We've all heard it alleged that many NBA coaches who push their players toward maximal effort - especially yellers and screamers - eventually lose their effectiveness, as players ultimately tune them out after a few seasons. Has this claim ever been tested empirically?
I note that J.E.'s coaching analysis (RAPM) has multiple such "high effort" coaches grouped toward the top of the rankings . . .
Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
-
Jeff Fogle
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 2:05 am
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Who would you consider to be the yellers and screamers Ilardi? Or, high energy guys?
Maybe we can start a list of coaches we've heard categorized this way. Sometimes it all runs together though...guys who keep moving around get labelled that way because people assume that's what was causing the movement.
Off the top of my head, I've heard the following categorized this way:
Scott Skiles
Larry Brown (kinder with veterans but not with youngsters)
PJ Carlesimo
Doug Collins (maybe more high energy than yeller, not close enough to know)
I'm sure there are many others. Wanted to get a list going. Problem here is that it's tempting to go back and look for guys who moved around. Also, if it WAS an issue in the past, the sport may have evolved away from it (mostly calmer guys get the jobs now...kind of like how the Leo Durocher/Billy Martin style isn't seen much in MLB any more). So, the evidence is in the 70's, 80's, and 90's rather than in the last decade.
Jerry Sloan seemed like he'd be tough in practice...but he had longevity. Might be tough to do a study because it's tough to agree on how to define yellers and screamers.
Seems like Bill James had a baseball study way back that showed most managers lose their effectivenes after a few years regardless of if they were yellers or not. Many leaders get tuned out eventually. Plus, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The strengths work at first...but then those improvements put the team in position for the weaknesses to manifest themselves. (improving effort and intensity gets you to playing in more important games--but then a lack of experience in playing in important games is a problem).
Maybe somebody with a database can tell us what the median duration is for an NBA head coaching job. Better than an average I think because the long term guys will warp the numbers a bit...
Maybe we can start a list of coaches we've heard categorized this way. Sometimes it all runs together though...guys who keep moving around get labelled that way because people assume that's what was causing the movement.
Off the top of my head, I've heard the following categorized this way:
Scott Skiles
Larry Brown (kinder with veterans but not with youngsters)
PJ Carlesimo
Doug Collins (maybe more high energy than yeller, not close enough to know)
I'm sure there are many others. Wanted to get a list going. Problem here is that it's tempting to go back and look for guys who moved around. Also, if it WAS an issue in the past, the sport may have evolved away from it (mostly calmer guys get the jobs now...kind of like how the Leo Durocher/Billy Martin style isn't seen much in MLB any more). So, the evidence is in the 70's, 80's, and 90's rather than in the last decade.
Jerry Sloan seemed like he'd be tough in practice...but he had longevity. Might be tough to do a study because it's tough to agree on how to define yellers and screamers.
Seems like Bill James had a baseball study way back that showed most managers lose their effectivenes after a few years regardless of if they were yellers or not. Many leaders get tuned out eventually. Plus, everyone has strengths and weaknesses. The strengths work at first...but then those improvements put the team in position for the weaknesses to manifest themselves. (improving effort and intensity gets you to playing in more important games--but then a lack of experience in playing in important games is a problem).
Maybe somebody with a database can tell us what the median duration is for an NBA head coaching job. Better than an average I think because the long term guys will warp the numbers a bit...
Blogging basketball at http://www.statintelligence.blogspot.com/
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
There are 52 coaches who have coached in the last 7 seasons and have 3+ years of experience, probably a bit less with at least 3 years at one place, a criteria that might be the minimum necessary for this kind of study. A summary of their win & loss in 1st year with a team, 2nd, 3rd and 4th & later years for the period or their entire career could be constructed. It could be divided up among participants by last year of coaching (since 2005) using B-R. http://www.basketball-reference.com/coa ... stats.html
I'd do a piece of it, if others do so first. Change could be made to the design if this cut isn't exactly what you want Steve.
The average total coaching experience for this batch as is 7.25 seasons and the median is 5. The mean and median by team could also be calculated and reported and summarized.
By the way, assuming the article I saw was correct, congrats on and best wishes with your assignment with the Suns.
