RealGM

Of the 23 general managers NBA teams have hired in the last four offseasons, 18 neither played nor coached in the NBA.

In the 15 years prior, non-coaches and non-players comprised only 33 of the 81 GM hires.

GMs who were former players or coaches tend to have shorter tenures than GM who were neither...

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/23 ... Or-Coaches

Kind of interesting..

So does anyone know who the potential GM candidates are right now?

I believe we've got a thread or 2 where potential candidates are mentioned

I think it's interesting teams are mo away from ex players...

Thanks for posting this

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Still can NOT believe that people on here wanted Chauncey as our new GM.

That means that 5 out of the past 23 GM hires WERE former NBA players.

My source inside tells me that Josh Smith and Brandon Jennings are interviewing for the uber-rare Player/GM position.

Its not surprising.

They're completely different skill sets. Sure, there's the occasional player or coach with a knack for being an executive (Pat Riley, Jerry West, Larry Bird and some others come to mind), but for the most part it doesn't work out.

Snakebites wrote:Its not surprising.

They're completely different skill sets. Sure, there's the occasional player or coach with a knack for being an executive (Pat Riley, Jerry West, Larry Bird and some others come to mind), but for the most part it doesn't work out.

14 of the last 15 championships were won by former players or coaches.

Popovich: 1999
West: 2000, 2001, 2002
Buford: 2003, 2005, 2007
Dumars: 2004
Riley: 2006, 2012, 2013
Ainge: 2008
Kupchak: 2009, 2010

The only GM who wasn't a former player or coach in that span was Donnie Nelson for the Mavs in 2011 (who is the son of a former HOF coach).

Only 3 GM's have won championships in the last 30 years that weren't former players or coaches.

Krause (Bulls)
Patterson (Rockets)
Nelson (Mavs)

27 of the last 27 championships were won by GM's whose teams won 4 games before their opponents did.....

Q00 wrote:

Snakebites wrote:Its not surprising.

They're completely different skill sets. Sure, there's the occasional player or coach with a knack for being an executive (Pat Riley, Jerry West, Larry Bird and some others come to mind), but for the most part it doesn't work out.

14 of the last 15 championships were won by former players or coaches.

Popovich: 1999
West: 2000, 2001, 2002
Buford: 2003, 2005, 2007
Dumars: 2004
Riley: 2006, 2012, 2013
Ainge: 2008
Kupchak: 2009, 2010

The only GM who wasn't a former player or coach in that span was Donnie Nelson for the Mavs in 2011 (who is the son of a former HOF coach).

Only 3 GM's have won championships in the last 30 years that weren't former players or coaches.

Krause (Bulls)
Patterson (Rockets)
Nelson (Mavs)

Cool story bro.

I guess when theres only one former player left as a GM, hes almost guaranteed to win the championship, right?

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:

Snakebites wrote:Its not surprising.

They're completely different skill sets. Sure, there's the occasional player or coach with a knack for being an executive (Pat Riley, Jerry West, Larry Bird and some others come to mind), but for the most part it doesn't work out.

14 of the last 15 championships were won by former players or coaches.

Popovich: 1999
West: 2000, 2001, 2002
Buford: 2003, 2005, 2007
Dumars: 2004
Riley: 2006, 2012, 2013
Ainge: 2008
Kupchak: 2009, 2010

The only GM who wasn't a former player or coach in that span was Donnie Nelson for the Mavs in 2011 (who is the son of a former HOF coach).

Only 3 GM's have won championships in the last 30 years that weren't former players or coaches.

Krause (Bulls)
Patterson (Rockets)
Nelson (Mavs)

Cool story bro.

I guess when theres only one former player left as a GM, hes almost guaranteed to win the championship, right?

Only one former player left as GM? What does that even mean?

Q00 wrote:

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:
14 of the last 15 championships were won by former players or coaches.

Popovich: 1999
West: 2000, 2001, 2002
Buford: 2003, 2005, 2007
Dumars: 2004
Riley: 2006, 2012, 2013
Ainge: 2008
Kupchak: 2009, 2010

The only GM who wasn't a former player or coach in that span was Donnie Nelson for the Mavs in 2011 (who is the son of a former HOF coach).

Only 3 GM's have won championships in the last 30 years that weren't former players or coaches.

Krause (Bulls)
Patterson (Rockets)
Nelson (Mavs)

Cool story bro.

I guess when theres only one former player left as a GM, hes almost guaranteed to win the championship, right?

Only one former player left as GM? What does that even mean?

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out. The more and more outsiders that get those Front office jobs, the less likely it is a list like that 15 years from now is going to be filled with former players who won championships as a GM.

That list speaks more about how bad the parity has been than you need a former player, or coach as a GM to win a championship.

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:

Sheeeeed wrote:
Cool story bro.

I guess when theres only one former player left as a GM, hes almost guaranteed to win the championship, right?

Only one former player left as GM? What does that even mean?

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out. The more and more outsiders that get those Front office jobs, the less likely it is a list like that 15 years from now is going to be filled with former players who won championships as a GM.

That list speaks more about how bad the parity has been than you need a former player, or coach as a GM to win a championship.

Or maybe its that the GM's who have actual experience playing/coaching basketball are just better equipped to build a basketball team?

The list speaks for itself. And it doesn't matter how many non-player/coaches are getting hired. If they don't win anything and keep losing to the former player/coaches, then they won't be employed very long.

The Spurs are one of the leaders for analytics....and their success shows you need to get the balance right.

Long term stability, long term FO & Coach, long term building blocks...easier to create something worthwhile when you have a great foundation

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Pharaoh wrote:The Spurs are one of the leaders for analytics....and their success shows you need to get the balance right.

