Billy Donovan gets contract extension

[Red Larrivee]

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

[Lunartic]

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.

Jackson chose to implement it and used it on 2 separate teams. Doesn't matter who created the PNR, if you use it to win titles, you own it.

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.

That goes both ways, my friend. I acknowledged that it's going to be subjective considering we aren't privy to the lockrooms or the sidelines where coaching decisions are made. It's all eye-test and that goes for both of us. The only metric we can use is wins/player commentary and obvious screw-ups/successes in game.

Similarly, your determination that Lue is the only good tactician of the group is determined by the same subjective criteria and thus isn't more valid than my opinion. I wouldn't dare to suggest you're making it it up to fit a narrative and that's entirely unfair by you.

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.

So we agree there are levels to coaching and you just happen to think Billy is at a reasonably high level. I don't. My arguement is less that Billy is bad but rather the Bulls shouldn't lock themselves into long term contracts/extensions with coaches without doing their homework and testing the market for an improvement.

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.

You misunderstand my point that's probably because I made it in regards to RedLarivee and forgot who I was replying to. My fault. He was suggesting that relationships with the FO/players was the key reason a coach should be/are retained vs on the court product. I think we have a wealth of data that shows coaches get fired for dozens of reasons the 2 most likely are bad relationships and poor on the court results.

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.

Agreed, that's why I thought it was silly to discount how likely a losing coach gets fired. tons of coaches with bad records but good relations with players get termed. As do coaches with good records and bad relations.

[Lunartic]

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.

You cannot have it both ways.

A coach can be bad and impact winning but you also say coaching doesn't impact wins and losses.

If a bad coach can impact winning - a good coach can impact winning and a great coach can impact winning.

Let's take your three criteria

Coach A

Meets all 3
-Designs a motion offense that allows star players and roleplayers to maximize their talents
-wins 50 games

Coach B
-Meets all 3
-doesn't maximize talent
-wins 45 games

As a FO, who would you rather hire for the same money?

I'm not suggesting coaches don't need to meet your criteria, I'm saying your criteria should probably include something about their actual ability to help win games. And yes, a poorly timed timeout or refusing to challenge in the last minute of a game can lose you a game and that's on the coach. It does happen and it happens more frequently to bad/lesser coaches.

[Lunartic]

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't watch much GSW basketball during the Mark Jackson to Kerr era. Ask any Dubs fan, the offense was completely revolutionized under Kerr. Went from ISO-heavy to way more motion and using Dray a point-forward. Look at Dray's Assists from 2014-2015.

You think a motivational speech suddenly led to the offense to #1 in the league? His relationship with the FO ? He changed their offense significantly.

[drosestruts]

Lunartic - can you name a good x's and o's coach who has been unsuccessful?

From following along on the thread you seem to equate a winning coach with being a good x's and o's coach and placing a lot of value on that.

Whereas I, and others, seem to think the correlation between winning and the head coach being good at x's and o's to be spurious, and that the winning happened because the rosters were good.

It's like the famous example of children at schools with music programs have better grades. It wasn't the music classes, it was the fact that schools with music programs tend to come from higher social/economic areas.

You see a good team and seem to think - there's a good x's and o's coach

I see a good team and think - that roster is very talented.

Your examples of "Good coaches" all happen to be coaches who win.

Do you have examples of good coaches who don't win?

[MrSparkle]

IMO it’s kinda incredulous to think Kerr with his 4 coaching rings and .650 career record was lacking “Xs and Os” (whatever the gauge of that is). Where do people come up with this stuff? Warriors have consistently played some of the most disciplined system ball, besides for the intentio-tank season when their entire dynasty rotation got injured or retired.

[Jcool0]

Lunartic - can you name a good x's and o's coach who has been unsuccessful?

From following along on the thread you seem to equate a winning coach with being a good x's and o's coach and placing a lot of value on that.

Whereas I, and others, seem to think the correlation between winning and the head coach being good at x's and o's to be spurious, and that the winning happened because the rosters were good.