I'd do a piece of it, if others do so first. Change could be made to the design if this cut isn't exactly what you want Steve.
The average total coaching experience for this batch as is 7.25 seasons and the median is 5. The mean and median by team could also be calculated and reported and summarized.
By the way, assuming the article I saw was correct, congrats on and best wishes with your assignment with the Suns.
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Thanks, Crow! (And, yes, I've been working with the Suns since this past fall - and consider myself very fortunate.)
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
And, yes, I'd be happy to help with such a study, but may not be able to get to it for 3-4 weeks (alas).Crow wrote:There are 52 coaches who have coached in the last 7 seasons and have 3+ years of experience, probably a bit less with at least 3 years at one place, a criteria that might be the minimum necessary for this kind of study. A summary of their win & loss in 1st year with a team, 2nd, 3rd and 4th & later years for the period or their entire career could be constructed. It could be divided up among participants by last year of coaching (since 2005) using B-R. http://www.basketball-reference.com/coa ... stats.html
I'd do a piece of it, if others do so first. Change could be made to the design if this cut isn't exactly what you want Steve.
The average total coaching experience for this batch as is 7.25 seasons and the median is 5. The mean and median by team could also be calculated and reported and summarized.
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
StanVGundy is probably one of the screamers. What about Skiles? Thibodeau? Kuester?
For one thing I would assume that the screaming only helps on defense because so much of it is hustle. Offense is more about creativity and being, at least a bit, calm.
Then, I would guess that it makes a difference whether you're on a winning or a losing team. When you're getting screamed at and you're winning your games, you don't build up too much frustration; and you might even think that the yelling helps the team win the games. I sure wouldn't want to get yelled at and lose most of the games though. Then basketball just isn't fun anymore
For one thing I would assume that the screaming only helps on defense because so much of it is hustle. Offense is more about creativity and being, at least a bit, calm.
Then, I would guess that it makes a difference whether you're on a winning or a losing team. When you're getting screamed at and you're winning your games, you don't build up too much frustration; and you might even think that the yelling helps the team win the games. I sure wouldn't want to get yelled at and lose most of the games though. Then basketball just isn't fun anymore
-
Bobbofitos
- Posts: 306
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 7:40 am
- Location: Cambridge, MA
- Contact:
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Aren't all coaches technically "screamers"? I can't think of any that are lackadaisical and neglectful, the one exception is probably the stoic PJax.
One thing that coaches seem to have some discernible power is upping or lowering midrange to 3pt on both offense and defense. The coaches that seem to shy away from the 3 on offense also tend to be less successful, the ones that embrace it tend to exceed expectations.
Yeah, I wonder this too. Are we putting forth a hypothesis and than just matching the better coaches to meet it, or does yelling and screaming actually provide value? I'm not sure.Who would you consider to be the yellers and screamers Ilardi? Or, high energy guys?
One thing that coaches seem to have some discernible power is upping or lowering midrange to 3pt on both offense and defense. The coaches that seem to shy away from the 3 on offense also tend to be less successful, the ones that embrace it tend to exceed expectations.
http://pointsperpossession.com/
@PPPBasketball
@PPPBasketball
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
As I see it, coaching style ("yelling proclivity") could conceivably be operationalized - i.e., measured quantitatively - via at least two different (complementary) approaches:
(a) video analysis and coding of in-game sideline behavior (to get fine-grained, one might even attempt to control for game context, e.g., "probability of yelling at a player who has just committed a turnover during the next timeout"). Presumably, corroborative data could also be gathered from video of practice sessions, if available. Hostile/derogatory comments about players made to the media could also be coded, depending upon one's conceptual model.
(b) reputational survey - based on direct canvass of players, coaches, scouts, beat writers, referees, etc. I'm not aware of any such data in the public domain, although I was intrigued by SI's recent player survey of "most annoying coaches", which featured many of those rated very highly by JE in their RAPM defensive impact: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multim ... ent.1.html
(a) video analysis and coding of in-game sideline behavior (to get fine-grained, one might even attempt to control for game context, e.g., "probability of yelling at a player who has just committed a turnover during the next timeout"). Presumably, corroborative data could also be gathered from video of practice sessions, if available. Hostile/derogatory comments about players made to the media could also be coded, depending upon one's conceptual model.
