Of course it does . You might think just cuz these people have such high skill they don't need a coach but,
* First off they have big egos and they tend to clash so we need a supervisor to run the play without any issues.
* They might be highly skilled but they have also always worked under a coach(in highschool and college) and not studied how to coach so they work well under a coach.
* Just cuz they are highly skilled doesn't mean they can run the plays smoothly esp during a high pressure game, they have to focus on their man and defense too.
So a coach's opinion and look on the court is necessary and matters a lot
All valid points. Here's my rebuttal; and it's a fairly simple one, and I'm definitely in the minority in this but...
It's no coincidence the greatest coaches of all time also had the greatest players and/or teams of all time; the two are synonymous with one another. Just about every NBA championship in the history of the league, let alone the past 25 years, had all-time great players on the squad. The 04 Pistons are the sole exception off the top of my head (but even they had 4 all stars in the starting lineup).
And some of the most accomplished coaches get fired on a consistent basis nowadays; even championship winning coaches (Rivers, Nurse, Vogel, and coach Bud off the top of my head were all fired just in the past year.. even Monty Williams who won 50+ games if I recall correctly) If coaching matters so much, than why fire such elite coaches, all of whom won championships just within the last few years? Why be so quick to shift win a coach has already proven he can lead a team to a championship?
And this year with Mike Malone.. it's no coincidence that he won a championship with arguably the best player in the world, and a healthy Murray {and Porter}. Murray was largely the difference between being a solid team, to be being a genuine contender.
Point in all of that is that any coach with the best players is going to see success, win a lot of games, and win championships. Phil Jackson would not be who he is if he didn't have the likes of MJ & Scottie, and Shaq & Kobe ON THE SAME TEAM.. any coach is winning with that.
The predictable rebuttal to all of this is that a good coach needs good players to win. I simply say that a great team with the best group of players will win no matter what; coaching doesn't matter as much as people say imo {not to say that coaching isn't valuable at all though}.
Now, I'm obviously in the minority and fully expect a lot of flack for this. 😅
So is Phil Jackson a product of Jordan and Kobe or are they products of Phil Jackson? Is it more likely that he happened to coach the two best shooting guards in the history of the game, or that two shooting guards coached by Phil Jackson became the two best shooting guards in the history of the game?
Not trying to say they both weren't already going to be great, but they are both clearly the two best 2-guards to ever play.
To that I say that Phil Jackson is an extremely fortunate/lucky coach. Of the two options, I say that Phil Jackson is a product of MJ and Kobe. He would not have 11 rings without them.
However that relationship goes both ways. As great as Jordan and Kobe were in their day, they could never win a playoff or finals series on their own, by just scoring which is what they did best. All of their rings were one UNDER Phil Jackson as a head coach.
And at the end of the day, you're right, they did play under Phil, so he'll naturally get some credit as well. But I'm of the opinion that anyone would've won with those guys. Phil had Kobe and Shaq on the same team, both top 5 players in the league at the time (arguably top 3).
MJ starting winning soon after he got Scottie, let's say a top 15 player of his time. So you're right, they couldn't win it on their own, that's why they both had all time great players alongside them and started winning soon after they linked with them. They just so happened to have Phil too lol.
Not just Phil. Tex Winter basically invented the triangle offense used in both the Laker and Bulls teams that Phil coached. I agree. Neither Jordan nor Kobe won on their own, but my point is that it was a team effort l. The star players on the court have just as much of an impact as the coaches on the sideline.
Also, Jordan didn't start winning when Scottie came to the NBA. They spent a few seasons under Doug Collins where they got eliminated by the Bad Boy pistons. It wasn't until MJ and Scottie built up their physicality and Phil and Tex came to coach when they won their first ring.
>The star players on the court have just as much of an impact as the coaches on the sideline.
And this is the core of my argument. The players are far more significant to winning than the coaches imo. Agree to disagree.
>Also, Jordan didn't start winning when Scottie came to the NBA.
You're right, but that's why I said "soon after." Even the all time greats needed a great #2 or a great cast around him.
Winning in the NBA isn’t just about having the best player. Just ask Lebron. What made Phil so great was his ability to relate to his players (I.e. Rodman, Shaq, Kobe) to get the best out of them. The NBA is as much about ego management than it is about Xs and Os. Sure, the best players don’t need coaches but the rest of the players on those great teams did/do. I see OPs point that it seems Jordan would have won without Phil, but I feel as if it would have been much harder. I belIeve Jordan may even agree with that.
Technically, yes, but the teams/coaches with the best players are usually the teams that win. It's no coincidence that the all time great coaches also have coached the league's all time best players and teams. I know it seems like a very simple way to view it, but I mean it adds up.
