Billy Donovan gets contract extension

[Red Larrivee]

I'm sure Vegas Odds will award the Bulls the title soon.
Odds are irrelevant to the discussion - people think the Bulls suck and they do.

If you have a better and more impartial way to track how a coach outperforms or underperforms expectations, please feel free to drop it.

He never coached 3 all-stars in OKC, but OKC won 55 games in Donovan's only season coaching Durant and Westbrook together. Isolation play was not the reason they lost to the Warriors.

My apologies;
Harden was the 6MOY
KD was All-NBA and All-star
Westbrook was All-NBA and an All-star
Ibaka was All defensive first

That's an awesome amount of talent and Billy didn't do much with it.

Again, Donovan didn't coach Harden, Durant and Westbrook. He coached Durant and Westbrook for one season and that's it. There's no way you're arguing that OKC lost to the 73-9 Warriors because of coaching.

What aspect of coaching impacts games and thus wins, directly? X/Os. Name a single GOAT level coach that didn't build their names from actually managing the games.

The aspect of having great talent on your team and knowing how to manage the talent day-to-day. Xs and Os are a fraction of that.

In the playoffs, every team knows what plays their opponent runs. Games come to a halt and they're determined on individual playmaking and shot creation. The Warriors didn't win championships because Steve Kerr is just strategizing better than everyone. They had one of the most talented teams to ever step on the court. Luke Walton went 39-4 with them in the regular season. What's he done since

I can name you a dozen coaches that are great inter-personally and have great reps as nice guys and player coaches. Here's a list of the last 10 title winning coaches

Joe Mazzulla
Michael Malone
Mike Budenholzer
Frank Vogel
Nick Nurse
Tyronn Lue
Steve Kerr

You just named 4 coaches who were fired even after having success. Which again, goes back to the point that Xs and Os are not a significant enough reason to can a coach who has buy-in throughout the organization. You're overvaluing it.

Do you think that Denver fired Malone because they believe David Adelman is better at Xs and Os? Or, do you think they moved on because he lost the locker room and had a bad relationship with the front office?

Again, I'm not saying coaching is everything, I'm saying it's something. And that something matters enough to keep looking for upgrades when possible and not locking yourself into mediocrity which is exactly what Billy is - mediocre. He's in the pathetic East and he made the post-season 1 time and got obliterated. So lets sign him to another 3-5 years! Why?

Joe Mazzulla is not an elite game management coach and Boston could've won a championship with damn near any coach in the league.

We can agree to disagree, but you're focusing squarely on one part of what you like in a coach without any consideration for the other parts that are much more important in keeping a job. If you're a good Xs and Os coach, but have fractured relationships in any of the major levels of the organization, you will get fired. It has happened plenty of times in the NBA and will continue to happen. It's completely logical for the Bulls to hang onto Donovan given that he still has buy-in throughout the Bulls.

[jnrjr79]

I think you're right.

Just to be clear, if Carlisle was available right now would you want the Bulls to target him and fire Billy despite him just signing an extension?

Maybe! If a true difference-maker were available to the Bulls (e.g. Spoelstra), I'd want them to do it. I just don't think that's a realistic scenario.

Spo was a video editing guy before he was a coach - can't find the diamonds in the rough if you're too busy resigning Billy "1 season above .500" Donovan to half a decade long extensions

But point taken, I think we agree in theory, just not practice

Right, part of this is I have very little confidence in AK and don’t really want or trust him to try to pluck some wunderkind out of obscurity to take over. Donovan is at least steady and won’t hurt the young guys’ development. If Donovan is out, I’d prefer it be part of a broader house-cleaning effort (which would be merited!).

[sco]

Maybe! If a true difference-maker were available to the Bulls (e.g. Spoelstra), I'd want them to do it. I just don't think that's a realistic scenario.

Spo was a video editing guy before he was a coach - can't find the diamonds in the rough if you're too busy resigning Billy "1 season above .500" Donovan to half a decade long extensions

But point taken, I think we agree in theory, just not practice

Right, part of this is I have very little confidence in AK and don’t really want or trust him to try to pluck some wunderkind out of obscurity to take over. Donovan is at least steady and won’t hurt the young guys’ development. If Donovan is out, I’d prefer it be part of a broader house-cleaning effort (which would be merited!).

