Evaluating Corbin
Posted: Wed Jan 4, 2012 7:42 pm
I moved this post from another thread and gave it own thread because it's a different take on things. You guys give coaches way too much credit or at other times not nearly enough. Coaches aren't only about doing one thing well. Coaching is a complicated and diverse activity.
Coaching has many aspects to it. Here are a few.
1. Recruiting (or in the case of the NBA, drafting and trading (not only coaches decision)
2. Selection of assistant coaches
3. Designing an offensive and defensive system that works well for the players on the team and that can win given the competition. Coaches can redesign the systems to fit the players or they can go out and get players that fit within the system.
4. X's and O's ( how many effective plays within an offensive scheme does a team have)
5. Practice management
6. Teaching ability
7. Competition analysis and breakdown
8. Bench coaching (knowing who to change when and why, switching offensive and defensive schemes, managing officials)
9. Game management (starting lineups, time outs, clock management etc) Game management can be included in bench coaching, but I separate them because some coaches don't use time outs effectively, etc.)
10 Player management
There are other issues like managing outside distractions which include agents, sponsors, media, and administration.
Not all coaches are good at all of these. For example, I know coaches who were excellent at recruiting, but only fair to pretty good at X's and O's. Some understood that and compensated for it by keeping schemes simple or having assistant coaches who fill in the weak areas. Others didn't. I also knew coaches who had less talented players but created offensive and defensive schemes that allowed lesser talent to thrive and win a lot.
So how do I grade Corbin based on my experience and personal opinion.
1. A Players with lots of potential. This is one sweet group on many levels.
2. B Corbin's assistant coaches are okay but don't bring anything special to the party such as defensive expertise.
3. B From my point of view Corbin's offense doesn't appear optimal for this group. I like the fact that it's offense by committee. Smart. But often the offensive sets don't seem to be designed for the players. For example, Hayward's been told to create for himself and others. That's okay because Hayward can do that, but he doesn't do it as well from the SF as he does from the SG. So I think the offense is less effective than it could be and gets off to a slower start. It's going to take a long time to get Corbin's new defensive system to work well. The Jazz now have inside shot blockers so in my opinion, forcing the defenders down the middle would have been more effective this than it was last year. David Locke says Corbin spent most of training camp on pick and roll defense, and that it seems to be working. Well, if that's true, that's a good thing. But it's really too early in the season to tell how effective the Jazz are going to be against the pick and roll, or forcing ball handlers toward baseline. I don't think this was the season for major changes given all the problems including very little training camp. But the success of offensive and defensive changes won't be known for 20 more games.
4. B+ Corbin understands the X's and O's as well as any coach
5. B- Corbin may have overemphasized competition in practice. Often that works out badly. What happens is players come out of practice thinking too much about their stats and how to keep, or get, their starting role rather than how to win games. Despite the shortened training camp and preseason, Corbin installed new offensive and new defensive schemes. That is hard to do with normal practice time, and was a real reach in the present situation. I wasn't at practice so I don't know how well the practices went, so I'm evaluating this one in the blind. I number 3 above Locke says a lot of practice time went into defending the pick and roll. I can't argue with that.
6. A- I think Corbin can teach and wants to teach. So does Hornacek. I don't know about the other coaches.
7. A- Corbin and his staff know all of the competition and the other players. It's hard to keep up with all the quick trades and team composition changes that have occurred but they're doing it pretty well. It will take a lot more games to assess how well Corbin adjusts the components of the team to match up.
8. B In my opinion, Corbin is a pretty good bench coach. He seems to have a feel for the game. But his vision is sometimes clouded by bias for CJ and Bell. I'm not sure what's going on there, but it needs to change in one big hurry. A good bench coach can't compensate for the wrong combination of players.