It's like the famous example of children at schools with music programs have better grades. It wasn't the music classes, it was the fact that schools with music programs tend to come from higher social/economic areas.

You see a good team and seem to think - there's a good x's and o's coach

I see a good team and think - that roster is very talented.

Your examples of "Good coaches" all happen to be coaches who win.

Do you have examples of good coaches who don't win?

Nick Nurse (1x champ, 1x coach of the year, 1x all star coach) has gone .500 or worse in 3 of his 7 years as a head coach. Including 24-56 record last year with an injured 76ers team.

Mike Budenholzer (2x coach COTY & 7x COTM) went from 58 wins in 2023 with Milwaukee to 36 wins last year in Phoenix.

Quin Snyder (5 top 10 NBA COTY finishes & 4x COTM) currently has a .465 win percentage with Atlanta.

[Red Larrivee]

You cannot have it both ways.

A coach can be bad and impact winning but you also say coaching doesn't impact wins and losses.

If a bad coach can impact winning - a good coach can impact winning and a great coach can impact winning.

I'm not giving you conflicting opinions though. I told you that outside of maybe a few historical anomalies, an NBA HC is not impactful in wins and losses, at least not in a meaningful way.

However, if you choose to believe that a coach impacts wins and losses, then arguing that Donovan should be fired on the merit of it is illogical when his teams have overachieved what the talent on the roster suggests they should accomplish.

Let's take your three criteria

Coach A

Meets all 3
-Designs a motion offense that allows star players and roleplayers to maximize their talents
-wins 50 games

Coach B
-Meets all 3
-doesn't maximize talent
-wins 45 games

As a FO, who would you rather hire for the same money?

I'm not suggesting coaches don't need to meet your criteria, I'm saying your criteria should probably include something about their actual ability to help win games. And yes, a poorly timed timeout or refusing to challenge in the last minute of a game can lose you a game and that's on the coach. It does happen and it happens more frequently to bad/lesser coaches.

I just don't see this is as a credible or relevant exercise if you're arguing that a HC upgrade by itself is worth 5 wins. If coaches in the NBA were worth a +5 improvement, teams would be trading 1st round picks for them with no hesitation.

Coaches are a part of the equation of having a well-run franchise, but they are not an impactful component of winning games or championships, especially not to the degree you're stating where a difference in Xs and Os adds 5 wins to a team by itself.

[Red Larrivee]

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't watch much GSW basketball during the Mark Jackson to Kerr era. Ask any Dubs fan, the offense was completely revolutionized under Kerr. Went from ISO-heavy to way more motion and using Dray a point-forward. Look at Dray's Assists from 2014-2015.

You think a motivational speech suddenly led to the offense to #1 in the league? His relationship with the FO ? He changed their offense significantly.

Saying that Steve Kerr Xs and Os were the most prominent reason the Warriors had a 16-win improvement is like saying he was as valuable as one of the Top 5 players in the league that year.

I'm not arguing that Kerr had no positive impact on the Warriors. I think Kerr is a great coach and stands out to me as one of the best culture setters, player managers and leaders in the game. I'm saying that the impact a HC has directly on a team's wins and losses is not particularly meaningful. At the end of the day this is still a player's league, no matter who's on the sidelines and what system is being run.

[Red Larrivee]

Nick Nurse (1x champ, 1x coach of the year, 1x all star coach) has gone .500 or worse in 3 of his 7 years as a head coach. Including 24-56 record last year with an injured 76ers team.

Mike Budenholzer (2x coach COTY & 7x COTM) went from 58 wins in 2023 with Milwaukee to 36 wins last year in Phoenix.

Quin Snyder (5 top 10 NBA COTY finishes & 4x COTM) currently has a .465 win percentage with Atlanta.

Pop's record the last 7 seasons in San Antonio: 240-318

Did Pop just get worse at coaching? Or, did they just not have the talent to do much? You can be the greatest coach there is and still have bad teams in the NBA. It's a player's league. That's why it's very possible to be a bad team that's actually coached very well.

The best record does not mean the best coached teams.

