What is the value of a manager or coach?
Adam Smith argued (in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published in 1776) that daily operations of a firm are run by “principal clerks” and such clerks are essentially homogenous. Or as Smith put it “their labour of inspection and direction may be either altogether or very nearly the same”.
The view put forward by Smith can be contrasted with the high regard many members of the media (and fans) have for coaches and managers in professional sports. There is a belief that certain coaches can – in the words of Bum Phillips (in describing Don Shula) — “He can take his’n and beat your’n, and then he can take your’n and beat his’n”
Coaches or Players?
It is these two perspectives that inspired a study conducted by Michael Leeds, Eva Marikova Leeds, Michael Mondello, and myself. Utilizing data from the NBA, we wished to see if coaches can actually impact the performance of the players. Specifically, we wished to know if a statistical relationship existed between player performance in the NBA and the identity of the player’s coach.
Our work has been detailed in an unpublished paper (that is currently under review at refereed journal). This work will also be detailed in our forthcoming book [Stumbling on Wins from Wharton School Publishing/Financial Times Press].
Normally I don’t go out of my way to discuss my unpublished papers in the forum. And I have definitely gone out of my way to avoid discussing the many new stories we plan for the next book.
But a few weeks ago I got a call from Ryan McCarthy. Ryan was working on a story for Slate.com looking at the value of NBA coaches. Given where we are at in writing the book, I thought I would share our basic findings.
From McCarthy’s article you get the general story. Here are a few excerpts (click on the previous link for the entire article, which is well worth reading):
According to a new study co-authored David Berri, an economist who runs the sports blog Wages of Wins, most NBA coaches are similar to company managers. In the study, Berri and his colleagues sought to investigate whether Adam Smith’s theory that workers make up the value of an organization-and that managers are nothing more than “principal clerks“-applies to the NBA. The economists looked at a group of 19 longtime NBA coaches that had helmed multiple teams, using a Bill Jamesian statistic called Win Score to evaluate how players performed under their tutelage. Only eight of the 19 coaches had any statistically discernible effect on team performance. Seven had a positive impact, with Phil Jackson topping the chart. Next on the list: Rick Adelman, Rudy Tomjanovich, Rick Carlisle, Don Nelson, Flip Saunders, and Gregg Popovich. The only coach who had a demonstrably negative impact on his players: the historically inept Tim Floyd. (For what it’s worth, Berri didn’t study Isiah Thomas. The NBA coaches study hasn’t been published yet; a version of it will be included in the 2009 book Stumbling on Wins, by Berri and Martin Schmidt.)
More interesting than the names on Berri’s list is his finding that the influence of even the best coaches was statistically very small and was distinguishable only from the worst-rated coaches, like Floyd. Even title-winning, Hall of Fame coaches like Pat Riley and Larry Brown were shown to have almost no impact on their teams. Players leaving Riley-led teams actually got better (except, it seems, for Antoine Walker).
And here is how McCarthy’s article ends:
Why is it that, in the NBA, inexperienced coaches can step in and succeed right away? (First-time coach Avery Johnson was named the NBA’s coach of the year in his second season on the job; newbie Doc Rivers won it after his first.) Berri’s contention is that an NBA coach’s record is determined almost entirely by the quality of his players. The claim makes sense: In comparison with football and baseball, NBA statistics vary little from year to year. The job of an NBA coach, then, may be less about coaxing better performances out of athletes than about getting their skills and personalities to fit together. By the time a player has moved through the basketball machine to the NBA, he’s a relatively finished product. Despite Mike D’Antoni’s best efforts, the plodding center Eddy Curry is doomed to be himself. “Think about it,” says Berri. “What is a coach going to say that will get Eddy Curry to rebound?”
Let me summarize: The majority of the coaches we looked at did not have a statistically significant impact on player performance. And some of these coaches are ranked among the all-time greats. Such findings suggest that the outcomes we observe for teams are mostly about the players, not the coaches. So teams that wish to improve should focus on the people in the uniforms, not the people wearing suits on the sidelines.
The Deck Chair Argument
When it comes to coverage of the NBA, one of the most valuable media resources we have is Henry Abbott. Every weekday Abbott tabulates virtually every story on the Association (and he adds quite a few also). And this story at Slate.com was no exception.