9. B- Game Management is one area where I think Corbin is both good and bad. If I were picking lineups it would be Harris/Watson, Hayward/ Bell/ Burks, Howard/Miles, Millsap/Favors, Jefferson/Kanter with Burks replacing Bell later in the season. Why? Because I think this lineup creates the most offense early in games. I also think that the bench unit is almost as strong as the starters so that makes for a strong bench punch. I would have gone with this lineup almost out of the gate and stopped talking about changing it constantly. Maybe Corbin thinks that talking about changing the lineup keeps players competitive. I don't believe that. His clock management is good, even with CJ working against him. His feel for timeouts seems fairly good, but not game changing, and he's average to above average in most all of these areas.
10. B As far as player management goes, Corbin is well liked, but being liked isn't really the issue. The issue is getting players to buy into a system and to shape their game to fit within the system while learning to win. Coaches never get players to disregard stat lines, and players have ulterior motives for the way they play they seldom disclose. That can't be helped, but getting players to buy in is more about getting them to believe that whatever their particular needs are those needs will be met by playing within the system and winning. I don't think Corbin has accomplished that yet, especially with certain players like CJ. (Bell is another issue completely.)
10 (cont) I sometimes think I'm seeing confusion with some players as to what their particular role is and how they should perform. Sometimes that's caused by less than effective communication. For example, a coach may say that defense is the most important thing, or that assists make everyone better so look to pass the ball, etc. Some players hear those words and become committed to carrying out those instructions. Other players ignore almost everything that's said because they have their own agendas, say it's a contract year. Then during the games, one player is scoring high double digit points but doesn't pass, doesn't look to get assists and plays little to no defense, yet the coach says or does nothing with that. That causes confusion with the other players who are sacrificing their point total for assists and defense. My view is simply you say what you mean, mean what you say, enforce it and be consistent with it. The fact is very few players, even at the pro level, want to make a career on defense. They believe that almost all of the rewards come from scoring--and they are partially right. The problem is some players are naturally gifted offensively and some are naturally gifted defensively. Getting them to develop and exploit what they do well while effectively managing what they don't do well but are focused on is very tricky business. I see some of this on the Jazz. Only time will tell how well Corbin manages it.
Coaches don't add that much to win/loss records from the bench. Over the course of a season, a coach only influences the outcome of maybe 3 or 4 games a year with bench coaching. So in that sense coaches don't have much impact on how the game plays out on the court.
The number one thing is having the right players. If a coach has the right players, they don't even need to teach X's and O's or do much else. With the right group of players, if there is a ball on the court, a referee and another team to play, they will go out and whip 60% of them cold from the toss without ever having had a single practice or knowing the names of the other people on their team. This is particularly true in college. Pro sports is more complex. Coaches have less control over who they wind up with on the team. They have a lower level of authority. They can't take away a guy's contract or even fine them much. Sprewell tries to strangle Carlesimo and all he gets is suspended for 68 games costing him $6.4 million. If he had done the same thing away from the arena, he would have been charged with attempted murder and done time. If he had done that in college, he would have lost his scholarship and been expelled and maybe charged. So how much authority does a coach have in the Pro's? What would I have done if I were commissioner? I would have banned Sprewell from ever playing pro-ball again.
I think Corbin has some player mismatches on this team. Most pro teams do, and I think he might not have taken the best approach to preseason. But he's going to be around for a couple of years at least. Sometime around mid-season, I think this group of guys is going to become hard to beat, but it's not going to be pleasant getting there. Corbin is on his own learning curve which is running parallel to the players. That kind of learning curve hurts and can go either way, but it's too early to tell.
When I look at Corbin, I don't see a good coach or a bad coach. I see a coach that is good at some parts of coaching, isn't so good at some and is trying to learn. How that will work out in the long run isn't known. I think he's got at least 2 years, if not 3, to make it work.
Anyway, I know people on the forums don't like to read long posts, but (TS) there it is anyway. There is no audio version or cliff notes. My opinions are my own and don't reflect those of management, morons or local fans who have never played or coached a thing and think because they have watched 500 games on TV, they're experts.
