Are people too hard on Billy Donovan?

[Stratmaster]

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. At least they are trying to actually predict the number of wins, which is not in any way the purpose of Vegas odds. 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

[DuckIII]

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.

Pretty strange takes? Pretty much the only person on this whole board who believes the Lavine/DDR Bulls won less games than they should have, is you. There are a couple of other pretty hardcore Donovan haters, but I don't really even see them saying he had good teams to work with. If you are looking for the margins, look in the mirror. Your opinion on this one is an extreme minority.

[Stratmaster]

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.

Outperforming a prediction, and outperforming it to a meaningful level, are 2 different things. You have to look at the projections as a whole, factor in the margin of error, and see if those predictions outperformed a normal margin of error. I did this exercise with Vegas odds for multiple seasons and posted it here. I'm not going to put in the time to go through these models and show you their margin of error. It is a 82 game season. No one is getting all the teams win totals exactly correct. To use a couple games per season differential as some type of measure and proof that Billy Donovan got more out of his team than he should have is ridiculous.

The first 3 seasons of Darko the Bulls were +4. So they were +1.3 games per season in an 82 game season. That had nothing to do with Billy outcoaching anyone.

The first 3 seasons of ESPN the Bulls were a net zero. They won exactly the number of games ESPN predicted, as a total, for the 3 seasons. By the way, this was the same result for Vegas. It should be noted, this does not mean either source correctly predicted the season totals. It is the net +/- over that 3 season period.

As I said earlier, all of the Bulls "over-performing" projections happened at the end of last season while they were beating tanking teams. The Bulls have not consistently beaten projections season over season. When I did the Vegas analysis the Bulls were +10 over 4 seasons; and that was all due to last seasons tank run.

[Stratmaster]

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.

Pretty strange takes? Pretty much the only person on this whole board who believes the Lavine/DDR Bulls won less games than they should have, is you. There are a couple of other pretty hardcore Donovan haters, but I don't really even see them saying he had good teams to work with. If you are looking for the margins, look in the mirror. Your opinion on this one is an extreme minority.

Really? You don't think the Bulls win more games by simply NOT starting Patrick Williams and making him earn minutes?

[2weekswithpay]

Outperforming a prediction, and outperforming it to a meaningful level, are 2 different things. You have to look at the projections as a whole, factor in the margin of error, and see if those predictions outperformed a normal margin of error. I did this exercise with Vegas odds for multiple seasons and posted it here. I'm not going to put in the time to go through these models and show you their margin of error. It is a 82 game season. No one is getting all the teams win totals exactly correct. To use a couple games per season differential as some type of measure and proof that Billy Donovan got more out of his team than he should have is ridiculous.

The first 3 seasons of Darko the Bulls were +4. So they were +1.3 games per season in an 82 game season. That had nothing to do with Billy outcoaching anyone.

The first 3 seasons of ESPN the Bulls were a net zero. They won exactly the number of games ESPN predicted, as a total, for the 3 seasons. By the way, this was the same result for Vegas. It should be noted, this does not mean either source correctly predicted the season totals. It is the net +/- over that 3 season period.

As I said earlier, all of the Bulls "over-performing" projections happened at the end of last season while they were beating tanking teams. The Bulls have not consistently beaten projections season over season. When I did the Vegas analysis the Bulls were +10 over 4 seasons; and that was all due to last seasons tank run.

You said the Bulls weren't beating preseason win projections.

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.

They were. They didn't reach/pass their projection on one ESPN model. I'd argue that even achieving a +1 in wins every season and across multiple models is good. No one thinks or expects these models to get every win total correctly, but Vegas wasn't good enough, so I looked at a few more, and the results were the same. The Bulls were beating their preseason win projections, it wasn't by a significant amount, but I never claimed that it was.
I don't think this is a perfect way to evaluate coaching, but I see no reason to ignore this information unless you're willing to provide a better, more objective way of evaluating coaching.

In the first 3 seasons of Pelton's model, the Bulls were +13-14 wins. In 2022, and 2023, they're +13 vs 538. Why exclude these two?