Here is how Abbott concludes his comment on the McCarthy article:
What a miserable article to read if you’re a coach. All those late nights of film study. All that competition for your job. All those tricks learned at conferences. All those books by the masters you have internalized.
And now there is evidence to support the notion you could be replaced by a deck chair.
Although I can see how people might think this is what our research is saying, I don’t think our results indicate that a “deck chair” could do as well as an actual NBA coach. To see why, consider the following story:
This past Saturday my family and I attended the Southern Utah University football game (against South Dakota). Sitting a few seats behind us was a man who had an annoying habit. Frequently he had the urge to yell advice down to the field of play. In the course of the game he had many “words of wisdom” for both the SUU coaches and the referees.
In listening to these words I concluded that it was unlikely that the coaches or referees were actually paying attention to this man. And I was pretty sure that this man knew that the people on the field did not care what he said. So why was he yelling? I think he was motivated by a desire to show people around him in the stands that he “knew” football. Unfortunately, his efforts to demonstrate his knowledge did not have his desired effect. The effect he actually had was to convince everyone around him (well, at least my wife and I) that he was an idiot.
Now let’s imagine that we had the power to grant this “idiot” his most fervent wish. Imagine that we could let him coach the team. In other words, rather than replace the coach with a deck chair, we replace the coach with an idiot from the stands.
What our study shows…. okay, our study doesn’t directly comment on this issue. Our sample only considers NBA coaches. We did not look at what would happen if a deck chair – or a person with the intellect of a deck chair – replaced an NBA coach.
What we did look at is the impact various NBA coaches had on player performance. And although we found a few who had a positive impact, many did not. This suggests that a few coaches might (and the word is might for the reasons cited in McCarthy’s article) be able to rise above the status of principal clerk. But for many coaches, we can’t make this distinction.
What does this mean? Certainly I suspect the coaches in the NBA know much more than the “idiots” – or deck chairs – in the stands. Our study, though, did not explore these differences. What we did try and do is explore the differences in NBA coaches. And our study found that in many cases, there were not any substantial differences. In sum, although one has to acquire substantial knowledge to be an NBA coach, there isn’t much one of these coaches is able to do to differentiate himself from his peers. Consequently, players perform in a similar fashion for most NBA coaches.
Scheduling Notes
It’s important to note that this research is still on-going (and of course that can be said about all research). So there will be much more said on this story in our forthcoming book (but hopefully nothing more on this topic in this forum until the book is finished).
Speaking of the new book…we are not quite finished. Regular readers of this forum might have noticed that the posts – which used to appear almost daily – are now only showing up about three times a week. Specifically, I am trying to write a post for just Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
That schedule should continue, at least for a few weeks. If it looks like we are not going to hit our deadline on the book, then the posts will start happening even less frequently. Hopefully this book will be finished soon, and then the posts will start to happen more often.
One last note on the posts… for the most part I am going to be focusing on events in the current season. So please look for stories similar to what I posted on Kevin Durant and the Oklahoma City Thunder. In other words, I will do my best to provide commentary on specific teams (and/or players) from the 2008-09 season. If there is a specific team (or player) you wish for me to examine, please let me know. In other words, I am more than happy to take requests (although it might take time to get the analysis posted).
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Wages of Wins Journal 
Evan
November 18, 2008
Well you gave away these results a long time ago in the comments here, but it’s good to read more. I can’t wait to read more about how much of an impact the best coaches can have.
Did you control for Tex Winters?
Rashad
November 18, 2008
I think another way to phrase it that might be clearer would be to say that the difference between the best and worst coaches is not large. However, that says nothing about the difference between the worst coaches and a deck chair, which is probably quite large.
Rashad
November 18, 2008
Also, we’re talking about NBA-level coaches here. I would imagine that you would see a stronger statistical relationship if GMs started picking random high school coaches to take over their NBA teams.
Rob O
November 18, 2008
Coaches may not have a huge impact on player production but they can have a big impact on wins, can’t they? For instance you cite the example of how would a coach make Eddy Curry rebound. Mike Dantoni might not be able to change Curry to become a better rebounder but he can choose not to play him and give those minutes to a more productive player, David Lee or basically anyone not named Eddy Curry, and hence produce more wins. I think in that way coaches can truly separate themselves. Is my logic faulty here?
