Are people too hard on Billy Donovan?

[Red Larrivee]

Not sure i have ever seen a coach who was seen as average win an NBA title. FWIW David Blatt was considered one of the best coaches at the time of his hiring not in the NBA. LeBron has gone through a lot of coaches and he even tried to get Erik Spoelstra fired in Miami but Pat Riley told him no. Cleveland was 30-11 when he was fired.

Blatt was not good in the NBA, but it didn't matter. Guess why?

Vogel and Avery are a few of them. And there's a long list of average coaches who've merely been to NBA Finals. Not every coach who's won has been elite.

The list of average teams with great coaches who went to Finals is:

...
....

So, if your stance is that the Bulls should have accomplished more over the last 5 years, you are saying that you like the teams AK has built and they've underachieved based on coaching.

If you're not saying that, then you should criticize Donovan for something other than record.

[GoBlue72391]

Billy Donovan is not good enough nor bad enough to warrant this level of discussion lol

[2weekswithpay]

I mentioned a while back that xRAPM holds Billy in high regard. It had him as the 2nd best coach currently. I found an article where the writer also tried making an RAPM for coaches from 2022-2025, and Billy was at the top. Any coaching metric is unreliable, but I find it interesting that the only 2 coach metrics I've seen both like Billy.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how a plus/minus statistic can be used for a 6th man considered to be on the court at all times. The plus/minus based numbers aren't even worth anything for individual players other than the obvious superstars and dogs. They tell you nothing about players in the middle 80%. I have no clue how they could tell you anything of meaning about a coach, who again, has no "off court" time.

Methinks maybe someone is overthinking.

The coach always being on the court is one of the reasons the stat is unreliable.

The plus/minus based numbers aren't even worth anything for individual players other than the obvious superstars and dogs.They tell you nothing about players in the middle 80%.

This is an opinion that many people would disagree with. Plus/minus numbers are unreliable in small samples, but are useful for players who have accumulated enough minutes in their careers.

I have no clue how they could tell you anything of meaning about a coach, who again, has no "off court" time.

Even with the flaws in using RAPM for a coach, I still think it provides some meaningful signals. It evaluates coaches on on-court performance while adjusting for player and opponent quality. In other words, it likes Billy because it doesn't think highly of the players on the team.

By itself, this isn't valuable, but when you consider that the Bulls are consistently beating every preseason win projection, you have more information that points to Billy being a solid coach. The Bulls are mediocre because the players aren't talented, and not Billy.

[Jcool0]

Not sure i have ever seen a coach who was seen as average win an NBA title. FWIW David Blatt was considered one of the best coaches at the time of his hiring not in the NBA. LeBron has gone through a lot of coaches and he even tried to get Erik Spoelstra fired in Miami but Pat Riley told him no. Cleveland was 30-11 when he was fired.

Blatt was not good in the NBA, but it didn't matter. Guess why?

Vogel and Avery are a few of them. And there's a long list of average coaches who've merely been to NBA Finals. Not every coach who's won has been elite.

The list of average teams with great coaches who went to Finals is:

...
....

So, if your stance is that the Bulls should have accomplished more over the last 5 years, you are saying that you like the teams AK has built and they've underachieved based on coaching.

If you're not saying that, then you should criticize Donovan for something other than record.

What are you even talking about Blatt was good in the NBA. He just didn't get along with LeBron like every other coach he has ever had. Not sure what that would have to do with coaching skill anyway. Vogel, also hated by Lebron, is a good coach he has won 49+ games with 3 different teams. FWIW my "stance" is Billy's is maybe the 15th best coach in the NBA and that in no way should give him a lifetime contract with Chicago or make him free from criticism because the roster is lacking.

[jnrjr79]

Just in terms of discussing roster quality and what Billy has to work with, The Ringer just released its list of the 100 best players in the NBA. The Bulls have two - Coby at 69 and Giddey at 75.

https://nbarankings.theringer.com/

And for historical context, LaVine and DeRozan are ranked 72 and 73.

[Stratmaster]

The Knicks factually wanted Donovan in the offseason. Let's not approach this like only bottom feeders would want him.

