PDA

View Full Version : Are the Coaches to Blame


Nash13
05-22-2003, 07:55 PM
I think that the idea of Head Coaches getting fired is just so stupid. I look back over the past couple of years, and it doesn't make sense to me. The only way i see it fit for a coach to get fired is when his team loses a lot of close games, or don't improve in the playoffs.

Let's take Lenny Wilkins. He shouldn't have been fired because they have one of the lowest salary caps in the league, and aren't using it to their advantage. Tell me one situation where it's cool where your second option of scoring is Alvin Williams or Jerome Williams or Rafer Alston. Also when your star player is only consistent for being injured.

How about Paul Silas. We can all agree that he shouldn't have been fired. A lot of things went wrong in New Orleans. When you're George Shinn, you move you're players and coaches to a different city that i predict will not get a lot of sales, and expect them to just change. When you not only fire your coach and coaching staff, but your GM, your team will STRUGGLE to make it to the playoffs next year. And when the NBA moves you to the Western Conference 2 seasons from now, you cannot make the playoffs.

What i'm saying is more times than not it's the players fault before the coaches. When you team is shooting in the low 40%, the coaches have no control over that. When you're players get arrested or suspended, the coach has no control over that.

Dooby
05-23-2003, 09:05 AM
<< I think that the idea of Head Coaches getting fired is just so stupid. I look back over the past couple of years, and it doesn't make sense to me. The only way i see it fit for a coach to get fired is when his team loses a lot of close games, or don't improve in the playoffs. >>



You can't quantify coaching, despite the efforts to do so by some on this board.

A coach is either working out or he isn't. There are bad coaches that get blown out. Just because they may have poor talent as well, doesn't mean they shouldn't be fired.

MFFL
05-23-2003, 09:44 AM
I did an analysis earlier in the year. A team is more likely to win a championship with a newer coach.

LRB
05-23-2003, 12:09 PM
<< I did an analysis earlier in the year. A team is more likely to win a championship with a newer coach. >>



Interesting MFFL. Care to share the numbers.

David
05-23-2003, 03:12 PM
<<

<< I did an analysis earlier in the year. A team is more likely to win a championship with a newer coach. >>



Interesting MFFL. Care to share the numbers. >>



I think the &quot;analysis&quot; showed that the Bulls hired Phil Jackson and won and the Lakers hired Phil Jackson and won. What it didn't show was how the Bulls would have done if they had kept Collins or the Lakers had kept, whoever it was, because they didn't. So there is no way of knowing. Those teams may have just been due to win because the talent had been kept together and had matured. MJ and Scottie with the Bulls and Shaq/Kobe with the Lakers.

LRB
05-23-2003, 03:15 PM
<< What it didn't show was how the Bulls would have done if they had kept Collins or the Lakers had kept, >>



And just how could you show this? It never happened. There are no concrete numbers to show what might have happened. However you can show concrete numbers on what did happen.

mavsfanforever
05-23-2003, 03:16 PM
If you put a coach on mavs or kings team he will have a successful season. Whereas even Phil would suck in Cavs team.

LRB
05-23-2003, 03:19 PM
<< If you put a coach on mavs or kings team he will have a successful season. Whereas even Phil would suck in Cavs team. >>



Anybody will be pretty much guarranteed to suck as coach of the Cavs for the next couple of years.

David
05-23-2003, 06:52 PM
<<

<< What it didn't show was how the Bulls would have done if they had kept Collins or the Lakers had kept, >>



And just how could you show this? It never happened. There are no concrete numbers to show what might have happened. However you can show concrete numbers on what did happen. >>



Right. You only know what DID happen. Those teams won. They may or may not have won with the encumbant coach in place. The Detoit teams that won two years in a row, had you changed coaches prior to their two year run as champion, the new coach may have won two years in a row. Someone could have lumped that in with an &quot;analysis&quot; and acted as if it proved something. If you start with the results, that is, after the fact, and look at only the situations that prove the point you're trying to make and ignore the rest, a person can give the illusion that they are on to something.

MFFL
05-23-2003, 08:25 PM
<<

<< I did an analysis earlier in the year. A team is more likely to win a championship with a newer coach. >>



Interesting MFFL. Care to share the numbers. >>



HERE is the thread (http://www.dallas-mavs.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=2&amp;threadid=7604&amp;highlight_ke y=y)

David is being simplistic as usual. There is only two coaches who have won in the last 20 years who had been on the job longer than a couple of years before they won their first title. The other 6 coaches were new.