Mountain
November 19, 2008
Coaches have different impacts on players and the team as a whole. I am least impressed with coach lineup and shot management given the high rate of unsuccessful / high minute lineups, the high volume of low minute lineups that are impossible to gauge the effectiveness of and the surprisingly few lineups with adequate information. I think a careful student of lineup results raw or adjusted could beat the performance of many of NBA coaches managing from that dataset rather than their experience/feel, assuming all else equal. Certainly it is tougher than it might appear on paper. Every minute of context is different and how other choices would have done not truly knowable. Whether an approach heavily based on the stats could beat the average or even strong traditional coach is debatable but I’d take the argument in favor of this proposition and could find many teams to build a prima facie case. Start with the Thunder or the Rockets or a number of others.
kisho
November 19, 2008
thank you, that is the best
nice post
AWC
November 19, 2008
O.k. I get off the bus here.
Anyone who’s watched Larry Brown closely (and I’d have assumed Dave has, given his Detroit loyalties) knows the guy brings in role players who will buy into his defensive system. Iverson didn’t get any better under Brown, but Larry surrounded him with dudes like Eric Snow, George Lynch, Ty Hill, Aaron McKie, etc. Brown hires guys who are willing to bang and play team D.
Now, this should appear in the team stats. But we all can agree that defensive prowess is less susceptible to statistical measurement than scoring efficiency.
Jason J
November 19, 2008
I’m with Rob O on this one. Measuring increased player production might not always indicate great coaching or increased wins (though Jackson’s ability to hold players accountable probably had something to do with Shaq’s game jumping up a level in the 2000 season, and certainly did a lot to keep Kobe within the system in his younger days).
Two coaching jobs that really caught my eye in the last few years were the job that Riley did in Miami and Rivers did in Boston when each team won it all.
Riles had a team where basically everyone except Wade and Haslem was already past his prime. But he got them to buy into his concept of “it takes 15,” and veterans like Walker and Payton set aside their egos and made themselves complements to Wade. I’d bet Wade and Udonis were the only players on that team whose PAWS were above their career average that season, but the team was better than the sum of its parts.
Basically the same thing happened with the Celtics under Rivers and Thibudeau. Allen, Pierce, and Garnett produced less than they were capable of as individuals, but contributed to a team-wide commitment to defense and accountability that led them to a ring.
That said, according to the sports gamblers, the coach who makes the biggest impact seems to be Popavich. I don’t have the link anymore, but Henry Abbott conducted an interview with a professional sports gambler (in response to the Donaughy mess) who had a very strong, software-based system, and he said that the way Pop managed his line-ups and dealt with tough game situations was something the computations took into consideration when predicting outcomes.
Robert
November 19, 2008
I’m assuming the study did not include Greg Poppovich or Jerry Sloan, as they’ve been with 1 team (or just about 1 team) their entire coaching career.
Further, it’s pretty easy to see that a highly successful GM > highly successful coach in terms of leading to team wins…
Tommy_Grand
November 19, 2008
I would be interested in an analysis of the Spurs play sans Manu and Tony Parker.
Evan
November 19, 2008
Jason B — You’re talking about the interview with Haralabos Voulgaris. Not surprisingly, dude goes by Bob.
Tball
November 19, 2008
I am going to agree with Rob-O, that minute distribution is of great significance – or at least appears to be and should be considered separately from improved player performance.
Last night, Doc Rivers was without KG. I imagine one of the worse drop-offs a lineup can suffer is going from KG to a league average player. Running neck and neck with that drop-off is replacing a league average player in the starting lineup with Brian Scalabrine. Replacing KG with Scalabrine is a move a deck chair wouldn’t make.
There are starters across the league with WP48 of less than 0.050, some of whom are in the negative, starting over players who are better (or have yet to get the opportunity to show they are better) because some coaches do not recognize the contributions these players can make to improving their team’s play (there are exceptions where better players are left on the bench because they have yet to learn the defensive system the team runs, or the offensive sets, but these are exceptions).
With regards to new coaches winning Coach of the Year, I exchanged emails with Kevin Pelton a few weeks back about this. I think the media awards Coach of the Year more to show acceptance of the ability of a coach (e.g., Bird, Rivers, Avery), a team significantly surpassing media preseason expectations (e.g., Byron Scott), or an unusual feat (e.g., 70 wins) than ability. I don’t think the media has any idea how to determine who did the best coaching job in a given season (and, quite frankly, I don’t either), which is why coach of the year shouldn’t really be considered proof of anything.
