Mark Jackson's success influencing other teams

[ILOVEIT]

It appears that suddenly players are the first preference for coaches around the league...Jason Kid....no coaching experience at all...Byron Scott....Brian Shaw....

[statsman]

Doc Rivers has been doing it since 1999 when he became the head coach at age 38, winning Coach of the Year his first season with the Magic. Never an assistant coach as far as I know.

[turk3d]

I think you're right IloveIt.

[hamncheese]

I don't think it's necessarily due to Mark Jackson's success. Plenty of coaches are former players. Kidd would be an unusual hire since he just retired as a player, though Don Nelson became GM/head coach of the Bucks the year he retired from the Celtics back 1976.

60's had several player-coaches though that was another era. Lenny Wilkens was probably the best of them all, being a HOF player and coach. Al Attles was a player-coach for a season with the Warriors before becoming just the coach. The last player coach was Dave Cowens in 1979.

Magic Johnson was a head coach for 26 games after his initial retirement. Before Doc Rivers, Larry Bird won Coach of the Year with no previous coaching experience.

[FNQ]

Doc Rivers has been doing it since 1999 when he became the head coach at age 38, winning Coach of the Year his first season with the Magic. Never an assistant coach as far as I know.

Yup... its great. Its just like the Euro explosion after guys like Dirk and Gino, and the HS explosion after KG.

All these teams picking up inferior options in copycat mode... love it.

[floppymoose]

I wonder why Hollins isn't at the top of everyone's list?

[paul]

I wonder why Hollins isn't at the top of everyone's list?

I'm not sure if this was rhetorical from another conversation or not, but there have been reports he clashed heatedly with players and staff and doesn't like basing any of his coaching around advanced metrics which soured him to a Memphis hierarchy heading that direction, and no doubt others.

I still like him though.

[Onus]

I wonder why Hollins isn't at the top of everyone's list?

Cuz he doesn't want to listen to statistics, which is why management walked away from him.

As stated I don't think we're trend setting as this happens all the time. Freshly retired players can relate better to current players than any regular x and o coach. So current players can buy into their message that they preach. It's easier to trust someone who was ur peer than some random guy who's never been in the league.

[floppymoose]

Thats interesting. If I were GM of a team, I wouldn't be asking if my coach believes in advanced stats. I'd be asking if my coach was improving my teams advanced stats. Coaches like Hollins who can get a guy like Zbo to start playing up to his ability.... Those coaches are helping you win regardless of their views on stats.

[FNQ]

And can also be hurting the team by going with their gut over advanced stats. We've seen the results here... and if we listened to that crowd, we could have a starting lineup that still features Monta Ellis and Anthony Randolph.

[paul]

And can also be hurting the team by going with their gut over advanced stats. We've seen the results here... and if we listened to that crowd, we could have a starting lineup that still features Monta Ellis and Anthony Randolph.

Yeah there's certainly a very important place for advanced stats, though imo it's not necessarily on the coach's timeout whiteboard. As long as the right guys are on the roster and the right guys are playing to the right gameplan then the job of the advanced metrics guy has been done imo, there are still some basketball nuances that need to be coached that exclusive advanced metrics guys will never fully get. If Hollins was refusing to play guys he should have been or was standing in the way of trades or picks that should have been made because he liked a guys girlfriend or basketball body (to borrow a Moneyball'ism) then that's one thing, if he was telling Hollinger to GTFO of his huddle when talking about his motion offense that's entirely another.

McHale is probably a good example of a guy using his old school basketball knowledge combined with an advanced metrics philosophy pretty successfully right now.

[cladden]

And can also be hurting the team by going with their gut over advanced stats. We've seen the results here... and if we listened to that crowd, we could have a starting lineup that still features Monta Ellis and Anthony Randolph.

How can you bash on baby Jesus! For shame.

[KevinMcreynolds]

I don't want my head coach combing through advanced stats, that's what the no name assistants at the end of the bench are for.

