How many games would we win if Tom Thibodeau was our coach?

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

I don't believe a metric exists that can capture the art of how a different coach might interpret personnel , field different lineups, create culture, develop players, and remove others from the roster. When one coach inherits another coach's roster sometimes the same team plays radically different. I think coaching can make a significant role in wins and losses.

From memory, the first year George Karl coached Denver didn't he coach up a losing team? Frank Vogel did similarly. Bernie Bickerstaff went 4-0 as Laker coach right before the bottom fell out of a contending team. Dave Joerger's coaching isn't looking too bad at all now. Conversely, Larry Drew is doing horribly in Milwaukee. Coaching can make a big difference IMO.

My opinion may be way off. I feel coaches generally buckle and give in to the power of players who make lots of money. The losing coaches are very inflexible, very scared of losing their star's support, and they don't mix up lineups to win games based on matchups. I also think other coaches are much more about control and creating tension than they are able to win games.

I think Thibodeau would have won 4 or 5 more games than Wittman. Washington would have scored more points in the paint. Wall would be a better defender. Porter would have played more. Seraphin would be a good player. Ariza and Webster would have filled in more at SG and Beal would have forced less.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[hands11]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

Good point. The law of diminishing returns. The largest return is from from bad to good, then less from good to very good, then less from very good to great.

Randy couldn't even call timely time outs to stop runs or have his team ready at tip off, so the delta between Pops and Tibs vs Randy is about as wide as the coaching gap can get.

Also, people trying to objectively characterize them as a 47-50+ win team or not might have problems because of how they view a 50 win team. Its not that in a vacuum. Its a 47-50+ win team this year in this East.

I think Randy has diminished how people view this roster. Look at it for a moment. At least the core.

Wall, Beal, Trevor A, Nene, Gortat Sorry people but that doesn't suck. That's better then CHI's starters and they have 47 wins with two games to go. And its not like CHI has an amazing bench. Like the Wizards, its mostly utility players sans D.J. Augustin who is tearing it up.

Which brought something else to my attention. How venerable is MIA? They only have 54 wins with two to go. They were a 66 win team in the East last year. This is their worse winning percentage since the big 3 got together and its in a weak East.

[hands11]

I was screaming to hire Tibbs even before we officially did hire him. I knew he would be a great coach.

With that being said, I wouldnt want him now. I wanted him then because we EJ and we had a lights out offensive system. We needed more D. Now its the other way around. Witt isnt a bad defensive coach. I would love to keep him to run the D but we need someone who can build around Wall. Fit the system around Wall and make us a much better Offense who doesnt depend on long 2's. I truly want Wall and us to play wide open like the Suns or OKC. Thats why Im hoping that the Thunder bomb because I could see them releasing Brooks and we should pick him up afte

No, God no. Brooks is mediocre as they come. After 4-5 years that Thunder offense is still all iso's.. and we don't have Kevin Durant on this team (yet)

If OKC bombs and they release Brooks, that should tell you something about Brooks. Maybe he would join Vinny Del Negro on NBATV..

well my main thing is this. I want a coach who wants to run a fast paced offense and the main thing I want more then anything is someone who runs picks & screens for Wall to beat his man and get to the rim. Thats the main thing we need to do. We dont do that. Our picks are set for Wall to pass 1st or shoot a pull up J. I want one like EJ's where it was all about giving the PG the advanatage. Wall could dominate with that because he can get to the rim much easier then he does now but he's also more pass 1st then any other elite PG playing in those systems. I wouldnt even mind SVG if he used Wall the same way he did Wade in the p&r

Doesn't Pops and Tibs do that for Parker and Rose ?

[hands11]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

I don't believe a metric exists that can capture the art of how a different coach might interpret personnel , field different lineups, create culture, develop players, and remove others from the roster. When one coach inherits another coach's roster sometimes the same team plays radically different. I think coaching can make a significant role in wins and losses.