Buckle up boys and girls because it's going to be a volatile ride this season.
Coaching has many aspects to it. Here are a few.
1. Recruiting (or in the case of the NBA, drafting and trading (not only coaches decision)
2. Selection of assistant coaches
3. Designing an offensive and defensive system that works well for the players on the team and that can win given the competition. Coaches can redesign the systems to fit the players or they can go out and get players that fit within the system.
4. X's and O's ( how many effective plays within an offensive scheme does a team have)
5. Practice management
6. Teaching ability
7. Competition analysis and breakdown
8. Bench coaching (knowing who to change when and why, switching offensive and defensive schemes, managing officials)
9. Game management (starting lineups, time outs, clock management etc) Game management can be included in bench coaching, but I separate them because some coaches don't use time outs effectively, etc.)
10 Player management
There are other issues like managing outside distractions which include agents, sponsors, media, and administration.
Not all coaches are good at all of these. For example, I know coaches who were excellent at recruiting, but only fair to pretty good at X's and O's. Some understood that and compensated for it by keeping schemes simple or having assistant coaches who fill in the weak areas. Others didn't. I also knew coaches who had less talented players but created offensive and defensive schemes that allowed lesser talent to thrive and win a lot.
So how do I grade Corbin based on my experience and personal opinion.
1. A Players with lots of potential. This is one sweet group on many levels.
2. B Corbin's assistant coaches are okay but don't bring anything special to the party such as defensive expertise.
3. B From my point of view Corbin's offense doesn't appear optimal for this group. I like the fact that it's offense by committee. Smart. But often the offensive sets don't seem to be designed for the players. For example, Hayward's been told to create for himself and others. That's okay because Hayward can do that, but he doesn't do it as well from the SF as he does from the SG. So I think the offense is less effective than it could be and gets off to a slower start. It's going to take a long time to get Corbin's new defensive system to work well. The Jazz now have inside shot blockers so in my opinion, forcing the defenders down the middle would have been more effective this than it was last year. David Locke says Corbin spent most of training camp on pick and roll defense, and that it seems to be working. Well, if that's true, that's a good thing. But it's really too early in the season to tell how effective the Jazz are going to be against the pick and roll, or forcing ball handlers toward baseline. I don't think this was the season for major changes given all the problems including very little training camp. But the success of offensive and defensive changes won't be known for 20 more games.
4. B+ Corbin understands the X's and O's as well as any coach
5. B- Corbin may have overemphasized competition in practice. Often that works out badly. What happens is players come out of practice thinking too much about their stats and how to keep, or get, their starting role rather than how to win games. Despite the shortened training camp and preseason, Corbin installed new offensive and new defensive schemes. That is hard to do with normal practice time, and was a real reach in the present situation. I wasn't at practice so I don't know how well the practices went, so I'm evaluating this one in the blind. I number 3 above Locke says a lot of practice time went into defending the pick and roll. I can't argue with that.
6. A- I think Corbin can teach and wants to teach. So does Hornacek. I don't know about the other coaches.
7. A- Corbin and his staff know all of the competition and the other players. It's hard to keep up with all the quick trades and team composition changes that have occurred but they're doing it pretty well. It will take a lot more games to assess how well Corbin adjusts the components of the team to match up.
8. B In my opinion, Corbin is a pretty good bench coach. He seems to have a feel for the game. But his vision is sometimes clouded by bias for CJ and Bell. I'm not sure what's going on there, but it needs to change in one big hurry. A good bench coach can't compensate for the wrong combination of players.