The Knicks are a perfect example of what I am talking about. They just fired their head coach after a 51 win season, a trip to the conference Finals, and 4 trips to the playoffs in 5 seasons with him. Meanwhile the Bulls gave an extension to their losing head coach who managed to sniff the playoffs once.

Ask yourself a couple questions. Why did they fire him? And who would be the yes man that would solve that problem for them?

The general consensus is that the Knicks are one of the worst-run franchises in the league and firing Thibs was a bad move. I would not cite them as an example of a team to emulate.

And yet the Knicks pursuing him is somehow proof that Billy is a great coach. You finally are coming over to the correct side of this debate. Welcome.

[Stratmaster]

Just in terms of discussing roster quality and what Billy has to work with, The Ringer just released its list of the 100 best players in the NBA. The Bulls have two - Coby at 69 and Giddey at 75.

https://nbarankings.theringer.com/

And for historical context, LaVine and DeRozan are ranked 72 and 73.

Those aren't historical numbers. They are currently numbers. What does their projected 2026 performance have to do with the last 5 years?

[Stratmaster]

Not sure i have ever seen a coach who was seen as average win an NBA title. FWIW David Blatt was considered one of the best coaches at the time of his hiring not in the NBA. LeBron has gone through a lot of coaches and he even tried to get Erik Spoelstra fired in Miami but Pat Riley told him no. Cleveland was 30-11 when he was fired.

Blatt was not good in the NBA, but it didn't matter. Guess why?

Vogel and Avery are a few of them. And there's a long list of average coaches who've merely been to NBA Finals. Not every coach who's won has been elite.

The list of average teams with great coaches who went to Finals is:

...
....

So, if your stance is that the Bulls should have accomplished more over the last 5 years, you are saying that you like the teams AK has built and they've underachieved based on coaching.

If you're not saying that, then you should criticize Donovan for something other than record.

What are you even talking about Blatt was good in the NBA. He just didn't get along with LeBron like every other coach he has ever had. Not sure what that would have to do with coaching skill anyway. Vogel, also hated by Lebron, is a good coach he has won 49+ games with 3 different teams. FWIW my "stance" is Billy's is maybe the 15th best coach in the NBA and that in no way should give him a lifetime contract with Chicago or make him free from criticism because the roster is lacking.

Most the rankings I see have Billy in the 16 to 20 slot. So not only are you being more than reasonable... you might be going a little soft on him.

[Stratmaster]

I mentioned a while back that xRAPM holds Billy in high regard. It had him as the 2nd best coach currently. I found an article where the writer also tried making an RAPM for coaches from 2022-2025, and Billy was at the top. Any coaching metric is unreliable, but I find it interesting that the only 2 coach metrics I've seen both like Billy.

Someone is going to have to explain to me how a plus/minus statistic can be used for a 6th man considered to be on the court at all times. The plus/minus based numbers aren't even worth anything for individual players other than the obvious superstars and dogs. They tell you nothing about players in the middle 80%. I have no clue how they could tell you anything of meaning about a coach, who again, has no "off court" time.

Methinks maybe someone is overthinking.

The coach always being on the court is one of the reasons the stat is unreliable.

The plus/minus based numbers aren't even worth anything for individual players other than the obvious superstars and dogs.They tell you nothing about players in the middle 80%.

This is an opinion that many people would disagree with. Plus/minus numbers are unreliable in small samples, but are useful for players who have accumulated enough minutes in their careers.

I have no clue how they could tell you anything of meaning about a coach, who again, has no "off court" time.

Even with the flaws in using RAPM for a coach, I still think it provides some meaningful signals. It evaluates coaches on on-court performance while adjusting for player and opponent quality. In other words, it likes Billy because it doesn't think highly of the players on the team.

By itself, this isn't valuable, but when you consider that the Bulls are consistently beating every preseason win projection, you have more information that points to Billy being a solid coach. The Bulls are mediocre because the players aren't talented, and not Billy.

The Bulls haven't consistently beaten every preseason win projection. That is a myth. They have beaten Vegas projections, which are proven to be wildly inaccurate, 4 out of his 5 seasons, but not significantly except for last season. The net positive difference of those 5 seasons can all be accounted for with the run at the end of last season.