From memory, the first year George Karl coached Denver didn't he coach up a losing team? Frank Vogel did similarly. Bernie Bickerstaff went 4-0 as Laker coach right before the bottom fell out of a contending team. Dave Joerger's coaching isn't looking too bad at all now. Conversely, Larry Drew is doing horribly in Milwaukee. Coaching can make a big difference IMO.

My opinion may be way off. I feel coaches generally buckle and give in to the power of players who make lots of money. The losing coaches are very inflexible, very scared of losing their star's support, and they don't mix up lineups to win games based on matchups. I also think other coaches are much more about control and creating tension than they are able to win games.

I think Thibodeau would have won 4 or 5 more games than Wittman. Washington would have scored more points in the paint. Wall would be a better defender. Porter would have played more. Seraphin would be a good player. Ariza and Webster would have filled in more at SG and Beal would have forced less.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

And all that only equals 4-5 wins ?

We are talking Pops and Tibs vs Randy, not some average coach. Randy couldn't even call a time out at the right time let alone make good in game adjustments, have his team ready at the tip, hold stars accountable like you pointed out, etc.

[hands11]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

I don't believe a metric exists that can capture the art of how a different coach might interpret personnel , field different lineups, create culture, develop players, and remove others from the roster. When one coach inherits another coach's roster sometimes the same team plays radically different. I think coaching can make a significant role in wins and losses.

From memory, the first year George Karl coached Denver didn't he coach up a losing team? Frank Vogel did similarly. Bernie Bickerstaff went 4-0 as Laker coach right before the bottom fell out of a contending team. Dave Joerger's coaching isn't looking too bad at all now. Conversely, Larry Drew is doing horribly in Milwaukee. Coaching can make a big difference IMO.

My opinion may be way off. I feel coaches generally buckle and give in to the power of players who make lots of money. The losing coaches are very inflexible, very scared of losing their star's support, and they don't mix up lineups to win games based on matchups. I also think other coaches are much more about control and creating tension than they are able to win games.

I think Thibodeau would have won 4 or 5 more games than Wittman. Washington would have scored more points in the paint. Wall would be a better defender. Porter would have played more. Seraphin would be a good player. Ariza and Webster would have filled in more at SG and Beal would have forced less.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

And all that only equals 4-5 wins ?

We are talking Pops and Tibs vs Randy, not some average coach. Randy couldn't even call a time out at the right time let alone make good in game adjustments, have his team ready at the tip, hold stars accountable like you pointed out, etc.

[Zonkerbl]

I think if this team overachieved they could get to 48 wins.

Now the problem is, I think the Zards' problems are on the offensive side, which isn't Thibs' strength. All the long twos and such.

So in general, with a truly elite coach they should be able to sniff 50 wins. Not sure if Thibs is that guy tho.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I stopped at 4 or 5 wins because Thibs has Boozer and Noah. Then add Gibson and Butler. Their combined defensive efficiency is leagues better than what Washington can pull off.

Washington is better in transition. Thibs is more controlling. Wall might clash with Thibs. Wittman's well-liked by most of his players. He's also a defensive coach.

So, I think it's only a few more wins. I agree with dckingsfan and Dat2U on 3-5 more wins.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[verbal8]

83 - the domination would be so complete an extra win would be given to the Wizards.

I stopped at 4 or 5 wins because Thibs has Boozer and Noah. Then add Gibson and Butler. Their combined defensive efficiency is leagues better than what Washington can pull off.

Washington is better in transition. Thibs is more controlling. Wall might clash with Thibs. Wittman's well-liked by most of his players. He's also a defensive coach.

So, I think it's only a few more wins. I agree with dckingsfan and Dat2U on 3-5 more wins.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

3 to 4 sounds about right, so in the high-40s for the win total. I do think that Thibs is an elite coach, there is only so much that a coach can do.

[hands11]

I think if this team overachieved they could get to 48 wins.

