How much difference does a coach make?

[GSH]

In reading articles and watching commentary about the upcoming Spurs-Thunder series, I've noticed that most of the better analysts have mentioned that one of the Spurs' advantages is the presence of Gregg Popovich on the bench. But I've also noticed that most of the hacks, as well as a large portion of the casual fans, tend to discount the coaching angle, if they acknowledge it at all. And so, for the past couple of days, I've tried to think of an angle - a way to illustrate just how important having a Hall of Fame coach really is to the Spurs' championship aspirations. But, to be honest, I couldn't come up with anything.

But I read an article just now that said the Charlotte Bobcats are talking to none other than Jerry Sloan about him becoming their new head coach. Anyone who follows the NBA even casually should be aware of just how bad the Bobcats were this season, since they finished with the worst winning percentage in NBA history. Admittedly, the Bobcats' problems went well beyond coach Paul Silas. But they were probably the best example any of us will ever see of a team in complete disarray, which makes them a perfect example.

One thing you can be sure of: if Michael Jordan is smart enough to do whatever it takes to hire Jerry Sloan - and then get the hell out of his way - this will have been the last season the Bobcats are the NBA's doormat. And I would be shocked if, within couple of seasons under Coach Sloan, they are not solid playoff contenders. I don't want to sound like I'm bashing Paul Silas, but the personnel problems that plagued the 'Cats this season simply would not happen on a Jerry Sloan coached team. And while Charlotte may not have been the most talented team in the league, they should have been able to tally more than 7 wins - especially in the Eastern Conference.

Scott Brooks' roster may well have the most raw talent of any team in the NBA, especially now that the Heat are missing Bosh. The Spurs were a team that many thought would not even reach the playoffs this season. (Don't make me dig up any of your pre-season posts.) Brooks is a good coach. But when it comes to creating favorable matchups and making in-game adjustments, Pop is probably the best in the game right now. The Thunder have talent, but they are not without flaws. And the key to finding and exploiting those flaws lies in the gray matter, and the experience of Coach Pop.

If you're not convinced, ask yourself this: Would this Thunder team still be as formidable if they were coached by, say, Dwayne Casey from Toronto? Don't bother with answers like, "Probably not." The real answer is that they definitely would not be as good of a team. They're clearly better off under Scott Brooks. Now ask the even more important question: Would this Spurs team be as formidable if they were coached by Scott Brooks? The answer to that is just as clearly, "No." Before the players ever take the floor, the scale is tipped in the Spurs' favor. Over the course of a potentially 7-game series, the weight of that advantage could be just enough to send the Spurs to their fifth NBA Finals.

[justinandimcool]

For the record, Scotty Brooks isn't that much better than Duane Casey, tbch.

This Spurs team probably doesn't even go above the 6 seed if it had Brooks.

The answer is the same as its always been. Every coach needs personnel or they won't succeed. Sloan may improve the Bobcats but they won't win shit with the players they have (also see: 2009 Spurs). Great players without good coaching may go far but they will always be outcoached if they run into a team with personnel WITH good coaching (see: last year's finals, this year's second round).

[GSH]

For the record, Scotty Brooks isn't that much better than Duane Casey, tbch.

This Spurs team probably doesn't even go above the 6 seed if it had Brooks.

The answer is the same as its always been. Every coach needs personnel or they won't succeed. Sloan may improve the Bobcats but they won't win shit with the players they have (also see: 2009 Spurs). Great players without good coaching may go far but they will always be outcoached if they run into a team with personnel WITH good coaching (see: last year's finals, this year's second round).


Sloan won't take the job unless he has significant say-so over the personnel. The Bobcats will get a lottery pick, and should be able to pick up a decent free agent or two. I didn't say they would contend for a title any time soon. But by the second season of being under Sloan (assuming it happened) I'd be surprised if they didn't make the post-season.

The point is, the difference in coaching is real and tangible. And the write-up was mostly for the legions of fans who don't seem to understand that.

[SA210]

There are 2 Pop's. The one that focuses on interior D and bigs within the Spurs team, and then the Pop that sold out a few years ago and wanted to play Bonner/Finley/Blair ball.

The first Pop is who I'm rooting for, and it appears that is who we have, currently. I hope it stays this way. And yes it does matter. This Pop would would coach the Spurs to a Championship.

[therealtruth]

There are 2 Pop's. The one that focuses on interior D and bigs within the Spurs team, and then the Pop that sold out a few years ago and wanted to play Bonner/Finley/Blair ball.

The first Pop is who I'm rooting for, and it appears that is who we have, currently. I hope it stays this way. And yes it does matter. This Pop would would coach the Spurs to a Championship.