[Stratmaster]

Billy Donovan is not good enough nor bad enough to warrant this level of discussion lol

Yeah. I can't really disagree with you much there. It's the extensions that bug me. Mediocre coaches don't generally get lifetime appointments.

Yes. I know lifetime appointment is hyperbole. But 2 extensions is unprecedented.

[jnrjr79]

Just in terms of discussing roster quality and what Billy has to work with, The Ringer just released its list of the 100 best players in the NBA. The Bulls have two - Coby at 69 and Giddey at 75.

https://nbarankings.theringer.com/

And for historical context, LaVine and DeRozan are ranked 72 and 73.

Those aren't historical numbers. They are currently numbers. What does their projected 2026 performance have to do with the last 5 years?

Is it your view that they were meaningfully different players during their Bulls’ run? It’s not mine.

[jnrjr79]

The Knicks are a perfect example of what I am talking about. They just fired their head coach after a 51 win season, a trip to the conference Finals, and 4 trips to the playoffs in 5 seasons with him. Meanwhile the Bulls gave an extension to their losing head coach who managed to sniff the playoffs once.

Ask yourself a couple questions. Why did they fire him? And who would be the yes man that would solve that problem for them?

The general consensus is that the Knicks are one of the worst-run franchises in the league and firing Thibs was a bad move. I would not cite them as an example of a team to emulate.

And yet the Knicks pursuing him is somehow proof that Billy is a great coach. You finally are coming over to the correct side of this debate. Welcome.

I agree the Knicks’ interest isn’t some giant data point for the proposition that Billy is a good coach. But you’re the one citing them approvingly, not me.

[jnrjr79]

Someone is going to have to explain to me how a plus/minus statistic can be used for a 6th man considered to be on the court at all times. The plus/minus based numbers aren't even worth anything for individual players other than the obvious superstars and dogs. They tell you nothing about players in the middle 80%. I have no clue how they could tell you anything of meaning about a coach, who again, has no "off court" time.

Methinks maybe someone is overthinking.

The coach always being on the court is one of the reasons the stat is unreliable.

The plus/minus based numbers aren't even worth anything for individual players other than the obvious superstars and dogs.They tell you nothing about players in the middle 80%.

This is an opinion that many people would disagree with. Plus/minus numbers are unreliable in small samples, but are useful for players who have accumulated enough minutes in their careers.

I have no clue how they could tell you anything of meaning about a coach, who again, has no "off court" time.

Even with the flaws in using RAPM for a coach, I still think it provides some meaningful signals. It evaluates coaches on on-court performance while adjusting for player and opponent quality. In other words, it likes Billy because it doesn't think highly of the players on the team.

By itself, this isn't valuable, but when you consider that the Bulls are consistently beating every preseason win projection, you have more information that points to Billy being a solid coach. The Bulls are mediocre because the players aren't talented, and not Billy.

The Bulls haven't consistently beaten every preseason win projection. That is a myth. They have beaten Vegas projections, which are proven to be wildly inaccurate, 4 out of his 5 seasons, but not significantly except for last season. The net positive difference of those 5 seasons can all be accounted for with the run at the end of last season.

What are the non-Vegas win projections that can be looked at as an alternative?

[2weekswithpay]

The Bulls haven't consistently beaten every preseason win projection. That is a myth. They have beaten Vegas projections, which are proven to be wildly inaccurate, 4 out of his 5 seasons, but not significantly except for last season. The net positive difference of those 5 seasons can all be accounted for with the run at the end of last season.

In the other thread, I posted DARKO's projections for the Bulls. I used DARKO because the creator said his model performed the best in the 2021-22 season, and it wasn't too difficult to find his projections. I looked at some more in my free time, and it was more or less the same thing.

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

DARKO

2021-22: projected wins 44.1 actual wins 46 (Doc)

2022-23: projected wins 38.1 actual wins 40 (Doc)

2023-34: projected wins 38.6 actual wins 39 (Doc)

2024-25: projected win 34.5 actual wins 39 (Doc)


ESPN's Kevin Pelton's model projections

2021-22 Projected wins: 37.4 Actual wins: 46

2022-23 Projected wins: 38.1 Actual wins: 40

2023-24 Projected wins: 35.7 Actual wins: 39

2024-25 Projected wins: 31.8 Actual wins: 39 I think Pelton projected the Bulls to tank in this projection.