Now the problem is, I think the Zards' problems are on the offensive side, which isn't Thibs' strength. All the long twos and such.

So in general, with a truly elite coach they should be able to sniff 50 wins. Not sure if Thibs is that guy tho.

The debate was originally framed as Tibs or Pops, not just Tibs

[nate33]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

In 2009/10, the Bulls went 41-41 with Del Negro as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (2nd year), Deng, Noah (for 64 games), Brad Miller, Gibson, Hinrich, Brad Miller, and Salmons.

In 2010/11, the Bulls went 62-20 with Thibodeau as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (3rd year), Deng, Noah (for 48 games), Boozer, Gibson, Brewer, Korver.

Basically the same team except with Boozer replacing Miller, and much less of Noah, and they improve to 62 wins. And don't anybody tell me that Boozer is worth 21 wins. He had an ORtg of just 105 and is a notoriously poor defender.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

In 2009/10, the Bulls went 41-41 with Del Negro as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (2nd year), Deng, Noah (for 64 games), Brad Miller, Gibson, Hinrich, Brad Miller, and Salmons.

In 2010/11, the Bulls went 62-20 with Thibodeau as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (3rd year), Deng, Noah (for 48 games), Boozer, Gibson, Brewer, Korver.

Basically the same team except with Boozer replacing Miller, and much less of Noah, and they improve to 62 wins. And don't anybody tell me that Boozer is worth 21 wins. He had an ORtg of just 105 and is a notoriously poor defender.

I agree with your basic premise. I do believe Thibs made a huge difference.

However, I did get to see a couple of Bulls games that year and they were GOOD -- to a large degree attributable to a couple of things that your analysis may have undervalued.

For one, Rose took an enormous leap from year 2 to 3. He was simply unstoppable.

Also, Korver was a bigger part of their success than you might give him credit for. Under Thibs (yes, I know this partially supports your point), Korver worked his tail off on d. He wasn't always effective given his lateral speed issues, but he wasn't a black hole either. And his movement off the ball on offense was great. He was always in movement, a constant threat to catch and shoot from wherever that, on a ton of sets each night, he had the defense scrambling whether he touched the ball or not.

[dckingsfan]

Yep, Rose was just about ready to breakout, Noah was injured but getting good and then they added Korver.

They are a 50+ win team with just about anyone as a coach...

But the GM had to get Rose, Noah, Korver, Deng, Boozer, Asik, Brewer and Gibson. There was some serious talent on that team with both an offensive and defensive closer.

[dckingsfan]

And next year the bulls will amnesty Boozer, have Rose, Noah, Gibson, Dunleavy, Butler
+
2 first round picks and a second round pick
+
@ 48M in cap space
+
Thibs as a coach

Don't these arguments always circle back to Grunfeld?

[dlts20]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

I don't believe a metric exists that can capture the art of how a different coach might interpret personnel , field different lineups, create culture, develop players, and remove others from the roster. When one coach inherits another coach's roster sometimes the same team plays radically different. I think coaching can make a significant role in wins and losses.

From memory, the first year George Karl coached Denver didn't he coach up a losing team? Frank Vogel did similarly. Bernie Bickerstaff went 4-0 as Laker coach right before the bottom fell out of a contending team. Dave Joerger's coaching isn't looking too bad at all now. Conversely, Larry Drew is doing horribly in Milwaukee. Coaching can make a big difference IMO.

My opinion may be way off. I feel coaches generally buckle and give in to the power of players who make lots of money. The losing coaches are very inflexible, very scared of losing their star's support, and they don't mix up lineups to win games based on matchups. I also think other coaches are much more about control and creating tension than they are able to win games.

I think Thibodeau would have won 4 or 5 more games than Wittman. Washington would have scored more points in the paint. Wall would be a better defender. Porter would have played more. Seraphin would be a good player. Ariza and Webster would have filled in more at SG and Beal would have forced less.



Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

And all that only equals 4-5 wins ?

