In coach we trust!

So how much of a difference does the coach really make? Obviously the tie-in here is Corbin, but what about other great or not-so-great coaches? If you assembled the same team, say the Kobe/Shaq dominating Laker's teams or the current Miami squad or the 1973 '76ers, would changing the coach really make that big a difference, if any at all? What do you think, and why?

And to go to another level, would changing our coach right now, or even at the end of the year, really make any difference? If so, how much and why?



EDIT:

Select one choice from the top 4 choices and one from the next 3, or pick one of the last 2. For example, you might think that a coaching change can really only help the team, but only a little so you would select "Little" and "Positive".

You can answer based on your estimation of coaching in general, or changing our current coach, just explain it in the comments.

LogGrad98 said:

So how much of a difference does the coach really make? Obviously the tie-in here is Corbin, but what about other great or not-so-great coaches? If you assembled the same team, say the Kobe/Shaq dominating Laker's teams or the current Miami squad or the 1973 '76ers, would changing the coach really make that big a difference, if any at all? What do you think, and why?

And to go to another level, would changing our coach right now, or even at the end of the year, really make any difference? If so, how much and why?

Click to expand...

I think it's an interesting question. One I don't really know the answer to.

I assume it's more important when "building" a team, especially with young players. The coach can't make players hit their shots or put in their max effort, but the coach does establish the system and should be able to sell that system to the players. If the system is sound and the players believe in it they will do their best to make it work. If it's a bad system and players don't believe in it or unhappy about their place in it you'll have a lot of guys going rogue and team chemistry can suffer.

With top-tier players who have been int he league for a long time I can see them bringing a team together regardless of the coach. Some players are just good enough to make a lot of different schemes workable, but some aren't.

Really I think there are some situations where the coach makes a pretty big difference and others where they don't. It's like a lot of work situations in real life. If you have a bunch of professional guys with experience the supervisor who stays out of the way is usually the best, but if guys are stepping on each other's toes or carrying someone else's weight you need a strong supervisor to sort the mess out and get everyone moving in the same direction.

Depending on the coach and team anywhere from little to none to a heavy amount. Both the positive and negative.

Stoked said:

Depending on the coach and team anywhere from little to none to a heavy amount. Both the positive and negative.

Click to expand...

Elaborate please. Can you give an example of a situation where you feel a coaching change would have made a 20+ swing in wins/losses, one way or the other?

One of the things I think about with this are all of Phil Jackson's teams. Would MJ have fewer rings if Jackson hadn't been the coch? The year they won 72 would they have only won 52 with a different coach? Assuming a fairly consistent standard among NBA-level coaches, I don't think it would have made that much of a difference, maybe 5-10 games max, and that is under the perfect circumstances. Is it possible that a different coach could have gotten the Bulls to 74 wins even? I think maybe. I'm just not sure I am convinced the coach has that kind of impact.

I think GF has a good point when talking about a developing team. I think the coach could have a stronger impact during the formative years. But say for Jordan's last 3 championships I am not sure another coach could not have done what Jackson did with a team that was already established like that.

LogGrad98 said:

Elaborate please. Can you give an example of a situation where you feel a coaching change would have made a 20+ swing in wins/losses, one way or the other?

Click to expand...

Corbin for Popovich.
Maurice Cheeks for Thibs.

I'm not so sure about the Pop example. Pop has had 3 "floor-coaches" for most of his championships. You would have to be way way more inept than Corbin to bring a 58 win spurs team down to 38 wins or fewer. Duncan/Ginobili/Parker with a high school coach will get you 50+ wins.

LogGrad98 said:

I'm not so sure about the Pop example. Pop has had 3 "floor-coaches" for most of his championships. You would have to be way way more inept than Corbin to bring a 58 win spurs team down to 38 wins or fewer. Duncan/Ginobili/Parker with a high school coach will get you 50+ wins.

Click to expand...