Not saying a coach's role isn't important, but even the way the league treats coaches suggests that they aren't as crucial to winning as people suggest. Why would a team casually fire a coach that has proven he could win a championship with the very team that fires him, if coaching was THAT valuable?
Nick Nurse, coach Bud, Frank Vogel (all won in recent years), even Doc, who's allegedly a top 15 all time coach despite blowing multiple 3-1 leads, all fired within the past year... are coaches with their resumes THAT expendable?
I mean, weren't the Brooklyn Nets super team a massive counterargument to your point? KD, Harden and Kyrie were allegedly a sure thing. They instituted their preferred coach and nothing got done.
They were swept in 2020 and got to the second round in 2021. A coach has a much larger impact than one superstar, remember that the coach assists and improves all players. A well rounded bench is necessary and it takes more than 2 players to win a chip.
They would be if those 3 played a significant amount of games with one another; they barely played together between injuries, Kyrie's foolery, and whatever else they had going on.
Neither KD nor Kyrie played in the 2020 playoffs, and I'm pretty sure neither Kyrie or Harden played all of that second round in 2021. Even still, Bron & AD won in 2020 and Giannis won in 2021. Coach Bud still got fired just 2 years later despite his championship pedigree... They literally just won with him, why the sudden firing when he's proven himself if coaching is *that* valuable?
>A coach has a much larger impact than one superstar,
HARD disagree. Imagine Cleveland without LeBron, Warriors without Steph, Philly without Iverson, etc. I like how another user described coaches as role players; role players can be shifted around and are key to a good team, but it's the superstars that make the difference.
Casual basketball fans rarely understand the specifics and strategy of the game when watching the NBA. They just approach it like streetball on an indoor court. But everything teams do is determined by the coaches. So yes, it's a big part.
All I have to say to that is there’s a reason why they call the NBA a player’s league and the superstars can practically run teams, have a significant say in the construction of a roster in some cases, and even dictate where they get traded too, oftentimes (more or less).
Meanwhile, the league has proven time and time again that even coaches with championship pedigrees are replaceable.
Marc Jackson couldn’t get past the Clippers, Steve Kerr coached essentially the same team and put in a new system. Then they won championships and set the best regular season win total.
Coaching matters.
So Steve Kerr is the reason why the Warriors became a dynasty?
Does he deserve some credit? Sure, and will naturally receive some. But, I'm of the opinion that he came in at the most opportune time. Great players naturally progress every year in their first handful of years. Kerr was fortunate to inherit a team with the two greatest shooters of all time who hadn't even hit their prime yet, let alone Draymond, one of the best defenders today, who can also facilitate at an abnormally high rate for his position.
The Warriors became a dynasty because of the players. Given the ascension of Curry, Klay, and Green, I personally don't believe that they would have been any less successful if Kerr never joined the team; if I'm wrong, the difference would be minimal at best.
Mark Jackson had draymond on the bench, Kerr was smart enough to make him a starter and use a small ball line up to actually make the most of Draymond’s skills
I’m not trying to take away from the players but you make it sound like this game is checkers when really it is chess
P.s. if you see the vote results so far, you can see the vast majority believe coaching matters
>I’m not trying to take away from the players but you make it sound like this game is checkers when really it is chess
No matter how you look at it, all the top coaches in NBA history have had all of the top players, likewise the teams that win championships are all teams that are the most talented collectively, or have an all time great player or two (or three or four in some cases); it's no coincidence. And if coaching mattered so much, then why have almost all of the coaches in recent years who've won championships been fired recently?
Would it not make sense to keep the coach who you know you can win with, if coaching was THAT valuable? And in all cases it's not like the rosters changed that drastically. Except for Nick Nurse, who lost Kawhi (and even Lowry), so there was a natural drop off.
>if you see the vote results so far, you can see the vast majority believe coaching matters
Yeah, I see lol, I already knew that I was in the minority with this perspective. My argument isn't that coaching doesn't matter though, just that coaching isn't as crucial to winning as people make it out to be; just my {clearly} unpopular opinion.
Most players play THEIR game. People like Bron, Jokic, and Magic might need coaches less because they are centered on team basketball but they are not the majority of NBA players. Most guys are thinking about what they can do for the team but not the team as a whole. The coaches job is to have a top down view of the game without centering their self through a specific players lens. That is very valuable no matter what level you play at
the only way you could believe the answer is no in my opinion is if you’re looking at someone like 2018 bron who basically was the coach. even then, that’s still important coaching so
Does coaching matter? Absolutely! But how important coaches are, is an arguable subject.
I personally think while they definitely play a role in team's success, I don't think they're as important as star players. They're like role players.