(b) reputational survey - based on direct canvass of players, coaches, scouts, beat writers, referees, etc. I'm not aware of any such data in the public domain, although I was intrigued by SI's recent player survey of "most annoying coaches", which featured many of those rated very highly by JE in their RAPM defensive impact: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multim ... ent.1.html
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
I ended up looking at 38 coaches who served at least 2 years and all or at least part of a 3rd with a team, with the run reaching 2005 or going later. Some coaches had multiple qualifying runs or a long to very long run from well before 2005. A longer study or constructed differently might have different results.
Overall these coaches won about 40.4 games in year 1 with such teams they served 3+ years (transition from the old system and players?), 53.6 in year 2 (plan taught, tweaked and kicking ass?), 45.9 in year 3 (pretty big fall-off, from guys tuning out and / or opposing coaches tuning in on how to attack and defend against this coach?). About 2/3rds got a year 4 or beyond and they went about an average of 48 wins per 82 games for that time.
Not everyone got a full year in all these years.
Among those coaches currently with 5 or less years of total NBA head coach experience, they won an average of about 28.2 games in year 1, 40.5 in year 2, 38 in year 3. The 3 of the 11 who have gotten a year 4 or beyond already went about an average of 54 wins per 82 games for that time.
Again as for the overall group, year 2 is great, year 3 shows fall-off (though less here). Those who get a year 4 or beyond are a selective group who do pretty well.
Among those coaches currently with 6 to 10 years of total NBA head coach experience, they won 35.5 games in year 1, 45.8 in year 2, 43.6 in year 3. 8 of the 9 who have gotten a year 4 or beyond already went about an average of 40.1 wins per 82 games for that time.
Among those coaches currently with 11+ years of total NBA head coach experience, they won 38.2 games in year 1, 45.1 in year 2, 36.5 in year 3. 13 of the 18 who have gotten a year 4 or beyond within this limited timeframe went about an average of 47.6 wins per 82 games for that time.
Same pattern on average for more experienced coaches and the youngest coaches and the overall average-
up nicely in year 2, down in year 3, up for year 4 and beyond.
Those who do poorly in year 2 and 3 tend to get weeded out and the best remain to put up pretty good year 4 and beyond stats. It would take more work to evaluate how much of year 3 fall-off was from guys tuning out the coach or opposing coaches improving their match-up against them or talent level changes or other things and how much of the year 4 and beyond improvement was due to coach selection and talent level.
Looking just at 14 coaches I labeled some version of screamer / high energy / intense looks like they won 40 games in year 1, 47.7 in year 2, 41.6 in year 3. The 10 of 14 who got more time in this timeframe won about 38.9 in those seasons. So the screamer / high energy / intense guys I identified did as well as the overall average in year 1, got about 5 wins less in year 2, 4 wins less in year 3. Those for got year 4 and beyond trail the overall group average by about 5 wins. And the difference would be greater if you compared "screamer" to "not" instead of the overall average.
Again hard to separate out several factors, but on this basis it does not seem like the visible to the fans greater screamer / high energy / intense guys are not as winning as much in years after year 1 as those I considered not that way.
Though I am not exactly sure where the median is (and won't try to define it precisely), so that bottom group includes too many of the near normal as well as those below average coaches on visible intensity and it is not be an even balance of above average and below at the moment.
And any change from how I quickly classified the intensity of coaches would change this comparison.
These are the coaches and the +s represent those I quickly considered greater screamer / high energy / intense guys:
Don Nelson +
Jerry Sloan +
Larry Brown +
Pat Riley +
George Karl +
Rick Adelman
Phil Jackson
Mike Dunleavy
Mike Fratello +
Gregg Popovich +
Flip Saunders
Bernie Bickerstaff
Hubie Brown +
Doc Rivers
Scott Skiles +
Nate McMillan +
Byron Scott
Jeff Van Gundy +
Alvin Gentry
Mike D'Antoni
Rick Carlisle
Jim O'Brien
Eddie Jordan
Maurice Cheeks
Stan Van Gundy +
Lawrence Frank +
Mike Woodson
Avery Johnson +
Lionel Hollins
Mike Brown
Randy Wittman
Sam Mitchell +
Erik Spoelstra
Scott Brooks
Jay Triano
Terry Porter
Eric Musselman
Jeff Bzdelik
Maybe a few others could be identified and that would change things.