Great point. Given that IMO AK is very insecure, I find it hard to believe that he'll find another coach willing to walk on eggshells to avoid criticizing AK who is better than Billy.

[Stratmaster]

I'm sure Vegas Odds will award the Bulls the title soon.
Odds are irrelevant to the discussion - people think the Bulls suck and they do.

If you have a better and more impartial way to track how a coach outperforms or underperforms expectations, please feel free to drop it.

He never coached 3 all-stars in OKC, but OKC won 55 games in Donovan's only season coaching Durant and Westbrook together. Isolation play was not the reason they lost to the Warriors.

My apologies;
Harden was the 6MOY
KD was All-NBA and All-star
Westbrook was All-NBA and an All-star
Ibaka was All defensive first

That's an awesome amount of talent and Billy didn't do much with it.

Again, Donovan didn't coach Harden, Durant and Westbrook. He coached Durant and Westbrook for one season and that's it. There's no way you're arguing that OKC lost to the 73-9 Warriors because of coaching.

What aspect of coaching impacts games and thus wins, directly? X/Os. Name a single GOAT level coach that didn't build their names from actually managing the games.

The aspect of having great talent on your team and knowing how to manage the talent day-to-day. Xs and Os are a fraction of that.

In the playoffs, every team knows what plays their opponent runs. Games come to a halt and they're determined on individual playmaking and shot creation. The Warriors didn't win championships because Steve Kerr is just strategizing better than everyone. They had one of the most talented teams to ever step on the court. Luke Walton went 39-4 with them in the regular season. What's he done since

I can name you a dozen coaches that are great inter-personally and have great reps as nice guys and player coaches. Here's a list of the last 10 title winning coaches

Joe Mazzulla
Michael Malone
Mike Budenholzer
Frank Vogel
Nick Nurse
Tyronn Lue
Steve Kerr

You just named 4 coaches who were fired even after having success. Which again, goes back to the point that Xs and Os are not a significant enough reason to can a coach who has buy-in throughout the organization. You're overvaluing it.

Do you think that Denver fired Malone because they believe David Adelman is better at Xs and Os? Or, do you think they moved on because he lost the locker room and had a bad relationship with the front office?

Again, I'm not saying coaching is everything, I'm saying it's something. And that something matters enough to keep looking for upgrades when possible and not locking yourself into mediocrity which is exactly what Billy is - mediocre. He's in the pathetic East and he made the post-season 1 time and got obliterated. So lets sign him to another 3-5 years! Why?

Joe Mazzulla is not an elite game management coach and Boston could've won a championship with damn near any coach in the league.

We can agree to disagree, but you're focusing squarely on one part of what you like in a coach without any consideration for the other parts that are much more important in keeping a job. If you're a good Xs and Os coach, but have fractured relationships in any of the major levels of the organization, you will get fired. It has happened plenty of times in the NBA and will continue to happen. It's completely logical for the Bulls to hang onto Donovan given that he still has buy-in throughout the Bulls.

I did a study on the accuracy of Vegas preseason win total projections and posted it here. They are horrible. The margin of error is so high that no one would EVER,EVER use them to project anything. Vegas odds are just as much based on bettor sentiment than any thought they will actually be accurate. They don't care how much they miss it by as long as they keep the betting lines even. Not to mention injuries, trades etc.

If you are using these numbers thinking they can assess coach performance you don't have any idea what the numbers mean.

[Lunartic]

We can agree to disagree, but you're focusing squarely on one part of what you like in a coach without any consideration for the other parts that are much more important in keeping a job. If you're a good Xs and Os coach, but have fractured relationships in any of the major levels of the organization, you will get fired. It has happened plenty of times in the NBA and will continue to happen. It's completely logical for the Bulls to hang onto Donovan given that he still has buy-in throughout the Bulls.

I'm focusing on the part of the game that's not purely intangible. Winning. Better X/O's lead to better outcomes.

You're focusing on the idea that coaches should retain their positions simply because they manage to ....retain their positions.

A coach that sucks at his actual winning priorities but is great at ass-kissing and or is very likeable isn't a coach that fans should want. I understand you're saying that bad FOs will hire based on nepotism/likeableness/politics, I understand that's a metric. I just think it's a ridiculously poor one.

It's entirely reductive to suggest that because a bad franchise fires a good coach that wasn't likeable then somehow being a likeable bad coach is actually superior simply because he kept his job.