2024-25 is the only season I'd say the Bulls had a significant turnaround after the break. I've compared the Bulls' pre-break records and win pace to their projected win totals, and I'm not convinced the Bulls are beating projections on the last two months of the season.

[sco]

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.

I feel like some of these projections factor in a end-of-season tank scenario in their model that the Bulls have never implemented, and that accounts for more of the difference than Billy's coaching prowess.

[Stratmaster]

Outperforming a prediction, and outperforming it to a meaningful level, are 2 different things. You have to look at the projections as a whole, factor in the margin of error, and see if those predictions outperformed a normal margin of error. I did this exercise with Vegas odds for multiple seasons and posted it here. I'm not going to put in the time to go through these models and show you their margin of error. It is a 82 game season. No one is getting all the teams win totals exactly correct. To use a couple games per season differential as some type of measure and proof that Billy Donovan got more out of his team than he should have is ridiculous.

The first 3 seasons of Darko the Bulls were +4. So they were +1.3 games per season in an 82 game season. That had nothing to do with Billy outcoaching anyone.

The first 3 seasons of ESPN the Bulls were a net zero. They won exactly the number of games ESPN predicted, as a total, for the 3 seasons. By the way, this was the same result for Vegas. It should be noted, this does not mean either source correctly predicted the season totals. It is the net +/- over that 3 season period.

As I said earlier, all of the Bulls "over-performing" projections happened at the end of last season while they were beating tanking teams. The Bulls have not consistently beaten projections season over season. When I did the Vegas analysis the Bulls were +10 over 4 seasons; and that was all due to last seasons tank run.

You said the Bulls weren't beating preseason win projections.

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.

They were. They didn't reach/pass their projection on one ESPN model. I'd argue that even achieving a +1 in wins every season and across multiple models is good. No one thinks or expects these models to get every win total correctly, but Vegas wasn't good enough, so I looked at a few more, and the results were the same. The Bulls were beating their preseason win projections, it wasn't by a significant amount, but I never claimed that it was.
I don't think this is a perfect way to evaluate coaching, but I see no reason to ignore this information unless you're willing to provide a better, more objective way of evaluating coaching.

In the first 3 seasons of Pelton's model, the Bulls were +13-14 wins. In 2022, and 2023, they're +13 vs 538. Why exclude these two?

2024-25 is the only season I'd say the Bulls had a significant turnaround after the break. I've compared the Bulls' pre-break records and win pace to their projected win totals, and I'm not convinced the Bulls are beating projections on the last two months of the season.

My point is that pre-season projections are inaccurate and useless in assessing end of season results. I have no clue who Pelton is or what his models take into account and don't. I am somewhat familiar with ESPN and I understand how Vegas does their projections, so I commented on those. The fact that Pelton's model was +13, -14, then +13 pretty much just solidifies that, right? Or do you honestly believe the coaching made a positive and negative 13 game difference in the team's record for a season?

If you were looking at an election poll, or any other predictive tool, and the margin of error was 16% would you put any meaning into the projection? Are you willing to put money down based on any of these projections being accurate? Of course not. What you would look for are the predictions that seem wildly inaccurate on their face and maybe bet AGAINST the projections being accurate, right?

And would you really argue that +1 or -1 is significant? Schedule layout and Weather affecting travel probably accounts for more than that.

[2weekswithpay]

Outperforming a prediction, and outperforming it to a meaningful level, are 2 different things. You have to look at the projections as a whole, factor in the margin of error, and see if those predictions outperformed a normal margin of error. I did this exercise with Vegas odds for multiple seasons and posted it here. I'm not going to put in the time to go through these models and show you their margin of error. It is a 82 game season. No one is getting all the teams win totals exactly correct. To use a couple games per season differential as some type of measure and proof that Billy Donovan got more out of his team than he should have is ridiculous.

The first 3 seasons of Darko the Bulls were +4. So they were +1.3 games per season in an 82 game season. That had nothing to do with Billy outcoaching anyone.