[MrSparkle]

Nick Nurse (1x champ, 1x coach of the year, 1x all star coach) has gone .500 or worse in 3 of his 7 years as a head coach. Including 24-56 record last year with an injured 76ers team.

Mike Budenholzer (2x coach COTY & 7x COTM) went from 58 wins in 2023 with Milwaukee to 36 wins last year in Phoenix.

Quin Snyder (5 top 10 NBA COTY finishes & 4x COTM) currently has a .465 win percentage with Atlanta.

Pop's record the last 7 seasons in San Antonio: 240-318

Did Pop just get worse at coaching? Or, did they just not have the talent to do much? You can be the greatest coach there is and still have bad teams in the NBA. It's a player's league. That's why it's very possible to be a bad team that's actually coached very well.

The best record does not mean the best coached teams.

Yeah.. well, they very intentionally threw in the towel after that Demar and Murray trades. He joked at conferences and interviews that he’s running a school camp.

I think my concern with Billy is he’s seemed unwilling to do that. Though where the FO and he align on this is perplexing. Surely both should’ve realized that a “run” at Wemby or Flagg might’ve made both their lives easier.

[Lunartic]

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

I have a sneaking suspicion you didn't watch much GSW basketball during the Mark Jackson to Kerr era. Ask any Dubs fan, the offense was completely revolutionized under Kerr. Went from ISO-heavy to way more motion and using Dray a point-forward. Look at Dray's Assists from 2014-2015.

You think a motivational speech suddenly led to the offense to #1 in the league? His relationship with the FO ? He changed their offense significantly.

Saying that Steve Kerr Xs and Os were the most prominent reason the Warriors had a 16-win improvement is like saying he was as valuable as one of the Top 5 players in the league that year.

I'm not arguing that Kerr had no positive impact on the Warriors. I think Kerr is a great coach and stands out to me as one of the best culture setters, player managers and leaders in the game. I'm saying that the impact a HC has directly on a team's wins and losses is not particularly meaningful. At the end of the day this is still a player's league, no matter who's on the sidelines and what system is being run.

There seems to be a disconnect in verbiage here.

I have never said or intimated the following;

Coaches have a large impact on teams
Coaches have a medium impact on teams
Kerr is the sole major reason for the Dubs winning more games

What do you think happens if a coach changes an offensive system and the team plays better? Surely, we can give some credit to that change? Kerr changed the offensive system dramatically and they won more games including a title.

I don't see why that's hard for you to agree with, Kerr vs Jackson is an easy comparison. Kerr's offenses were multi-wrinkled, had better efficiency and
SRS went from 5 to 10
Won 16 more games
offensive rating jumped 4 whole points

Those changes to the offensive system directly resulted in an elite offense and elite offense directly results in wins.

[Lunartic]

Lunartic - can you name a good x's and o's coach who has been unsuccessful?

From following along on the thread you seem to equate a winning coach with being a good x's and o's coach and placing a lot of value on that.

Whereas I, and others, seem to think the correlation between winning and the head coach being good at x's and o's to be spurious, and that the winning happened because the rosters were good.

It's like the famous example of children at schools with music programs have better grades. It wasn't the music classes, it was the fact that schools with music programs tend to come from higher social/economic areas.

You see a good team and seem to think - there's a good x's and o's coach

I see a good team and think - that roster is very talented.

Your examples of "Good coaches" all happen to be coaches who win.

Do you have examples of good coaches who don't win?

No, I see a team with good offensive schemes and are disciplined on defense and I think "okay either they have a player-coach Lebron type player or they probably have a good coach"

There will always be teams with good or even great coaches that don't win. Just like there are teams with bad/average coaches that win it all.

Coaching isn't everything but it's much more than "lol just hire some dude that the players like"

They aren't interchangeable.

I played in basketball in HS and have about 4 months assistant coaching experience at the HS level and I actually do understand some of what I see X/Os wise.

[dougthonus]

Jackson chose to implement it and used it on 2 separate teams. Doesn't matter who created the PNR, if you use it to win titles, you own it.