I definitely like winning in coaches and I value their in game ability more than I value things that neither you nor I can see and can only interpret from players/FO.

We can agree to disagree absolutely, I don't think we're really at odds opinion-wise anyway

[Stratmaster]

I'm sure Vegas Odds will award the Bulls the title soon.
Odds are irrelevant to the discussion - people think the Bulls suck and they do.

If you have a better and more impartial way to track how a coach outperforms or underperforms expectations, please feel free to drop it.

Here you go:

The idea that Vegas odds are accurate predictors and should be used to assess coaching performance is ridiculous, as evidenced by the actual track record.

I was bored, so here are Vegas preseason odds, last 3 seasons, oldest to newest, with team results, in alphabetical order. The problem is, this was tedious and I got even more bored, so I only did the first 15 teams. I expect 50% sample over 3 seasons is sufficient:

Atlanta: 46.5, 42.5, 36 Results: 41, 36, 40 Deviation: 15.5 Net Deviation -8.5
Boston: 54.5, 54.5, 58.5 Results: 57, 64, 61 Deviation: 14.5 Net Deviation +14.5
Brooklyn: 50.5, 37.5, 19.5 Results: 45, 32, 26 Deviation: 17.5 Net Deviation: -4.5
Charlotte: 34.5, 31.5, 30.5 Results: 27, 21, 19 Deviation: 28.5 Net Deviation: -28.5
Bulls: 41.5, 37.5, 28.5 Results: 40,39,39 Deviation: 13.5 Net Deviation +10.5 (same as the net from last season)
Cleveland: 46.5, 50.5, 48.5 Results: 51,48,64 Deviation: 22.5 Net Deviation +17.5
Dallas: 48.5, 45.5, 49.5 Results: 38,50,39 Deviation: 25.5 Net Deviation -16.5
Denver: 51.5, 52.5, 51.5 Results; 53, 57, 50 Deviation: 7.5 Net Deviation +5.5
Detroit: 29.5, 28.5, 25.5 Results: 17, 14, 44 Deviation: 45.5 Net Deviation: -8.5
GSW: 52.5,48.5,43.5 Results: 44,46,48 Deviation: 15.5 Net Deviation: -6.5
Houston: 23.5, 31.5, 43.5 Results: 22, 41, 52 Deviation: 20.5 Net Deviation: +16.5
Indiana: 24.5, 38.5, 46.5 Results: 35, 47, 50 Deviation: 22.5 Net Deviation: +22.5
LAC: 52.5, 46.5, 35.5 Results: 44,51,50 Deviation: 27.5 Net Deviation: +10.5
LAL: 44.5, 47.5, 43.5 Results: 43,47,50 Deviation: 8.5 Net Deviation: +4.5
Memphis: 49.5, 45.5, 47.5 Results: 51, 27, 48 Deviation: 20.5 Net Deviation: -17.5

Of those 15 teams, 8 had positive net deviations and 7 negative (Imagine that). I think that is basic math. And basic gambling 101.

The average deviation per season was 7 games per team. So the margin for error of any preseason wins prediction is greater than 7 games. Based on Charlotte at 28.5 the margin for error over a 3 year span is over 9 games per season. I didn't pick out the worst single season prediction but I believe it was more than 20 games off. You don't use unreliable numbers like that to assess anything, but if you did...

...The Bulls had the 3rd lowest deviation of any of the 15 teams. If not for a ridiculously low prediction last season (likely to stimulate betting for a historically heavily betted team that no one would bet on any more); and, the Bulls playing almost all the weak tanking teams down the stretch after one of the most difficult early schedules in the league, the Bulls would have been a true outlier. A team that Vegas actually got right. The fact is, the Bulls performed almost exactly as Vegas predicted, and that is not a regular thing.

[dougthonus]

What aspect of coaching impacts games and thus wins, directly? X/Os. Name a single GOAT level coach that didn't build their names from actually managing the games.

I mean Phil Jackson obviously.

I can name you a dozen coaches that are great inter-personally and have great reps as nice guys and player coaches. Here's a list of the last 10 title winning coaches

Joe Mazzulla
Michael Malone
Mike Budenholzer
Frank Vogel
Nick Nurse
Tyronn Lue
Steve Kerr

Every single one of those coaches are great to elite X/O-game management coaches. Vogel might be the weak link here and he had the benefit of 2 top-10 players and the bubble craziness.

