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

[gtn130]

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.

http://chicago.sbnation.com/chicago-bul ... pers-fired

[hands11]

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 14 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.

Great when you can find good example that help isolate the effects of coaching. Its hard to do because there are so many moving parts .. i.e. the other teams, change in players, etc. etc. But this is a good example.

21 win swing. Impressive.

And like was just mentioned. Some coaches run their players into the grown. That not only effects loses later in the year but it can damage players entire careers. Verses what Pops does. He knows how to find his players rest. Pops milked that older SAS team to 62 wins. Best in the league. That has a lot to do with Pops.

Look at the inverse. What would SAS's record be with Randy as coach ?

[gtn130]

Look at the inverse. What would SAS's record be with Randy as coach ?

Just looking at resting players alone, Pop was so far ahead of the curve when it comes to regulating minutes -- notice how Miami is kind of second in line doing this, and they only started recently. If Duncan had a different coach, he would have retired years ago. Difficult to imagine SA being anything but a lottery team right now sans Pop.

[nate33]

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.

Regarding Rose, let's not forget that Chicago went 50-16 the following year (that's a 62-win pace, yet again) despite Rose missing more than half the season.

And like you mentioned about Korver, that's coaching, not talent. Korver had been in the league for 7 years and never been more than a Martell Webster-like spot up shooter. Thibs figured out how to maximize his talent. He's doing the same thing this year with D.J. Augustin - a career backup. He's also figured out how to turn an offensive role player like Noah into a Bill Waltonesque point-center. Would Randy freaking Wittman have had the imagination to do that?

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

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.

Regarding Rose, let's not forget that Chicago went 50-16 the following year (that's a 62-win pace, yet again) despite Rose missing more than half the season.

And like you mentioned about Korver, that's coaching, not talent. Korver had been in the league for 7 years and never been more than a Martell Webster-like spot up shooter. Thibs figured out how to maximize his talent. He's doing the same thing this year with D.J. Augustin - a career backup. He's also figured out how to turn an offensive role player like Noah into a Bill Waltonesque point-center. Would Randy freaking Wittman have had the imagination to do that?

Excellent points. Again, I wasn't disagreeing with you... just simply pointing out that the pieces seemed to fit better that year than before or after.

I do think your final paragraph is a good counterpoint to both Kevin's and PIF's fairly consistent point of view that coaches, by and large, don't matter much. Only looking at player's numbers is like only looking at genes without considering epigenetics.

Coaches put players in good spots to succeed... and sometimes in bad spots to fail. Coaches motivate teams and players to play above themselves... coaches are stewards of the usage on players' bodies over the course of a season... coaches exploit match ups and cover up weaknesses through schemes.

Randy seems to have his system and a set idea about his rotations... and doesn't adapt well in the short term (i.e. in game) or long term (e.g. failing to understand evolving trends regarding good shot selection).

He is not the worst coach ever... and I do appreciate his candor and his emphasis on defense. But I don't see him anywhere near replacement level. He almost certainly is responsible for more losses than wins... and for a team with just slightly above average talent, the Wizards really can't afford that.

[hands11]

^^^

After the list of things you just listed, which isn't even a complete list, how can you then say, they don't matter much.

The difference between Pops and Tibs might not matter much.
The difference between a good coach and another good coach with seasoned great player that now how to play together over one season might not matter much. Change MIA coaches and they will still be good over a year.

But coaches design the offense and defense.
They call the time outs. Or not in Randy's case.
They decide who plays and when and in what combinations.
They develop players by giving them roles and minutes.
They lead and set the tone. How many times have I heard the team takes on the personality of its coach.
They dish out the minutes to keep players fresh or not.
They manage the momentum of the game with most the above.
And even with the most talented teams, they keep them hungry year after year, even after they win titles.

The difference between a Pops and Tibs over one season might not be much, but the difference between them and the lower third of coaches in the league is huge. Specially over multiple seasons. Specially when you are developing a team of none established great players, or even great players, that don't know how they fit together yet.

If coaching wasn't a huge deal, Pops and Tibs wouldn't stand out as the best like they do. It doesn't make sense that the gap between them and coaches like Randy would be so large and it not translate into a significant difference in wins.

[nate33]

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.

Regarding Rose, let's not forget that Chicago went 50-16 the following year (that's a 62-win pace, yet again) despite Rose missing more than half the season.