You can say that about every great player/team. Coach still has to make the decisions on how the team runs. Can discredit Pop for motivating Duncan/Paker/Ginobli. Giving Pop no credit is wrong. Sloan was a great coach because he used what he had. He had "floor coaches" as well for most of his run. Same goes for Jackson if he didn't have Jordan and Kobe as "floor coaches" he wouldn't have won his championships.

No one is discrediting the talent, but you can't discredit the coach because he's had talented players.

A good coach can make a poor team competitive. A poor coach can let a talented team become a mess. Most coaches imo fit neither category and their teams just meet expectations.

Urzajazz said:

You can say that about every great player/team. Coach still has to make the decisions on how the team runs. Can discredit Pop for motivating Duncan/Paker/Ginobli. Giving Pop no credit is wrong. Sloan was a great coach because he used what he had. He had "floor coaches" as well for most of his run. Same goes for Jackson if he didn't have Jordan and Kobe as "floor coaches" he wouldn't have won his championships.

No one is discrediting the talent, but you can't discredit the coach because he's had talented players.

Click to expand...

True, the coach and players together make up the team. I just seriously doubt that any given coach, other than in the perfect circumstances, will take a team with the player talent to win 50+ games and reduce them to a 30 win team (or vice versa). Maybe a 5 game swing, 10 at the outside. Just can't see the 20 game swing due to coaching.

This and what heyhey said gets back to the idea of a fairly consistent level of coaching among NBA-level coaches. I just don't think we have that level of variability to make that big a swing in the outcome through coaching alone.

LogGrad98 said:

Elaborate please. Can you give an example of a situation where you feel a coaching change would have made a 20+ swing in wins/losses, one way or the other?

Click to expand...

Brooklyn Nets 2013-2014. For being one of the best point guards ever the guy can't design a system worth a damn. They run iso damn near every single play. It's more unbearable than watching UCLA's offense last season.

Other than that, what heyhey said. Most coaches don't make a difference either way.

LogGrad98 said:

Elaborate please. Can you give an example of a situation where you feel a coaching change would have made a 20+ swing in wins/losses, one way or the other?

Click to expand...

Reference is made to the 2003 Utah Jazz. Jerry Sloan took a team with far less talent than the 2013 Jazz, to the brink of making the playoffs. Probably the greatest coaching performance of his career. If you gave Ty Corbin the reigns to the 2003 Jazz team, they win 12-15 games max.

Taking Phil Jackson away from the Bulls teams would have caused them to be a lot worse (don't get me wrong, they were still a great team, but Phil was perfect for them). He knew how to manage egos and strange personalities. His talent wasn't necessarily X's and O's, it was keeping the highly-paid kids on track.

It depends on the coach.

I expect the impact of coaches follows a nearly normal curve with guys like Corbin on the left (-) tail and guys like Popovich on the right (+) tail.

Each situation is completely different. You can't generalize it with a poll.

On a side note Jason Kidd needs to be fired ASAP.

If we're winning, we have a good coach.
If we're losing, he should be fired.

So goes the way of the fans.

80% of NBA Coaches are unremarkable company men whose wins or losses are solely based on the talent they have before them. Tyrone Corbin is deeply entrenched in this demographic.

15% of NBA Coaches can take a mediocre team and make them a good team, they can take a good team and make them an exceptional team. They're able to do this because they have a unique eye for talent, or they're great salesmen or great motivators. I'd put Sloan in this group. Larry Brown...maybe Hubie Brown a while back.

5% of NBA Coaches have everything the 15% group has plus they're innovators. These guys come around once in a generation or so.

The problem is this - you can't be a small market team in the NBA and have a coach in the 80% group - there are just too many things working against you to be successful.

heyhey said:

A good coach can make a poor team competitive. A poor coach can let a talented team become a mess. Most coaches imo fit neither category and their teams just meet expectations.

Click to expand...

You just described Hornacek and Corbin.