Listen Up Chicago – NBA Coaches Don’t Matter Very Much
By JL on Jun 12, 2008 in Chicago Bulls
Say what you will about Chicago Bulls GM John Paxson and his recent coaching hire, but I think ol’ Johnny got it right. Why pay top dollar when coaches don’t matter very much anyways?
While one could argue there are a few top notch coaches that could make ANY NBA team good, like Red Auerbach, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Jerry Sloan, and Gregg Popovich, it’s a tough make your argument stick. After all, each of those men enjoyed the services of elite players like Bill Russel, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Tim Duncan (along with a slew of other greats) during their most successful seasons. It’s true that no one wins without talent, but it’s hard to prove that coaches really make much of a difference.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that a bum off the street could coach an NBA team with decent success. Far from it. You still need to have the right experience, the right background, etc. All I’m saying is that a guy like Vinny Del Negro has just as good of a chance of leading the Bulls as does Mike D’Antoni because coaches are a pretty small part of the picture. Here’s why:
1) Coaches can’t “motivate” anyone. There’s a common misconception in the business world that a good manager can motivate his or her employees. The same goes for any coach in any sport. If your employees (or players) aren’t motivated to perform, there’s absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Successful people all share one trait: A drive that comes from within. Neither Mike D’Antoni, Phil Jackson, or Tony Robbins has figured out how to make people REALLY care.
2) Coaches can’t really change playing time. One of the great myths of the basketball business is that players have to work for playing time. While it is true that a lot of role players have to work very hard to get decent run, a coach rarely has the ability to bench whoever he wants. Top talents MUST be played – the economics of the NBA demand that top players spend lots of time on the court. Most NBA fans don’t enjoy coming out to see role players execute crisp offense and play stifling defense. Fans come out to see Mr. Wonderful make some outrageous play. Even if Mr. Wonderful hurts his team by being selfish and playing no defense, his minutes will not be effected.
3) The NBA is dominated by talent. Teams without big-time talent can achieve decent results (see the ‘05-06′ Chicago Bulls), but ultimately success in the league is determined by the game’s superstars. Unless you’re fortunate enough to enjoy a roster full of almost super-stars (like the Pistons), you’re going to struggle to make it past the first round of the playoffs without majorly talented players, regardless of your coach. Put another way, ANY lesser-known coach (Mike Brown) will enjoy success if he has a top notch player (like Lebron James).
4) NBA coaches have no leverage. Ninety percent of NBA coaches have no power over their players ninety percent of the time. NBA players have guaranteed contracts that result in big paychecks regardless of performance. NBA players are difficult to trade. NBA player egos often exceed rational thought (see Latrell Sprewell). Add it up and you quickly realize that an NBA coach has no leverage over his players. There is a brief period of time right after a coach is hired when he has the ability to convince the team’s ownership to make a change and trade a player. The threat of a trade can be motivating, but after a year or two the coach’s influence with the ownership is usually gone.
5) Games are ultimately decided by players. Until the NBA institutes some sort of “coach deathmatch”, where each NBA team sends their coach out to battle the other team’s coach for the win, NBA coaches don’t decide the game. Granted, all things being equal, better coaching will prevail in a close game. But all things are rarely equal in the NBA.
6) Most NBA players are too immature to be ‘coached’. Let’s put our make-believe hats on and pretend that we’re 22 years old, playing in the NBA, and a multi-millionaire. We have arrived. Now, let’s also pretend that ’some old guy’ is telling us our jump shot is weak and that we don’t play enough defense. Can you imagine yourself responding to that coaching positively? While I think there are some players who have enough maturity and humility to accept coaching, I think that is the exception rather than the rule.
So where does that leave us? I would contend NBA coaches don’t really matter. Unless they have a top-notch championship pedigree (Riley and Jackson), complete financial control (Auerbach), and/or the total confidence of ownership (Popovich and Sloan), NBA players aren’t likely to pay much attention. I would argue that the team management’s commitment to a coach is equally as important as a coach’s knowledge and skill. At least a coach with the owner’s backing can trade players and influence contracts.
