roland_beech wrote:...as far as the value of coaching goes, it's a shame there's still believers in Berri's "coaches are deck chairs" line of thought...the challenge is it's difficult to put actual numbers on coaching value since they are so integrated in all that happens (and while I have great admiration for much of what Jeremias has created, Coach Rapm, as I've said elsewhere, is garbage...)
Hmmm. I don't know (or particularly care) what Berri's views are on the matter, but as with any analytical issue in basketball (or sports generally) you need to start with an accounting framework, and in the instance it is straightforward: basketball is a zero-sum game, there are points for and points against, netting to zero. So, if you want to ascribe value (net points) to coaches/coaching, you are simultaneously and necessarily subtracting it from the obvious others, the players. You can disagree with Jeremias' estimates, but not the framework. Unless you are prepared to present another?
roland_beech wrote:Dean is very familiar with these two bookend examples of the 'value of coaching' --
The '04-05 Nuggets were 17-25 when George Karl took over...and went 32-8 the rest of the way
...is it possible George and his staff might have added 12 wins in HALF a season? sure...
Now I think I'm being trolled...Really? George Karl? George Bleeping Karl? George "I coached a team of NBA greats to 6th place at the 2002 World Championships played in the US and tried to place the blame for the result on Paul Pierce" Karl? That guy? 12 wins in HALF a season?
A quick look at the preceding season results, and the circumstances of the one in question, tells a bit of a different story, or should I say suggests a different context. The Nuggets were 43-39 in 2003-04 under Jeff Bzdelik. Then they began a bit slowly with a relatively similar roster in 2004-05 (13-15) what saw him lose his job, and he was immediately followed by Michael Cooper who went 4-10. And it was into this situation of organizational "chaos" that Karl came in and performed very well (32-8). An 80% win percentage, formidable!
But now we scratch a bit below the surface. This record was composed of a superlative home performance 19-1 (where Denver is known for its special home advantage, as I recall, owing to altitude) and a more ordinary 13-7 on the road. But the quality of its competition was below average. Looking at the Predicted Wins of each subset, on average, their home opponents were 37.5 wins and the away opponents were 39.1 wins. And then the year following, again with core roster stability, they were a 44-38 team, essentially identical to two year's prior.
So, what would a prudent observer make of this? That George Karl was a super-fantastic great coach in partial year 2004-05, followed by a terrible horrible coach the next year, causing his stellar team to deteriorate from an 80% win clip to 54%?
Or would it be that he inherited a 54% team that was mired in a bit of a topsy-turvy situation and had a pretty good run of luck (and an advantageous schedule)?
Hmmmm.....
roland_beech wrote:Then after a 57 win season in '12-13 the Nuggets surprisingly fired George, and new GM Tim Connelly hired Brian Shaw as his man...36 wins followed, a massive drop off of 21 wins...there was some mitigating circumstances such as Gallinari missing the season with injury...but I'm personally of the belief George could have manufactured many more wins than that had he stayed...
And here we go again. Not mentioned is a rather significant mitigating circumstance, specifically Andre Iguodala leaving the team. I will leave it to the interested observer to do the plus-minus math (independent of the ordinary factor of an initial expected debit associated with coaching turnover) to determine how unexpected the result of Karl exiting was.
roland_beech wrote:It's easy to say Popovich had 'great players' but of course he has much to do with them becoming great, no? Kawhi might not have become the player he is today had he been drafted somewhere else and coached by different coaches (we can all probably think of places it wouldn't have gone so well for him...)
I've been meaning to write a little piece about the effect of coaching (and general managing) in general, with a special focus on Gregg Popovich, but let me anticipate my eventual remarks by answering the question posed in the negative (with a possible asterisk). It is entirely unreasonable to attribute the inherited skill of David Robinson to Gregg Popovich; indeed I think no one would do so. Similarly, Tim Duncan, entered the NBA with the nickname "Mr. Fundamental" and who was consensually, make that unanimously, regarded as a sure-fire, great, great player, with a well-recognized, well-rounded game. To ascribe his NBA performance to "coaching", well, the burden of proof is on those who would take that point of view. Then Manu Ginobili, here is a talent that was not anticipated (as he was apparently only worth the derisory cost of a bottom 2nd round pick) who turned out to blossom in Europe, becoming a well-recognized superstar, who then entered the NBA in the prime of his career. Gregg Popovich had nothing to do with any of that.
Add up the contributions of these three players, and there is really nothing exceptional about the residual, in terms of team performance for many years of the Popovich dynasty. That is the simple reality. Whatever value one might wish to impute to Gregg Popovich at this point, the adding up constraint then obliges one to subtract the same amount from the performances of other players. But then one quickly careens into the land of the absurd. How bad could the supporting cast plausibly be?
But there is an exception to this story, and that is Kawhi Leonard. Here is a guy, whose contributions are instrumental to maintaining the same story into the more recent years, and here is one instance where one might choose to impute critical Popovichian influence in his developement.
But really? Is this the thin reed upon which the hagiography rests? One most exceedingly unlikely (given his low draft location) superstar, owing essentially all his superness to a coach? As opposed to all the other, rather conventional stories that well explain the team's success?
More on this at a later date, perhaps.