We are talking Pops and Tibs vs Randy, not some average coach. Randy couldn't even call a time out at the right time let alone make good in game adjustments, have his team ready at the tip, hold stars accountable like you pointed out, etc.

Tibbs does that so I definitely wouldnt be against it but he also is always going to be old school. If its up to him, he'd rather play 2 low post bigs and he will still want to be mostly halfcourt to maximize the defense. I dont want that. I want someone who wants to play uptempo and I also want someone who wouldnt be afraid to go small or play a stretch big

[hands11]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

In 2009/10, the Bulls went 41-41 with Del Negro as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (2nd year), Deng, Noah (for 64 games), Brad Miller, Gibson, Hinrich, Brad Miller, and Salmons.

In 2010/11, the Bulls went 62-20 with Thibodeau as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (3rd year), Deng, Noah (for 48 games), Boozer, Gibson, Brewer, Korver.

Basically the same team except with Boozer replacing Miller, and much less of Noah, and they improve to 62 wins. And don't anybody tell me that Boozer is worth 21 wins. He had an ORtg of just 105 and is a notoriously poor defender.

Great find. I'm telling you. I think people way undervalue the effect of coaching on teams win totals. That is a great example.

But why only comment on Tibs. Pops was also in the debate.

[hands11]

And next year the bulls will amnesty Boozer, have Rose, Noah, Gibson, Dunleavy, Butler
+
2 first round picks and a second round pick
+
@ 48M in cap space
+
Thibs as a coach

Don't these arguments always circle back to Grunfeld?

We are talking out the effects of coaching. Not GMing. Try to stay focused.

[gtn130]

Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think coaches make a HUGE difference. There's a reason the Spurs win more games than everyone every year even with their ridiculously old roster. It's not just because of LeBron James that Miami is such a great defensive team -- Spoelstra has grown monumentally as a coach over the last few years. Subtract Scotty Brooks from OKC and add basically anyone, and you have a better team in OKC that might have won a title by now. Continually playing Fisher and Perkins, using asinine lineups on a regular basis, failing miserably at defending the 3 point line (literally the worst closeouts in NBA history over the past few months), those things Brooks can definitely control and are definitely hurting his team big time.

Even after minimizing all the aforementioned stuff in other posts ITT about Wittman -- what if we had a coach who wasn't so thrilled about taking long 2s? Our offense could be so much more efficient if Wall and Beal were being coached better. There's a reason Doug Collins is no longer employed by the NBA.

Coaching is worth a ton IMO.

[gtn130]

How about Frank Vogel running his starters into the ground over the last few months? Could that be playing a pretty decent part in the Pacers falling off a cliff?

[gtn130]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

In 2009/10, the Bulls went 41-41 with Del Negro as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (2nd year), Deng, Noah (for 64 games), Brad Miller, Gibson, Hinrich, Brad Miller, and Salmons.

In 2010/11, the Bulls went 62-20 with Thibodeau as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (3rd year), Deng, Noah (for 48 games), Boozer, Gibson, Brewer, Korver.

Basically the same team except with Boozer replacing Miller, and much less of Noah, and they improve to 62 wins. And don't anybody tell me that Boozer is worth 21 wins. He had an ORtg of just 105 and is a notoriously poor defender.

So much this.

Boozer has been consistently terrible for Chicago. The major difference was obviously VDN, one of the worst coaches in basketball, being traded for Thibs, one of the best.

[dckingsfan]

And next year the bulls will amnesty Boozer, have Rose, Noah, Gibson, Dunleavy, Butler
+
2 first round picks and a second round pick
+
@ 48M in cap space
+
Thibs as a coach

Don't these arguments always circle back to Grunfeld?

We are talking out the effects of coaching. Not GMing. Try to stay focused.

But it is a space time continuum where all dark side vectors point toward the evil Darth Grunfeld. Step away from darkside hands - do not fear a change of GMs. Fear leads to... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHa3D-musUw