Most of that list is not known for X/O game management. It's been a specific harsh criticism of Mazzulla and Budenholzer at times. Mike Malone's teams have absolutely and completely cratered when Jokic isn't on the floor which would imply he didn't do anything except cater to a super unicorn and couldn't figure out any remote semblance of a lineup without him. Nurse has largely been a flop after his title season. Kerr seems more known as a personality / culture guy than a deep X/Os guy.

TBH, I'm not sure I'd be confident that any of those guys on that list are really better than Billy Donovan. Tyronn Lue would be the guy I'm most confident in being better.

Looking at this list makes me more confident that coaching is a commodity item (ie, once you reach a certain level it doesn't make much difference as long as you have the trust and belief of your players, and Donovan has reached that level for sure).

[drosestruts]

Maybe! If a true difference-maker were available to the Bulls (e.g. Spoelstra), I'd want them to do it. I just don't think that's a realistic scenario.

Spo was a video editing guy before he was a coach - can't find the diamonds in the rough if you're too busy resigning Billy "1 season above .500" Donovan to half a decade long extensions

But point taken, I think we agree in theory, just not practice

Right, part of this is I have very little confidence in AK and don’t really want or trust him to try to pluck some wunderkind out of obscurity to take over. Donovan is at least steady and won’t hurt the young guys’ development. If Donovan is out, I’d prefer it be part of a broader house-cleaning effort (which would be merited!).

Spo was a video editing guy, who had the backing of Pat Riley when:

LeBron wanted him fired and a new coach brought in
When they lost 2 of 4 finals with LeBron
had a pretty unremarkable 5 years after LeBron left (made the playoffs twice, won one series)

Then they make the finals as 5th seed, followed by a 1st round sweep, followed by losing in the ECF, then losing in the finals, then winning 1 playoff game over the next two season.

If Spo were in Chicago he'd have been fired, or called to be fired multiple times (when LeBron wanted him out, when he lost to the Mavs in the Finals, during the 5-year stretch post LeBron).

It's funny to me to complain about keeping Donovan, while praising Miami keeping Spo. Miami recognized Spo as a good coach and has kept him through thick and thin.

Bulls are doing the same thing with Donovan.

[Ice Man]

Looking at this list makes me more confident that coaching is a commodity item

Yup. The proof being that NBA teams won't give up player assets whatsoever to get a coach. At the height of his popularity, Doc Rivers was traded to the Clippers, and in return the Celts got a second-round pick from a 56-win team, meaning that a coach who is regarded as elite (as Doc was in 2013) has the marketplace value of Jordan Bell.

Actual GMs openly regard coaches as commodities. Why should we disagree?

[CROBulls]

Spo was a video editing guy before he was a coach - can't find the diamonds in the rough if you're too busy resigning Billy "1 season above .500" Donovan to half a decade long extensions

But point taken, I think we agree in theory, just not practice

Right, part of this is I have very little confidence in AK and don’t really want or trust him to try to pluck some wunderkind out of obscurity to take over. Donovan is at least steady and won’t hurt the young guys’ development. If Donovan is out, I’d prefer it be part of a broader house-cleaning effort (which would be merited!).

Spo was a video editing guy, who had the backing of Pat Riley when:

LeBron wanted him fired and a new coach brought in
When they lost 2 of 4 finals with LeBron
had a pretty unremarkable 5 years after LeBron left (made the playoffs twice, won one series)

Then they make the finals as 5th seed, followed by a 1st round sweep, followed by losing in the ECF, then losing in the finals, then winning 1 playoff game over the next two season.

If Spo were in Chicago he'd have been fired, or called to be fired multiple times (when LeBron wanted him out, when he lost to the Mavs in the Finals, during the 5-year stretch post LeBron).

It's funny to me to complain about keeping Donovan, while praising Miami keeping Spo. Miami recognized Spo as a good coach and has kept him through thick and thin.

Bulls are doing the same thing with Donovan.

Hahahaha. Because Spo is elite coach, while Donovan is coach who never played guy taller than 6'9 at center. That's his legacy. Now please continue telling me how those are same.

[dougthonus]

Hahahaha. Because Spo is elite coach, while Donovan is coach who never played guy taller than 6'9 at center. That's his legacy. Now please continue telling me how those are same.

