RealGM

hello guys,

i've come across some posts about coach salaries and news about coach getting hired/fired, and it got me into thinking how much coaches matter in their teams.

when i looked at the coach salaries, they're all earning 1-digit salary (in mil$), whereas the variance in player salaries is much higher. and it really got me to wonder if anyone who passed some bar for being coach can perform the coach job rather well...

in particular, can anyone shed lights (in own opinion) on the following questions:
1) when a team is hiring/ waving a player, do executives or coaches play a major role in making the decision? are executives or coaches better at evaluating players?
2) in thinking about what else can capture the importance (and lack thereof) of coaches, i'm wondering if players' minutes played can be one way to look at coach performance? (in theory, a good coach should enable that the best players remain in a game for the longest, controlling injuries)

just have my mind thinking about these issues about coach, and would really appreciate if anyone could weigh in. many thanks.

Coaching is important but there are plenty of good coaches. Phil Jackson can't do anything that Terry Stotts doesn't do just as well or better.

d-train wrote:Coaching is important but there are plenty of good coaches. Phil Jackson can't do anything that Terry Stotts doesn't do just as well or better.

Noted.

d-train wrote:Coaching is important but there are plenty of good coaches. Phil Jackson can't do anything that Terry Stotts doesn't do just as well or better.

ROFLOL

Opinions vary, I laugh at anyone that thinks Phil Jackson has accomplished anything that any average NBA coach wouldn't do with the same players Jackson had. I laugh even harder at anyone that believes Jackson did anything to make players all-time great HOF caliber performers.

Best thing a coach can do is not f*** up or cause discord. This is way harder than it sounds, apparently, considering that the majority can't manage it.

Head coaching in the NBA is a hard job if you don't have a roster loaded with all-stars and HOF'ers. Even if a coach is fortunate enough to have all-stars and HOF'ers, it's a hard job. The difference is the former scenario (the condition for 99.999% of coaching jobs) is destined to end in failure. So, most coaching tenures end in failure because there was no other way it could end given the circumstances. In affect, most coaches are hired so they can eventually be blamed and fired for the failures of others. On the bright side, the job pays well.