David
05-24-2003, 12:10 PM
How many times did teams change coaches and NOT win a championship, as compared to those that DID change coaches and win championships? I'm guessing that the former, vastly out-stripped the latter. It's easy to point to a few times when changing coaches worked and say, &quot;see all they needed to do was change coaches.&quot; It doesn't work that way, sorry.

Sometimes it takes time to build a program. Sometimes one coach builds a program, or puts together a team, and another coach comes in and reaps the benefits. Phil Jackson in Chicago and LA as an example and Pat Riley in LA as another. The talent was assembled, already.

MavKikiNYC
05-24-2003, 03:43 PM
Alternatively, some coaches are good at ASSEMBLING teams, and others are good at COACHING teams at the championship level.

Just as valid a perspective, and supported by more than a few examples.

David
05-24-2003, 04:46 PM
Each year there are only a few teams that have a legitimate chance of winning each year and those chances can be affected by injury and such, as we are finding out this year. The bottom teams can change coaches all they want and they still won't have the talent.

Some eras have dominant teams, the old Celtics, the Lakers with Magic/Worthy/Kareem, the Celtics with Bird/Parish/McHale, the 76ers with Moses/Dr. J, the Bulls with MJ/Pippen, the Lakers with Shaq/Kobe as examples. The other teams, barring injury to the big boys, could go whistling. The other teams could change coaches all they wanted and make good showings but changing coaches, in and of itself, would NOT get them a championship without a championship calibre team.

Events, such as MJ retiring, have opened up windows of opportunity for the other top teams, with top players, to fight it out. Houston, with Hakeem, took advantage of such an opening.

GREAT coaches, like Pat Riley, are not so great without talent. Does anyone think Riley's coaching ability has suddenly gone south in Miami or has it been injury and not having the top talent?

Phil Jackson lost when MJ retired and won when he unretired. His Laker teams won with Shaq/Kobe and then, this year when Shaq was injured and some of the role players were injured or suddenly fell off, the Lakers lose. Who seems to be taking the Lakers top spot? The team with the TWO TIME MVP. If San Antonio had replaced Popovich for &quot;failing&quot; this last off-season, would they have a better or worse team, THIS year?

MFFL
05-24-2003, 07:06 PM
<< The other teams could change coaches all they wanted and make good showings but changing coaches, in and of itself, would NOT get them a championship without a championship calibre team. >>



And I contend that some &quot;championship calibre&quot; teams need to change coaches to make that next step.

David
05-24-2003, 08:48 PM
<<

<< The other teams could change coaches all they wanted and make good showings but changing coaches, in and of itself, would NOT get them a championship without a championship calibre team. >>



And I contend that some &quot;championship calibre&quot; teams need to change coaches to make that next step. >>



Some do and some don't. If you change coaches and it's not the right move, then it's too late, you've changed coaches. It's hard to un-fire the coach that you just fired. Management can knee-jerk and convince themselves that the coach is the problem, rather than something else. They fire the coach and take a team that's upwardly mobile and send it into a downward spiral. &quot;Oops, my bad.&quot; As an example, Golden State. They were convinced that Don Nelson was the problem. They fired him/he resigned, they went down and stayed down. Only this year did they start moving toward the playoffs. The Mavs took Golden States &quot;problem&quot; after his stopoff in NY and have gone from the outhouse toward the penthouse. The talk is, that Nelson is a builder but not a championship coach. That remains to be seen. He's never had a championship calibre team. He's almost built one in Dallas. As a matter of fact, he's a little ahead of schedule. He needs a center and a starting small forward. He's making do with Bradley and power forward at center and a committee at small forward.

LRB
05-25-2003, 11:27 AM
Where's the historical numbers on teams who HAVE won a championship and who have NOT changed coaches within a couple of years of the championship? What percentage? Which team was the last to do it? What's the percentage in the last 20 years?

David
05-25-2003, 11:04 PM
<< Where's the historical numbers on teams who HAVE won a championship and who have NOT changed coaches within a couple of years of the championship? What percentage? Which team was the last to do it? What's the percentage in the last 20 years? >>



In 20 years, that would be 20 championships. We know that Phil Jackson won 6 championships in Chicago and 3 in LA. That leaves 11 other years. Rudy T. won 2 in Houston when MJ was retired and Popovich won 1 in SA. Detroit won 2 in a row somewhere back in there. In Chicago, Jackson's team was already assembled, as was his team in LA. Who's to say those teams wouldn't have won with the coach he replaced. There's no way of knowing. The other coaches were replaced. That is something that is unknowable.