[watch1958]

It appears that suddenly players are the first preference for coaches around the league...Jason Kid....no coaching experience at all...Byron Scott....Brian Shaw....

Not new. Don Nelson, Bill Russel, Lennie Wilkens, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Nate McMillan, Mo Cheeks, Doug Collins, Larry Bird, Billy Cunnignham, Del Negro,Lionel Hollins, Dan Issel, KC Jones, Rudy Tomjanovich. Starting with the 81-82 Lakers, 18 of the next 21 NBA champs were coached by ex-players.

Interstingly, during that stretch, the coaches of those great teams (Riley, Cunningham, KC Jones, Phil Jackson, Rudy Tomjanovich) took over from someone who had built the foundation. (Westhead, Shue, Fitch, Collins, Don Chaney). Getting along with your superstar is important.

[whocurrz]

I don't want my head coach combing through advanced stats, that's what the no name assistants at the end of the bench are for.

A coach having basic understandings of advanced stats with regards to how they hold their players accountable is important though. If his assistant coach is telling him that one of his players is hitting shots at a rate that hurts the team and his presence on the floor is hurting the team then they should be held accountable for exploring those options rather than just trusting his gut as coaches are vulnerable to player favoritism. Also coaches knowing which shots his team is most efficient at hitting and putting them in positions to take advantage of that. For instance, the fact that Curry hits corner 3's at the rate he does should at least hopefully influence Jackson's play design going forward.

George Karl seems to get the second part of that as he gets his teams to overachieve in the regular season by playing efficient basketball and pulling guys for taking long iso 2 point jumpers (At least I saw him do it a few times) which the Nuggets through their statistical analysis department have deemed the worst possible shot for their roster. And since it's a generally inefficient shot, they don't acquire players who rely on it as a strength. But Karl falls in love with certain players and gives them more minutes than they warrant due to their effect on the game. I heard Nugget fans complain about it being a possible downfall pre-series (such as his love affair with Brewer and Andre Miller) and certainly the amount of minutes those guys played (while generally having poor +/-'s) was a big reason we wee able to continually expose the Nuggets.

[FNQ]

Yeah there's certainly a very important place for advanced stats, though imo it's not necessarily on the coach's timeout whiteboard. As long as the right guys are on the roster and the right guys are playing to the right gameplan then the job of the advanced metrics guy has been done imo, there are still some basketball nuances that need to be coached that exclusive advanced metrics guys will never fully get. If Hollins was refusing to play guys he should have been or was standing in the way of trades or picks that should have been made because he liked a guys girlfriend or basketball body (to borrow a Moneyball'ism) then that's one thing, if he was telling Hollinger to GTFO of his huddle when talking about his motion offense that's entirely another.

McHale is probably a good example of a guy using his old school basketball knowledge combined with an advanced metrics philosophy pretty successfully right now.

Agree mostly. Not looking for the coach to draw up plays based on metrics, but usage of players, including overusage? Absolutely. Would have been great if a coach here in the past 6 years looked at metrics more and said "hey, turns out this guy we've anointed our #1 is killing our team!"

But using the MEM example: Ed Davis. Hollinger acquired him because of his adv metrics and the lack of impact from Rudy Gay. Ed definitely should have played more based on those metrics. But he didn't, and Hollins and Hollinger were frequently at each other because of that (all of this is rumor, but good for the example).

Ultimately the coach needs to be on the same page as the GM. And since most GMs are turning to advanced stats to get a better idea of players and their impact, coaches should be doing the same. All it is, is more knowledge. There's no reason to argue against it, and there's no reason not to employ it. The only reason not to is someone being lazy/set in their ways, and thats a great way to get passed up in any industry

[GSForever]

And can also be hurting the team by going with their gut over advanced stats. We've seen the results here... and if we listened to that crowd, we could have a starting lineup that still features Monta Ellis and Anthony Randolph.

Management and ownership only get partial credit. This team should have been DJ or Tyson at C. Which would have been a disaster. So they lucked out! And with Bell amnesty that a Cohan move as well!