Billy Donovan gets contract extension

[Jcool0]

Coaches aren't going to make this massive impact on winning with really poor rosters, so complaining about the Bulls record under Donovan as a shot at Donovan is silly. Name whomever you think the best coach in the world is, then really ask yourself how many more wins you think that guy gets with the rosters we've had.

I'd probably slot Donovan around the 8-15th best coach in the NBA range if I were to just take a guess. The odds of the Bulls firing Donovan and getting a better coach than him are extremely low, like maybe 5% or less. None of the for sure better coaches would even dream of coming to our situation, and so you'd be hoping to catch lightening in a bottle in a completely unproven guy, and any unproven guy is highly unlikely to be a top 10 guy, especially in their first gig.

The reality is it is highly likely that Billy Donovan is not only the best coach we could have right now, but probably the best coach by far that we are likely to have right now.

Most seems to disagree with you, but its all subjective:

CBS Sports: 24. Billy Donovan, Bulls

The Big Lead: 16. Billy Donovan – Chicago Bulls

New Arena: 22. Billy Donovan — Chicago Bulls

Pro Football Network: 19. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Jacks Thoughts: 21. Billy Donovan - Chicago Bulls

MSM: 24. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Sir Charles in Charge: 16. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Let's be real. If Billy Donovan was coaching the Celtics, they would still have the same success and be champions. I'm not entirely convinced that Joe Mazzulla would replicate what Donovan has done here.

Yet, he's 13 spots higher?

There's just way too much subjectivity about coaches in a league where results objectively correlate to player talent. This isn't the NFL.

What are you basing that on? You might be alone on that take.

[Jcool0]

Most seems to disagree with you, but its all subjective:

CBS Sports: 24. Billy Donovan, Bulls

The Big Lead: 16. Billy Donovan – Chicago Bulls

New Arena: 22. Billy Donovan — Chicago Bulls

Pro Football Network: 19. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Jacks Thoughts: 21. Billy Donovan - Chicago Bulls

MSM: 24. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Sir Charles in Charge: 16. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Maybe some of these sources are great, but to be honest, the only one I've ever even heard of is CBS sports, and depending who wrote the article that isn't saying much. Most ranking articles are just low analysis clickbait.

Generally, I view most analysis of coaches as fundamentally flawed and correlates way too much with win total and very little with coaching. It's understandable because gauging on that second thing is extremely difficult and would require immense expertise and time and dedication to the league as a whole, and I think very few media guys actually do that vs trying to find storylines and generate clicks etc...

I don't say this as if I'm some genius of analyzing coaches, I'd guess that it's more fair to say that I really don't trust most analysis out there rather than that I'm positioned to provide something much better. The things I want to know, I glean from post game pressers, comments from players about coaching, whether the team visibly has buy in and stays together through hard situations, etc... But those things are only a proxy, because I think it would take a lot more time than I have to give to be a really great analyst of coaches.

That said the above is still miles better to me than most commentary about the Bulls being mediocre and it being Billy Donovan's fault. Even though I disagree with him on many of his arguments, I think stratmaster has put the most effort in putting together a meaningful list of complaints specifically about Donovan beyond just saying the Bulls are mediocre, so Donovan must be mediocre (or bad).

There isn't a lot of NBA coaching rankings articles. But i think the general consents with those lists would be about right from a national perspective. I don't see how his time with the Bulls would get him above 15th.

The Bulls aren't bad because of Billy but he is not the kind of coach this team needs. He is like a C level Phil Jackson. Give him a really good team and he will mange the egos well enough and not rock the boat. Probably wouldn't alienate LeBron like so many other coaches. But he isn't going to Thibs you to 45+ wins. I guess the Bulls like having an "adult in the room" as a head coach.

[jnrjr79]

Most seems to disagree with you, but its all subjective:

CBS Sports: 24. Billy Donovan, Bulls

The Big Lead: 16. Billy Donovan – Chicago Bulls

New Arena: 22. Billy Donovan — Chicago Bulls

Pro Football Network: 19. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Jacks Thoughts: 21. Billy Donovan - Chicago Bulls

MSM: 24. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Sir Charles in Charge: 16. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Let's be real. If Billy Donovan was coaching the Celtics, they would still have the same success and be champions. I'm not entirely convinced that Joe Mazzulla would replicate what Donovan has done here.

Yet, he's 13 spots higher?

There's just way too much subjectivity about coaches in a league where results objectively correlate to player talent. This isn't the NFL.

What are you basing that on? You might be alone on that take.

Well, he’s not alone, b/c that’s a +1 from me.