If you replaced Phil Jackson as coach in Chicago, would the Bulls have still won? I suspect if you took any of the top 10-15 head coaches in the NBA, they would have won with that team in Chicago. Of course there is no way of knowing, because it didn't happen.

MFFL
05-26-2003, 01:22 AM
It's like arguing with a stump.

You win David - you are the biggest bag of wind here (and that's saying something).

David
05-26-2003, 08:51 AM
<< It's like arguing with a stump.

You win David - you are the biggest bag of wind here (and that's saying something). >>



Way to go. It's common to try and use ye olde personal attack to deflect from the fact that you had nothing to back up your argument. If you had something REAL to back your viewpoint, that is, ACTUAL proof, you would have used it. You don't, so you didn't. Same old, same old.

MFFL
05-26-2003, 09:30 AM
David, I have given proof but you choose to ignore it. You have offered nothing in return except opinion. I'm done trying.

David
05-26-2003, 09:52 AM
You offered something, but it didn't PROVE anything.

Sometimes a team changes coaches and the team wins.

Sometimes teams change coaches and the team DOESN'T win.

What CAN'T be shown is what would have happened to the teams if they HADN'T changed coaches.

Successful teams, generally, grow and learn. They add that one piece to the puzzle that puts them over the top, if they make it to the top. That one piece CAN be a coach or it can be a player or it can merely be the further developement of a player from one year to the next. Dirk is an example of a player noticeably developing year to year.

There are lots of things that go into a team's success. A lot of times it seems that the stars have to align. The ball has to bounce right, injuries or lack of injuries, calls by the refs, probably hundreds of things are involved. It's easy to point to the coach. That would wrap it all up in a neat ball but it's not that cut and dried.

LRB
05-26-2003, 12:02 PM
Hmmmm ...

Cold hard facts on one side, pure speculation on the other side ....


which do I chose? i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

MavKikiNYC
05-26-2003, 12:17 PM
Lol..

Somebody gets called a stump and a dick and thinks he's been complimented?

Gotta wonder.

LRB
05-26-2003, 05:06 PM
<< Lol..

Somebody gets called a stump and a dick and thinks he's been complimented?

Gotta wonder. >>



Suppose it's better than saying you have a stump for a dick. i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

David
05-26-2003, 05:57 PM
<< Hmmmm ...

Cold hard facts on one side, pure speculation on the other side ....


which do I chose? i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif >>



What facts were offered that PROVED something?

David
05-26-2003, 07:28 PM
The main blah-blah for changing coaches is offering up the Bulls as a shining example of all-you-have-to-do-is-change-coaches-and-you'll-win. The main deal is pointing to the success of Phil Jackson. Phil Jackson made ALL the difference. I condensed this from the Bulls site:


&quot;In 1982-83, Paul Westhead was coach for one year. He had won an NBA title in 1980 with LA but Chicago gave him all of one year before showing him the door.

Kevin Loughery was the team's new coach for 1983-84, the Bulls finished 27-55, the second-worst record in franchise history.

The reward for the lean season was the third pick in the 1984 NBA Draft. The Bulls took College Player of the Year Michael Jordan, a 6-6 guard from North Carolina.

Chicago improved to 38-44 in 1984-85 as Jordan stepped directly into the starting lineup and began rewriting the Bulls' record book.

Jordan helped the Bulls back to the playoffs for the first time since 1981, but it was a short visit. Chicago fell to Milwaukee, three games to one, in a first-round series. Coach Loughery was fired after the season.

Stan Albeck was named the new head coach for 1985-86, but the season took a disastrous turn when Jordan sustained a broken foot in the Bulls' third game. Many thought he would miss the rest of the season, but Jordan returned triumphantly on March 15 (after missing 64 games) and helped Chicago to a playoff berth despite the club's 30-52 record.

The Bulls faced Boston in the first round and lost in three straight.

Rugged rookie Charles Oakley joined the Bulls in 1985-86 and immediately established himself as a force on the boards, leading the team with 8.6 rebounds per game. Chicago was still searching for the right coaching formula, and the Bulls fired Albeck after the season.

With yet another new head coach, Doug Collins, in for 1986-87, the Bulls improved to 40-42. Chicago qualified for the playoffs for the third straight season but was again eliminated by Boston in the first round.