The vast, vast majority of the Bulls center minutes have been played by guys taller than 6'9. We very rarely go small at center. Maybe you're thinking PFs?

Of course Spo went small at PF with great regularity as well, but the decision to go big or small is more based on your roster than some binary right or wrong answer. I wouldn't go big too often with the Bulls guys either (or the Heat guys if we're talking Spo).

[Red Larrivee]

Looking at this list makes me more confident that coaching is a commodity item

Yup. The proof being that NBA teams won't give up player assets whatsoever to get a coach. At the height of his popularity, Doc Rivers was traded to the Clippers, and in return the Celts got a second-round pick from a 56-win team, meaning that a coach who is regarded as elite (as Doc was in 2013) has the marketplace value of Jordan Bell.

Actual GMs openly regard coaches as commodities. Why should we disagree?

And Doc Rivers was about to get fired before the Celtics acquired Allen and Garnett. Now, Rivers is probably going to go into the HOF as a coach one day.

I just don't see any value in talking about or valuing coaches in the same way we discuss players. Having a "Top 5 coach" or a "young coach with upside!" doesn't mean anything for me. I contend that whoever someone perceives as the "20th best coach" is probably as good as a coach you perceive as "7th best!"

As long as you don't have a Jim Boylen level coach, then you've likely reached the necessary baseline of competence to move forward. At that point, no hire is really going to move the needle.

[Lunartic]

What aspect of coaching impacts games and thus wins, directly? X/Os. Name a single GOAT level coach that didn't build their names from actually managing the games.

I mean Phil Jackson obviously.

I can name you a dozen coaches that are great inter-personally and have great reps as nice guys and player coaches. Here's a list of the last 10 title winning coaches

Joe Mazzulla
Michael Malone
Mike Budenholzer
Frank Vogel
Nick Nurse
Tyronn Lue
Steve Kerr

Every single one of those coaches are great to elite X/O-game management coaches. Vogel might be the weak link here and he had the benefit of 2 top-10 players and the bubble craziness.

Most of that list is not known for X/O game management. It's been a specific harsh criticism of Mazzulla and Budenholzer at times. Mike Malone's teams have absolutely and completely cratered when Jokic isn't on the floor which would imply he didn't do anything except cater to a super unicorn and couldn't figure out any remote semblance of a lineup without him. Nurse has largely been a flop after his title season. Kerr seems more known as a personality / culture guy than a deep X/Os guy.

TBH, I'm not sure I'd be confident that any of those guys on that list are really better than Billy Donovan. Tyronn Lue would be the guy I'm most confident in being better.

Looking at this list makes me more confident that coaching is a commodity item (ie, once you reach a certain level it doesn't make much difference as long as you have the trust and belief of your players, and Donovan has reached that level for sure).

Phil Jackson was an elite X/O guy he just happened to also be a great personality manager as well. They aren't mutually exclusive. Similar to Popovich actually. They can do both and that's why they won alot.

Phil implemented/maximized the triangle offense in both Chicago and Los Angeles to great effect, that's the epitome of a great X/O guy.

Nick Nurse has always been known as a guy that runs solid offenses and can generate decent quality shots for the team. Obviously it's going to be somewhat subjective because it's all about the eye test vs talent available but

https://sixerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/sixers/2025/04/18/andre-drummond-quentin-grimes-give-thoughts-on-sixers-coach-nick-nurse/83158076007/

Players have acknowledged his ability in the X/Os

He’s a really good coach," Grimes said of Nurse. "A really good X’s and O’s, really detailed, preparation, and everything. Gets us ready to play every single game. He knows exactly the game plan. Just injuries kind of bogged that down a little bit, not able to play with everybody at full strength, but he's a really good coach. I mean, he won the championship for a reason. So you can definitely tell he has really good habits as a head coach. Definitely."

Steve Kerr is definitely known as a good X/O game manager, he's the one that took the Warriors to the next level after they dropped Mr. Personality and got a coach that put Curry/Klay/Dray in winning positions.

Malone is credited with setting up the point-center Jokic offense which won a title. Yeah, it doesn't work without Jokic being a goat level player but still, very good players have languished under poor gameplanning. Jokic not so much.