I’d assume most people think the Celtics would be elite regardless of the coach (with a healthy Tatum). If anything, the Celtics are the worst example of a team being significantly improved by coaching, b/c they were elite, had a coach get fired due to scandal, and remained elite.

[Jcool0]

Let's be real. If Billy Donovan was coaching the Celtics, they would still have the same success and be champions. I'm not entirely convinced that Joe Mazzulla would replicate what Donovan has done here.

Yet, he's 13 spots higher?

There's just way too much subjectivity about coaches in a league where results objectively correlate to player talent. This isn't the NFL.

What are you basing that on? You might be alone on that take.

Well, he’s not alone, b/c that’s a +1 from me.

I’d assume most people think the Celtics would be elite regardless of the coach (with a healthy Tatum). If anything, the Celtics are the worst example of a team being significantly improved by coaching, b/c they were elite, had a coach get fired due to scandal, and remained elite.

They had similar talent with Brad Stevens, never got passed the conference finals and finished .500 his last season. Yes talent is king in the NBA. But plenty of talented teams never won titles. Billy Donovan had a team of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka & Steven Adams and lost in the Conference Finals. Billy hasn't made it out of round 1 since.

[dougthonus]

There isn't a lot of NBA coaching rankings articles. But i think the general consents with those lists would be about right from a national perspective. I don't see how his time with the Bulls would get him above 15th.

I think the consensus on these articles is worthless, because they are all fundamentally tied to wins in my experience and very few are really tied to a realistic view of achievement vs expectations.

The Bulls aren't bad because of Billy but he is not the kind of coach this team needs. He is like a C level Phil Jackson. Give him a really good team and he will mange the egos well enough and not rock the boat. Probably wouldn't alienate LeBron like so many other coaches. But he isn't going to Thibs you to 45+ wins. I guess the Bulls like having an "adult in the room" as a head coach.

I generally think the Bulls have always won more games than their roster talent under Donovan, so I do think he is Thib'sing them into slightly better than expected performance. I'm not sure how many coaches I would say I think consistently outperform the expectations I would have for the roster given the circumstances the roster is under, but probably not a whole lot, and certainly not more than half. There are definitely a group that just underperform, and another group that are probably 50/50. Donovan to me is a guy that's probably slightly above neutral which is why I'd put him in the slightly above 15 range myself.

But again, all the guys whom I think are for sure better are employed and not going to come here. I wouldn't care if we fire Donovan all that much because I think the team is far away from achieving anything and also don't fundamentally think coaches move the needle that much most of the time, and think we aren't at a needle moving point anyway. A guy who is an adult, will keep people trying hard and organized and have player buy in is probably all the Bulls need right now to maximize results.

I don't know that I'd trust Billy Donovan as an elite tactician in a playoff series, but that's also not what the Bulls need right now.

[Jcool0]

There isn't a lot of NBA coaching rankings articles. But i think the general consents with those lists would be about right from a national perspective. I don't see how his time with the Bulls would get him above 15th.

I think the consensus on these articles is worthless, because they are all fundamentally tied to wins in my experience and very few are really tied to a realistic view of achievement vs expectations.

The Bulls aren't bad because of Billy but he is not the kind of coach this team needs. He is like a C level Phil Jackson. Give him a really good team and he will mange the egos well enough and not rock the boat. Probably wouldn't alienate LeBron like so many other coaches. But he isn't going to Thibs you to 45+ wins. I guess the Bulls like having an "adult in the room" as a head coach.

I generally think the Bulls have always won more games than their roster talent under Donovan, so I do think he is Thib'sing them into slightly better than expected performance. I'm not sure how many coaches I would say I think consistently outperform the expectations I would have for the roster given the circumstances the roster is under, but probably not a whole lot, and certainly not more than half. There are definitely a group that just underperform, and another group that are probably 50/50. Donovan to me is a guy that's probably slightly above neutral which is why I'd put him in the slightly above 15 range myself.

Anything can be considered worthless. Your opinion in the end is worthless as is everyone's here, we are just rando's on a message board. It doesn't change anything. I could give you the top 5 NBA reporters telling you Billy is bad and you could just ignore it because it doesn't fit what you think.

Billy doesn't get a job well done from me for being part of an organization that does not prioritize draft position at the end of the year and wins what end up being meaningless games. I've said this before and i will say it again talent is king in the NBA. Its not Billy's fault we haven't had a #1 guy in Chicago since 2011... But there is also no reason to be keeping him either. Much better coaches have been fired from much better organizations. I know why Billy wants to stay here, because we all know he probably isn't getting a 3rd chance in the NBA unless he is going to let say Sacramento and i don't think he wants that and he also clearly doesn't want to go back to college. I just don't get what the Bulls are doing with this. But i don't get a lot of what they are doing.