[DieMrBond]

I've always wondered this as well - how much difference would a coach really make? Surely not ALL players are mindless athletes that can't think for themselves and need a coach to call plays for them? But, I think most of that was to do with I never had a GOOD coach growing up playing basketball - we only had someone to call timeouts for us.

I would really love to be able to sit close enough to the Spurs bench to see what the coaches actually do during the game - you know, the stuff you can't pick up from watching replays of the game.

[Vash StampedE]

Looking at the series against Clippers when Pop employed Hack-a-Evans, the Clips got outcoached as they can't create a better opportunity/play for them to score and Del Negro can't pull Evans out unless he calls a timeout or a deadball occurs. That prevent them from either making a run or close a quarter in a high note. So definitely, a the better coach makes a big impact in the game. Though I'm not sure who's better between Pop and Scott Brooks in terms of in-game adjustments, timing of time-outs, etc. Haven't got to watch a lot of OKC games.

[justinandimcool]

I've always wondered this as well - how much difference would a coach really make? Surely not ALL players are mindless athletes that can't think for themselves and need a coach to call plays for them? But, I think most of that was to do with I never had a GOOD coach growing up playing basketball - we only had someone to call timeouts for us.

I would really love to be able to sit close enough to the Spurs bench to see what the coaches actually do during the game - you know, the stuff you can't pick up from watching replays of the game.

Well, some coaches just understand the game more than other coaches and definitely more so than 99% of players. Pop is one of those- he just thinks of the game in a different way, always 5 or 10 steps ahead. You've played before- it's almost impossible to think even 2 steps ahead in the heat of the moment. It shows in his playbooks and his tactics. Perhaps none of Pop's ideas are groundbreaking or original, but his employment of it definitely is. In an age where coaches are either old farts or hip young upcomers that have been to every summer coaching convention in the world, he's still superior to all of them. He's doing something unique and it's really not matched by any other active coach out there except for maybe Rivers or Thibs (who is more defensive than offensively prominent).

The other thing all coaches try to do that PLAYERS normally can't is be disciplined. You can be the smartest person in the world but if you can't consistently use what you know what's the point? Every player in the NBA knows boxing out, moving the ball, cutting etc. is important. But due to factors such as passiveness, laziness, pressure, etc. a lot of players, veterans even, have to be reminded CONSTANTLY to do these basic things, and moreso often the complicated things like running plays or rotating properly on defense. Some coaches are better disciplinarians and command more respect than others. They know what to tell the players and when to tell it, and their players listen. And again, Pop is that kind of person. Always has been too- a lot of it has to do with personality.

[therealtruth]

Pop is vastly superior in coming up with quick scoring plays. SB idea of an end of a game play is Durant taking a well defended three pointer.

[senorglory]

Case in point: Dallas + Rick Carlisle --> championship

Dallas + Avery --> blown series lead and abused exercise bikes.

In my opinion.

[100%duncan]

How much difference does it make? Well, let's just say that if all the other factors crosses out each other, coaching might win this series for us.

EDIT: as for the OP, no one can win with that weak ass roster

[angelbelow]

More food for thought:

In the past 16 championships:
Phil Jackson - 8
Greg Popovich - 4
Larry Brown - 1
Pat Riley - 1
Doc Rivers - 1
Rick Carlisle - 1

Both Brown and Riley are both legends.

Rivers and Carlisle have both been hyped as up and comers and both have delivered.

[hooperflash]

Coty pop ftw

[Kuestmaster]

I don't know what happened to Pop the past few years, maybe he was trying to adapt the team style to our current players, but it didn't work or we didn't have the necessary players to do it.
Maybe we had to go through all that to be where we are now, with players that fit that style of run and more dynamic offense like Diaw, Green or Leonard.
Anyways there's no coach I'd like more than Pop :toast

[therealtruth]

Case in point: Dallas + Rick Carlisle --> championship

Dallas + Avery --> blown series lead and abused exercise bikes.

In my opinion.

Definitely I think coaching affects whether your team will play to its potential. I think Carlisle did a heck of a job last year. How the Mavs started the Finals they were bound to lose but he made the correct adjustments. Spoelstra responded with too little too late.

[therealtruth]

I don't know what happened to Pop the past few years, maybe he was trying to adapt the team style to our current players, but it didn't work or we didn't have the necessary players to do it.
Maybe we had to go through all that to be where we are now, with players that fit that style of run and more dynamic offense like Diaw, Green or Leonard.
Anyways there's no coach I'd like more than Pop :toast

I think we just didn't have enough talent the past few years. I think that's why there was a lot of frustration when guys who seemed more talented like Splitter last year were not playing as much as less talented guys like Bonner/Blair.