Tball
November 19, 2008
BTW – Speaking of impactful coaching, Don Nelson started four SGs (or, at the least, four wings) the other night. I’m not sure that such a line-up is a winning strategy, but I do think coaches need to be mindful of which five players give them the best chance of winning and try to give those five as many minutes as possible. Nelson is a coach who has never felt a need to be a slave to the pigeon-holing PG/SG/SF/PF/C lineup requirements.
If you evaluate the talent on your roster well, this type of out of the box thinking has to lead to improved winning opportunities. Kudos to Nelson.
Kyle
November 19, 2008
I gave up after briefly looking for your e-mail, but in response to your solicitation for current issues I would like to see address, the extremely slow start of the Clippers is something that has caught my eye. With the addition of Davis and Camby, I expected much better from them, and have been surprised to see them languishing so badly so early.
Would love an analysis of what’s gone wrong (the short answer I’m sure – a lot) on that side of the Staples Center.
j
November 19, 2008
-Did the quitting on larry brown effect show up in this study? That is was his team markedly better in the first couple of years only to follow by a decline as he quits on his players and they quit on him? Possibly, partly, or largely, because as a coach he refuses and has shown he is mostly ineffective in the NBA at nourishing young talent? Or is this a myth?
-Nelson historically has chosen teams and manipulated them so all their best players are or play small. I don’t know if that makes him a good coach worthy of kudos, but it does make his teams fun to watch. However, attacking the Dirk Nowitzski spin move in the playoffs aggressively was a good maneuver which had never been used before.
-I think Jerry Sloan has consistently had teams that outperformed their perceived talent, specifically 2003-2004. 42 wins for a team of Carlos Arroyo, Harpring, Raja Bell, AK47, and Ostertag, giricek and Deshawn Stevenson seemed impressive, and still does. That’s a point guard who can’t play defense. Three shooting guards, none who can really shoot. Two small forwards, neither of whom is a front line offensive player. And two centers, neither of whom was very good. And they actually got outscored by their opponents.
-Camby is overrated (not to say he’s bad, just overrated.) Can’t guard a screen to save his life, and is not fantastic on the ball either. He’s really a help defender, and a pretty good rebounder, but those 20 foot jump shots don’t add much to the offense either, and neither he or Kaman are quick enough to guard good power forwards 12 feet and out. Basically he takes shots away from the Clippers most efficient player from a year ago. Add in Al Thorton, possibly the worst passer in the NBA, Cuttino Mobley and a struggling Baron Davis. Not exactly the recipe for success.
Brian McCormick
November 19, 2008
I am a coach and I generally agree. At the NBA level, the General Manager is far more impactful than the coach. At the college level, recruiting is more impactful than coaching.
At the NBA level, a coach’s greatest skill is not X’s and O’s but managing the different egos and personalities. I think people underestimate Rick Adelman as a coach because he does not yell and scream and he sometimes doesn’t make the greatest use of timeouts or his bench, but the guy gets players with different agendas to play together in a way which elevates the team, which is one reason Ron Artest wanted to play for him again.
There is not a difference of knowledge in the NBA. Coaches have access to so much information and film (and experts in every related field from strength and conditioning to nutrition to sports psychology) that everyone is basically at the same point. The difference is how you use the information and who you get to use it with.
Would every coach have won 6 championships with the Bulls like Phil Jackson? Probably not. However, I’m sure Jackson is not the only one who could have won six championships with Jordan and Pippen. Is Doc the only one who could have won with the Celtics last year? Probably not. But, he did have a positive effect because he brought the team together around a central motivating idea and he hired the right assistant coach (Thibodeau) and empowered him. Not every coach would have made those decisions. However, there probably were other ways to win with the Celtics personnel.
Jordan
November 19, 2008
To relate to your post about coaches AND your request for possible future posts, I’d be interested in your thoughts about Scott Skiles effect on the Milwaukee Bucks.
There is just no way that he isn’t having a huge effect!
Thanks, and enjoy your work.
-Jordan
Anon
November 19, 2008
I’d like to see something on the Knicks. They seem to have gone from abysmal to average simply by hiring D’antoni.
