Donovan in comparison

[Stratmaster]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that our own Coach William Jehosaphat Donovan has the third longest coaching tenure in the league, after only Spoelstra and Kerr?

I'm sure that's been mentioned multiple times here, but wow. The guy was hired six months after Rudy Gobert gave the world Covid. NBA coaching, ladies and gentlemen.

Not at all. Williams got entitlement minutes. Billy got entitlement seasons. I guess they like his wing span and potential.

No other team in the league would put up with this long a tenure of mediocrity without making a coaching change. I also see it as underachievement although I know some will debate that. But that's our Bulls.

[jnrjr79]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that our own Coach William Jehosaphat Donovan has the third longest coaching tenure in the league, after only Spoelstra and Kerr?

I'm sure that's been mentioned multiple times here, but wow. The guy was hired six months after Rudy Gobert gave the world Covid. NBA coaching, ladies and gentlemen.

Not at all. Williams got entitlement minutes. Billy got entitlement seasons. I guess they like his wing span and potential.

No other team in the league would put up with this long a tenure of mediocrity without making a coaching change. I also see it as underachievement although I know some will debate that. But that's our Bulls.

I think the Williams entitlement minutes is probably the only critique I see of Billy that I think has some validity to it.

Otherwise, he's taken crappy rosters and squeezed a few more wins out of them than one would expect. No coach would be able to take the players Billy has been given and achieve meaningfully better results.

I find the focus on Billy, as opposed to the myriad other issues with this franchise, to be fairly baffling.

[Stratmaster]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that our own Coach William Jehosaphat Donovan has the third longest coaching tenure in the league, after only Spoelstra and Kerr?

I'm sure that's been mentioned multiple times here, but wow. The guy was hired six months after Rudy Gobert gave the world Covid. NBA coaching, ladies and gentlemen.

Not at all. Williams got entitlement minutes. Billy got entitlement seasons. I guess they like his wing span and potential.

No other team in the league would put up with this long a tenure of mediocrity without making a coaching change. I also see it as underachievement although I know some will debate that. But that's our Bulls.

I think the Williams entitlement minutes is probably the only critique I see of Billy that I think has some validity to it.

Otherwise, he's taken crappy rosters and squeezed a few more wins out of them than one would expect. No coach would be able to take the players Billy has been given and achieve meaningfully better results.

I find the focus on Billy, as opposed to the myriad other issues with this franchise, to be fairly baffling.

You don't ignore 1 problem because you have another one. I disagree that he has squeezed any wins out. Had he done that we would have watched more playoff games.

[Ice Man]

Nobody evaluates coaches going forward. The analysis is always backwards -- this team performed better than my expectation, so the coach must be good. This team performed worse, so the coach must be bad. I do that, you do that, everybody does that. It's a crappy way to analyze.

Here are the COYs since 2015. At the time, most fans agreed with these picks -- nobody said they were bad coaches, and many agreed that they were very good coaches indeed.

2015 - Coach Bud, since fired repeatedly
2016 - Steve Kerr, won another title but Warriors' fans are now very critical of him
2017 - Pringles, out of the league
2018 - Dwayne Casey, nobody cares about him
2019 - Coach Bud, see above
2020 - Nick Nurse, yeah whatever, couldn't win again at Toronto and Philly is awful
2021 - Thibs, that was a good pick but nevertheless he just got fired
2022 - Monty Williams - Oh Lord
2023 - Mike Brown, recently fired, nobody cares about him
2024 - Mark Daigneault, my guess is that anybody could coach that amount of talent, but we shall see
2025 - Kenny Atkinson, I am actually a Kenny fan but for sure I could be wrong

If you picked 11 NBA coaches at random from 2015, you could easily find a group that was as good/successful as all these star coaches. Here, I will take the first 11 coaches listed in basketball-reference for that year.

Coach Bud
Brad Stevens
Lionel Hollins
Thibs
Steve Clifford
David Blatt
Rick Carlisle
Brian Shaw
Melvin Hunt
SVG
Steve Kerr

Yep, that group is as good (or bad) as the list of COY winners.

[jnrjr79]

Not at all. Williams got entitlement minutes. Billy got entitlement seasons. I guess they like his wing span and potential.

No other team in the league would put up with this long a tenure of mediocrity without making a coaching change. I also see it as underachievement although I know some will debate that. But that's our Bulls.

I think the Williams entitlement minutes is probably the only critique I see of Billy that I think has some validity to it.

Otherwise, he's taken crappy rosters and squeezed a few more wins out of them than one would expect. No coach would be able to take the players Billy has been given and achieve meaningfully better results.

