How many games would we win if Tom Thibodeau was our coach?

[payitforward]

I should mention that it's probably a waste of time to argue this point w/ Hands -- people with crackpot ideas don't usually change their minds in the face of data and logic -- but I will ask this question, which I've asked before and gotten no response, and this time I'll ask Hands specifically to take this on:

Hands, tell me, is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or is he a bad coach?

Was he a bad coach in '06-07, when he went 24-58? And then the next year when he went 66-16 and won a title (with a roster that had only 2 meaningful changes), what happened? Did he become a better coach?

What do you say, Hands? It's a pretty simple question: is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or not?

[dckingsfan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Thibodeau's probably worth an extra win or two over the course of a season. He's not worth 8-10. Coaches can make a difference, but not that big a difference.

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

In 2009/10, the Bulls went 41-41 with Del Negro as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (2nd year), Deng, Noah (for 64 games), Brad Miller, Gibson, Hinrich, Brad Miller, and Salmons.

In 2010/11, the Bulls went 62-20 with Thibodeau as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (3rd year), Deng, Noah (for 48 games), Boozer, Gibson, Brewer, Korver.

Basically the same team except with Boozer replacing Miller, and much less of Noah, and they improve to 62 wins. And don't anybody tell me that Boozer is worth 21 wins. He had an ORtg of just 105 and is a notoriously poor defender.

http://m.bkref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXbXXboozeca01.html&t=3

Perhaps Boozer's DRtg of 99 had something to do with Thibs guiding the Bulls to 62 wins.

It's clear that he was not a good defender as utilized in other systems, but Boozer puts up strong defensive numbers paired with Noah.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[nate33]

On average, your right, coaches don't make much of a difference. In this case, I'd strongly disagree that the difference b/w Thibodeau & Wittman is only one extra win. I don't think it's humanly possible for me to disagree anymore than I do right now with that analysis. I'd consider Witt in the lower echelon, towards the very bottom of his profession. I'd consider Thibodeau in the very upper ranks of his fellow coaches. There's a significant gap between the two. Where as Wittman may be inadequate enough cost his teams two or three wins over the year, I'm thinking Thibodeau is good for another 4-5 wins at least. So maybe not 10 games difference but I suspect it's much closer to 10 than to only 1.

In 2009/10, the Bulls went 41-41 with Del Negro as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (2nd year), Deng, Noah (for 64 games), Brad Miller, Gibson, Hinrich, Brad Miller, and Salmons.

In 2010/11, the Bulls went 62-20 with Thibodeau as coach. The top 7 rotation consisted of: Rose (3rd year), Deng, Noah (for 48 games), Boozer, Gibson, Brewer, Korver.

Basically the same team except with Boozer replacing Miller, and much less of Noah, and they improve to 62 wins. And don't anybody tell me that Boozer is worth 21 wins. He had an ORtg of just 105 and is a notoriously poor defender.

http://m.bkref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXbXXboozeca01.html&t=3

Perhaps Boozer's DRtg of 99 had something to do with Thibs guiding the Bulls to 62 wins.

It's clear that he was not a good defender as utilized in other systems, but Boozer puts up strong defensive numbers paired with Noah.


Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

As far as I'm concerned, that only bolsters my point. Boozer had a career DRtg of 105 before he played for Thibbs. Under Thibbs, he drops to 99.

(As an aside, I don't consider DRtg to be all that useful of a stat. It's basically a measurement of defensive boards plus team defense.)

[pancakes3]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

[ptptpt]

I should mention that it's probably a waste of time to argue this point w/ Hands -- people with crackpot ideas don't usually change their minds in the face of data and logic -- but I will ask this question, which I've asked before and gotten no response, and this time I'll ask Hands specifically to take this on:

Hands, tell me, is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or is he a bad coach?

Was he a bad coach in '06-07, when he went 24-58? And then the next year when he went 66-16 and won a title (with a roster that had only 2 meaningful changes), what happened? Did he become a better coach?

What do you say, Hands? It's a pretty simple question: is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or not?

I know you are talking to Hands, but I say Doc is a good coach in the mold of Lenny Wilkins. That doesn't necessarily mean great but definitely wouldn't put him in the bad coach category.

He has a similar win percentage (Doc .564, Lenny .536), both have one championship and so far his record in the postseason is a bit better (Doc .529, Lenny .449). He's got playoff teams now with 3 different franchises.

I also remember those years when Boston was bad. Everybody was either young or too old to care though Doc at that time was also questionable. His rotations sucked and they played horrible defense and nobody outside of Paul Pierce (and later Al Jeff) could score. I can't excuse his performance when he has had a bit less to work with but when he's had talent he's done a pretty good job. He took Orlando to the playoffs with a budding T-mac and Mike Miller and young Drew Gooden.

But yeah that is my view of Doc. A good coach but not a great coach. He'll get you far but there has to be a lot of good talent in place.

[hands11]

Interesting that Doc's name came up because I watched the LAC vs DEN game yesterday and they were talking about what effects he has had on that team.