The first 3 seasons of ESPN the Bulls were a net zero. They won exactly the number of games ESPN predicted, as a total, for the 3 seasons. By the way, this was the same result for Vegas. It should be noted, this does not mean either source correctly predicted the season totals. It is the net +/- over that 3 season period.

As I said earlier, all of the Bulls "over-performing" projections happened at the end of last season while they were beating tanking teams. The Bulls have not consistently beaten projections season over season. When I did the Vegas analysis the Bulls were +10 over 4 seasons; and that was all due to last seasons tank run.

You said the Bulls weren't beating preseason win projections.

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.

They were. They didn't reach/pass their projection on one ESPN model. I'd argue that even achieving a +1 in wins every season and across multiple models is good. No one thinks or expects these models to get every win total correctly, but Vegas wasn't good enough, so I looked at a few more, and the results were the same. The Bulls were beating their preseason win projections, it wasn't by a significant amount, but I never claimed that it was.
I don't think this is a perfect way to evaluate coaching, but I see no reason to ignore this information unless you're willing to provide a better, more objective way of evaluating coaching.

In the first 3 seasons of Pelton's model, the Bulls were +13-14 wins. In 2022, and 2023, they're +13 vs 538. Why exclude these two?

2024-25 is the only season I'd say the Bulls had a significant turnaround after the break. I've compared the Bulls' pre-break records and win pace to their projected win totals, and I'm not convinced the Bulls are beating projections on the last two months of the season.

My point is that pre-season projections are inaccurate and useless in assessing end of season results. I have no clue who Pelton is or what his models take into account and don't. I am somewhat familiar with ESPN and I understand how Vegas does their projections, so I commented on those. The fact that Pelton's model was +13, -14, then +13 pretty much just solidifies that, right? Or do you honestly believe the coaching made a positive and negative 13 game difference in the team's record for a season?

If you were looking at an election poll, or any other predictive tool, and the margin of error was 16% would you put any meaning into the projection? Are you willing to put money down based on any of these projections being accurate? Of course not. What you would look for are the predictions that seem wildly inaccurate on their face and maybe bet AGAINST the projections being accurate, right?

And would you really argue that +1 or -1 is significant? Schedule layout and Weather affecting travel probably accounts for more than that.

I don't deny that, but there isn't a perfect way to evaluate a coach and their impact on a team, but I try to incorporate as many sources as possible into my evaluation. I don't think these models are perfect however I see no reason not to use them when trying to evaluate a coach. This is how Pelton say he calculates win projections. He isn't going to make his model public but it's something.

To project teams, I start with player ratings based on a combination of my SCHOENE stats-based projections and luck-adjusted regularized adjusted plus-minus (RAPM) provided by Krishna Narsu that covers the past three seasons. For each team, I project games played based on those missed to injury over the past three years and current absences then subjectively guess at the distribution of playing time.

I don't think that a coach can be responsible for +13 or -13 wins. I don't believe it's possible to isolate the coach's individual impact, and I don't believe a single metric can be used to evaluate a coach.


When I mentioned coaching RAPM, I was looking at what metrics thought of the Bulls' players.

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.

Pelton incorperates his own player impact metric into his season predictions while adjusting for minutes, luck, injury etc. I believe DARKO, 538, EPM, and LEBRON all do the same. I looked at player on/off splits ( I posted Demar's earlier), individual player impact ratings, and some other things. My initial point was when you incorporate player metrics like RAPM with the season projections, it's hard to conclude that the Bulls are underachieving relative to their talent. I'd even argue the Bulls are winning a few more than they should and that Billy has a slight positive to neutral impact as a coach. You're free to disagree with me.

A consistent +1 over a 3-4 season sample size is good IMO. These models try to account for as much as possible. They aren't perfect but I prefer using this over evaluations that are based almost entirely on someone's opinion.

[Ice Man]

I feel like some of these projections factor in a end-of-season tank scenario in their model that the Bulls have never implemented, and that accounts for more of the difference than Billy's coaching prowess.