I find the focus on Billy, as opposed to the myriad other issues with this franchise, to be fairly baffling.

You don't ignore 1 problem because you have another one. I disagree that he has squeezed any wins out. Had he done that we would have watched more playoff games.

The Bulls won several more games this season than Vegas odds projected. If you think the Bulls have had a "playoff wins" quality roster during Donovan's tenure, I don't know what to tell you.

[prolific passer]

Doug Collins after 89 couldn't get a coaching job for the next 5-6 years after leading the bulls to 2-1 edge in the ecf.

[Stratmaster]

I think the Williams entitlement minutes is probably the only critique I see of Billy that I think has some validity to it.

Otherwise, he's taken crappy rosters and squeezed a few more wins out of them than one would expect. No coach would be able to take the players Billy has been given and achieve meaningfully better results.

I find the focus on Billy, as opposed to the myriad other issues with this franchise, to be fairly baffling.

You don't ignore 1 problem because you have another one. I disagree that he has squeezed any wins out. Had he done that we would have watched more playoff games.

The Bulls won several more games this season than Vegas odds projected. If you think the Bulls have had a "playoff wins" quality roster during Donovan's tenure, I don't know what to tell you.

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

[League Circles]

You don't ignore 1 problem because you have another one. I disagree that he has squeezed any wins out. Had he done that we would have watched more playoff games.

The Bulls won several more games this season than Vegas odds projected. If you think the Bulls have had a "playoff wins" quality roster during Donovan's tenure, I don't know what to tell you.

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

By 3 starters who made all star games for most of Billy's tenure, do you mean Demar made it twice and Zach made it once?

The "big 3" was always terribly constructed even on paper, as all 3 are below average (or atrocious) defenders and don't particularly complement each other at all.

IMO, it's actually a significant accomplishment to have some decent talent (despite the terrible fit), have .500 caliber teams and NOT have the locker room become cancerous.

And Billy was on a perfectly similar page with Zach this past season.

[jnrjr79]

You don't ignore 1 problem because you have another one. I disagree that he has squeezed any wins out. Had he done that we would have watched more playoff games.

The Bulls won several more games this season than Vegas odds projected. If you think the Bulls have had a "playoff wins" quality roster during Donovan's tenure, I don't know what to tell you.

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

It is the exact opposite of giving the front office a pass for the past 5 seasons. It's holding them accountable for having put together crappy rosters.

I don't find your "All Stars" argument at all compelling and your dismissal of the Vegas odds makes no sense. That's probably the best available data on what the objective expectations for the team are. Billy did as well or better than he should have done with the rosters he was given. There's about a 0% chance the Vegas odds were what they were because people thought "well, this team has a ton of talent, but Billy Donovan is going to hold them back."

[Ballerkingn23]

I think he's better than what folks say, but is he elite no, but he's solid and can get a decent amount out of a suspect bunch. I think in 2026, if he's still here, that will be the true test for him, as I fully expect us to be even better then with all the cap space we'll have. Either way time will tell and I do think this year we will have or should have a decent season, given the weakness of the East.

[Stratmaster]

The Bulls won several more games this season than Vegas odds projected. If you think the Bulls have had a "playoff wins" quality roster during Donovan's tenure, I don't know what to tell you.

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

By 3 starters who made all star games for most of Billy's tenure, do you mean Demar made it twice and Zach made it once?

The "big 3" was always terribly constructed even on paper, as all 3 are below average (or atrocious) defenders and don't particularly complement each other at all.

IMO, it's actually a significant accomplishment to have some decent talent (despite the terrible fit), have .500 caliber teams and NOT have the locker room become cancerous.

And Billy was on a perfectly similar page with Zach this past season.

I phrased that poorly. Let me try again. "During Billy's tenure with the Bulls, 3 of the players had recently made, or currently made, the all-star team". I how that clears it up.

You know who is responsible for figuring out how to make talent fit on a basketball team? The head coach.

Lavine made the ASG twice, didn't he?

Billy certainly was on the same page with Zach for half a season. It's the same page a couple is on when they conduct their divorce amicably for the sake of the kids.

[Stratmaster]

The Bulls won several more games this season than Vegas odds projected. If you think the Bulls have had a "playoff wins" quality roster during Donovan's tenure, I don't know what to tell you.

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

It is the exact opposite of giving the front office a pass for the past 5 seasons. It's holding them accountable for having put together crappy rosters.

I don't find your "All Stars" argument at all compelling and your dismissal of the Vegas odds makes no sense. That's probably the best available data on what the objective expectations for the team are. Billy did as well or better than he should have done with the rosters he was given. There's about a 0% chance the Vegas odds were what they were because people thought "well, this team has a ton of talent, but Billy Donovan is going to hold them back."