1987-89: Jordan Gets A Supporting Cast
Jordan was indisputably great, and Oakley, who led the league in total rebounds (1,066), was outstanding. Still, the Bulls lacked a quality supporting cast. They took a major step toward alleviating that problem at the 1987 NBA Draft, when Vice President of Basketball Operations Jerry Krause acquired two players who would be vital cogs in Chicago's future championship machine. With two picks in the top 10, Krause selected Olden Polynice at No. 8 and Horace Grant at No. 10. He then traded Polynice and draft considerations to the Seattle SuperSonics for Scottie Pippen, whom the Sonics had grabbed with the fifth pick.

With Grant and Pippen on board the Bulls began to show their stuff in 1987-88, forging a 50-32 record, their best mark since 1973-74. Chicago finished in a second-place tie with Atlanta in a competitive Central Division won by the surging Detroit Pistons. The Bulls made some noise in the playoffs, defeating the Cleveland Cavaliers in a five-game first-round series, but then fell to Detroit in the Eastern Conference Semifinals.

Jordan led the league in scoring (35.0 ppg) and steals (3.16 per game). He won every major award, including Most Valuable Player, Defensive Player of the Year, All-NBA First Team, NBA All-Defensive First Team, All-Star Game MVP, and NBA Slam-Dunk Champion.

Even with the success of the previous season, the team did not stand pat. The Bulls began the 1988-89 campaign with seven new faces on the roster. Jerry Krause made a blockbuster deal in June 1988 when he sent Oakley to the New York Knicks for 7-1 center Bill Cartwright. He also acquired three-point specialist Craig Hodges from Phoenix. While the players adjusted to one another the team's record slipped to 47-35, but the regular season was just a tune-up for the playoffs.

For only the third time in franchise history the Bulls advanced to the conference finals, upending Cleveland in five games and New York in six along the way. Chicago took a two-games-to-one lead over Detroit in the Eastern Conference Finals, but the Pistons roared back to win the next three and take the series. Jordan had led the league in scoring for a third straight year with 32.5 points per game.

Phil Jackson replaced Doug Collins as head coach for 1989-90.&quot;


The Bulls proceded to win 3 titles with a mature Jordan on board, lose two in a row when he retired and then won 3 more titles when he came back.

Here are the coaches from the start of this piece:

Paul Westhead 82-83

Kevin Loughery 83-84,84-85(Jordan's 1st year)

Stan Albeck 85-86(did Jordan's broken foot get him fired?)

Doug Collins 86-87,87-88,88-89.

Phil Jackson 89-90...

Doug Collins lead the Bulls to their best record in 14 years and the NEXT year, they give him SEVEN new players and they go to the Eastern Conference Finals and lose to a Detroit team that won two championships in a row. That was good enough to get Collins fired. Phil Jackson took an Eastern Conference finalist with Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, et al and won with it.

The Bulls had some good coaches right along, starting with a coach that had won a championship in LA, fired him and the 3 other coaches that built it to the point that it was a turn-key operation for Phil Jackson. Was the team Jackson took over the logical progression of the teams that went before or did the great Phil Jackson make ALL the difference? All the Bulls had to do to win a championship was change coaches...four times. Of course, this doesn't PROVE anything. I'm just offering it up as information.

LRB
05-26-2003, 08:29 PM
<<

<< Hmmmm ...

Cold hard facts on one side, pure speculation on the other side ....


which do I chose? i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif >>



What facts were offered that PROVED something? >>



David nobody said the facts PROVED anything. The facts do support the proposition that some &quot;championship calibre&quot; teams need to change coaches to make that next step. You've offered no relevant facts to deny this supposition. Coaching changes for bad teams are not relevant facts. You've offered a lot of supposition, but no facts to support your position.

David
05-26-2003, 10:27 PM
The last year Doug Collins was coach of the Bulls, they added 7 new players and they went to the Eastern Conference Finals, where they lost in 6 games to the eventual NBA Champions. Those Bulls teams were taking a step toward the championship every year. They started with a championship calibre coach(Westfal). What did they do? They fired him. They gave two coaches all of ONE year to prove themselves. Their answer to things was to change coaches. Championship or bust. Phil Jackson was handed a ready made champion. Doug Collins wasn't given the chance to take the final step. A monkey could have coached the team Phil Jackson was handed.

MFFL
05-26-2003, 11:08 PM
<< The last year Doug Collins was coach of the Bulls, they added 7 new players and they went to the Eastern Conference Finals, where they lost in 6 games to the eventual NBA Champions. Those Bulls teams were taking a step toward the championship every year. They started with a championship calibre coach(Westfal). What did they do? They fired him. They gave two coaches all of ONE year to prove themselves. Their answer to things was to change coaches. Championship or bust. >>



Obviously it worked.