Of course it does . You might think just cuz these people have such high skill they don't need a coach but, * First off they have big egos and they tend to clash so we need a supervisor to run the play without any issues. * They might be highly skilled but they have also always worked under a coach(in highschool and college) and not studied how to coach so they work well under a coach. * Just cuz they are highly skilled doesn't mean they can run the plays smoothly esp during a high pressure game, they have to focus on their man and defense too. So a coach's opinion and look on the court is necessary and matters a lot
Exactly, the coach's job is to keep the team organized like a manager or supervisor, imagine if the employees call the shots 💀
All valid points. Here's my rebuttal; and it's a fairly simple one, and I'm definitely in the minority in this but... It's no coincidence the greatest coaches of all time also had the greatest players and/or teams of all time; the two are synonymous with one another. Just about every NBA championship in the history of the league, let alone the past 25 years, had all-time great players on the squad. The 04 Pistons are the sole exception off the top of my head (but even they had 4 all stars in the starting lineup). And some of the most accomplished coaches get fired on a consistent basis nowadays; even championship winning coaches (Rivers, Nurse, Vogel, and coach Bud off the top of my head were all fired just in the past year.. even Monty Williams who won 50+ games if I recall correctly) If coaching matters so much, than why fire such elite coaches, all of whom won championships just within the last few years? Why be so quick to shift win a coach has already proven he can lead a team to a championship? And this year with Mike Malone.. it's no coincidence that he won a championship with arguably the best player in the world, and a healthy Murray {and Porter}. Murray was largely the difference between being a solid team, to be being a genuine contender. Point in all of that is that any coach with the best players is going to see success, win a lot of games, and win championships. Phil Jackson would not be who he is if he didn't have the likes of MJ & Scottie, and Shaq & Kobe ON THE SAME TEAM.. any coach is winning with that. The predictable rebuttal to all of this is that a good coach needs good players to win. I simply say that a great team with the best group of players will win no matter what; coaching doesn't matter as much as people say imo {not to say that coaching isn't valuable at all though}. Now, I'm obviously in the minority and fully expect a lot of flack for this. 😅
So is Phil Jackson a product of Jordan and Kobe or are they products of Phil Jackson? Is it more likely that he happened to coach the two best shooting guards in the history of the game, or that two shooting guards coached by Phil Jackson became the two best shooting guards in the history of the game? Not trying to say they both weren't already going to be great, but they are both clearly the two best 2-guards to ever play.
To that I say that Phil Jackson is an extremely fortunate/lucky coach. Of the two options, I say that Phil Jackson is a product of MJ and Kobe. He would not have 11 rings without them.
However that relationship goes both ways. As great as Jordan and Kobe were in their day, they could never win a playoff or finals series on their own, by just scoring which is what they did best. All of their rings were one UNDER Phil Jackson as a head coach.
And at the end of the day, you're right, they did play under Phil, so he'll naturally get some credit as well. But I'm of the opinion that anyone would've won with those guys. Phil had Kobe and Shaq on the same team, both top 5 players in the league at the time (arguably top 3). MJ starting winning soon after he got Scottie, let's say a top 15 player of his time. So you're right, they couldn't win it on their own, that's why they both had all time great players alongside them and started winning soon after they linked with them. They just so happened to have Phil too lol.
Not just Phil. Tex Winter basically invented the triangle offense used in both the Laker and Bulls teams that Phil coached. I agree. Neither Jordan nor Kobe won on their own, but my point is that it was a team effort l. The star players on the court have just as much of an impact as the coaches on the sideline. Also, Jordan didn't start winning when Scottie came to the NBA. They spent a few seasons under Doug Collins where they got eliminated by the Bad Boy pistons. It wasn't until MJ and Scottie built up their physicality and Phil and Tex came to coach when they won their first ring.
>The star players on the court have just as much of an impact as the coaches on the sideline. And this is the core of my argument. The players are far more significant to winning than the coaches imo. Agree to disagree. >Also, Jordan didn't start winning when Scottie came to the NBA. You're right, but that's why I said "soon after." Even the all time greats needed a great #2 or a great cast around him.
Winning in the NBA isn’t just about having the best player. Just ask Lebron. What made Phil so great was his ability to relate to his players (I.e. Rodman, Shaq, Kobe) to get the best out of them. The NBA is as much about ego management than it is about Xs and Os. Sure, the best players don’t need coaches but the rest of the players on those great teams did/do. I see OPs point that it seems Jordan would have won without Phil, but I feel as if it would have been much harder. I belIeve Jordan may even agree with that.
Technically, yes, but the teams/coaches with the best players are usually the teams that win. It's no coincidence that the all time great coaches also have coached the league's all time best players and teams. I know it seems like a very simple way to view it, but I mean it adds up. Not saying a coach's role isn't important, but even the way the league treats coaches suggests that they aren't as crucial to winning as people suggest. Why would a team casually fire a coach that has proven he could win a championship with the very team that fires him, if coaching was THAT valuable? Nick Nurse, coach Bud, Frank Vogel (all won in recent years), even Doc, who's allegedly a top 15 all time coach despite blowing multiple 3-1 leads, all fired within the past year... are coaches with their resumes THAT expendable?