Coaching is a luxury for talented teams. Coaching is a necessity for untalented or middling teams like the Bulls. It all depends on the actual goal, if the goal is winning games; a coach that maximizes talent is paramount. Someone like Thibs probably wins that play-in game against MIA last season and boom you have won more games and made the playoffs. If the goal is to make your players happy and run whatever rotations the FO wants, then perhaps Billy is sufficient.

In middling basketball, a single win or two can decide quite a bit. Do i think Billy has cost the Bulls wins via bad coaching/lack of challenges/rotations? Yes. Do I think there are coaches that would produce more wins over the same period of time with the same talent? Yeah.

Ironically, nearly all those coaches that apparently aren't known for their X/Os but rather their personality/FO relationship all have been fired, so clearly teams have decided they needed an upgrade and that coaching is a position of need not just a negligible commodity item otherwise why not lock in coaches for long term, cheaper deals? Instead we have teams paying coaches to leave.

[CROBulls]

Hahahaha. Because Spo is elite coach, while Donovan is coach who never played guy taller than 6'9 at center. That's his legacy. Now please continue telling me how those are same.

The vast, vast majority of the Bulls center minutes have been played by guys taller than 6'9. We very rarely go small at center. Maybe you're thinking PFs?

Of course Spo went small at PF with great regularity as well, but the decision to go big or small is more based on your roster than some binary right or wrong answer. I wouldn't go big too often with the Bulls guys either (or the Heat guys if we're talking Spo).

Sure, yeah.

[Lunartic]

Looking at this list makes me more confident that coaching is a commodity item

Yup. The proof being that NBA teams won't give up player assets whatsoever to get a coach. At the height of his popularity, Doc Rivers was traded to the Clippers, and in return the Celts got a second-round pick from a 56-win team, meaning that a coach who is regarded as elite (as Doc was in 2013) has the marketplace value of Jordan Bell.

Actual GMs openly regard coaches as commodities. Why should we disagree?

And Doc Rivers was about to get fired before the Celtics acquired Allen and Garnett. Now, Rivers is probably going to go into the HOF as a coach one day.

I just don't see any value in talking about or valuing coaches in the same way we discuss players. Having a "Top 5 coach" or a "young coach with upside!" doesn't mean anything for me. I contend that whoever someone perceives as the "20th best coach" is probably as good as a coach you perceive as "7th best!"

As long as you don't have a Jim Boylen level coach, then you've likely reached the necessary baseline of competence to move forward. At that point, no hire is really going to move the needle.

For the record, no one here is comparing them to player's impact. It's far less impactful than players but that doesn't mean it's meaningless otherwise the Bulls could just hire some NCAA dude to a 10 year, 1M salary and be done with it. Teams target the perceived good coaches in the NBA for a reason.

Hoiberg was probably a 20-30 ranked coach with the Bulls and this entire board was calling for his head. Same with Boylen. If the impact of #7 ranked coach is the same as #20, why not keep Boylen? Even if he's the worst coach in the league, that would probably be equal to #12 assuming that ratio.

Coaching matters and the Bulls should try to improve at all times.

[jnrjr79]

In this vein, I'd recommend Zach Lowe's most recent podcast. He acknowledged a lot of Bulls Nation was annoyed at the Donovan extension, but said that Donovan was a good to very good coach and the Bulls would be risking years upon years of flailing around trying to find a decent coach if they fired him. He said he just wished the front office would give Donovan a roster built around a coherent vision (and bemoaned that OKC had not done so, either).

[jnrjr79]

What aspect of coaching impacts games and thus wins, directly? X/Os. Name a single GOAT level coach that didn't build their names from actually managing the games.

I mean Phil Jackson obviously.

I can name you a dozen coaches that are great inter-personally and have great reps as nice guys and player coaches. Here's a list of the last 10 title winning coaches

Joe Mazzulla
Michael Malone
Mike Budenholzer
Frank Vogel
Nick Nurse
Tyronn Lue
Steve Kerr

Every single one of those coaches are great to elite X/O-game management coaches. Vogel might be the weak link here and he had the benefit of 2 top-10 players and the bubble craziness.

Most of that list is not known for X/O game management. It's been a specific harsh criticism of Mazzulla and Budenholzer at times. Mike Malone's teams have absolutely and completely cratered when Jokic isn't on the floor which would imply he didn't do anything except cater to a super unicorn and couldn't figure out any remote semblance of a lineup without him. Nurse has largely been a flop after his title season. Kerr seems more known as a personality / culture guy than a deep X/Os guy.