I doubt it ... models tend to be based on solely inputs of expected player quality. Attempting to adjust for factors like 1) fit among players, 2) coaching quality, 3) injury likelihood, and 4) tanking possibilities introduces too much guesswork into the process. The model loses its value as a data-driven exercise and becomes dependent instead on the sorts of judgements that fans make. Which is OK, sure ... but that's not longer a projection model.

[GetBuLLish]

I know 2-0 is good and all, but with a better coach, this team would probably be 5-0 right now.

[dougthonus]

So evidence that Billy is good:
- He's in the hall of fame and universally recognized as great by his peers
- All of his current and former players love him and say he is
- His teams have beat expectations by every model more or less every year
- He's top 5 all time in the NBA (as far back as measures go) in Individual player performance vs expected performance (Coach RAPM)

Evidence that Billy is not good:
- Subjective opinion of internet posters that are largely fans of the current team he coaches based largely on their view of his rotations

Maybe Donovan sucks, I've got some outlier opinions as a random internet poster too that I feel are correct and will probably fight to the death over, but I don't see it with Donovan. I think he's quite good.

[Jcool0]

So evidence that Billy is good:
- He's in the hall of fame and universally recognized as great by his peers
- All of his current and former players love him and say he is
- His teams have beat expectations by every model more or less every year
- He's top 5 all time in the NBA (as far back as measures go) in Individual player performance vs expected performance (Coach RAPM)

Evidence that Billy is not good:
- Subjective opinion of internet posters that are largely fans of the current team he coaches based largely on their view of his rotations

He is in the HOF as a college head coach. Lon Kruger won 674 games as a college head coach. Got Kansas State to the Elite 8, took Florida & Oklahoma to the Final Four & UNLV to the Sweet 16. In the NBA he won 36% of his games in Atlanta and was fired not even 30 games into his 3rd season. I am sure if Billy had taken the Kentucky job he would be doing great. NBA and College are not the same thing.

[dougthonus]

So evidence that Billy is good:
- He's in the hall of fame and universally recognized as great by his peers
- All of his current and former players love him and say he is
- His teams have beat expectations by every model more or less every year
- He's top 5 all time in the NBA (as far back as measures go) in Individual player performance vs expected performance (Coach RAPM)

Evidence that Billy is not good:
- Subjective opinion of internet posters that are largely fans of the current team he coaches based largely on their view of his rotations

He is in the HOF as a college head coach. Lon Kruger won 674 games as a college head coach. Got Kansas State to the Elite 8, took Florida & Oklahoma to the Final Four & UNLV to the Sweet 16. In the NBA he won 36% of his games in Atlanta and was fired not even 30 games into his 3rd season. I am sure if Billy had taken the Kentucky job he would be doing great. NBA and College are not the same thing.

Do you think Donovan is not good or do you think just this single point doesn't have that much merit?

Sure, I agree you can argue about how much to weigh his HOF election in this equation. I certainly think it has some merit and isn't of zero value, but how much merit is definitely up for debate. It's also why I added the other points and didn't rely on this single point.

I actually think Donovan's Florida tenure says more about coaching than a lot of HOF college coaches. Prior to Donovan: 1 elite 8 appearance, under Donovan, 7 elite 8s (5 in the final 4, 1 runner up, 2 titles), after Donovan, 2 elite 8s (1 final four). Florida hasn't generally been a basketball powerhouse outside of Donovan. It's not like he got the Duke, Kentucky, or NC job and just got a parade of elite recruits every year.

That said, I agree, it's still college, and college is a different animal.

[Jcool0]

So evidence that Billy is good:
- He's in the hall of fame and universally recognized as great by his peers
- All of his current and former players love him and say he is
- His teams have beat expectations by every model more or less every year
- He's top 5 all time in the NBA (as far back as measures go) in Individual player performance vs expected performance (Coach RAPM)

Evidence that Billy is not good:
- Subjective opinion of internet posters that are largely fans of the current team he coaches based largely on their view of his rotations

He is in the HOF as a college head coach. Lon Kruger won 674 games as a college head coach. Got Kansas State to the Elite 8, took Florida & Oklahoma to the Final Four & UNLV to the Sweet 16. In the NBA he won 36% of his games in Atlanta and was fired not even 30 games into his 3rd season. I am sure if Billy had taken the Kentucky job he would be doing great. NBA and College are not the same thing.

