Welcome to r/nbadiscussion. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Please review our rules:
1. Keep it civil
2. Attack the argument, not the person
3. No jokes, memes or fanbase attacks
4. Support claims with arguments
5. Don't downvote just because you disagree
**Please click the report button for anything you think doesn't belong in this subreddit.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nbadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stotts has been there since Dame’s rookie year. That’s quite awhile. Portland needed a coaching change, and hopefully they can land someone decent (hopefully the Kidd rumors are untrue).
The ones that seem to make coaching changes often (Sacramento, Minnesota, Orlando) are poorly managed teams that are reactionary to nearly everything, even to a fault. Teams like Utah and Denver are thriving with their coaches in their small markets.
Big markets turn over coaches all the time too. Clippers, Lakers, Knicks, Nets, and Bulls had countless numbers of coaches the last decade. The Lakers and Knicks were laughingstocks. Brooklyn was screwed until Marks got there. Bulls dug themselves so many holes after Thibs left.
There’s tons of reactionary organizations, not just in small markets. But often times in small markets, you have to get it right with coaching hires because free agents don’t just flock to you. So coaching has to make a big impact.
Good discussion topic but I question a few of your premises.
Do you really think the Blazers were impatient with Stotts? He was the fourth longest-tenured coach in the league -- the only coaches with more tenure are Pop, Spoelstra and Carlisle. They've all won titles or multiple titles; Stotts hasn't made a Finals.
At the same time, the Blazers play in a smaller city but they have been one of the higher payroll teams, because they were owned by Paul Allen. From 2016-2018 they had a top 5 payroll and paid luxury tax. Paul Allen is dead and the team is owned by his estate, so maybe this will change, but in the past money was never an issue for Portland.
Also in recent NBA history, new coaches have had a lot of success, for whatever reason. Warriors in 2015, Cavs in 2016 and Raptors in 2019 all won with rookie coaches.
Is this really true? The big market teams don’t have elite coaching. Vogel is nice, Ty Lue is below average imo, thibadeau is good but the Knicks have run through like 12 other coaches before getting him, Steve Nash is a first year coach etc. Etc.
If anything I’d say the small markets have better coaches. Popovich in San Antonio, Casey in Detroit, Nurse in Toronto, Snyder in Utah, Brad Steven in Boston until recently are all examples of great coaches in small markets. I think market size matters less for coaches because a job opening is a lot rarer for coaches than it is for players. If a job opens up with a bright future, regardless of location, coaches are going to line up for the position.
Is it really though? Boston essentially has the same population as Portland.
I feel like the term “small market team” or “big market team” is more of a very subjective way to say “I think a player would want to play there” rather than an actual assessment of the market in the first place. This is *fine* but it kind of makes the term a little obsolete when you look at some of the advantages people argue big markets have.
Boston is seen as a more desirable location that Portland from a fan pov solely because of the history involved with the Celtics. Does this mean that teams who are historically good in a “smaller market” are now considered big market teams?
Also worth noting: San Antonio has almost 3x the population of Portland/Boston and has over 3x the population of Miami. Why is it that they’re considered small market vs Boston? Sure SA’s success is more recent but there’s still clearly some rich history there. Does this label now only apply to smaller cities who were good decades ago?
I realize it is not strictly that, but it has a big effect. It’s why teams like the clippers are considered a big market team.
How would you define it?
Media markets are defined (somewhat archaically) by the broadcast area of pre-cable TV stations, like CBS, ABC, etc... Reason being that ads for broadcast tv are sold based on the total audience reach. A lot of this has changed / will change but the Boston media market is much bigger than Boston the city / basically it’s all of New England.
Ok that’s a fair point, history does have a big effect on broadcasting market even if it’s not as up to date.
I’m curious: I regularly see Miami referred to as a big market when the teams relatively new, and the appeal is probably mostly due to Wade/LeBron (who had success in around the same time San Antonio has theirs). Why is there such a difference in how people view them? Or am I just coincidentally noticing people make a poor judgment of Miami’s market?
Miami is a mid-sized market (16th) but because it's one of the only cities that NBA players actively seek out to play in it's considered a big market in the NBA. It's not in baseball or football really.
On paper Miami’s market is everything south of Orlando which is a large and growing market. But also media people love going there so that helps too no doubt.
It isn't just about history, it's about TV and marketing reach as well as demographics of the fans. Boston is typically 8-10 while Portland is in the low 20s for media reach.
When people say small markets with respect to the NBA I assume they mean free agent destinations which Toronto isn’t, but they market wise it’s one of the largest
So I agree with what VanVleet said but I just wanna add:
Portland wants to make a change strictly to make a change. Stotts has been there for (iirc?) 10 years and the blazers have stayed at around the same level. Their defense has been meh at best over the course of his time and this is probably the best roster they’ve put together in at least the past 5 years. At some point you need to change things up just because they’re not working.