12 Comment(s)
By Jeff V on Jun 13, 2008 | Reply
“Top talents MUST be played – the economics of the NBA demand that top players spend lots of time on the court. ”
Have you watched the Knicks lately?
By admin on Jun 13, 2008 | Reply
The Knicks don’t have much in the way of “top talent.” Marbury was the top dog, but he ruined his image. Following Steph, you’ve got one Zach Randolph (not a fan favorite), a couple of SGs (Q-Rich and Crawford) that most fans don’t care too much about, and then it gets significantly worse from their. Don’t get me wrong – Balkman, Robinson, and Lee are all popular and worth watching. They’re just not considered top talent.
By Gerry V on Jun 13, 2008 | Reply
you’re out of your mind ! coaches establish alot of what goes on..some of your takes left me howling with humor…GV
By admin on Jun 13, 2008 | Reply
Coming from a guy that loves Byron Scott, that really doesn’t surprise me. Byron Scott is about as over-rated as they come.
By jauxmama on Aug 2, 2008 | Reply
Your take on coaches misses some very important points:
1. You only refer to what coaches do during the game and omit all the coaching AND teaching that goes on in practice. This is probably why you left out Larry Brown from your list of successful coaches who win without tons of talent.
2. You ignore the role that coaches play in bringing in players who compliment their systems and who can add skills needed on any particular team.
3. There was a coaches “deathmatch” this year in the Finals where Doc Rivers beat the crap out of Phil Jackson by motivating his players to play defense and by the smartest substitution rotation seen in decades. He got the maximum mileage out of every role player on the squad and the results were a Ring.
By PLBT on Aug 4, 2008 | Reply
Doc Rivers had Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen on his team, for some reason I feel like that played a MUCH larger role in that championship than coaching did.
By JL on Aug 8, 2008 | Reply
juaxmama – I like your comments – very good stuff. Thank you.
However, I’ve got to disagree. Starting with your first point, I would direct you to my assertions in points 4 and 6. Egos being what they are, most NBA players (at least the ones that can make a big difference) won’t accept any real teaching or coaching. Shaq’s free throw shooting might be the best example – here’s a guy who could have been the BEST center ever if he would have just worked on his free throws. Instead, he ignored all his coaches and just kept throwing up bricks. Granted, the role players can be coached, but they rarely impact a game the way a star player can.
Your second point is correct. I didn’t put much weight into that because most NBA coaches are victims of the GM’s choices. I’m sure they have a voice, but on most teams GMs sign players – not coaches.
The third point – seriously? Doc Rivers a good coach? This was the first year the guy ever won a playoff series. As PLBT said, KG, PP, and Jesus Shuttleworth had a lot more to do with winning than Doc. I like Doc – I admire him greatly – but great coach he isn’t. You mention great substitutions, but I watched Doc struggle with playing Cassell and Rondo. He didn’t know when to pull either one of them.
By jauxmama on Aug 23, 2008 | Reply
Points 4 & 6 in your “Assertions” contain just enough truth to lull you into thinking that you’ve got it nailed, but not enough truth to make them relevant.
#4. coaches who have winning records exert powerful leverage over players at the professional level since they have track records of success that all players want to tap into. Younger coaches often have had successful playing careers and carry with them reputations that demand respect from current players.
PLAYING TIME is the ultimate leverage. You don’t listen…you sit. I’m sure you’ll point to the pressure to play that management puts on a coach so that the zillion dollar player gets minutes. But, not all minutes are created equally. Meaningful minutes are what every player on a team wants. And, it’s the coach who controls the who, when and where of playing time.
#6. Basketball is a kids game. Seldom does any athlete, at any level, want to listen to someone criticize their game. It doesn’t matter if your in Junior High or playing the 2 guard for the Lakers. ALL players chafe under that kind of tutelage. The smarter ones somehow come to the realization that there just might be something they don’t know about the game and that maybe, just maybe, they might learn a trick or two from the coach.