Do you think Donovan is not good or do you think just this single point doesn't have that much merit?

Sure, I agree you can argue about how much to weigh his HOF election in this equation. I certainly think it has some merit and isn't of zero value, but how much merit is definitely up for debate. It's also why I added the other points and didn't rely on this single point.

I actually think Donovan's Florida tenure says more about coaching than a lot of HOF college coaches. Prior to Donovan: 1 elite 8 appearance, under Donovan, 7 elite 8s (5 in the final 4, 1 runner up, 2 titles), after Donovan, 2 elite 8s (1 final four). Florida hasn't generally been a basketball powerhouse outside of Donovan. It's not like he got the Duke, Kentucky, or NC job and just got a parade of elite recruits every year.

That said, I agree, it's still college, and college is a different animal.

They made the Sweet 16 in 1987 & the Final Four in 1994. I think at the time all the money in the SEC was going to football and there was no TV networks to prop up everything. Also with the back to back titles, everyone came back giving up NBA money to try to win it again. Maybe some of that was on Donovan but i remember the players talking about really wanting to do that. Which is something that almost never happens.

[dougthonus]

They made the Sweet 16 in 1987 & the Final Four in 1994. I think at the time all the money in the SEC was going to football and there was no TV networks to prop up everything. Also with the back to back titles, everyone came back giving up NBA money to try to win it again. Maybe some of that was on Donovan but i remember the players talking about really wanting to do that. Which is something that almost never happens.

So again, do you just dislike this one point, or do you think Donovan is lousy? I agree the HOF thing isn't 100% relevant, just don't thin it has zero relevance when people say things like he's terrible. I think he's objectively not terrible (compared to his peers of NBA coaches), not that he's necessarily operating at a HOF level within the NBA.

[Jcool0]

They made the Sweet 16 in 1987 & the Final Four in 1994. I think at the time all the money in the SEC was going to football and there was no TV networks to prop up everything. Also with the back to back titles, everyone came back giving up NBA money to try to win it again. Maybe some of that was on Donovan but i remember the players talking about really wanting to do that. Which is something that almost never happens.

So again, do you just dislike this one point, or do you think Donovan is lousy? I agree the HOF thing isn't 100% relevant, just don't thin it has zero relevance when people say things like he's terrible. I think he's objectively not terrible (compared to his peers of NBA coaches), not that he's necessarily operating at a HOF level within the NBA.

I don't think what he did in college has any baring on what he is capable or not of doing in the NBA. Donovan isn't lousy he also isn't worth keeping because you are afraid they could hire someone worse. I am not actively mad he is the coach but i also don't think he has done anything all that remarkable since he has been here. I couldn't even tell you who the last coach with his kind of record that was able to just kind of stick around without a hint of his job being in jeopardy, but i guess that is more a criticism of AK.

[dougthonus]

I don't think what he did in college has any baring on what he is capable or not of doing in the NBA. Donovan isn't lousy he also isn't worth keeping because you are afraid they could hire someone worse. I am not actively mad he is the coach but i also don't think he has done anything all that remarkable since he has been here. I couldn't even tell you who the last coach with his kind of record that was able to just kind of stick around without a hint of his job being in jeopardy, but i guess that is more a criticism of AK.

Say you could have any coach in the NBA right now, whomever you think the best guy in the world is, what record do you think they'd have with the Bulls?

I don't think Billy should be above reproach by any sense, but I also think it's pretty obvious why he is here despite a mediocre record, because we have done better than vegas and all independent expert models would expect more or less every year he's been here.

Once you hit non idiot levels (ie, someone like Jim Boylen could tank any team), my view is that the gap between the impact of a great coach and average coach is probably pretty minimal as long as the players buy into the coach (which the Bulls players obviously buy into Billy). If a great coach could add 5 wins over a good coach (as an example), coaching salaries would probably be 40-50M+ a year.