Owen
November 19, 2008
Anon – Or that might just be the fact the Eddy Curry is not on the floor, and Q Rich has returned to being an average NBA player after being just about the worst player in the NBA last year.
ravenred
November 19, 2008
I’ll be interested to read this when it finally comes out. Specifically what effect the coach has on both the quality (per min productivity) or individual players and individual player-types (some are guard-oriented coaches, some depend on a point-forward, etc) and to what effect they define the quantity of such players on-court, every coach makes choices as to who plays which minutes.
The other thing that will be interesting is to see how coaches impact on which players are interchanged between teams or obtained via draft or free-agency. It is obviously harder to quantify, given that these decisions are taken in a collaborative manner between the coach, GM and occasionally the owner (hello Sen. Kohl!). Constructing a team is a separate skill to running it, but still a fairly important one in the NBA, where the Pareto Principle is king…
Brian Gampel
November 19, 2008
I think that the impact on WIn Score for individual players was the wrong place to look. In the numbers that I have looked at, coaches have the biggest impact on team defense. This would be a stat that is farthest removed from individual performance. A measure I like to use for team defense goes like this: (OppPts-OppFT)/(OppFGA-TmBlk+OppTO-TmSTL) . So basically it is points allowed per unblocked shot and team turnover. Guys like Jeff Van Gundy, Riley, Byron Scott, and Phil Jackson all have had great team defenses at multiple locales. Any chane you could look into that?
Vince Gagliano
November 19, 2008
Personally, I think that the argument can go both ways. If we look at particular players, there can be evidence of a dramatic change in productivity under a new team or coach.
As I have mentioned before, Pau Gasol has done very well under Phil Jackson as compared to Mark Iavaroni, Mike Fratello, etc. If playing in the triangle has helped him, then playing under the coach who implements the triangle has to help him, too.
By the way, the Knicks have been one of the most underrated stories in basketball. Then again, they’re not getting burned in the media for having Isiah Thomas, one of Dave’s former favorite players, as coach.
In that regard, Zach Randolph makes a fascinating case study. Here is a season-by-season WS/48, along with his head coach
’01-’02 (Maurice Cheeks): 9.8
’02-’03 (Maurice Cheeks): 12.3
’03-’04 (Maurice Cheeks): 11.3
’04-’05 (Maurice Cheeks): 10.9
’05-’06 (Nate McMillan): 7.6
’06-’07 (Nate McMillan): 11.8
’07-’08 (Isiah Thomas): 12.4
First 11 games of ’08-’09 (Mike D’Antoni): 15.5
After Randolph’s rookie season, we see a player whom, under Cheeks, starts out strong, then begins to decline. After Cheeks moves to Philly and is replaced by McMillan, Randolph undergoes a rocky first season, but suddenly spikes the year afterword. The productivity improves slightly under Isiah Thomas, but it’s probably NOT due to coaching.
But under D’Antoni, Randolph is not only not playing badly, he’s thriving. Even in spite of his scoring, Randolph is grabbing more rebounds, turning the ball over less, and getting more steals than at any point in his career. If coaching isn’t causing this spike, then I’d like to know what is.
On the flip side, David Lee went from a 15.9 WS/48 last season under Thomas to a 10.1 under D’Antoni at time of writing. He’s focusing more on scoring, shooting less, grabbing fewer boards, and TOing and fouling more. He’s probably better suited to a halfcourt style of play, and D’Antoni has brought about a culture shock.
Lee is one of Dave’s most favorite producers, so to go from very good one season to below average the next, well, there needs to be an explanation.
It probably has more to do with X’s and O’s than coaching, but the coaches are the ones who draw up those X’s and O’s in the first place. Productivity isn’t exactly static in the NBA.
Rob O
November 20, 2008
Eleven games is a pretty small sample size for the Lee and Randolph observations. I’d wait a little longer before coming to any conclusions. And also it is only two players on one team, out of thirty teams over a short eleven game span. There isn’t much support for reasonably extrapolating and generalizing those numbers at this time.
dustinc
November 20, 2008
I’d like to make a plug for some greasemonkey scripts I’ve made for espn.com . You can use these to look up various WoW statistics fairly quickly. I am adding scripts for new pages and updating the old ones fairly frequently. Feedback is welcome on the scripts if you like (or don’t like) them.
info on grease monkey at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748
my scripts are at http://userscripts.org/users/72607
Brian Gampel
November 20, 2008
Add Scott Skiles to the list: He always had stellar team defense in Chicago. Through 11 games this year, he has taken Milwakee from dead LAST in team defense last year to third BEST in the league this year. Again, this is the stat furthest removed from any individual player’s statistics as possible.
slowjoe66
November 20, 2008
Thanks Dustin. Very cool.