Sure, but you are asking about his tactical acumen, he didn't come up with it, he wasn't the technical master of it. His assistant was, and he brought Tex Winter to the Lakers with him to do it there too. You are rewriting history if you think Jackson was known as a guy who was a tactical savant. He was called the Zenmaster because his primary ability was keeping the players together. His staff was known for handling the tactics. Again, I'm sure Jackson on his own was a very good, smart tactical, but it was not known as some elite ability he had.

That goes both ways, my friend. I acknowledged that it's going to be subjective considering we aren't privy to the lockrooms or the sidelines where coaching decisions are made. It's all eye-test and that goes for both of us. The only metric we can use is wins/player commentary and obvious screw-ups/successes in game.

Similarly, your determination that Lue is the only good tactician of the group is determined by the same subjective criteria and thus isn't more valid than my opinion. I wouldn't dare to suggest you're making it it up to fit a narrative and that's entirely unfair by you.

FWIW, I'm not saying it's more valid. I'm stating my opinion of how I view the media treating them. My opinion is basketball tactics are largely not differentiated amongst the head coaches in the NBA. I don't think anyone sees a team doing something and goes "wow, I have never seen anything like that before". Most of the strategy is driven by lineups, players on the teams, matchups etc.. That's why even though there is no salary cap, teams don't pay 50M for a head coach. If a super elite head coach could drive wins as much as LeBron James (as an example), then they would.

So we agree there are levels to coaching and you just happen to think Billy is at a reasonably high level. I don't. My arguement is less that Billy is bad but rather the Bulls shouldn't lock themselves into long term contracts/extensions with coaches without doing their homework and testing the market for an improvement.

I don't think there are very big gaps in levels of coaching at this level. There is a certain amount you gain with experience of course, and also it is a big factor in how much your team believes in you, and probably at some point, people become less flexible and the game may begin to pass them by, etc, but coaches are primarily commodities in the NBA IMO.

I think it's more about avoiding guys that simply don't belong (Jim Boylen's of the world), guys that aren't very adaptable to different situations and need to run their explicit system but don't have the personnel (not really sure of a good example), and ensuring your guy has the full belief of the players and front office and is on the same page with what everyone wants.

For me, I would guess Donovan is way more likely to check all those boxes than any other person we could hire. If you just think Donovan is really bad, then I can understand where you're coming from. I don't think that (obviously).

[Lunartic]

Sure, but you are asking about his tactical acumen, he didn't come up with it, he wasn't the technical master of it. His assistant was, and he brought Tex Winter to the Lakers with him to do it there too. You are rewriting history if you think Jackson was known as a guy who was a tactical savant. He was called the Zenmaster because his primary ability was keeping the players together. His staff was known for handling the tactics. Again, I'm sure Jackson on his own was a very good, smart tactical, but it was not known as some elite ability he had.

Phil Jackson was a good to great tactical coach and ran smart lineups. He would be a great coach on team with stable personalities that didn't need his yoga-zen-nirvana attitude. We seemingly agree if you think he was a very good tactical coach. It's not either/or.

FWIW, I'm not saying it's more valid. I'm stating my opinion of how I view the media treating them. My opinion is basketball tactics are largely not differentiated amongst the head coaches in the NBA. I don't think anyone sees a team doing something and goes "wow, I have never seen anything like that before". Most of the strategy is driven by lineups, players on the teams, matchups etc.. That's why even though there is no salary cap, teams don't pay 50M for a head coach. If a super elite head coach could drive wins as much as LeBron James (as an example), then they would.

Perhaps you're not familiar with my actual view here. I don't think a coach will be as valuable as a star player. I don't think that we need to exaggerate the impact of a coach in order prove that the coach is impactful for a team.

A coach doesn't need to make other teams go "wow i have never seen anything like that before"

How about just sensible rotations, timely adjustments during games and using challenges intelligently? Not all coaches do those things. Watch one playoff series and you'll quickly see who the better coaches are. It's commonly repeatedly that adjustments during a series are what decides the series. Finals OKC vs IND, Carlisle was clearly out-coaching OKC, it was apparent to most Realgmers and even the commentary team, they still lost because talent still trumps coaching but good coaching can even the gap.

