Good Hope

Please bear with me. I've got a very specific question, but I want to develop the idea so you all can get where I'm coming from.

The question has its immediate origins in the debate about Thibodeau and the success of his defense over at Boston.

This was debated extensively over at Realgm, before the D'A showed up on our doorstep. Did KG make the system work, or was it Thibo? Some said that KG was already a great defender, and he got everybody in line. Similar issues came up regarding D'Antoni and Nash. Who made whom a genius and allstar?

And this issue stretches back, in my mind at least, to Phil Jackson, who was criticized for picking his spots, looking for opportunities where he could step in and coach ready-made all stars and teams to increase the number of his rings. So people criticized him, saying that a good coach is one who knows how to make silk from a sow's ear. This was the Penguin's stated criterion for why he likes Dwayne Casey, who had garbage, apart from KG, in Minny.

I think most people agree with that basic premise, and I did too.

A. The best coaches know how to make the team win, even if the players are just so-so.

But in thinking about the possibility of Thibo coming, and the fact of PJ's continued success, I want to propose an alternative criterion for determining who is the best coach:

B. The best coaches are those who can make the best players better. That is, the best coaches are able to take a very good player, and help them play better, in a way that impacts directly on team success.

PJ's work with MJ, Shaq and now Kobe is already well known.

I would like to think that what Thibo has done with KG, and before him, Yao, is an exciting indication of this ability.

Why do I claim that this is the more desirable ability in a coach?

First of all, it is a measure of the person's understanding of the game and ability to communicate that to players. The ability to add something of value to a game that is already top-notch indicates understanding of everything that was already there, and a rare ability to add to it in a positive way. How easy it is for coaches to "mess their players up" by trying to fix them up in a way that just screws up their mindset and makes them feel like they're getting worse, not better. Most coaches I feel don't even touch the good players' games, and just try to fill in what they can around them. To me, it is the rarest and most valuable skill to be able to take what is already good, and make it better still.

Secondly, the ability to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear is a little overrated. It doesn't depend so much on the complete understanding of the game, but has more to do with how successfully that coach can impose his will on the players he has to implement his system. But as we saw with Skiles, that approach has a limitation. Unless the individual players are also improving, the top-down system approach reaches a plateau. The players see that they are their max in terms of implementing the system, and if they aren't improving individually, they can feel stuck, lose motivation and then the whole system can come apart.

I'm not a coach, nor much of a player. But some of you are, and some of you are just observers of the game (much more dedicated and detailed than I). What do you think?

A coach who makes a bad team good, or a coach who can make good players better, impacting team success as well.

I convinced myself that it is the second, and for that reason I'm one hundred (well, ninety nine) percent behind Thibo as my candidate.

__________________
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb. 11:1

There are better things to hope in than the Bulls, but its fun to try, anyway.

chifaninca

Nice post.

I agree with much of it.

I will be happy if we get "Thibo"

__________________
As A Bulls Fan I Believe In The The Three P's and extreme amounts of it:

Potential, Patience and Prayer!

darlets

Nice post.

Just to add my thoughts for what there worth.

I think a good coach would do both.
I read a book by PJ and he talks about coaching a team at a lower grade where he pretty much had to squads of five, split the minutes evenly between them for the first 3 quarters and then went with whoever had the hot hand on the night.


Both seem like a form of player development to me.
It's important to challenge everyone, including your stars.

You have to consider what those two coaching styles do given the same personal.
I think Skiles fills your first model the last two season where we made the play offs, took so so players
and made them win.

I'm not sure having a coach that could get more out of the top 2-3 players would have been better than getting more out of the group (In regards to the bulls)

But if you have a team that has three all stars and they carry most of the load, then I think the second coach would probably be better.

Again, ideally though you want both.

I think Phil Jackson is underrated in what he gets out of his role players to perform.

A quote on PJ from Brian Shaw
"I like Phil's brand of doing things. He allows players to figure things out for themselves and challenges you mentally every single day. He's not going to baby you, so if you're not mentally tough you're not going to be able to handle the system. And I like that because it makes you mature and it makes you responsible for your actions out on the floor."

Good Hope

Yeah, I agree that the distinction is a little artificial.

I guess what I mean by it is that you're far more likely to see a coach who does the first thing, get a team of ok guys to play well as a team, but who can't really help the best players get better, than you will see a guy who can make the best even better, but who can't help a team play together.

So my point is, look for signs of the rarer characteristic when looking for a coach.

Loved the quote on PJ by Shaw, by the way. Now they're saying the Bulls are interested in him, too.

__________________
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb. 11:1

There are better things to hope in than the Bulls, but its fun to try, anyway.

liekomgj4ck

what a great post by the OP, I don't know what to say. All I can say is we need to get the best coach possible. The elite coaches seem to be dwindling so either we have to settle or we have to create a new one.

__________________

darlets

I think your point is quite valid (And I should have read the thread topic), in that it's about identifying a good coach, which is your threads topic.

Also in the N.B.A. I think the second type of coach, getting more out of your stars is far more important, as it's a stars league. Generally you can find enough solid role players to fit around 3 stars that are performing together. And I would imagine stars would be more attracted to a situation where they coach is known for getting the best out of them.


Why Shaw didn't say this explicitly, P.J creates situations that are proving ground for harder (playoff) situations.

Good Hope

I think this is the crucial bit, especially when it comes to getting the "disgruntled stars," which are the only kind you're likely to get apart from the draft.

A lot of interesting names have popped up since D'A escaped our grasp. I hope it's for the best.

I would also mention that D'A is someone who has a record of helping players reach new levels in their game, and the fact that Paxson was actively seeking to bring him on tells me that this is going to be an important criterion for him as he interviews all the wannabes.

__________________
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb. 11:1

There are better things to hope in than the Bulls, but its fun to try, anyway.

Good Hope

Time to revisit this:

I'm not convinced that Collins is coming, but for the sake of argument, let's say that he is.

Does Collins meet this criteria? That is, is Doug Collins someone you want developing your stars?

Of course, there are some complaints about him in this regard. First of all, there is the Kwame Brown fiasco. I didn't follow that situation all too closely, but it seems that it would be easy to argue that this kid suffered mostly from being drafted number 1, the first HS as number 1, by Michael Jordan.

There are complaints about him stifling the progress of Pippen and Grant. With hindsight, both players now say that Collins really helped them. Is it just revisionist history?

And of course there is the work he did with Jordan and Hill. How much of their success could be attributed to coaching? There is the caricature of his coaching style based on that called closing play, "Give the ball to Michael and get the hell out of the way!"

I think it's an open question based on the historical record whether Collins does develop 'stars'. I'm inclined to think that is what he does best, to be honest, even if he isn't able to make the team play as a unit, in the manner of Jackson or Popovich.

In that sense, I think he is the polar opposite of Skiles, who is all about the system, and had little or time for development of individuals' skills (Showtyme made a good post about this contrast). Skiles was never a point A to B coach, because the players weren't developing under him. Collins is a true A to B coach, because he developed the individuals, even if he couldn't come up with the final recipe. And maybe, just maybe, this is his chance to do it all.

What do you all think? (If you even agree with the initial premise that "adding to stars' games" is the best indicator of a great coach...)

__________________
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Heb. 11:1

There are better things to hope in than the Bulls, but its fun to try, anyway.