One thing he did was get with D Jordan to start the year and told him, here is what we need from you to become a better team and challenge for a title. I am going to change your role on the team. We aren't going to run a single play for you offensively. We need you to grab every rebound on the offensive and defensive side and become the defensive anchor to the team. You have the talent to not only be defensive player of the year. Not just this year, but for multiple years. We need you to be our Bill Russell.

D Jordan is leading the league this year in RPG at 13.8 and 3rd in blocks. Last year he wasn't top 5 in either.

He also is working with CP3, one of it not the best PG in the league. What is working with him on ? How the be a leader on a winning team.

He is also working the B Griffin on similar things.

Doc inherited a team with a lot of talent that didn't play like a title team. They were more focused on me than we. More focused on lob city and the show, then grunting it out.

Being a good coach entails a lot of different things. Part instructor. Part psychologist. Part conductor. Well Doc had the pull and skills to deal with 3 big name stars to get them to adjust their games for the greater good of the team. He also did that in Boston.

Before this year, I had no faith in CP3 to lead a team to a title. We will see if they have gotten it worked out enough in one year to do it but I wouldn't bet against LAC this year. The West is a tough conference so its hard to project who will make it out, but I won't be surprised at all if we see LAL in the conference series and maybe even going to the title series.

I wasn't a believer in the LAC last year. I am this year. And the reason why is D River impact on the team as Head Coach.

[dckingsfan]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

he he he... it is amazing how good a coach looks when he has depth on a bench.

[nate33]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

C'mon. Asik played 900 minutes and posted a PER of 11.8. He played fewer minutes than CJ Watson, Keith Bogans and a 37-year-old Kurt Thomas. And Noah missed 36 games. That team was not significantly better than the 2010 team. Maybe they had 4 or 5 wins based on extra talent, but not 22.

The 2012 team also won at a 62-win pace with Rose playing only half the season, Korver missing all but 7 games, and Deng missing 20% of the season.

[Dat2U]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

C'mon. Asik played 900 minutes and posted a PER of 11.8. He played fewer minutes than CJ Watson, Keith Bogans and a 37-year-old Kurt Thomas. And Noah missed 36 games. That team was not significantly better than the 2010 team. Maybe they had 4 or 5 wins based on extra talent, but not 22.

The 2012 team also won at a 62-win pace with Rose playing only half the season, Korver missing all but 7 games, and Deng missing 20% of the season.

Yep, it should be obvious that some coaches. Maybe even only a few, can get more done with less. Thibodeau is definitely in that category and based on this season, Jeff Hornacek is one as well.

[pancakes3]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

C'mon. Asik played 900 minutes and posted a PER of 11.8. He played fewer minutes than CJ Watson, Keith Bogans and a 37-year-old Kurt Thomas. And Noah missed 36 games. That team was not significantly better than the 2010 team. Maybe they had 4 or 5 wins based on extra talent, but not 22.

I would say that acquiring Boozer and the impact it had on a) increased scoring and b) having a super-sub in Gibson counted for 4-5 wins alone. Derrick Rose stepping his game up would be worth another 4-5 games. That'd leave Thibs with claiming the lion's share of the credit but I still think it's disingenuous to downplay the talent just to pad your point.

The 2012 team also won at a 62-win pace with Rose playing only half the season, Korver missing all but 7 games, and Deng missing 20% of the season.

If we're going to get ticky-tack, Rose played 2/3 of the season, Korver played the full season but only *started* 7 games, and Deng's injury was mitigated a bit as it was early in the season and was back in time for their playoff push sans Rose.

[nate33]

If we're going to get ticky-tack, Rose played 2/3 of the season, Korver played the full season but only *started* 7 games, and Deng's injury was mitigated a bit as it was early in the season and was back in time for their playoff push sans Rose.

Sorry about the Korver part. I read that wrong.

But Rose playing 39 of 66 games is about halfway between "half" the season and "2/3" the season. It was 59% of the season to be exact.

I still say that team isn't much better than the 2010 team. Both teams feature Deng, Noah, Rose and Gibson. The only real difference is that the Thibs teams had Korver and Boozer instead of Hinrich and Miller. That's surely an upgrade, but the Thibs teams also had to deal with Noah missing 40% of 2011, and Rose missing 40% of 2012. All told, I say that's pretty much a wash.

Hell, the current Thibs team is going to win 49 games win no Rose, no Korver, Boozer 4 years older, and Deng missing 70% of the games! That's 8 games better than what Del Negro did with Rose and Deng completely healthy!

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

C'mon. Asik played 900 minutes and posted a PER of 11.8. He played fewer minutes than CJ Watson, Keith Bogans and a 37-year-old Kurt Thomas. And Noah missed 36 games. That team was not significantly better than the 2010 team. Maybe they had 4 or 5 wins based on extra talent, but not 22.

The 2012 team also won at a 62-win pace with Rose playing only half the season, Korver missing all but 7 games, and Deng missing 20% of the season.

Yep, it should be obvious that some coaches. Maybe even only a few, can get more done with less. Thibodeau is definitely in that category and based on this season, Jeff Hornacek is one as well.