As far as coaches getting paid similarly to a superstar - obviously that's not what anyone is arguing. However, some coaches are paid significantly more than others, there is clearly a hierarchy in the minds of FO's and owners. The whole "oh theyre all fairly equal on the court" arguement doesn't really hold water when it comes to the actual team's opinions and appears to be a minority opinion even on here. I'm certain if I make a "top-10 coaches in the NBA" poll on the general board, there will be some very learned posters providing hierarchical lists.

I don't think there are very big gaps in levels of coaching at this level. There is a certain amount you gain with experience of course, and also it is a big factor in how much your team believes in you, and probably at some point, people become less flexible and the game may begin to pass them by, etc, but coaches are primarily commodities in the NBA IMO.

Mark Jackson to Steve Kerr. Huge demonstrable gap.

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/enterpriseWarriors/how-steve-kerr-revolutionized-golden-state-warriors-offense-charcuterie-board

I think it's more about avoiding guys that simply don't belong (Jim Boylen's of the world), guys that aren't very adaptable to different situations and need to run their explicit system but don't have the personnel (not really sure of a good example), and ensuring your guy has the full belief of the players and front office and is on the same page with what everyone wants.

For me, I would guess Donovan is way more likely to check all those boxes than any other person we could hire. If you just think Donovan is really bad, then I can understand where you're coming from. I don't think that (obviously).

I think Billy is mediocre and he doesn't over-perform nor is he particularly good with game management. I think he's fine to keep on the roster as long as the Bulls keep looking to improve. Locking up mediocrity with the believe that all coaches are generally the same anyway - why not get a cheaper coach? Save some money so we don't have to sell 2nd rounders.

[dougthonus]

Perhaps you're not familiar with my actual view here. I don't think a coach will be as valuable as a star player. I don't think that we need to exaggerate the impact of a coach in order prove that the coach is impactful for a team.

I agree, the primary reason they have impact is to get buy-in and get everyone to row in the same direction and do the same thing and sacrifice for the team. That's the #1 impact a coach can have, because without that you have nothing. This is more difficult than it seems when all the people you want buy-in from make 10x as much as you and really have all the power.

How about just sensible rotations, timely adjustments during games and using challenges intelligently? Not all coaches do those things.

Which is the #1 thing fans grade coaches on, and often the least sensible thing, because it is generally hindsight based "well this didn't work, if he did this other thing it would have worked" and only evaluating the times that failed rather than the times it was successful.

Watch one playoff series and you'll quickly see who the better coaches are. It's commonly repeatedly that adjustments during a series are what decides the series. Finals OKC vs IND, Carlisle was clearly out-coaching OKC, it was apparent to most Realgmers and even the commentary team, they still lost because talent still trumps coaching but good coaching can even the gap.

As far as coaches getting paid similarly to a superstar - obviously that's not what anyone is arguing. However, some coaches are paid significantly more than others, there is clearly a hierarchy in the minds of FO's and owners.

Sure, and based on payment gap of coaches, they maybe look at the gap between the best and worst coach as the gap between the 6th best and 8th best guy on a typical team, which again, makes them more or less commodities. I'm not saying they are all exactly the same, I'm saying the being a good NBA coach is more of a threshold skill than a scalable skill. If you meet requirements XYZ then being better has minimal benefit vs a player where increase in skills always scales to greater team impact.

The whole "oh theyre all fairly equal on the court" arguement doesn't really hold water when it comes to the actual team's opinions and appears to be a minority opinion even on here. I'm certain if I make a "top-10 coaches in the NBA" poll on the general board, there will be some very learned posters providing hierarchical lists.

If you were to do this poll every year, and then look at the results from 10 years ago and say "were those guys really great coaches", the answer would likely be no for a huge amount of them. There was a stretch where the coach of the year was fired the next year after they won the award like 4-5 times in close proximity.