[Drom John]

It is unfair to judge Silas on the 7 wins. Cho was trying to have the worst record. Too bad Stern will bend the corner to give the Hornets Anthony Davis.
Pop, Belichek, and Earl Weaver, the coach/manager can make a big difference. But they become fungible after the top few.

[T Park]

The personnel is matching pop's change in philosophy. That's why it works now as opposed to failing the last 3 years

[Blake]

The NBA head coach is the most overrated position in pro sports, imo. Too much credit for wins, too much blame for losses.

I think the head coach's value is equivalent to something around the value of the 6th or even 7th man off the bench.

[Blake]

Case in point: Dallas + Rick Carlisle --> championship

Dallas + Avery --> blown series lead and abused exercise bikes.

In my opinion.

Tyson Chandler, imo

[Twisted_Dawg]

There are 2 Pop's. The one that focuses on interior D and bigs within the Spurs team, and then the Pop that sold out a few years ago and wanted to play Bonner/Finley/Blair ball.

The first Pop is who I'm rooting for, and it appears that is who we have, currently. I hope it stays this way. And yes it does matter. This Pop would would coach the Spurs to a Championship.

Ah, the Ying and the Yang. The universe and the parallel universe.

[Blake]

There are 2 Pop's. The one that focuses on interior D and bigs within the Spurs team, and then the Pop that sold out a few years ago and wanted to play Bonner/Finley/Blair ball.

The first Pop is who I'm rooting for, and it appears that is who we have, currently. I hope it stays this way. And yes it does matter. This Pop would would coach the Spurs to a Championship.

lol 2 Pops

[Blake]

Ah, the Ying and the Yang. The universe and the parallel universe.

Alternate Universe Pop wears nice suits and ties and can't wait to talk to the media.

Alternate Universe Spur fan loves Bonner

[coyotes_geek]

It's all about whether the team's stars are behind the coach. If the stars buy in, a great coach can make a big difference IMO. But if the stars aren't on board, it doesn't matter how good a coach is, he's not going to be able to do much.

[senorglory]

I don't know what happened to Pop the past few years

I think a bad ankle and a broken elbow had a lot to do with last year's outcome.

[senorglory]

Tyson Chandler, imo

Maybe so.

[maverick1948]

Pop is worth anywhere from 6 to 10 wins with his understanding of how things work. This season alone, he was worth close to 10 wins and responsible for 4 losses. That is what you look at. The difference is 6 wins. Most coach will get 3 or 4 wins and 3 or 4 lost games. Many other factors play into the value of a coach. Schedule, personel and front office play a role as well.

[jjktkk]

I don't know what happened to Pop the past few years, maybe he was trying to adapt the team style to our current players, but it didn't work or we didn't have the necessary players to do it.

[jjktkk]

lol 2 Pops

Thats sa210's reasoning. He/she? couldn't figure out that Pop didn't have the personnel to compete for a ring, so he/she just figured Pop has been coasting since 07 and just decided to coach again this season.

[OZWIN]

I think it helps out a team a lot when you have a coach that really knows what he is doing. Look what happened to the Lakers this past year...no Phil Jackson and things didn't work out nearly as well.

Greg Popovich is the best coach in basketball now that Jackson isn't around...and he is going to do what he does best against the Thunder...out coach the the other coach.

[coyotes_geek]

There are 2 Pop's. The one that focuses on interior D and bigs within the Spurs team, and then the Pop that sold out a few years ago and wanted to play Bonner/Finley/Blair ball.

The first Pop is who I'm rooting for, and it appears that is who we have, currently. I hope it stays this way. And yes it does matter. This Pop would would coach the Spurs to a Championship.

The first Pop had a team that could afford to spend big money on a defensive center to play next to Tim because Tim, and later Tony & Manu, were on cheap rookie contracts.

The second Pop had a team that could not afford to spend big money on a defensive center to put next to Tim because Tim, Tony and Manu were all making big bucks.

[tesseractive]

Sloan won't take the job unless he has significant say-so over the personnel. The Bobcats will get a lottery pick, and should be able to pick up a decent free agent or two. I didn't say they would contend for a title any time soon. But by the second season of being under Sloan (assuming it happened) I'd be surprised if they didn't make the post-season.

The point is, the difference in coaching is real and tangible. And the write-up was mostly for the legions of fans who don't seem to understand that.

Whoever has say over personnel, the key will be getting him the kind of players he can coach effectively. Did he have control over personnel in Utah? Or did he just have a front office that knew how to get him the right guys? Sometimes coaches who think they know what they want are terrible at getting the right guys. Larry Brown is the poster child for this.

So, yeah, this is a front office problem every bit as much as it is a coaching problem. But if they can get the right personnel, there's no question that Sloan can get the most out of them.