Doc Rivers IS a good coach. all the super stars mentioned earlier had to come to a meeting of the minds about how to approach the season and the crafty blending of their skills and personalities. Doc Rivers was the facilitator of that meeting.
As far as his “struggles” with Cassell and Rondo…it was they that were doing the struggling. All he could do was try to intuitively understand when each might be ready to rise to the occasion. The results speaks volumes about his efforts.
Is he a Great Coach? Not yet. But, there can be NO doubt that he out coached Phil Jackson, who leads him in rings 9 to 1. Don’t think so? Look at the scoreboard.
By jauxmama on Aug 30, 2008 | Reply
plbt makes a point of saying how the Star players on the Celtic squad were the ones who won the series and that it had little to do with coaching.
They all played great, no question. But it was Eddie House, PJ Brown, Leon Powe and James Posey who came off the bench and drove the stake in the Lakers heart.
Here, again, is where coaching is key. Those guys, those magnificent role players, had their heads in the game because of Doc Rivers. I still say his substitution patterns were brilliant and he got the most out of the reserves.
The Superstars didn’t do that, Coach Rivers did. You can always just eat fresh produce pulled right out of a garden, but it takes a chef to bring it all together to make a meal.
The ingredients for Boston were there, but Chef Rivers created the dish. And was it tasty.
By JL on Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
juaxmama – More good points, but I still think you’re living in fantasy land!
I think we’re saying the same thing about “coaches with winning records.” Let’s do the list of current coaches: Jerry Sloan, Gregg Popovich, Phil Jackson, and Pat Riley (before he took himself off the bench) have elite winning records, and they have near-total control. Sure, guys like George Karl and Avery Johnson have winning records, but they don’t have the “elite” winning records, thus they don’t have the control.
You’ll also notice that each of those greats has the full commitment of their respective owners.
“Control” comes from the front office, not from players recognizing your authority. Note that I put “control” in quotes, as even the greats have had trouble controlling a host of players.
Avery Johnson had an excellent winning record, but he lost control of the Mavs about the time that newspapers started saying there was friction between him and Cuban. Coincidence? I think not.
Professionals (like PJ Brown and James Posey) will usually recognize the coach’s authority, but most pro NBA players aren’t recognized professionals. Non-pros, (like Eddie House) will fall into line when everyone on the team is on them to do so. House struggled in NJ right after Kidd “checked-out” – his strong performance in Boston had little to do with coaching and everything to do with peer-pressure.
Playing time (and the threat to with-hold it) CAN make players better, but you have to agree that under-achieving superstars (like Shaq, Carmelo, Starbury back-in-the-day, etc.) MUST be played. No one (the players included) is foolish enough to believe that any one of these under-achievers will benched for any length of time, regardless of the fact that it would do all of them some good. Look what happens when these guys get sideways with their coaches and playing time is effected – they request trades, get “sick” or “injured”, and they’ll even actively try to poison the team against the coach (Jason Kidd, can you hear me?).
Coaches can’t do much to superstars (unless they’re one of the chosen few mentioned above). NOTE: Even Riley couldn’t get thru to Shaq. It happens to them all at some point.
The facts are these:
NBA players are like children (just as you said).
The good children listen, but the vast majority of “good” kids don’t have the talent to dominate the game.
The “bad” children almost always have the talent to dominate the game. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be in the league.
The rarest commodity in the NBA is the superstar who is “good.” Tim Duncan, Lebron James, and Dwayne Wade are all “good” and they’ve all played in the finals.
I wish it was the way you say, I really do, but just like in normal life, often times the most talented people have some of the biggest flaws. Not to mention they’re almost impossible to manage.
By jauxmama on Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
I guess I should have stated a little more about my qualifications. I’m a long-time high school boys basketball varsity coach in Southern California. I’ve coached kids who have gone on to play in some very recognizable D1 programs.
I often see players with TONS of talent who think that they are God’s gift to the world of hoops.