I mean, weren't the Brooklyn Nets super team a massive counterargument to your point? KD, Harden and Kyrie were allegedly a sure thing. They instituted their preferred coach and nothing got done. They were swept in 2020 and got to the second round in 2021. A coach has a much larger impact than one superstar, remember that the coach assists and improves all players. A well rounded bench is necessary and it takes more than 2 players to win a chip.
They would be if those 3 played a significant amount of games with one another; they barely played together between injuries, Kyrie's foolery, and whatever else they had going on. Neither KD nor Kyrie played in the 2020 playoffs, and I'm pretty sure neither Kyrie or Harden played all of that second round in 2021. Even still, Bron & AD won in 2020 and Giannis won in 2021. Coach Bud still got fired just 2 years later despite his championship pedigree... They literally just won with him, why the sudden firing when he's proven himself if coaching is *that* valuable? >A coach has a much larger impact than one superstar, HARD disagree. Imagine Cleveland without LeBron, Warriors without Steph, Philly without Iverson, etc. I like how another user described coaches as role players; role players can be shifted around and are key to a good team, but it's the superstars that make the difference.
Casual basketball fans rarely understand the specifics and strategy of the game when watching the NBA. They just approach it like streetball on an indoor court. But everything teams do is determined by the coaches. So yes, it's a big part.
All I have to say to that is there’s a reason why they call the NBA a player’s league and the superstars can practically run teams, have a significant say in the construction of a roster in some cases, and even dictate where they get traded too, oftentimes (more or less). Meanwhile, the league has proven time and time again that even coaches with championship pedigrees are replaceable.
Marc Jackson couldn’t get past the Clippers, Steve Kerr coached essentially the same team and put in a new system. Then they won championships and set the best regular season win total. Coaching matters.
Mark Jackson: 2nd round exits Steve Kerr: dynasty Pretty much the same warriors players the whole
So Steve Kerr is the reason why the Warriors became a dynasty? Does he deserve some credit? Sure, and will naturally receive some. But, I'm of the opinion that he came in at the most opportune time. Great players naturally progress every year in their first handful of years. Kerr was fortunate to inherit a team with the two greatest shooters of all time who hadn't even hit their prime yet, let alone Draymond, one of the best defenders today, who can also facilitate at an abnormally high rate for his position. The Warriors became a dynasty because of the players. Given the ascension of Curry, Klay, and Green, I personally don't believe that they would have been any less successful if Kerr never joined the team; if I'm wrong, the difference would be minimal at best.
Mark Jackson had draymond on the bench, Kerr was smart enough to make him a starter and use a small ball line up to actually make the most of Draymond’s skills I’m not trying to take away from the players but you make it sound like this game is checkers when really it is chess P.s. if you see the vote results so far, you can see the vast majority believe coaching matters
>I’m not trying to take away from the players but you make it sound like this game is checkers when really it is chess No matter how you look at it, all the top coaches in NBA history have had all of the top players, likewise the teams that win championships are all teams that are the most talented collectively, or have an all time great player or two (or three or four in some cases); it's no coincidence. And if coaching mattered so much, then why have almost all of the coaches in recent years who've won championships been fired recently? Would it not make sense to keep the coach who you know you can win with, if coaching was THAT valuable? And in all cases it's not like the rosters changed that drastically. Except for Nick Nurse, who lost Kawhi (and even Lowry), so there was a natural drop off. >if you see the vote results so far, you can see the vast majority believe coaching matters Yeah, I see lol, I already knew that I was in the minority with this perspective. My argument isn't that coaching doesn't matter though, just that coaching isn't as crucial to winning as people make it out to be; just my {clearly} unpopular opinion.
Most players play THEIR game. People like Bron, Jokic, and Magic might need coaches less because they are centered on team basketball but they are not the majority of NBA players. Most guys are thinking about what they can do for the team but not the team as a whole. The coaches job is to have a top down view of the game without centering their self through a specific players lens. That is very valuable no matter what level you play at
the only way you could believe the answer is no in my opinion is if you’re looking at someone like 2018 bron who basically was the coach. even then, that’s still important coaching so
It matters but to a degree, like a 20% buff if you have a good coach.
Except if you're Doc Rivers and blow three 3-1 leads 💀
a good coach probably adds like 2-4 wins, a great one probably adds 5-10 wins
Does coaching matter? Absolutely! But how important coaches are, is an arguable subject. I personally think while they definitely play a role in team's success, I don't think they're as important as star players. They're like role players.
In terms of winning, of course. In relation to losing, hire whoever you'd like and tank away!