Vince Gagliano
November 20, 2008
Even if this season’s data on Randolph is inconclusive, his lack of productivity during McMillan’s first year was no accident. There *had* to be issues with learning a new offense.
As another example, consider Vince Carter prior to this season. Following are WS/48s and head coaches
1998-99 (Butch Carter): 7.7
1999-00 (Butch Carter): 9.5
2000-01 (Lenny Wilkens): 8.8
2001-02 (Lenny Wilkens): 6.5
2002-03 (Lenny Wilkens): 7.7
2003-04 (Kevin O’Neill): 5.1
2004-05 (Sam Mitchell): 4.6
2004-05 (Lawrence Frank): 10.1
2005-06 (Lawrence Frank): 8.5
2006-07 (Lawrence Frank): 9.5
2007-08 (Lawrence Frank): 9.3
Without giving numbers this season, suffice it to say that, so far, Carter has suffered a huge drop in his productivity thus far, but probably not because of Frank. It might be due to having to assume sole emotional leadership of a team for the first time in his career, given the trading of Richard Jefferson. As a result, his stats have regressed to the point where he is content to get 20 points per game, and little else.
Coaches do not directly impact the game in the sense that they score or rebound. However, Win Scores are a combination of offensive and defensive statistics, and these statistics are clearly affected by the offensive and defensive philosophies that their coaches implement. Carter had a solid start in Toronto under Butch Carter, an O.K. middle under Wilkens, and bad finishes under O’Neill and Mitchell. He is enjoying the best stretch of his career under Frank.
Tball
November 20, 2008
Prospective post topics:
How about an explanation for how the Pistons have become world-beaters instead of medocrity? Who has filled the WP void created by the loss of Billups?
How about identifying a few players who are being marginalized by a lack of playing time, who could materially help their team if given starter minutes?
Given a vote, and based on the research related to the new book, who would you have chosen as the coach of the year last year? Why, and what criteria would you use?
Is Biedrins (as the sole big) effective enough to make Don Nelson’s motley starting lineup workable? If you were Don and simply going to put the five players you thought were most effective on the floor, who would start for Coach DJ?
Rob O
November 20, 2008
Thats awesome dustin, great work. And Id like to see a post on marginalized productive players as well. Usually these are in the form of Underrated players post though, which is essentially the same thing.
Harold Almonte
November 20, 2008
The main idea behind all of this coaching debate is the economical point of view that coaches don’t rise production, that Basketball game is a kind of free trade of matchup advantages which is regulated and arranged by itself in search of a balance wich allways is in favor of the best team, with the best players, no matter who’s coaching them.
Although the deck chair is an exaggerated slide, and the difference in quality among coaches is hidden by their players’s quality; the fact is that they are necessary to provide outside control for a lot of variables like playtime and usage-eff. tradeoff, fittings and coordinations guide (Xs&Os), right selection of the skills set at every battle, and the strategy for the long term war. They are one of the main controls for providing a good show joined to rules and referees.
H to the Immo
November 20, 2008
I hate to say it – but this is a flawed approach. If you’re looking at the numbers for individual player performance, maybe LOWER numbers would actually be a good thing –
This could indicate that players were playing within a team concept and gambling or freelancing less – contributing to more wins.
Mountain
November 20, 2008
If you are going to debate Coaches- Valuable Leaders vs. Deck Chairs
I think you have to address “Plays”.
Are they meaningful? Are they managed well, enhancing player average performance? There is very little split public data by called plays or even general offense type / main objective.
I assume the good analytic teams have a good deal on this. But how well coaches use that data I don’t know.
Jason E
November 20, 2008
I’ve often thought that there can’t be that much difference between most coaches once they’ve made the cut of becoming an NBA coach.