ESPN's normal projections. I used the records predicted in ESPN's season preview each season.

2021-22: Projected wins: 40 Actual wins: 46

2022-23: Projected wins: 44 Actual wins: 40

2023-24: Projected wins: 37 Actual wins: 39

2024-25: Project wins: 38.2 Actual win: 39


538 Raptor

2020-21: Projected wins: 25 Actual wins: 31

I usually prefer not to include the 2021 Covid season, but 538 was shut down. I decided to include all 3 seasons they have when Billy coached.

2021-22: Project wins: 38 Actual wins: 46

2022-23 Project wins: 35 Actual wins: 40

The Bulls have outperformed DARKO, Pelton's, ESPN forecast/BPI, 538, and Vegas. The Bulls finished with fewer wins than projected once in all of the models.

[Red Larrivee]

What are you even talking about Blatt was good in the NBA. He just didn't get along with LeBron like every other coach he has ever had. Not sure what that would have to do with coaching skill anyway. Vogel, also hated by Lebron, is a good coach he has won 49+ games with 3 different teams. FWIW my "stance" is Billy's is maybe the 15th best coach in the NBA and that in no way should give him a lifetime contract with Chicago or make him free from criticism because the roster is lacking.

Blatt stunk. Sure, coaching LeBron is a tough task, but Blatt looked clueless all season. Making that transition is not easy and he obviously struggled with it. Cleveland got by on talent. He was not respected or liked. Jim Boylen could've got to the Finals with that team.

I don't think Donovan should have a lifetime job with the Bulls either. Nobody is saying that you can't criticize him. My point is that firing him doesn't move the needle and that he's been solid at the things coaches are typically evaluated on.

[samwana]

The Bulls haven't consistently beaten every preseason win projection. That is a myth. They have beaten Vegas projections, which are proven to be wildly inaccurate, 4 out of his 5 seasons, but not significantly except for last season. The net positive difference of those 5 seasons can all be accounted for with the run at the end of last season.

In the other thread, I posted DARKO's projections for the Bulls. I used DARKO because the creator said his model performed the best in the 2021-22 season, and it wasn't too difficult to find his projections. I looked at some more in my free time, and it was more or less the same thing.

Spoiler:

Read on Twitter

DARKO

2021-22: projected wins 44.1 actual wins 46 (Doc)

2022-23: projected wins 38.1 actual wins 40 (Doc)

2023-34: projected wins 38.6 actual wins 39 (Doc)

2024-25: projected win 34.5 actual wins 39 (Doc)


ESPN's Kevin Pelton's model projections

2021-22 Projected wins: 37.4 Actual wins: 46

2022-23 Projected wins: 38.1 Actual wins: 40

2023-24 Projected wins: 35.7 Actual wins: 39

2024-25 Projected wins: 31.8 Actual wins: 39 I think Pelton projected the Bulls to tank in this projection.


ESPN's normal projections. I used the records predicted in ESPN's season preview each season.

2021-22: Projected wins: 40 Actual wins: 46

2022-23: Projected wins: 44 Actual wins: 40

2023-24: Projected wins: 37 Actual wins: 39

2024-25: Project wins: 38.2 Actual win: 39


538 Raptor

2020-21: Projected wins: 25 Actual wins: 31

I usually prefer not to include the 2021 Covid season, but 538 was shut down. I decided to include all 3 seasons they have when Billy coached.

2021-22: Project wins: 38 Actual wins: 46

2022-23 Project wins: 35 Actual wins: 40

The Bulls have outperformed DARKO, Pelton's, ESPN forecast/BPI, 538, and Vegas. The Bulls finished with fewer wins than projected once in all of the models.

Most of us hated it though, because it was most meaningless wins at the end of the season, that took us to those wins. Other teams jockeying for lottery tickets and BD going all out to get in the play in games to show that he is not able to get past Spoelstra, getting outcoached so bad, that it nearly is funny.