Which is evidence that while people have lots of opinions on coaches and even think similarly about them, those opinions don't end up being durable, because either people have a hard time differentiating coaching impact from the other factors or perhaps simply that a coach is often good in a moment with a particular group and situation and often his ability isn't fully transferrable to different situations (or perhaps some other reason I've not named, but the reality

In other words, whatever opinion states, a historical view of objective reality backs my view based on how coaches success travels with them as well as payments.

Mark Jackson to Steve Kerr. Huge demonstrable gap.

I agree, but I think Mark Jackson is a coach that didn't meet the threshold for NBA caliber coach. I think he's in the Jim Boylen camp.

I think Billy is mediocre and he doesn't over-perform nor is he particularly good with game management. I think he's fine to keep on the roster as long as the Bulls keep looking to improve. Locking up mediocrity with the believe that all coaches are generally the same anyway - why not get a cheaper coach? Save some money so we don't have to sell 2nd rounders.

[/quote]

I didn't say everyone is the same. I'd say once you have a "good" coach, they're all the same. If you go with the cheap coach that is unproven then you have a 60% chance of getting a Boylen type coach that sinks you. This year there are other guys that look like good coaches available like Malone / Jenkins / Budenholzer, but they also probably won't be cheaper or better than Donovan, and if Donovan already has all the relationships you want, not much incentive to move.

That said, if we had fired Donovan and brought ink Jenkins, I wouldn't say "wow that was awful", I'd think we're probably in about the same spot.

[League Circles]

IMO tactical acumen isn't primarily about creativity or job role. It's just about making decisions in terms of play style, plays, and rotations that are best suited to help your specific players beat specific opponents. To me, delegating that to someone who does it well reflects just as positively as the head coach doing it primarily himself.

[Ice Man]

IMO tactical acumen isn't primarily about creativity or job role. It's just about making decisions in terms of play style, plays, and rotations that are best suited to help your specific players beat specific opponents. To me, delegating that to someone who does it well reflects just as positively as the head coach doing it primarily himself.

Yep. For me, Phil's greatest achievement was not only to give Tex and Johnny the reins, but to permit them to receive the glory for it, too. Very few leaders -- coaches, CEOs, and most certainly Presidents (!) -- are willing to give away credit like that. But it's the best way to manage -- to get great people to work for you, give them freedom, and motivate them with recognition.

An expecially impressive achieverment given that Phil himself strikes me as an egomaniac. Very self satisfied and smug. But he did what he had to do to give his teams their best possible chances.

[sco]

IMO tactical acumen isn't primarily about creativity or job role. It's just about making decisions in terms of play style, plays, and rotations that are best suited to help your specific players beat specific opponents. To me, delegating that to someone who does it well reflects just as positively as the head coach doing it primarily himself.

Yep. For me, Phil's greatest achievement was not only to give Tex and Johnny the reins, but to permit them to receive the glory for it, too. Very few leaders -- coaches, CEOs, and most certainly Presidents (!) -- are willing to give away credit like that. But it's the best way to manage -- to get great people to work for you, give them freedom, and motivate them with recognition.

An expecially impressive achieverment given that Phil himself strikes me as an egomaniac. Very self satisfied and smug. But he did what he had to do to give his teams their best possible chances.

It was certainly Phil's decision to use/keep the triangle...so credit there.

Phil's biggest strength was getting vets to understand and play their roles. I think Billy has had some success there. In some ways Billy has had it harder here because we've been so mediocre and vets know that. Now has he gotten guys like Demar or Vuc to play good defense, obviously not, but I did see him make progress with Giddey in that regard.

[Lunartic]

I agree, the primary reason they have impact is to get buy-in and get everyone to row in the same direction and do the same thing and sacrifice for the team. That's the #1 impact a coach can have, because without that you have nothing. This is more difficult than it seems when all the people you want buy-in from make 10x as much as you and really have all the power.