But this is what I found in the time I gave it so far. I could do screamer vs not and different levels of experience combined and some others things too probably if I gave it more time and had reason & desire to.
Overall these coaches won about 40.4 games in year 1 with such teams they served 3+ years (transition from the old system and players?), 53.6 in year 2 (plan taught, tweaked and kicking ass?), 45.9 in year 3 (pretty big fall-off, from guys tuning out and / or opposing coaches tuning in on how to attack and defend against this coach?). About 2/3rds got a year 4 or beyond and they went about an average of 48 wins per 82 games for that time.
Not everyone got a full year in all these years.
Among those coaches currently with 5 or less years of total NBA head coach experience, they won an average of about 28.2 games in year 1, 40.5 in year 2, 38 in year 3. The 3 of the 11 who have gotten a year 4 or beyond already went about an average of 54 wins per 82 games for that time.
Again as for the overall group, year 2 is great, year 3 shows fall-off (though less here). Those who get a year 4 or beyond are a selective group who do pretty well.
Among those coaches currently with 6 to 10 years of total NBA head coach experience, they won 35.5 games in year 1, 45.8 in year 2, 43.6 in year 3. 8 of the 9 who have gotten a year 4 or beyond already went about an average of 40.1 wins per 82 games for that time.
Among those coaches currently with 11+ years of total NBA head coach experience, they won 38.2 games in year 1, 45.1 in year 2, 36.5 in year 3. 13 of the 18 who have gotten a year 4 or beyond within this limited timeframe went about an average of 47.6 wins per 82 games for that time.
Same pattern on average for more experienced coaches and the youngest coaches and the overall average-
up nicely in year 2, down in year 3, up for year 4 and beyond.
Those who do poorly in year 2 and 3 tend to get weeded out and the best remain to put up pretty good year 4 and beyond stats. It would take more work to evaluate how much of year 3 fall-off was from guys tuning out the coach or opposing coaches improving their match-up against them or talent level changes or other things and how much of the year 4 and beyond improvement was due to coach selection and talent level.
Looking just at 14 coaches I labeled some version of screamer / high energy / intense looks like they won 40 games in year 1, 47.7 in year 2, 41.6 in year 3. The 10 of 14 who got more time in this timeframe won about 38.9 in those seasons. So the screamer / high energy / intense guys I identified did as well as the overall average in year 1, got about 5 wins less in year 2, 4 wins less in year 3. Those for got year 4 and beyond trail the overall group average by about 5 wins. And the difference would be greater if you compared "screamer" to "not" instead of the overall average.
Again hard to separate out several factors, but on this basis it does not seem like the visible to the fans greater screamer / high energy / intense guys are not as winning as much in years after year 1 as those I considered not that way.
Though I am not exactly sure where the median is (and won't try to define it precisely), so that bottom group includes too many of the near normal as well as those below average coaches on visible intensity and it is not be an even balance of above average and below at the moment.
And any change from how I quickly classified the intensity of coaches would change this comparison.
These are the coaches and the +s represent those I quickly considered greater screamer / high energy / intense guys:
Don Nelson +
Jerry Sloan +
Larry Brown +
Pat Riley +
George Karl +
Rick Adelman
Phil Jackson
Mike Dunleavy
Mike Fratello +
Gregg Popovich +
Flip Saunders
Bernie Bickerstaff
Hubie Brown +
Doc Rivers
Scott Skiles +
Nate McMillan +
Byron Scott
Jeff Van Gundy +
Alvin Gentry
Mike D'Antoni
Rick Carlisle
Jim O'Brien
Eddie Jordan
Maurice Cheeks
Stan Van Gundy +
Lawrence Frank +
Mike Woodson
Avery Johnson +
Lionel Hollins
Mike Brown
Randy Wittman
Sam Mitchell +
Erik Spoelstra
Scott Brooks
Jay Triano
Terry Porter
Eric Musselman
Jeff Bzdelik
Maybe a few others could be identified and that would change things.