<< Phil Jackson was handed a ready made champion. Doug Collins wasn't given the chance to take the final step. A monkey could have coached the team Phil Jackson was handed. >>



Doug Collins had a shot and failed.

It is not logical to say he would have succeeded if given another chance - he might have failed again. You are making an assumption without logical backing. Because the Bulls won doesn't mean that they would have won with anyone. An extension of your argument would be that the Bulls would have won their first championship even without a coach.

The argument revolves around this - I made the deduction from evidence that a championship caliber team wins championships more often after changing coaches. Obviously there is validity to the observation or it wouldn't be there to observe. You ASSUME that there are other factors - talent on the team and experience of the team are your main assumptions. But the talent was already THERE and the team had not won. Obviously the team needed something more. You then say experience. Experience is not a factor. If that was the case then the Jazz would have had a couple of championships. They had TWO first team ALL NBA players and they had a TON of experience. That is where your argument fails. Neither of your assumptions pass the test.

I have made an observation that has validity. You have assumptions that are easily challenged. That is why you are not drawing supporters to your side of the discussion.

David
05-27-2003, 05:58 AM
Bul-loney. The team Collins had, had 7 new player, and, by seasons end, they won 2 games in the conference finals. They had improved every year. It would be a logical extention to say they would improve the next year, after a full year together. Collins is/was a solid pro coach.

The Bulls won 3 championsips under Jackson, MJ retired and they lost 2, MJ returned and they won 3 more. Was it a coincidence that Jackson couldn't win without MJ? What if it had been Jackson that took 2 years off? Would the Bulls have won 8 years in a row? There is a good possibility that if they had &quot;changed coaches&quot; those 2 years they would have won anyway. The difference maker on those Bulls teams, by evidence, during those years when the team was set, was Jordan, not Jackson or Collins.

You supposition that changing coaches was the key, doesn't hold water.

Usually Lurkin
05-27-2003, 08:29 AM
1) &lt;&lt; What it didn't show was how the Bulls would have done if they had kept Collins or the Lakers had kept, whoever it was, because they didn't. So there is no way of knowing.&gt;&gt;

2) &lt;&lt;Phil Jackson was handed a ready made champion. Doug Collins wasn't given the chance to take the final step. A monkey could have coached the team Phil Jackson was handed. &gt;&gt;

David, the above statements make the following arguments that I don't think you intend to make. Please clarify:
1) Argumentation is useless, and nothing should be analyzed, because hypothetical alternate realities cannot be equally analyzed.

2) Hiring a new coach won't hurt the mavs, because players win a championship and a monkey could coach a championship team.

MFFL
05-27-2003, 08:42 AM
UL - that's why it's futile to argue with David.

LRB
05-27-2003, 11:04 AM
http://www.2chimps.com/images/meet%20the%20staff/sigmonk.gif

Who should coach the Mavs next season.

David
05-27-2003, 01:39 PM
<< 1) &lt;&lt; What it didn't show was how the Bulls would have done if they had kept Collins or the Lakers had kept, whoever it was, because they didn't. So there is no way of knowing.&gt;&gt;

2) &lt;&lt;Phil Jackson was handed a ready made champion. Doug Collins wasn't given the chance to take the final step. A monkey could have coached the team Phil Jackson was handed. &gt;&gt;

David, the above statements make the following arguments that I don't think you intend to make. Please clarify:
1) Argumentation is useless, and nothing should be analyzed, because hypothetical alternate realities cannot be equally analyzed. >>



No one said argument is useless. I said one thing is known and the other is unknown, so it can only be speculated.



<< 2) Hiring a new coach won't hurt the mavs, because players win a championship and a monkey could coach a championship team. >>



I didn't mention the Mavs. What is being put out is changing coaches with good teams leads to championships and the example of that is Phil Jackson. He's coached two NBA teams and was handed a finished product in Chicago and a close to ready-made team in LA.

You don't think I exagerated about the monkey, do you?

What is known is that Phil Jackson won with the teams he was handed in Chicago and LA. What is not known is what the other coaches would have done. Personally, I think Collins would have won in Chicago. The team was building and developing toward that end. They replaced a lot of players the year he was fired. They made it to the conference championship. That was a good team.

In LA, they did a little more tweaking, between seasons, like bringing in Ron Harper, to help the defense. Perhaps the previous coach, with some of the same tweaking, could have done the same thing. Kobe was young and has improved and matured as he has been in the league. That was a good team in LA with Shaq and Kobe. Bring in some role players and they get better. Natural progression, just like in Chicago.