Long term stability, long term FO & Coach, long term building blocks...easier to create something worthwhile when you have a great foundation

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You can be a former player/coach and still have an analytics department - which is the model the Spurs use. Buford is a former coach and he has Gabe Farkas as his Director of Basketball Analytics.

Contrary to what some think, the Pistons also employ a stat guru in their front office, Director of Basketball Operations, Ken Catanella.

Okay I'll go there - Is there a racial aspect at work here?

(Also worth looking at recent NHL hires - ex players getting team President gigs)

Q00 wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:The Spurs are one of the leaders for analytics....and their success shows you need to get the balance right.

Long term stability, long term FO & Coach, long term building blocks...easier to create something worthwhile when you have a great foundation

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You can be a former player/coach and still have an analytics department - which is the model the Spurs use. Buford is a former coach and he has Gabe Farkas as his Director of Basketball Analytics.

Contrary to what some think, the Pistons also employ a stat guru in their front office, Director of Basketball Operations, Ken Catanella.

Just because a team a stat department that doesn't mean any of the decision maker actually pay attention analytics. Baseball is that most analytical sport, yet Jim Leyland would never get caught reading a stat sheet.

Q00 wrote:Or maybe its that the GM's who have actual experience playing/coaching basketball are just better equipped to build a basketball team?

Ah yes, because basketball exactly the same it was 10 years. That list is irrelevant pre 2010, and so far we 1 Mavs vs. Miami champsionships. Miami wouldn't be where it was today if the Big 3 didn't want to play together.

The list speaks for itself. And it doesn't matter how many non-player/coaches are getting hired. If they don't win anything and keep losing to the former player/coaches, then they won't be employed very long.

Oh it doesn't matter? If theres no more former players running teams, someones gotta win right? Stop being so dense.

Sheeeeed wrote:

Q00 wrote:Or maybe its that the GM's who have actual experience playing/coaching basketball are just better equipped to build a basketball team?

Ah yes, because basketball exactly the same it was 10 years. That list is irrelevant pre 2010, and so far we 1 Mavs vs. Miami champsionships. Miami wouldn't be where it was today if the Big 3 didn't want to play together.

The list speaks for itself. And it doesn't matter how many non-player/coaches are getting hired. If they don't win anything and keep losing to the former player/coaches, then they won't be employed very long.

Oh it doesn't matter? If theres no more former players running teams, someones gotta win right? Stop being so dense.

lol so your argument for why non-player/coach GM's are better is because that's going to be all there is in the future and one will have to win by default?

That doesn't exactly speak very highly of their skills, that they need to monopolize the whole league just to win one lol. And don't think them getting hired instead proves they are better. They are getting hired because the new owners understand numbers better than basketball and relate to these guys more, not because they are better basketball minds. All it takes is one Pat Riley to outsmart 29 stat geeks anyways.

Your point about championships only being relevant post 2010 is ridiculous. Even so, it doesn't look like Miami is losing anytime soon, so when a non-player/coach GM wins another championship, let me know. Until then, there is nothing to support these claims that they are better. All evidence points in favor of the former players and coaches, which is the ironic part of it all. Fans want an non-player/coach who relies heavily on numbers, despite the numbers saying the odds are heavily against them succeeding. Go figure.

Q00 wrote:lol so your argument for why non-player/coach GM's are better is because that's going to be all there is in the future and one will have to win by default?

There you go again putting words into someones mouth to try and win an argument.

That doesn't exactly speak very highly of their skills, that they need to monopolize the whole league just to win one lol. And don't think them getting hired instead proves they are better. They are getting hired because the new owners understand numbers better than basketball and relate to these guys more, not because they are better basketball minds. All it takes is one Pat Riley to outsmart 29 stat geeks anyways.


Your point about championships only being relevant post 2010 is ridiculous. Even so, it doesn't look like Miami is losing anytime soon, so when a non-player/coach GM wins another championship, let me know. Until then, there is nothing to support these claims that they are better. All evidence points in favor of the former players and coaches, which is the ironic part of it all. Fans want an non-player/coach who relies heavily on numbers, despite the numbers saying the odds are heavily against them succeeding. Go figure.

Monopolize? lol

They're not buying their jobs, Flip. Whats so funny about your argument about former players/ non players you're the one here stating one is better than the other, not me. I do find it a huge leap that you thinking point who's won championships the last 30 year somehow proves who's better, when the analytic/non player push began only in the last few years. They don't just rely heavily on numbers, most of them have scouting backgrounds too.

Q00 wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:The Spurs are one of the leaders for analytics....and their success shows you need to get the balance right.

Long term stability, long term FO & Coach, long term building blocks...easier to create something worthwhile when you have a great foundation

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

You can be a former player/coach and still have an analytics department - which is the model the Spurs use. Buford is a former coach and he has Gabe Farkas as his Director of Basketball Analytics.

Contrary to what some think, the Pistons also employ a stat guru in their front office, Director of Basketball Operations, Ken Catanella.

One stat geek does not make an analytical department!

It's known that we, as an organisation were slow to react to the rise of analytics.

I'm not saying we need to put all our eggs in that basket...which is why I used the Spurs as an example of balance.

They have former players/coaches in their front office while ALSO being one of the league leaders in analytics.

Let's be honest about analytics: the amount of raw data being produced is insane! They can track everything on the floor, every second.

How teams interpret that raw data is what matters and for that you need to have a staff that can understand not just the numbers or the game but BOTH!

And IMO that is why we have Kenny.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app