Why do teams keep recycling coaches?

[T-Mac for MVP]

If a coach gets fired obviously there is an issue there. A coach doesn't suddenly get better because he got fired. When a different team picks up a fired coach isn't that team saying "well you weren't good enough for your previous team but you are good enough for us" ?

[sp6r=underrated]

If a coach gets fired obviously there is an issue there. A coach doesn't suddenly get better because he got fired. When a different team picks up a fired coach isn't that team saying "well you weren't good enough for your previous team but you are good enough for us" ?

Not necessarily, certain coaches are very good for short stretches but eventually lose a team's ear. Larry Brown's the famous example. Also coaches do improve sometimes, in the NFL Belicek is a great example of a guy who learned from his mistakes.

[Schad]

Sam Vincent, Kevin O'Neill, Jim Boylan, Larry Krystkowiak, and many others. At least with a re-tread, Gms have some idea what they are getting.

[Abyss Impact]

Because they have experience to rebuild a team.

[Harry Palmer]

I think it's like this:

VERY few coaches give you everything, and almost as few give you nothing, or they're gone fairly quick. Most have obvious strengths and weaknesses. They overemphasize D and it costs the O, or vice versa, or they are great at motivation but suck at the X's and O's, or whatever.

You have your top handful who can get most of it right, and then the stable of mediocre to good coaches who fall into the give you/cost you category.

And then you have the 'do almost nothing right or are sooooo terrible at some aspects as to make the rest irrelevant' category.

You almost never get a shot at the top guys, so you are left with the others, or a new guy. A new guy probably has a greater chance to become a top guy than a retread...but he has a much, much greater chance to turn out to belong to the lowest rung, and crap out on you.

So teams choose the sure thing ok to the 10% great, 40% ok, 50% sucks gamble most of the time....lower the ceiling but raise the floor kind of thing. In general sports management teams are just as conservative as management teams in any business.

Also, known coaches have some currency with the players that newbies don't.

[Old School]

If a coach gets fired obviously there is an issue there. A coach doesn't suddenly get better because he got fired. When a different team picks up a fired coach isn't that team saying "well you weren't good enough for your previous team but you are good enough for us" ?

The issue, as you call it, is usually that the GM didn't draft/sign good players who fit the coaches system.

Most coaches are too dumb or stubborn to adjust their system to their talent.

[Chris435]

so that they can avoid pulling a Michael Jordan

[loserX]

Earth Day?

[colombianbrew]

There was an article some time back, I think it was on RealGM about this very issue. The interesting thing is that of the active coaches who have won a title, they all won their first within five years of starting I think (may have even been three). So why do guys like Skiles keep getting more jobs? Good question.

[caborn]

Because well...most of them have had some success at some point. Hopefully Musselman will not get a job any time soon...

[Rooster]

Also, keep in mind that NBA-calibre coaches are not exactly the easiest guys to find. Only so many people can actually do the job. A guy who's proven in that regard is valuable.

I agree with the idea that certain coaches have their own strengths and weaknesses, and I think that can go one step further. Teams will hire based on needs that might be completely different from the needs of the team that fired the coach.

colombianbrew, not that many active coaches have won titles regardless. Besides, there's always a Larry Brown type out there.

[tanat-0s]

because college coaches don't transfer great in the NBA (except Larry Brown) and european coaches are unknown commodity.