And like you mentioned about Korver, that's coaching, not talent. Korver had been in the league for 7 years and never been more than a Martell Webster-like spot up shooter. Thibs figured out how to maximize his talent. He's doing the same thing this year with D.J. Augustin - a career backup. He's also figured out how to turn an offensive role player like Noah into a Bill Waltonesque point-center. Would Randy freaking Wittman have had the imagination to do that?

Excellent points. Again, I wasn't disagreeing with you... just simply pointing out that the pieces seemed to fit better that year than before or after.

I do think your final paragraph is a good counterpoint to both Kevin's and PIF's fairly consistent point of view that coaches, by and large, don't matter much. Only looking at player's numbers is like only looking at genes without considering epigenetics.

Coaches put players in good spots to succeed... and sometimes in bad spots to fail. Coaches motivate teams and players to play above themselves... coaches are stewards of the usage on players' bodies over the course of a season... coaches exploit match ups and cover up weaknesses through schemes.

Randy seems to have his system and a set idea about his rotations... and doesn't adapt well in the short term (i.e. in game) or long term (e.g. failing to understand evolving trends regarding good shot selection).

He is not the worst coach ever... and I do appreciate his candor and his emphasis on defense. But I don't see him anywhere near replacement level. He almost certainly is responsible for more losses than wins... and for a team with just slightly above average talent, the Wizards really can't afford that.

Well said, LSBF. I agree with all of it. Wittman isn't awful, but he's not very good either. I'd say he's a little below average. Replacing him with another treadmill coach probably wouldn't do much. But replacing him with a legitimately good coach would be worth a lot more than 1 or 2 wins.

[daSwami]

I'm not so convinced that Wittman needs to go, because who would you replace him with?

An "old head" like Vinny Del Negro? George Karl? Rudy Tomjanovich? J or SVG?

Who are the "young bloods" these days? Jim Boylen?

[dckingsfan]

I'm not so convinced that Wittman needs to go, because who would you replace him with?

An "old head" like Vinny Del Negro? George Karl? Rudy Tomjanovich? J or SVG?

Who are the "young bloods" these days? Jim Boylen?

And I CERTAINLY don't want EG to make the choice... it would almost certainly be worse...

[The Kavorka]

One can dream.....We have won 43 (hopefully 44) games this year in spite of Wittman. While Wittman isn't terrible, his flaws are so glaring when we are blowing games to say the Bobcats or are in a tight game with the Bucks. The fact that #sowizards exist tells all you need to know about Wittman. With a good coach though, this team I think this team is a legit 50 win team.

[dckingsfan]

Maybe max 50 wins, hell the Wizards could have probably won 50 games this year if they didn't have a sub .500 record against losing teams. My only fear with Thibs is he seems to run his players to the ground.

This "50 win team" thing is starting to feel like torture. The Wizards are *not* a good team. They are a mediocre team at best. Our record is right in the middle of the 30 NBA teams. And against a weak Eastern conference, we've gone 31-19 -- but we went 11-19 vs. the West!

What do you think our record this year would look like if we'd been in the West? Adjusting the numbers above, we'd be 37-43 right now.

Put another way, we've won .62 of our games vs. the East and .36 of our games vs. the West. I.e. on average .49 -- we are the definition of a mediocre team.

Enough already with the "50-win" fantasies.

So you don't think we are a legit 50 win team in the West? We aren't as good as Miami and Indiana 54, 55 wins with Thibs?

[hands11]

I'm not so convinced that Wittman needs to go, because who would you replace him with?

An "old head" like Vinny Del Negro? George Karl? Rudy Tomjanovich? J or SVG?

Who are the "young bloods" these days? Jim Boylen?

And I CERTAINLY don't want EG to make the choice... it would almost certainly be worse...

Except he is the one that brought in TIbbs and Hoops.

[hands11]

One can dream.....We have won 43 (hopefully 44) games this year in spite of Wittman. While Wittman isn't terrible, his flaws are so glaring when we are blowing games to say the Bobcats or are in a tight game with the Bucks. The fact that #sowizards exist tells all you need to know about Wittman. With a good coach though, this team I think this team is a legit 50 win team.

In the East .. This year...

Hey. Maybe the playoffs does something to ol Randy boy.