[MrSparkle]

Worst record of current coaching tenures over 400 games. Generally you keep a guy this long cause of overwhelming success, overachievements, championships: Spo, Kerr, Lue, Daignaeut.

The next tier of 300+ guys, you have Kidd, Carlisle, Finch, Mosley, Green, Billups… latter 2 being on full-on tank jobs.

Anyway, it’ll be fascinating seeing when he gets to season 8 (assuming this runs atleast to 2028). Might be the first sub-500 coach in NBA history with that much continuity… and remarkably zero full-on tank seasons (even the first season, the Vuc/Theis trades were clearly “win now” playoff moves, that failed).

[jnrjr79]

What are you basing that on? You might be alone on that take.

Well, he’s not alone, b/c that’s a +1 from me.

I’d assume most people think the Celtics would be elite regardless of the coach (with a healthy Tatum). If anything, the Celtics are the worst example of a team being significantly improved by coaching, b/c they were elite, had a coach get fired due to scandal, and remained elite.

They had similar talent with Brad Stevens, never got passed the conference finals and finished .500 his last season. Yes talent is king in the NBA. But plenty of talented teams never won titles. Billy Donovan had a team of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka & Steven Adams and lost in the Conference Finals. Billy hasn't made it out of round 1 since.

I was referring to Udoka to Mazzula, not Stevens to Udoka, but I think Steven’s would have done just as well had he sticked around.

[boozapalooza]

Didn’t we know this a month ago? I dont even care. Just frustrated this is one of our “big moves” for the offseason. What a damn joke. We got bigger decisions on 3 extensions (Giddey, Coby, Ayo) that should take priority over this.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Most seems to disagree with you, but its all subjective:

CBS Sports: 24. Billy Donovan, Bulls

The Big Lead: 16. Billy Donovan – Chicago Bulls

New Arena: 22. Billy Donovan — Chicago Bulls

Pro Football Network: 19. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Jacks Thoughts: 21. Billy Donovan - Chicago Bulls

MSM: 24. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Sir Charles in Charge: 16. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Let's be real. If Billy Donovan was coaching the Celtics, they would still have the same success and be champions. I'm not entirely convinced that Joe Mazzulla would replicate what Donovan has done here.

Yet, he's 13 spots higher?

There's just way too much subjectivity about coaches in a league where results objectively correlate to player talent. This isn't the NFL.

What are you basing that on? You might be alone on that take.

He’s not. I mean, I don’t have the data to back up my thoughts. However, I do believe that Donovan with competent executives would be much better off record wise.

[GetBuLLish]

Coaches aren't going to make this massive impact on winning with really poor rosters, so complaining about the Bulls record under Donovan as a shot at Donovan is silly. Name whomever you think the best coach in the world is, then really ask yourself how many more wins you think that guy gets with the rosters we've had.

I'd probably slot Donovan around the 8-15th best coach in the NBA range if I were to just take a guess. The odds of the Bulls firing Donovan and getting a better coach than him are extremely low, like maybe 5% or less. None of the for sure better coaches would even dream of coming to our situation, and so you'd be hoping to catch lightening in a bottle in a completely unproven guy, and any unproven guy is highly unlikely to be a top 10 guy, especially in their first gig.

The reality is it is highly likely that Billy Donovan is not only the best coach we could have right now, but probably the best coach by far that we are likely to have right now.

I agree with all of this, with one big caveat: how much influence has Donovan had on personnel decisions? If he had a significant say on, for example, trading for Vuc or trading Lonzo for Okoro or drafting Pat, then my opinion on how likely we would be able to replace him with a better coach would change drastically.

[DuckIII]

there's been several issues with the team in recent years - I don't believe coaching to be one of them.

Upgrading your coach isn't as easy as people make it out to be - look at the Knicks.

Agree 100%. I lean towards the dougthonus school of thought on NBA coaches: they don’t typically matter that much.

There are some elite ones, and if you get one that’s awesome.

There are some terrible ones, and if you get one cut bait quick.

The rest - like the other 20-25 coaches in the NBA - are basically fine in any given year. And I put Billy in the top half of that group. I both disagree and agree with him regularly. But I’ve not seen anything from him that even comes close to making me want him canned.

[Red Larrivee]

They had similar talent with Brad Stevens, never got passed the conference finals and finished .500 his last season. Yes talent is king in the NBA. But plenty of talented teams never won titles. Billy Donovan had a team of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka & Steven Adams and lost in the Conference Finals. Billy hasn't made it out of round 1 since.

Billy hasn't had a team as good as that OKC team since.