Sure and "buy-in" is in part generated by actually knowing what you're doing on the court. Do you think Boylen lacked "buy-in" because he simply lacked people skills? No, he made error after error, the entire league was clowning him.

"buy in" is downstream of ability. Sure you can sell yourself ala Doc Rivers prior to the season start but it becomes very obvious, very quickly that he's not a great coach and players eventually tune him out.

Which is the #1 thing fans grade coaches on, and often the least sensible thing, because it is generally hindsight based "well this didn't work, if he did this other thing it would have worked" and only evaluating the times that failed rather than the times it was successful.

There may be some fans that are ignorant of the game and we all lack the necessary data and nuance to really evaluate players or coaches. However, that doesn't stop you or I from doing so. There some some obvious bad decisions, like resting the hot-hand player for too long and the team loses, or playing a smaller lineup and getting killed on the boards.

Sure, and based on payment gap of coaches, they maybe look at the gap between the best and worst coach as the gap between the 6th best and 8th best guy on a typical team, which again, makes them more or less commodities. I'm not saying they are all exactly the same, I'm saying the being a good NBA coach is more of a threshold skill than a scalable skill. If you meet requirements XYZ then being better has minimal benefit vs a player where increase in skills always scales to greater team impact.

I agree, there's an upward cap on coaching's ability to impact the game. That was never in dispute. I'm saying that upward cap isn't reached by all average coaches and clearly teams agree with me which is why some coaches are paid way more than other "average threshold" coaches. It's why prestigious assitant coaches are moved around and sought after.

If you were to do this poll every year, and then look at the results from 10 years ago and say "were those guys really great coaches", the answer would likely be no for a huge amount of them. There was a stretch where the coach of the year was fired the next year after they won the award like 4-5 times in close proximity.

Same applies If I did a poll about who are the top-10 SGs in the NBA. History is the final judge. That doesn't mean we just pretend there's an insignificant difference between the top 15 coaches in the NBA.

Which is evidence that while people have lots of opinions on coaches and even think similarly about them, those opinions don't end up being durable, because either people have a hard time differentiating coaching impact from the other factors or perhaps simply that a coach is often good in a moment with a particular group and situation and often his ability isn't fully transferrable to different situations (or perhaps some other reason I've not named, but the reality

A fan's lack of knowledge concerning coaching doesn't prove there's a lack of differentiation in coaching.

Mark Jackson to Steve Kerr. Huge demonstrable gap.

I agree, but I think Mark Jackson is a coach that didn't meet the threshold for NBA caliber coach. I think he's in the Jim Boylen camp.

If that's your opinion, that's fine. That's not the general opinion of most fans.

He is credited for developing Klay/Curry and their team wins jumped from 34% to 57% to 62% before he was fired. They won 51 games his final year.
Boylen has nowhere near that kind of record, winning 17 and 22 games , going a combined 39–84 over almost 2 years. He didn't slowly improve the team or develop players, he was a joke and laughingstock. Mark Jackson actually coached good teams and was the precursor to Kerr taking over.

Kerr took the team to the next level, not with his great personality but with his actual offensive system he implemented. It's the clearest example of a coaching change from average to good and directly refutes the idea that coaching after a certain level doesn't matter.

I didn't say everyone is the same. I'd say once you have a "good" coach, they're all the same. If you go with the cheap coach that is unproven then you have a 60% chance of getting a Boylen type coach that sinks you. This year there are other guys that look like good coaches available like Malone / Jenkins / Budenholzer, but they also probably won't be cheaper or better than Donovan, and if Donovan already has all the relationships you want, not much incentive to move.
That said, if we had fired Donovan and brought ink Jenkins, I wouldn't say "wow that was awful", I'd think we're probably in about the same spot.

It's perfectly fine if you believe Billy is better than the current FA coaches, that's reasonable. I just draw issue with the argument that an average coach is the same as an elite coach.

That somehow Billy is the same as Carlisle or Spo or Pop and it's negligible when the entire league, players, FOs, and fanbase would immediately jettison Billy or Malone or Jenkins or Nurse for a Spo/Pop level coach.