[hands11]

Maybe max 50 wins, hell the Wizards could have probably won 50 games this year if they didn't have a sub .500 record against losing teams. My only fear with Thibs is he seems to run his players to the ground.

This "50 win team" thing is starting to feel like torture. The Wizards are *not* a good team. They are a mediocre team at best. Our record is right in the middle of the 30 NBA teams. And against a weak Eastern conference, we've gone 31-19 -- but we went 11-19 vs. the West!

What do you think our record this year would look like if we'd been in the West? Adjusting the numbers above, we'd be 37-43 right now.

Put another way, we've won .62 of our games vs. the East and .36 of our games vs. the West. I.e. on average .49 -- we are the definition of a mediocre team.

Enough already with the "50-win" fantasies.

So you don't think we are a legit 50 win team in the West? We aren't as good as Miami and Indiana 54, 55 wins with Thibs?

We are about to see how good either of those two teams are real soon. Miami won 66 games last year. They are at 54 this year in a weak East.

[ptptpt]

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.

Ehh...maybe. I'd argue though that coaching impact doesn't really show until the playoffs.

[dckingsfan]

I'm not so convinced that Wittman needs to go, because who would you replace him with?

An "old head" like Vinny Del Negro? George Karl? Rudy Tomjanovich? J or SVG?

Who are the "young bloods" these days? Jim Boylen?

And I CERTAINLY don't want EG to make the choice... it would almost certainly be worse...

Except he is the one that brought in TIbbs and Hoops.

Clearly a genius GM - step away from the darkside hands

[Dat2U]

I'm not so convinced that Wittman needs to go, because who would you replace him with?

An "old head" like Vinny Del Negro? George Karl? Rudy Tomjanovich? J or SVG?

Who are the "young bloods" these days? Jim Boylen?

And I CERTAINLY don't want EG to make the choice... it would almost certainly be worse...

Except he is the one that brought in TIbbs and Hoops.

But the environment had been so untenable that both coaches couldn't wait to get out of dodge.

Kind of sounds similar to the Caps situation.

[Higga]

We'd easily win 50+ with Thibs as Coach. Still ticks me off we had him here before he bolted because he didn't want to work with EJ.

[dckingsfan]

We'd easily win 50+ with Thibs as Coach. Still ticks me off we had him here before he bolted because he didn't want to work with EJ.

Can't we somehow figure out how to blame Wittman for that? Funny thing is Wittman was more than willing to bring in Don Newman on the defensive end. Maybe he would be willing to bring in an offensive "coordinator"?

[payitforward]

What amazes me in this thread -- even more than the laughable over-estimation of the effect of one coach over another -- is how much this matters to Hands, who posts over and over and over. Not to mention making fairly ridiculous comments (RW can't get his team ready for a tip-off, etc...).

Coaching -- like any activity -- exhibits a bell-shaped curve. The 1 or 2 very best coaches are quite a lot better than the very worst 1 or 2. The problems are: a) we don't know what "quite a lot" means (the Bulls example is meaningless because of Rose's improvement and the major personnel changes), b) we don't have a comparative measure to place e.g. Randy on that bell-shaped curve, and c) only 1 or 2 teams get to have a coach who is among the best 1 or 2 (duh?).

We do know that as Randy's personnel has gotten better, our record has gotten better. That's good evidence that had his personnel gotten even better than it did (via better work by Ernie), Randy would have produced an even better record.

It seems to me that this is a key fact to keep in mind.

The other fatal flaw in Hands frequent comments after a loss that Randy somehow didn't have a "strategy" or his "rotations" were bad is this: the assumption is always that we'd have the last move. Hands looks at a situation and says "it would have been better to do X rather than Y -- what Randy did," without ever considering that the opposing coach might then have done something different in response to whatever "X" was.

Finally, when it comes down to saying things like there are some situations where it's better to start Seraphin than e.g. Booker, you know you are in dream-land. It's never a good "strategy" to rely on a bad player. And it's fantasy and no more than that to think that somehow using a player at different times or situations, just because of some idea in your mind, will mean that he'll rebound more, turn it over less, foul less, etc.

So... yeah I'd rather have Thibodeau than Wittman. Or Popovich than Wittman. That's easy -- those guys are near the excellent end of the bell-shaped curve. Pretty much any team in the NBA would rather have Popovich than whoever is coaching the team now! So what?