The majority of NBA coaches are extremely and squarely talent-dependent, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is the ultimate player's league. Luke Walton went 39-4 coaching the Warriors and did nothing after that. David Blatt has been to more NBA Finals than Tom Thibodeau, Billy Donovan and Quin Snyder combined as a HC. Talent rules everything.

So much about the Celtics changed from when Stevens was the coach to Udoka and ultimately to when they won the Finals. You'd have a hard time proving that Mazzulla was what got them over the hump and that he actually impacts wins and losses in a meaningful way.

[kodo]

I have much, much less issue with him since he completely ditched being the league's slowest paced, least 3P shooting, most contested-long-2 shooting team. And we saw huge results when that style was paired with a PG like Giddey (vs having Derozan & Coby control the ball).

A lot of us have complained for years about the team's style & Donovan, so when he completely flipped 180 then you have to acknowledge it. Can't still hate on him for running a super slow, 2 point chucking team because that's not the Bulls at all anymore.

[DuckIII]

This is probably the first time in professional sports where a guy gets continuously rewarded for failing.

The coach is usually the first to go with losing. Not here, the whole roster changed but him.Apparently AK/Reinsdorfs still love him for some reason.

Perhaps it’s just what most people see: he wasn’t the problem, the rosters were. And if anything, he got them to overachieve.

I do not agree at will with the notion that Donovan has been “failing.” I don’t love him, but he’s been making somewhat edible chicken salad out of chicken **** for years.

[coldfish]

He keeps getting extensions because he lets AKME dictate rotations and playing time, IMO.

I generally agree with Doug that he isn't bad. Middle of the pack and that's better than a lot of teams. He has issues with game prep and in game adjustments but his base systems are fine and he seems to be able to teach them and motivate the players.

[DuckIII]

5 seasons. 4 of them, including the last 3, with a losing record. Overall, 10 games under .500 despite the team being 10 games over .500 4 seasons ago. OKC got rid of him after 5 seasons with a .608 record over a 5 year stretch and 5 straight playoff appearances...with 4 straight first round exits.

Lets give him his 2nd extension.

Or we could have a totally unproven coach next summer when we're trying to attract free agents with huge cap space. We agree that Billy isn't a good tactician for a coach, but he's definitely liked by players and is a hall.of famer. A pretty good factor in free agent appeal IMO.

Agree. And in the area of players asking for trades. Some fans hate BD, as with any coach. But it’s pretty obvious the players and league in general considers and treats him like a true G.

His presence lends credibility to the whole organization. And we are an organization in need of that.

[DuckIII]

Most seems to disagree with you, but its all subjective:

CBS Sports: 24. Billy Donovan, Bulls

The Big Lead: 16. Billy Donovan – Chicago Bulls

New Arena: 22. Billy Donovan — Chicago Bulls

Pro Football Network: 19. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Jacks Thoughts: 21. Billy Donovan - Chicago Bulls

MSM: 24. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Sir Charles in Charge: 16. Billy Donovan, Chicago Bulls

Let's be real. If Billy Donovan was coaching the Celtics, they would still have the same success and be champions. I'm not entirely convinced that Joe Mazzulla would replicate what Donovan has done here.

Yet, he's 13 spots higher?

There's just way too much subjectivity about coaches in a league where results objectively correlate to player talent. This isn't the NFL.

What are you basing that on? You might be alone on that take.

I agree with him completely.

I’m curious, on those lists, how many coaches of teams that won 48+ games are ranked lowly?

[ChiTownHero1992]

Just rediculous but par for the course, mediocre front office gets extension, mediocre coach gets extension, mediocre team continues with the perpetual pursuit of the yearly play in game!

[rosenthall]

He keeps getting extensions because he lets AKME dictate rotations and playing time, IMO.

I generally agree with Doug that he isn't bad. Middle of the pack and that's better than a lot of teams. He has issues with game prep and in game adjustments but his base systems are fine and he seems to be able to teach them and motivate the players.

I have an unproven hunch that his first secret extension was him demanding more guaranteed money in return for playing Pat so much. He knew that giving him 30 minutes each night was going to cost the team games, so he wanted more guaranteed money to compensate him for the reduced job security that created for him.

His treatment of Pat as a rookie is completely unlike any other he's coached in his 10 years in the NBA. It's really hard for me to believe that he saw him as this precocious talent that could leapfrog the NBA initiation he normally puts rookies through. So I think you're basically right.

However, I buy that Billy is an organizational lynchpin and provides a lot of value across different business functions that makes him well regarded by the team. So I don't think this extension was purely about being a yes-man for AKME, even though it surely plays a part in it.