Coaches are paid like they add 1-2 wins, and Billy's statistical evidence is that he adds 1-2 wins.

I wouldn't cry if we fired him, but I'd be really surprised if we replaced him with someone better. That said, this is actually a great time to be looking for a head coach. There are a high number of guys that seem quite competent available right now.

[Jcool0]

I don't think what he did in college has any baring on what he is capable or not of doing in the NBA. Donovan isn't lousy he also isn't worth keeping because you are afraid they could hire someone worse. I am not actively mad he is the coach but i also don't think he has done anything all that remarkable since he has been here. I couldn't even tell you who the last coach with his kind of record that was able to just kind of stick around without a hint of his job being in jeopardy, but i guess that is more a criticism of AK.

Say you could have any coach in the NBA right now, whomever you think the best guy in the world is, what record do you think they'd have with the Bulls?

I don't think Billy should be above reproach by any sense, but I also think it's pretty obvious why he is here despite a mediocre record, because we have done better than vegas and all independent expert models would expect more or less every year he's been here.

Once you hit non idiot levels (ie, someone like Jim Boylen could tank any team), my view is that the gap between the impact of a great coach and average coach is probably pretty minimal as long as the players buy into the coach (which the Bulls players obviously buy into Billy). If a great coach could add 5 wins over a good coach (as an example), coaching salaries would probably be 40-50M+ a year.

Coaches are paid like they add 1-2 wins, and Billy's statistical evidence is that he adds 1-2 wins.

I wouldn't cry if we fired him, but I'd be really surprised if we replaced him with someone better. That said, this is actually a great time to be looking for a head coach. There are a high number of guys that seem quite competent available right now.

Coaches id say would add +5 wins to Chicago:

Chris Finch

Tom Thibodeau

Ime Udoka

Mark Daigneault

Rick Carlisle

Joe Mazzulla

Erik Spoelstra

[Snakebites]

Not a Bulls fan but he strikes me as the type of guy who's solid for a developing team but will probably be replaced if/when this group develops to the point where meaningful playoff success becomes the bar.

Sorta like what the Cavs did with JB Bickerstaff, who may or may not evolve beyond that point with us. We'll see.

[dougthonus]

I don't think what he did in college has any baring on what he is capable or not of doing in the NBA. Donovan isn't lousy he also isn't worth keeping because you are afraid they could hire someone worse. I am not actively mad he is the coach but i also don't think he has done anything all that remarkable since he has been here. I couldn't even tell you who the last coach with his kind of record that was able to just kind of stick around without a hint of his job being in jeopardy, but i guess that is more a criticism of AK.

Say you could have any coach in the NBA right now, whomever you think the best guy in the world is, what record do you think they'd have with the Bulls?

I don't think Billy should be above reproach by any sense, but I also think it's pretty obvious why he is here despite a mediocre record, because we have done better than vegas and all independent expert models would expect more or less every year he's been here.

Once you hit non idiot levels (ie, someone like Jim Boylen could tank any team), my view is that the gap between the impact of a great coach and average coach is probably pretty minimal as long as the players buy into the coach (which the Bulls players obviously buy into Billy). If a great coach could add 5 wins over a good coach (as an example), coaching salaries would probably be 40-50M+ a year.

Coaches are paid like they add 1-2 wins, and Billy's statistical evidence is that he adds 1-2 wins.

I wouldn't cry if we fired him, but I'd be really surprised if we replaced him with someone better. That said, this is actually a great time to be looking for a head coach. There are a high number of guys that seem quite competent available right now.

Coaches id say would add +5 wins to Chicago:

Chris Finch

Tom Thibodeau

Ime Udoka

Mark Daigneault

Rick Carlisle

Joe Mazzulla

Erik Spoelstra

Love all the guys you mentioned, don't believe any would add 5 wins FWIW, but that's just a difference in how much we think coaching has an impact.