And you really don't think Donovan has any input into how the team was built? The front office and head coach are mutually responsible for this team. The team did not progress during the last 5 seasons, it regressed. No player showed significant development due to Billy's work. Someone is going to say Coby, but the only objective difference with Coby from his first couple seasons is volume/usage.

But like I said. If you are happy with what Donovan has accomplished in the last 5 seasons more power to you. There are way more successful coaches losing their jobs annually. Maybe I have missed one somewhere but I am not aware of any other team that would go this long without making a change.

"Billy could shoot someone on Rush Street and some people would still want him ashead coach. "

[jnrjr79]

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

By 3 starters who made all star games for most of Billy's tenure, do you mean Demar made it twice and Zach made it once?

The "big 3" was always terribly constructed even on paper, as all 3 are below average (or atrocious) defenders and don't particularly complement each other at all.

IMO, it's actually a significant accomplishment to have some decent talent (despite the terrible fit), have .500 caliber teams and NOT have the locker room become cancerous.

And Billy was on a perfectly similar page with Zach this past season.

I phrased that poorly. Let me try again. "During Billy's tenure with the Bulls, 3 of the players had recently made, or currently made, the all-star team". I how that clears it up.

Do you think the Bulls had an above-average roster, talent-wise, these past several seasons? It seems blindingly obvious they did not!

You know who is responsible for figuring out how to make talent fit on a basketball team? The head coach.

No, first and foremost, that’s the GM

Lavine made the ASG twice, didn't he?

Yes, but he has not done so in 3 seasons.

Billy certainly was on the same page with Zach for half a season. It's the same page a couple is on when they conduct their divorce amicably for the sake of the kids.

I fail to see how Zach pouting for a year because he was benched in a single game because he was having an off night somehow reflects poorly on the coach.

[League Circles]

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

By 3 starters who made all star games for most of Billy's tenure, do you mean Demar made it twice and Zach made it once?

The "big 3" was always terribly constructed even on paper, as all 3 are below average (or atrocious) defenders and don't particularly complement each other at all.

IMO, it's actually a significant accomplishment to have some decent talent (despite the terrible fit), have .500 caliber teams and NOT have the locker room become cancerous.

And Billy was on a perfectly similar page with Zach this past season.

I phrased that poorly. Let me try again. "During Billy's tenure with the Bulls, 3 of the players had recently made, or currently made, the all-star team". I how that clears it up.

You know who is responsible for figuring out how to make talent fit on a basketball team? The head coach.

Lavine made the ASG twice, didn't he?

Billy certainly was on the same page with Zach for half a season. It's the same page a couple is on when they conduct their divorce amicably for the sake of the kids.

Well obviously the FO is also very much responsible for the fit of the roster parts.

As for the all stars, if a team had Andre Drummond, Jamaal Magloire and Zaza Pachulia ("3 all stars"), could even a truly great coach win 30 games with them?

"All star" means very little.

[jnrjr79]

The Bulls had 3 starters who made all-star games for most of Billy's tenure. If you can't get an over .500 result consistently with that, I don't know what to tell you. The Bulls "over" performance was due to beating up on teams that were tanking and had given up. I've been through this before. No one can name a single accomplishment, or proven coaching chop, that Billy has shown while in Chicago. All I get back is Vegas odds, "the players and reporters seem to like him", and "he sounds really smart in post game pressers". But he was never on the same page with the player it was most important to be on the same page with and there were a couple others that inexplicably couldn't get playing time while Williams was eating up critical minutes. Simply NOT playing Williams would have gotten the Bulls more wins, and I believe into the playoffs multiple times. He seems to pick his pets, and the guys he doesn't care for, and coaches based on his feels.

But it's OK to agree to disagree. If you are willing to accept the Bulls performance for the last 5 seasons and think the progress they showed was worth keeping the same coach who muddled through leading the team those 5 seasons, that's fine. I think it is about the equivalent of giving the front office a pass for 5 seasons.

It is the exact opposite of giving the front office a pass for the past 5 seasons. It's holding them accountable for having put together crappy rosters.

I don't find your "All Stars" argument at all compelling and your dismissal of the Vegas odds makes no sense. That's probably the best available data on what the objective expectations for the team are. Billy did as well or better than he should have done with the rosters he was given. There's about a 0% chance the Vegas odds were what they were because people thought "well, this team has a ton of talent, but Billy Donovan is going to hold them back."

And you really don't think Donovan has any input into how the team was built? The front office and head coach are mutually responsible for this team.

No, I don’t agree that’s how the NBA typically works. It’s not like the NFL where coaches tend to have a lot of influence on personnel.