9. B- Game Management is one area where I think Corbin is both good and bad. If I were picking lineups it would be Harris/Watson, Hayward/ Bell/ Burks, Howard/Miles, Millsap/Favors, Jefferson/Kanter with Burks replacing Bell later in the season. Why? Because I think this lineup creates the most offense early in games. I also think that the bench unit is almost as strong as the starters so that makes for a strong bench punch. I would have gone with this lineup almost out of the gate and stopped talking about changing it constantly. Maybe Corbin thinks that talking about changing the lineup keeps players competitive. I don't believe that. His clock management is good, even with CJ working against him. His feel for timeouts seems fairly good, but not game changing, and he's average to above average in most all of these areas.
10. B As far as player management goes, Corbin is well liked, but being liked isn't really the issue. The issue is getting players to buy into a system and to shape their game to fit within the system while learning to win. Coaches never get players to disregard stat lines, and players have ulterior motives for the way they play they seldom disclose. That can't be helped, but getting players to buy in is more about getting them to believe that whatever their particular needs are those needs will be met by playing within the system and winning. I don't think Corbin has accomplished that yet, especially with certain players like CJ. (Bell is another issue completely.)
10 (cont) I sometimes think I'm seeing confusion with some players as to what their particular role is and how they should perform. Sometimes that's caused by less than effective communication. For example, a coach may say that defense is the most important thing, or that assists make everyone better so look to pass the ball, etc. Some players hear those words and become committed to carrying out those instructions. Other players ignore almost everything that's said because they have their own agendas, say it's a contract year. Then during the games, one player is scoring high double digit points but doesn't pass, doesn't look to get assists and plays little to no defense, yet the coach says or does nothing with that. That causes confusion with the other players who are sacrificing their point total for assists and defense. My view is simply you say what you mean, mean what you say, enforce it and be consistent with it. The fact is very few players, even at the pro level, want to make a career on defense. They believe that almost all of the rewards come from scoring--and they are partially right. The problem is some players are naturally gifted offensively and some are naturally gifted defensively. Getting them to develop and exploit what they do well while effectively managing what they don't do well but are focused on is very tricky business. I see some of this on the Jazz. Only time will tell how well Corbin manages it.
Coaches don't add that much to win/loss records from the bench. Over the course of a season, a coach only influences the outcome of maybe 3 or 4 games a year with bench coaching. So in that sense coaches don't have much impact on how the game plays out on the court.
The number one thing is having the right players. If a coach has the right players, they don't even need to teach X's and O's or do much else. With the right group of players, if there is a ball on the court, a referee and another team to play, they will go out and whip 60% of them cold from the toss without ever having had a single practice or knowing the names of the other people on their team. This is particularly true in college. Pro sports is more complex. Coaches have less control over who they wind up with on the team. They have a lower level of authority. They can't take away a guy's contract or even fine them much. Sprewell tries to strangle Carlesimo and all he gets is suspended for 68 games costing him $6.4 million. If he had done the same thing away from the arena, he would have been charged with attempted murder and done time. If he had done that in college, he would have lost his scholarship and been expelled and maybe charged. So how much authority does a coach have in the Pro's? What would I have done if I were commissioner? I would have banned Sprewell from ever playing pro-ball again.
I think Corbin has some player mismatches on this team. Most pro teams do, and I think he might not have taken the best approach to preseason. But he's going to be around for a couple of years at least. Sometime around mid-season, I think this group of guys is going to become hard to beat, but it's not going to be pleasant getting there. Corbin is on his own learning curve which is running parallel to the players. That kind of learning curve hurts and can go either way, but it's too early to tell.
When I look at Corbin, I don't see a good coach or a bad coach. I see a coach that is good at some parts of coaching, isn't so good at some and is trying to learn. How that will work out in the long run isn't known. I think he's got at least 2 years, if not 3, to make it work.
Anyway, I know people on the forums don't like to read long posts, but (TS) there it is anyway. There is no audio version or cliff notes. My opinions are my own and don't reflect those of management, morons or local fans who have never played or coached a thing and think because they have watched 500 games on TV, they're experts.
Buckle up boys and girls because it's going to be a volatile ride this season.