But this is what I found in the time I gave it so far. I could do screamer vs not and different levels of experience combined and some others things too probably if I gave it more time and had reason & desire to.
Last edited by Crow on Fri Apr 29, 2011 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Fascinating analysis, Crow. Thanks for taking the time to investigate the issue . . .
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Okay, I am glad you found it useful.
Simply looking at wins is a start but one would probably want to look at wins before and after a specific coach and expectations to refine the analysis.
Coaches with 6-10 years experience currently don't seem to produce beyond average after year 3 but I guess they are probably the most likely to be near average, between the new coaches and the strong and even more established.
Still, perhaps if you really want better than average, you might want to diverge from this sub-group quicker or entirely and try for a superstar coach or take a try at discovering the future star young coach. The superstar coaches probably tend to be hired and retained by the better franchises.
I looked at coaching a few years ago and I think I found that you pretty much had to make the playoffs at least once within 3 years to have much chance of continuing. And you had to make the playoffs at least twice in 5 years to continue. Winning a round or two helped in lasting longer (pretty much a necessity to get to 7 years) but how much depends on the place and expectations. And other factors, unnamed here, seem to play a role in longevity.
Simply looking at wins is a start but one would probably want to look at wins before and after a specific coach and expectations to refine the analysis.
Coaches with 6-10 years experience currently don't seem to produce beyond average after year 3 but I guess they are probably the most likely to be near average, between the new coaches and the strong and even more established.
Still, perhaps if you really want better than average, you might want to diverge from this sub-group quicker or entirely and try for a superstar coach or take a try at discovering the future star young coach. The superstar coaches probably tend to be hired and retained by the better franchises.
I looked at coaching a few years ago and I think I found that you pretty much had to make the playoffs at least once within 3 years to have much chance of continuing. And you had to make the playoffs at least twice in 5 years to continue. Winning a round or two helped in lasting longer (pretty much a necessity to get to 7 years) but how much depends on the place and expectations. And other factors, unnamed here, seem to play a role in longevity.
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Do these 4 conference finalist coaches have the least average head coaching experience and the least experience with their current team in a long time? I didn't check them all but I doubt there are any conference finals coaching sets with less such average experience in the last 30 years at least.
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
Rick Carlisle's team won the title. He was given a good amount of praise for his coaching in the playoffs. Of the coaches of the conference finalists he had by far the most head coaching experience. He also had, according to 10 year RAPM estimates at least, the worst career average coaching RAPM at -1.6. Spoelstra, the other finalist, was at -0.9. Thibodeau was estimated at +2.4 and Brooks at +1.6 but they did replace coaches with a neutral rating and one of the very worst in the 10 year period respectively. Wayne Winston's and / or Cuban's other sponsored research had Carlisle at the very top we are told.
It would be useful to see Coaching RAPM by each single season in general and to check how Carlisle did this season.
It would be useful to see Coaching RAPM by each single season in general and to check how Carlisle did this season.
Last edited by Crow on Sun Jul 17, 2011 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Diminishing Impact of Coaches?
I doubt his rating would be very different from what we're seeing now. RAPM simply likes the Mavs roster too much to give Carlisle a lot of credit. Nowitzki, Terry, Kidd, Stojakovic(!), Chandler (and even Marion and Haywood) are all players that had good to very good ratings before Carlisle started coaching them.Crow wrote:It would be useful to see Coaching RAPM by each single season in general and to check how Carlisle did this season.
Since Nash left Dallas they were 4th, 1st, 2nd, 8th in ORtg under other coaches; 5th, 10th, 8th under Carlisle.
Obviously, the metric only cares about point differential. It doesn't know/care who wins the championship and it prefers the coach who wins one game by 20 points and loses two games by 1 point each over his opponent coach.
Also, if a coach plays Josh Powell 20 minutes a game and gets him to perform at -6, instead of his expected -7.1, he will look good. Even if it would have been the wiser choice to give all of Powell's minutes to Drew Gooden (-4.8) instead.
It's obviously not a perfect way to evaluate coaches, but it's a start