Scott Brooks was a bottom 1/3 coach in the NBA - New coach is addition by subtraction

[Westbrook0]

How can anyone possibly think having a rookie/new head coach for the Thunder could be a negative, or might hold them back in his first year?

Scott Brooks was, straight up, a bad coach. Really bad. Any Thunder fan who watched all of their games could tell you this.

One thing to keep in mind is, Billy Donovan doesn't have to be a great coach, he just has to be a little bit better than Brooks.

The Thunder were already making the WCF and the Finals with a terrible coach. Donovan doesn't have to suddenly become a top five coach or anything. He just has to be better than Brooks, and that should be enough to push a healthy team into the Finals or the championship.

Don't forget, he's got two former NBA head coaches alongside him in Monty Williams and Maurice Cheeks, plus he's got two of the top five players in the NBA to help him out.

[Braincells]

Won't ever forget how Scott Brooks coached a Thunder squad that consisted of Westbrook, Durant, Harden and Ibaka out of the 2012 finals. Every single offensive sequence was an ISO. His coaching was so predictable that any team could have stopped them in that series. Probably among the worst display of coaching I've ever seen in a finals series. He won coach of the year because he did exactly what he was supposed to with an extraordinary and talented team. It was really a vanity award.

I think it's safe to say that 99% of the coaches (minus Mike Brown) out there would do a better job than him. So yes, it's a classic case of addition by subtraction.