The team did not progress during the last 5 seasons, it regressed. No player showed significant development due to Billy's work. Someone is going to say Coby, but the only objective difference with Coby from his first couple seasons is volume/usage.

But like I said. If you are happy with what Donovan has accomplished in the last 5 seasons more power to you. There are way more successful coaches losing their jobs annually. Maybe I have missed one somewhere but I am not aware of any other team that would go this long without making a change.

"Billy could shoot someone on Rush Street and some people would still want him ashead coach. "

My whole point here is NBA coaches tend to have a pretty mild effect on wins and losses. Billy is an average to above average coach. He is not the reason this team has been mid and focusing on him, rather than the front office (and ownership) is just a waste of time in the scheme of things.

The front office should go, and if a new FO wants a new coach, fine by me. But having AK fire Billy and hire someone else accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[League Circles]

IMO, a large distinction should be made between the Bulls' roster "baseball talent" and their "basketball talent". I just made up those terms, but what I mean is that if you add up the talent of the individual players on our roster the last few years, the talent has been above average IMO. If you consider that from among that group, you need to play 5 guys together to win, the talent is probably a bit below average IMO, which is exactly the results Billy has had.

I don't consider Billy a strong coach, but he's OK, and IMO the single most important part of being an NBA head coach is managing the personalities and avoiding cancerous chemistry. Any coach that does those things well is a "high floor" coach, which is a lot better than a high floor player. IMO, coaches can hurt you more than they can help you, and Billy doesn't particularly hurt you, so I'm OK with him.

He's the second highest floor coach I can remember for the Bulls after Phil.

[Dez]

Results is the only thing that matters. He's well under .500. Donovan gotta go. It's time.

10 games in over 300 isn't well under .500.

That's cool. Still gotta go though. Tom Thibs just got fired from NY Knicks and he reached the Eastern Conference Finals.

Because the Knicks do Knicks things isn't a solid argument.

[kulaz3000]

Billy did a solid job this year, but I don't think he deserves praise because we have had worse coaches. His team's never seem to overachieve but they don't really seem to severely underperform either. Thibs and even Skiles seemed to elevate the team.

I thought this season the team overachieved. Things were meant to crater after the Zach trade, but the team became better with less talent.

To boot, I think this season was the ONLY season in which they had players better suited for his style of play, or better yet, he felt more comfortable with the players he had in the second half of the season where he could enforce it. This is more of a head coach and management problem, but hey, this isn't a surprise!

I think he is a better head coach than his record shows as far as his time with the Bulls, however, I don't think he is a great coach either and I would have personally fired him already. He would be a fantastic coach for a young team, but if you're wanting to be a winning team, I would look elsewhere.

I'm not surprised that the front office loves him though, because it's like they can throw all type of junk rosters for him to coach and he really doesn't push back, so as far as they are concerned, it's a perfect union - not so much for the Bulls fans though.

[Muzbar]

Would it surprise anyone to learn that our own Coach William Jehosaphat Donovan has the third longest coaching tenure in the league, after only Spoelstra and Kerr?

I'm sure that's been mentioned multiple times here, but wow. The guy was hired six months after Rudy Gobert gave the world Covid. NBA coaching, ladies and gentlemen.

I wanted so badly for that to actually be his middle name.

[kodo]

He is the 3rd longest tenured coach in the league, and the two guys ahead of him have won titles and gotten to the Finals. So while I think he's pretty average as a coach his staying power is a real outlier. Average coaches generally get replaced, you don't have to be outright bad for a team to try someone new. Mike Malone, Thibs, etc..

This isn't Billy's fault, but the downside of Billy is that the org isn't actively seeking the next great coach because Billy is doing an adequate job. I think a good parallel is Nate McMillan. Very veteran, very respected coach in this league. Very conservative, known for getting the most out his rosters but not really a contending tier coach. Seasons with Indiana were 42, 48, 48 and 45 wins. 4 postseason appearances in a row, all 1st round losses. By all measures compared to Donovan, he was just as good as Billy. Roster wasn't elite, 2020 team was led by Sabonis & TJ Warren.

But Indiana didn't see a reason to keep someone who was just fine, and fired him and searched for a coach. They tried Bjorkgren for a season and then had the opportunity to nab Carlisle, and he's been instrumental in leading Indy to a Finals. That roster isn't in the Finals without him.

Billy's also just fine, but there's an opportunity cost in that the Bulls aren't in position to hire the next Carlisle, Udoka, or Kerr if you go back to the Mark Jackson firing. GS media hated the Jackson firing, he was a 51W coach when fired exact same record as Thibs when he was fired.