TBH, I'm not sure I'd be confident that any of those guys on that list are really better than Billy Donovan. Tyronn Lue would be the guy I'm most confident in being better.

Looking at this list makes me more confident that coaching is a commodity item (ie, once you reach a certain level it doesn't make much difference as long as you have the trust and belief of your players, and Donovan has reached that level for sure).

Phil Jackson was an elite X/O guy he just happened to also be a great personality manager as well. They aren't mutually exclusive. Similar to Popovich actually. They can do both and that's why they won alot.

Phil implemented/maximized the triangle offense in both Chicago and Los Angeles to great effect, that's the epitome of a great X/O guy.

Nick Nurse has always been known as a guy that runs solid offenses and can generate decent quality shots for the team. Obviously it's going to be somewhat subjective because it's all about the eye test vs talent available but

https://sixerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/sixers/2025/04/18/andre-drummond-quentin-grimes-give-thoughts-on-sixers-coach-nick-nurse/83158076007/

Players have acknowledged his ability in the X/Os

He’s a really good coach," Grimes said of Nurse. "A really good X’s and O’s, really detailed, preparation, and everything. Gets us ready to play every single game. He knows exactly the game plan. Just injuries kind of bogged that down a little bit, not able to play with everybody at full strength, but he's a really good coach. I mean, he won the championship for a reason. So you can definitely tell he has really good habits as a head coach. Definitely."

Steve Kerr is definitely known as a good X/O game manager, he's the one that took the Warriors to the next level after they dropped Mr. Personality and got a coach that put Curry/Klay/Dray in winning positions.

Malone is credited with setting up the point-center Jokic offense which won a title. Yeah, it doesn't work without Jokic being a goat level player but still, very good players have languished under poor gameplanning. Jokic not so much.


Coaching is a luxury for talented teams. Coaching is a necessity for untalented or middling teams like the Bulls. It all depends on the actual goal, if the goal is winning games; a coach that maximizes talent is paramount. Someone like Thibs probably wins that play-in game against MIA last season and boom you have won more games and made the playoffs. If the goal is to make your players happy and run whatever rotations the FO wants, then perhaps Billy is sufficient.

In middling basketball, a single win or two can decide quite a bit. Do i think Billy has cost the Bulls wins via bad coaching/lack of challenges/rotations? Yes. Do I think there are coaches that would produce more wins over the same period of time with the same talent? Yeah.

Ironically, nearly all those coaches that apparently aren't known for their X/Os but rather their personality/FO relationship all have been fired, so clearly teams have decided they needed an upgrade and that coaching is a position of need not just a negligible commodity item otherwise why not lock in coaches for long term, cheaper deals? Instead we have teams paying coaches to leave.

IMO, most of the credit for Phil and the triangle goes to Tex Winter.

[Lunartic]

IMO, most of the credit for Phil and the triangle goes to Tex Winter.

That's fair, I view a HC coach as an amalgamation of his assistants and whether he listens to them etc, a cop out I know but eh

[Red Larrivee]

For the record, no one here is comparing them to player's impact. It's far less impactful than players but that doesn't mean it's meaningless otherwise the Bulls could just hire some NCAA dude to a 10 year, 1M salary and be done with it. Teams target the perceived good coaches in the NBA for a reason.

Hoiberg was probably a 20-30 ranked coach with the Bulls and this entire board was calling for his head. Same with Boylen. If the impact of #7 ranked coach is the same as #20, why not keep Boylen? Even if he's the worst coach in the league, that would probably be equal to #12 assuming that ratio.

Coaching matters and the Bulls should try to improve at all times.

I liked Hoiberg coming into the NBA, but he was bad. He wasn't as bad as Jim Boylen, but he was bad. Different mixes of players thought he was a joke. So yes, at that point he was a problem. Bad coaches are an issue. They're the only issue when it comes to coaching mattering.

Coaching matters to a degree, and that degree is not impactful on wins and losses. There are a few historical anomalies, but even the best coaches have had awful seasons.

There's a threshold that a coach must meet with a team:

- Buy-in and respected leadership from players
- Aligns with the front office
- Ownership likes them

Once you reach that threshold, you can't move the needle any higher with a coaching hire. It doesn't matter how well you perceive one coach to be at Xs and Os than the other. At that point, it's more preference than objectivity.