[2weekswithpay]

Most of us hated it though, because it was most meaningless wins at the end of the season, that took us to those wins. Other teams jockeying for lottery tickets and BD going all out to get in the play in games to show that he is not able to get past Spoelstra, getting outcoached so bad, that it nearly is funny.

Were they meaningless wins?

2021-22: Pre-ASB: 38-21 52-53 win pace Post-ASB: 8-15

2022-23: Pre-ASB: 26-33 36 win pace Post-ASB: 14-9

2023-24: Pre-ASB: 26-29 38-39 win pace Post-ASB: 13-14

2024-25: Pre-ASB: 22-33 32-33 win pace Post-ASB: 17-10

Only 2 seasons with a Post-ASB record above 500. 2022-23 is the season the Bulls underperformed the most when comparing Pre-ASB win pace to preseason projections. However, in 2022-23, the team may have suffered from bad luck. The Bulls' net rating for that season was +1.3, and their expected record was 44-38, but they finished with a record of 40-42.

I think the Bulls' benefiting from beating bad teams towards the end of the season is overstated. The Bulls are still on pace to reach most of their projected win totals Pre-ASB. The team has had its share of bad luck as well to balance things out if you think they're getting lucky with the scheduling.

Spo might be the best coach in the NBA, his team is more talented and is structured better for postseason ball. Yes, Billy gets outcoached by Spo, but I don't care that much. I had issues with Billy's lineup choices in the 2022 play-in game, but that's about it. Spo has more cards to play.

[jnrjr79]

One thing to monitor for those who are anti-Vegas odds:

Pelton projects 38 wins (significantly more bullish than its betting affiliate, ESPN BET, which has 31.5).

ESPN "regular" seems to have them at 32.7 wins.

I can't seem to find any DARKO projections for this year and 538 is no more.

For a couple of other examples, Hollinger does them for The Athletic and has the Bulls at 38. Bleacher Report also has 38.

[Stratmaster]

Just in terms of discussing roster quality and what Billy has to work with, The Ringer just released its list of the 100 best players in the NBA. The Bulls have two - Coby at 69 and Giddey at 75.

https://nbarankings.theringer.com/

And for historical context, LaVine and DeRozan are ranked 72 and 73.

Those aren't historical numbers. They are currently numbers. What does their projected 2026 performance have to do with the last 5 years?

Is it your view that they were meaningfully different players during their Bulls’ run? It’s not mine.

You quoted top 100 rankings, which by the way are a subjective opinion. Both Demar and Lavine were ranked a lot higher than that in those rankings when they were with the Bulls, particularly early on. Billy Donovan can ruin the value of any player.

To your question, yes, they were meaningfully different, as is usually the case when players start aging past 29 or 30 years old. Are you saying that a 32 year old Demar wasn't meaningfully different than 36 year old Demar? Or that a 25 year old Lavine wasn't different than 30 year old Lavine? Was Michael Jordan the same player in the Bulls first 3-peat as he was in the 2nd? You have some really strange takes.

[Stratmaster]

The coach always being on the court is one of the reasons the stat is unreliable.



This is an opinion that many people would disagree with. Plus/minus numbers are unreliable in small samples, but are useful for players who have accumulated enough minutes in their careers.



Even with the flaws in using RAPM for a coach, I still think it provides some meaningful signals. It evaluates coaches on on-court performance while adjusting for player and opponent quality. In other words, it likes Billy because it doesn't think highly of the players on the team.

By itself, this isn't valuable, but when you consider that the Bulls are consistently beating every preseason win projection, you have more information that points to Billy being a solid coach. The Bulls are mediocre because the players aren't talented, and not Billy.

The Bulls haven't consistently beaten every preseason win projection. That is a myth. They have beaten Vegas projections, which are proven to be wildly inaccurate, 4 out of his 5 seasons, but not significantly except for last season. The net positive difference of those 5 seasons can all be accounted for with the run at the end of last season.

What are the non-Vegas win projections that can be looked at as an alternative?

There is no such thing, although simple sources like ESPN often get closer. Using anyone's nostradamus predictions to try to replace facts is pretty silly. Just because you don't have good information doesn't mean you use bad information as a basis for supporting a position. Again, this is a really strange take and approach