No question that they have had smoke blown up their backsides since middle school. Many have had the misfortune of playing AAU where the coach is all about the shoe contracts and the chance to manage a potential star money maker.
Ego’s run rampant and they see no flaws in their game.
HOWEVER, those type of players are the not the majority. Just like in the NBA, not all ballers are created equal. Role-players abound and not all have the raging ego’s the top tier guys strut around with.
I mentioned the bench from the Celtics as an example of how important coaching was to the final result. Peer pressure from the big three cannot be discounted, but pressure to play well does not always equal improved performance. Often, it’s quite the contrary.
Here, ONCE AGAIN, the coach is key. You can’t manage all players with the same techniques. A good coach knows who to stroke and who to kick in the ass. Most players appreciate the respect they get from their coach…at any level. Your dad may piss you off sometimes, but you still try to win his affection. It’s in your DNA.
Remember, it’s a numbers game. There’s only a handful of superstars. The rest are just guys trying to make it in the league or continue their careers for as long as they can. These types are absolutely coachable.
Nobody, making a professional living in basketball, just rolls the ball out and lets the players make it up as they go along. Nobody.
Look at the effect that Byron Scott has had on his squad. He walks in the door with his rings on and everybody shuts up and pays attention.
It’s not that I disagree with your premise that inflated ego’s are tough to deal with for a coach. They’re tough, but NOT impossible. It took awhile, but Larry Brown got through to A.I.
Avery didn’t have the support of Cuban and the players sensed it. As good as Avery is, it wasn’t his signature on the paycheck. Starbury is simply trying to fill the power vacuum created by the totally inept Isaiah Thomas.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Just don’t try to tell an old coach how ineffective guys in the profession really are. He just might give you an argument.
By JL on Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
juaxmama – I want to state right now for the record that I have nothing but respect for coaches. My point is that the difference between a Vinny Del Negro and a Mike D’Antoni isn’t as pronounced as Mike D’Antoni (or the Knicks) would like us all to believe.
I think that we can both agree a coach must have the total support of ownership and team management to be successful. I would stipulate that most NBA coaches don’t have either of those things. My hometown Denver Nuggets, for example, have clearly demonstrated time and again that they don’t really stand behind their coaches 100%. Hence, the Nuggets have struggled to get out of the first round.
Your insights about HS players are interesting. I never realized the extent to which the AAU teams influence players. When you read about it (full disclosure I was never good enough to warm the bench on an AAU team) it sounds like nothing more than ultra-competitive youth ball.
Begrudgingly, I will admit that Doc River’s talents as a manager (knowing who to stroke and who to kick in the ass – as you put it so well) are probably pretty strong. It’s hard to know that for sure because we don’t have the chance to see him in action. Still, there’s something to be said about his skills considering the 180 that the Celtics took.
To me, as a fan with little real experience coaching basketball (but with a lot of experience managing in business), the problem with NBA coaching ISN’T the coaches – it’s the owners. They tube coaches faster than you can say “front office,” and the players and fans suffer accordingly.
I was in a situation once where I was never able to manage and coach my superstar salespeople effectively because my boss (the “owner” or “team president”) was too busy ingratiating himself with these people. No matter what I said, my superstars knew that they had the owners ear. Most of the time it was just a minor annoyance, but we all knew that when it came right down to it, I didn’t have the power to put them out on their ass. Therefore, most of my good coaching tips (I was an all-star salesperson myself) went in one ear and out the other.
I think anyone managing (or coaching) in that situation is at an inherent disadvantage, and therefore not too important when it comes to the final outcome. When that changes – when players don’t have guaranteed contracts that last for years – that will change. At least that’s my opinion.
Please keep commenting – I’ve enjoyed this thoroughly.
One more thing – I would guess that HS and college coaches are tremendously important when it comes to a team’s success. Since there’s no money impacting your players (at least that’s the official line), you DO have control. You can also influence playing time without fear of getting fired because the fans are upset about not seeing “Vince.” You are in the driver’s seat helping these young guys grow and mature, and I commend your efforts.