Reply With Quote
The other side.
Coaching doesn't matter in NBA? That doesn't add up
By Ken Berger
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
An a-steamed columnist on this site is going to try to explain to you that coaching doesn't matter in the NBA, and won't matter in the Finals, where two of the top coaches in the league will begin matching wits Thursday.
He will tell you the NBA game is all about the players, all about talent, and that no amount of strategy, play-calling, preparation, film study or psychological warfare will make a damn bit of difference to the outcome of the case before this court, Magic v. Lakers.
He might even tell you that NBA players are too lazy to study film, too arrogant to listen to coaches, too distracted by the multi-millionaire party life to bother preparing for their opponent.
I'm here to tell you that Gregg Doyel is nuts.
But then, you knew that already.
Well, I'm here to tell you that Doyel is wrong on this one. Dead wrong.
Coaching matters in the NBA, and it will play a significant role in the outcome of the Magic-Lakers series.
But don't take my word for it. Take Jerry Buss' word for it. Dr. Buss is paying Phil Jackson $10 million a year on the belief that coaching matters. Take Magic chairman Rich DeVos' word for it. He tried to hire Billy Donovan, got jilted and wound up with some gravelly voiced, mustachioed, nervous-jervis genius named Stan Van Gundy. And voilà, his team is in the NBA Finals for the first since it lost to Houston in 1995. Has Doyel already forgotten how the coach of the Magic at that time, Brian Hill, still hasn't lived down the notion that he underachieved with a team that featured a baby-faced Shaquille O'Neal and youthful Penny Hardaway?
It's also worth noting that this same Magic franchise once was coached by the late, great Chuck Daly. To argue that coaching in the NBA doesn't matter is one thing. To do so only a few weeks after the passing of Daly, who revolutionized defensive strategy and the handling of egos -- the two most significant jobs of an NBA coach -- is, quite simply, pure blasphemy.
Doyel, go back under that rock from whence you crawled. I'm not finished yet.
If coaching doesn't matter, then tell me how many coaches have accounted for the past 30 NBA championships. (I got bored after 30 and stopped there, so I didn't get to Holzman or Auerbach). The answer is 12, and here they are: Doc Rivers, Gregg Popovich, Pat Riley, Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, Rudy Tomjanovich, Chuck Daly, K.C. Jones, Billy Cunningham, Lenny Wilkens, Paul Westhead and Bill Fitch.
The past 21 NBA les have been won by seven coaches. The 62 NBA les have been won by 28 coaches. To the notion that all those coaches got lucky -- or that you, me or Doyel could coach a talented team to an NBA championship -- I say, "My baloney has a first name, it's G-R-E-G-G ..."
Now for this series, Magic vs. Lakers. Coaching will matter. Here's why:
With few exceptions, NBA postseason games are so close that they often come down to a single play, or a single exchange of possessions at the end of the game. They also come down to subs utions, matchups, inbounds plays ( -oooooo Denver Nuggets), defensive stops, rebounds or clutch shots. In the case of clutch shots, whether it's Kobe Bryant, Hedo Turkoglu or Rashard Lewis, it will come down to the breathtaking talent of the player involved performing through the prism of preparation and coaching that got him to that moment. (Ditto for the player defending him.)
It's easy to assume that Jackson has won nine championships because he had great players -- Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal and Bryant. But the undeniable strength of his championship teams has been their ability to size up an opponent during the course of a best-of-7 series, diagnose its strengths and weaknesses, and exploit its tendencies as the series goes on. This is called coaching, and it's exactly what happened in the conference semifinals against Denver. In Game 5, Jackson's renowned triangle offense reached a tipping point when the players finally figured out how, where and when to attack. From that point, it was over.
Van Gundy has been derided for his panicky personality, his pessimism, and his inability to keep his star player (in this case, Howard) happy. He probably would admit that this postseason has challenged him to adapt and change as a coach more than he thought possible. His superstar is happy, and Orlando is on the verge of its first championship. Win or lose against the Lakers, Van Gundy deserves credit for that.
But again, don't take my word for it. Listen to a Western Conference GM who pointed out that one of the biggest factors in this series will have nothing to do with talent. It will have to do with how Jackson and his coaching staff tactically adjust their defensive scheme to defend the 3-point line better than Cleveland did in the conference finals.
"Cleveland is very rigid as far as defensive rotations," the GM said. "Phil is a lot more flexible. That flexibility will allow the Lakers to use their length and defend the 3-point line better than Cleveland did."
And it all goes back to the question of whether you double-team Howard in the post or play him one-on-one and stay with the shooters. Teams like Cleveland, San Antonio and Boston are loyal to a rotation scheme that dictates doubling the post scorer and rotating to the shooters. You can't be stubborn that way against Orlando if you're going to solve that conundrum. Jackson is stubborn about some things, but solving conundrums is his specialty. If his previous championship teams are any indication, it might take the Lakers three, four or five games to figure it out. But they will figure it out.
So sometimes it comes down to coaching philosophy and the coach's willingness to adapt and change -- from series to series, within a series and within a game. If Mike Brown had been more adaptable and less stubborn, the NBA might've had its Kobe vs. LeBron matchup, after all. Don't believe me? Read this quote from the Cavs' Wally Szczerbiak after the Cavs lost to Orlando: "They had a dominant big man, they were knocking down 3s all over the floor, and they had our heads spinning in rotations the whole entire time."
That's coaching, Dr. Doyel. Now we know why LeBron stormed off without speaking to the media after Game 6 was over.
According to another Western Conference executive, Van Gundy might be superior to Jackson in areas such as time and clock management. But Van Gundy has issues to deal with, too. How effectively he deals with them will go a long way toward determining Orlando's chances of winning.
"I think Stan's a very good coach," the exec said. "But I think when he's in a pressured situation, he tends to micromanage. And I think that's a danger with Orlando. Stan can also be a worrywart and very negative, and that can be a challenge. ... I know Dwight Howard is terrific, but the team is better when they play outside-in. If they lose a game, how is Dwight going to respond to that? How many shots is he getting? There's more chance for Orlando to combust."
As far as who is most likely to spontaneously combust before the series even begins, my money is on Doyel -- once he reads this thrashing I've just hung on him.