You don't like who they're starting. You don't like the rotations. Such and such should get more minutes. You didn't like that timeout play. None of these things necessarily means that a coach is bad or that a team can't win with that coach. Name any "better coach" and you can find thousands of critiques from fans about them. It's irrelevant.

[dougthonus]

Phil Jackson was an elite X/O guy he just happened to also be a great personality manager as well. They aren't mutually exclusive. Similar to Popovich actually. They can do both and that's why they won alot.

Phil implemented/maximized the triangle offense in both Chicago and Los Angeles to great effect, that's the epitome of a great X/O guy.

Tex Winters implemented the triangle for the Bulls, not Phil Jackson. Jackson loved the system, but it was Winters system, and he was the primary guy teaching it.

Nick Nurse has always been known as a guy that runs solid offenses and can generate decent quality shots for the team. Obviously it's going to be somewhat subjective because it's all about the eye test vs talent available but

https://sixerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/sixers/2025/04/18/andre-drummond-quentin-grimes-give-thoughts-on-sixers-coach-nick-nurse/83158076007/

Players have acknowledged his ability in the X/Os

He’s a really good coach," Grimes said of Nurse. "A really good X’s and O’s, really detailed, preparation, and everything. Gets us ready to play every single game. He knows exactly the game plan. Just injuries kind of bogged that down a little bit, not able to play with everybody at full strength, but he's a really good coach. I mean, he won the championship for a reason. So you can definitely tell he has really good habits as a head coach. Definitely."

Steve Kerr is definitely known as a good X/O game manager, he's the one that took the Warriors to the next level after they dropped Mr. Personality and got a coach that put Curry/Klay/Dray in winning positions.

Malone is credited with setting up the point-center Jokic offense which won a title. Yeah, it doesn't work without Jokic being a goat level player but still, very good players have languished under poor gameplanning. Jokic not so much.

Coaching is a luxury for talented teams. Coaching is a necessity for untalented or middling teams like the Bulls. It all depends on the actual goal, if the goal is winning games; a coach that maximizes talent is paramount. Someone like Thibs probably wins that play-in game against MIA last season and boom you have won more games and made the playoffs. If the goal is to make your players happy and run whatever rotations the FO wants, then perhaps Billy is sufficient.

In middling basketball, a single win or two can decide quite a bit. Do i think Billy has cost the Bulls wins via bad coaching/lack of challenges/rotations? Yes. Do I think there are coaches that would produce more wins over the same period of time with the same talent? Yeah.

Ironically, nearly all those coaches that apparently aren't known for their X/Os but rather their personality/FO relationship all have been fired, so clearly teams have decided they needed an upgrade and that coaching is a position of need not just a negligible commodity item otherwise why not lock in coaches for long term, cheaper deals? Instead we have teams paying coaches to leave.

Really sounds like you just made up whether a guy is tactical or not based to fit your narrative rather than beforehand. Of they guys on your list, the only one that has stood out in my general NBA knowledge as a tactical coach is Lue. Every coach at this level likely has a really firm grasp on tactics though. It's the top 30 guys in the world at their job. You can go search for quotes from players about Billy Donovan, whom all universally seem to think he's an amazing coach.

You can disagree of course. I'm just telling you the list you provided made me personally think the opposite of your point, and searching for positive confirmation of your point doesn't make me feel any stronger about it. I think Donovan is likely as tactically good as any of those guys outside of Lue by reputation. Watching him completely revamp the Bulls offense last year or coach a defense around three terrible defensive guys, I think he's actually really good tactically, but again, I think most guys are really good tactically because it isn't rocket science. He won two national titles in college without guys whom were elite recruits which also points to a level of tactical excellence.

To your point about only "personality guys" getting let go, a bunch of the guys on your list have been let go. Budenholzer was fired after a year with the Suns, Malone was just fired, Vogel was fired shortly after his title win, Nurse was fired not long after his title.

If we want to go with tactical guys, Thibs, the ultimate tactical guy, was just fired for not getting along with players. But here's the thing, coaches are just frequently fired. It's the easiest change you can make that makes fans think you're doing something, so it's a common lever to pull whether it's a good idea or not. Any given year however you classify coaches, they're going to get let go, so I think looking at firings isn't really a meaningful measure on either side of this debate.