest]

Please no Nate. Loved the guy as a player but dislike him as a coach. He's not much of an upgrade over LD if at all. Isn't our goal to get a coach with a better track record? Im think I'm one of the few people that doesn't want svg and now I don't want Nate ..0/2 so far

[Admin]

Well call me stupid to think that the Higher Ranked Seed should win a series. And so AGAIN I will ask, where did he underachieve?

Nate only lost one series he was favored to win. That was in 08-09 where Brandon Roy was coming off his first knee surgery. And that was to the #5 Rockets who were one game behind them in the standings. You say underachieve where it really is randomness.

Also, do I really have to explain to you how the vast majority of coaches in the NBA have a below .500 winning percentage in the playoffs? I would take the time to do that, but it involves math so the point probably won't get across.

Ahh well I'm sure us lay people could figure it out, as long as you wrap it up in your typical better than thou response. But let me help you out here a bit since you are probably so busy with your math and all this morning.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/NBA_stats.html

There are 48 coaches in NBA history with a .500 or greater winning percentage in the playoffs and yet for some reason you want us to hire the guy ranked 86th. Something is clearly fogging your genius brain as 86th all time is just not that damned impressive, no matter how you try and spin it.

Oh and looky who's right there 2 spots ahead of him, public enemy #1 Larry Drew, the guy who you are so eager to replace and you're gonna do it with someone with less success. Great choice! I think the rest of us simple people who can't understand math will go with SVG, who somehow, someway, is 27th on that list with a .552 winning percentage, which is somehow over .500. I mean that makes no sense as surely he should be in that vast majority of scrubs that you want us picking from, right?

[Guest]

Dolf, were you in any competitive debate teams in high school or college?

[Buzzard]

Oh and looky who's right there 2 spots ahead of him, public enemy #1 Larry Drew, the guy who you are so eager to replace and you're gonna do it with someone with less success. Great choice! I think the rest of us simple people who can't understand math will go with SVG, who somehow, someway, is 27th on that list with a .552 winning percentage, which is somehow over .500. I mean that makes no sense as surely he should be in that vast majority of scrubs that you want us picking from, right?

I like SVG a lot and want him as our next coach. But something about .552 with players like Wade, Shaq, and Howard does not impress me.