I’m curious though if coaches who are hired from the college ranks do as well as hires of former players and/or assistant coaches in the Association. Generally the college guys who get the hire are among the best in the college game, but it seems anecdotal evidence shows that they fail with regularity. Granted, it’s *usually* a terrible team that bothers to bring in a new coach and takes a chance on a Mike Montgomery or Tim Floyd, so they don’t really get handed a great deal to begin with, but do their players underperform for them relative to how the same players have done under other head coaches?
Tim
November 20, 2008
Can you do a story on Derrick Rose and the Chicago Bulls? Rose has had a very successful debut, despite the fact that you and your guest writers did not think much of his college and preseason stats. Is he for real, or is the sample too small? And as for the rest of the Bulls, is there any hope? Or should the Bulls rebuild around Rose?
mafischer
November 22, 2008
The very limited effect that NBA coaches have on the win scores of individual players should be expected, based on the high degree of season-to-season consistency seen in the performance of nearly all NBA players (when not injured). If there is a level in basketball where particular coaches DO have a significant impact on individual player performance, I would expect that level to be one where the coaches are primarily TEACHING the players (as in high school), rather than primarily MANAGING the players (as in the NBA).
For NBA coaching, it would be much more interesting to examine the relationship between individual coaches and team results such as efficiency differential. Another approach to assess the differences in the effectiveness of how various coaches manage their teams would be to analyze, for the first few years after each change of coach, how the team metrics for the team vary from projected versions of those metrics for the same set of players under the previous coach.
Although a very small sample, it does appear that Mike D’Antoni is achieving improved team results this season from the players on the Nicks, even if he cannot say anything to get Eddy Curry to rebound!
Jim Glass
November 22, 2008
Some thoughts:
1) “For what it’s worth, Berri didn’t study Isiah Thomas.”
Too bad. Last year the Knicks with Isiah were 23-59, .280. This year with basically the same players, before the big roster shake-up, they were 6-5, .545. A small sample size, but still…
Admittedly, Isiah is an *extreme* case.
2) “Red Queen competition”. It’s not that coaching isn’t important, it’s that at the very top levels one finds only the very best coaches who have to work their butts off just to stay even with each other. (The occassional Isiah-like example of the inferior who makes it into the bigs showing what happens if you don’t have one.)
The close analogy is the inability to prove the existence of “clutch play” in pro sports. It’s not that the tendency to play better in the clutch or freeze up in it doesn’t exist in most people, as we all see in everyday experience — it’s that the very few players who make it to the pros are the selected best who play their best all the time and don’t freeze up, again with a few exceptions.
Bill James did a study of baseball managers that found none showed any particular ability to win close games, but a very few lost more than their share of close games. One can read this as indicating that MLB managers being the select best in all of baseball are about equal at winning close games, but the occassional inferior one who gets a job (maybe hired by an idiot Dolan-like owner) will be worse than the rest.
3) Salary for coaches (CEOs). Many people argue that since few coaches (and business CEOs, most of whom are also are in Red Queen competition) perform better than the averages, the big salaries they get are wantonly excessive.
But one must also consider the value of not losing money. Having an inferior manager running a sports franchise or other business worth millions (or billions) of dollars can cost you a fortune.
I believe this blog has already observed how much money Isiah cost the Knicks. If you have to pay millions to get one of the few best managers who are equal to the other best, so you will stay even with the competition, it can be a bargain compared to saving money on salary by paying less for inferior managers who deliver for you the 2007 Knicks, Enron, etc.
4) Regarding the metric of evaluating coaches, player skill measured by stats may not be the best (indeed, by the time players get to the pros they mostly are who they are.) Anyhow, player skills might better be considered the responsibility of assistant coaches and postition coaches.
Head coaches bring other valuable skills into an organization (or they don’t): credibility, people management ability, ability to work in a difficult organization without blowing up (Joe Torre with the Yankees), ability to manage the press, etc., This can have a real effect on ability to attract and retain good players and keep them playing as well as they can.
Casey Stengel was once asked what was the most important skill of a baseball manager. He said it wasn’t calling plays or managing pitchers or teaching.
He said on every baseball team there are five players who love the manager whatever he does, five who hate the manager whatever he does, and fifteen guys who don’t care about the manager and just want to play baseball. He said the most important skill for a manager is being able to run the team so that the fifteen guys who don’t care about you don’t join the five guys who hate you.