I agree that Hornacek did a good job, but Phoenix picked a bad time to drop 4 straight. I think Bledsoe returning might have been for the worse.

Separate thought on coaches: Looking at both +/- net points and team expected wins might form a basis to evaluate whether a coach has done well. Phoenix IMO outperformed Memphis in all but wins and losses. How Joerger has Memphis at 49 or 50 wins, with such a low net positive is pretty remarkable.

After Popovich, I think Joerger is a strong COTY candidate.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[FAH1223]

After Popovich, I think Joerger is a strong COTY candidate.

CCJ, if Memphis wins at home tonight vs. Dallas and gets the 7th seed, do you think Joerger will outcoach Brooks and get Memphis to eliminate OKC for the 2nd straight year?

[Kanyewest]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

Yup, unless Thibs taught Rose how to shoot. I also think they got better by trading Hinrich since that backcourt combination didn't really work. Thibs did a good job but I agree he had a bit more to work with.

[gtn130]

Hands, tell me, is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or is he a bad coach?

Was he a bad coach in '06-07, when he went 24-58? And then the next year when he went 66-16 and won a title (with a roster that had only 2 meaningful changes), what happened? Did he become a better coach?

What do you say, Hands? It's a pretty simple question: is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or not?

So "only two meaningful changes" is a fairly odd way of characterizing the additions of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. I'm pretty sure every single basketball roster in the history mankind would improve dramatically with the addition of TWO hall of fame players.

What's funny though is that you elected to use Doc Rivers as your example -- Doc is someone who has improved MASSIVELY as a coach since he first started. To intimate that coaches can't improve substantially over their careers is flat out incorrect.

Also, I think it's important to point out that no one is claiming a great coach can take a D-League roster and make them an NBA contender, or a terrible coach would take the Miami Heat and make them a 20 win team. Clearly there are limitations to the impact a coach can have, but that doesn't mean a good or bad coach can't have a HUGE impact. If you think the Heat would have won a single title with an inferior coach, you're wrong. If you think the Spurs would have won anything at this point without Pop, you're wrong. If you think the LA Clippers were close to as good last year with VDN as they are today with Doc, you're also wrong.

[gtn130]

I agree that Hornacek did a good job, but Phoenix picked a bad time to drop 4 straight. I think Bledsoe returning might have been for the worse.

Separate thought on coaches: Looking at both +/- net points and team expected wins might form a basis to evaluate whether a coach has done well. Phoenix IMO outperformed Memphis in all but wins and losses. How Joerger has Memphis at 49 or 50 wins, with such a low net positive is pretty remarkable.

After Popovich, I think Joerger is a strong COTY candidate.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Uh, you know Memphis is dead last in pace right? Obviously a team that plays extremely slowly is going to wind up in a bunch of close games, thus accounting for their marginal +/-. Joerger actually tried to do the opposite early on and have his team run, which failed miserably. It wasn't until Joerger finally adopted the style Memphis is accustomed to that they got back on track.

If anything, Joerger made things harder for Memphis.

[hands11]

Hands, tell me, is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or is he a bad coach?

Was he a bad coach in '06-07, when he went 24-58? And then the next year when he went 66-16 and won a title (with a roster that had only 2 meaningful changes), what happened? Did he become a better coach?

What do you say, Hands? It's a pretty simple question: is Doc Rivers a good coach? Or not?

So "only two meaningful changes" is a fairly odd way of characterizing the additions of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. I'm pretty sure every single basketball roster in the history mankind would improve dramatically with the addition of TWO hall of fame players.

What's funny though is that you elected to use Doc Rivers as your example -- Doc is someone who has improved MASSIVELY as a coach since he first started. To intimate that coaches can't improve substantially over their careers is flat out incorrect.

Also, I think it's important to point out that no one is claiming a great coach can take a D-League roster and make them an NBA contender, or a terrible coach would take the Miami Heat and make them a 20 win team. Clearly there are limitations to the impact a coach can have, but that doesn't mean a good or bad coach can't have a HUGE impact. If you think the Heat would have won a single title with an inferior coach, you're wrong. If you think the Spurs would have won anything at this point without Pop, you're wrong. If you think the LA Clippers were close to as good last year with VDN as they are today with Doc, you're also wrong.

Great summary.

[gtn130]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

This would hold more weight if Thibs hadn't been killing it the past few seasons without Rose.

[Kanyewest]

Thibs had an impact, no doubt, but it's disingenuous to say that the 2010 Bulls and the 2011 Bulls were "basically the same team". Boozer was in at PF instead of Taj Gibson, Asik was a much better backup C than Brad Miller, and the obvious: Derrick Rose went from "all star" to "MVP".

This would hold more weight if Thibs hadn't been killing it the past few seasons without Rose.

It looks like Thibs does a great job with point guards whether it be DJ Augustine, Nate Robinson, and even Kirk Hinrich. Thibs has made those guys look better than a 2010 Rose. I wonder how much has to do with solid coaching by Thibs or simply that 2010 Rose really wasn't that good, a 27% 3 point shooter.