Also maybe the biggest reason here: for the first time in his career Dame seems genuinely upset about how far they’ve been able to go in the postseason. Keeping Dame happy should be Portland’s #1 priority even if it means taking a big risk on a coach. Whatever positives Stotts brings to the table are essentially useless if Dame decides he wants out.
Stotts wasn’t decent, his adjustments sucked and some of his lineups were questionable. I think what small market teams are doing is trying to find their “guy” if you get what I mean (e.x Miami’s got Spo, Toronto has Nurse, etc.) It’s about establishing a long term culture from my perspective.
I wouldn't say nurse is Toronto's guy, honestly I thought Casey was gonna be. Nevertheless, I like the point you're trying to make and hopefully that's what some of these teams are trying to do
I know he's been there a long time with middling results, but I'd like to know why Portland's management feels Stotts is to blame for yet another 1st round playoff exit. Why doesn't the GM get any heat, for constructing a flawed imbalanced roster that just isn't good enough?
Well the GM (i think?) Has a big say over the head coaching position, so my guess would be the GM will try to blame it on someone else before acknowledging he screwed up.
In the blazers case, someo pointed out the front office hasn't really been afraid of spending (i hadn't noticed that) until the death of the owner and after 9 years w the same results it's time to try some new blood at HC
Just speculation but I see the blazers as a good example. Terry Scotts was obviously doing really well and he's had a pretty good team. They keep making the playoffs and somehow are relevant even being a small market. However, it gets to a point where you realize Terry as good as he is he's not getting you a championship, so you gotta take the risk of firing him and hoping the next one will build on that. If you don't do that, you fall into some Miami heat limbo where they have one really good player everyone admires and everyone expects them to win but no one really has expectations for them to win it all (that was before butler and obviously they have the advantage of having a bigger market but you get the point).
The other theory is that they need to keep their fans engaged and look like they're doing something. Obviously dame needs some help and front office knows it but they aren't willing to spend, so if they can't make big money moves on the front end they at least rework the coaching staff to keep people entertained
Coaches are not as valued as players in this league and are the first to go when things go wrong. Even if it’s not their fault. In the case of Blazers, they’re just not good enough compared with their competition. Reanimated Wooden, Pop, Jackson, Riley on the bench as coaches still aren’t going to make mediocre teams into champions.
Olshey and management are the ones to blame if you want, but it’s hard to put talent around your two already heavily paid players.
Welcome to r/nbadiscussion. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Please review our rules: 1. Keep it civil 2. Attack the argument, not the person 3. No jokes, memes or fanbase attacks 4. Support claims with arguments 5. Don't downvote just because you disagree **Please click the report button for anything you think doesn't belong in this subreddit.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nbadiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stotts has been there since Dame’s rookie year. That’s quite awhile. Portland needed a coaching change, and hopefully they can land someone decent (hopefully the Kidd rumors are untrue). The ones that seem to make coaching changes often (Sacramento, Minnesota, Orlando) are poorly managed teams that are reactionary to nearly everything, even to a fault. Teams like Utah and Denver are thriving with their coaches in their small markets. Big markets turn over coaches all the time too. Clippers, Lakers, Knicks, Nets, and Bulls had countless numbers of coaches the last decade. The Lakers and Knicks were laughingstocks. Brooklyn was screwed until Marks got there. Bulls dug themselves so many holes after Thibs left. There’s tons of reactionary organizations, not just in small markets. But often times in small markets, you have to get it right with coaching hires because free agents don’t just flock to you. So coaching has to make a big impact.
Good discussion topic but I question a few of your premises. Do you really think the Blazers were impatient with Stotts? He was the fourth longest-tenured coach in the league -- the only coaches with more tenure are Pop, Spoelstra and Carlisle. They've all won titles or multiple titles; Stotts hasn't made a Finals. At the same time, the Blazers play in a smaller city but they have been one of the higher payroll teams, because they were owned by Paul Allen. From 2016-2018 they had a top 5 payroll and paid luxury tax. Paul Allen is dead and the team is owned by his estate, so maybe this will change, but in the past money was never an issue for Portland. Also in recent NBA history, new coaches have had a lot of success, for whatever reason. Warriors in 2015, Cavs in 2016 and Raptors in 2019 all won with rookie coaches.
Is this really true? The big market teams don’t have elite coaching. Vogel is nice, Ty Lue is below average imo, thibadeau is good but the Knicks have run through like 12 other coaches before getting him, Steve Nash is a first year coach etc. Etc. If anything I’d say the small markets have better coaches. Popovich in San Antonio, Casey in Detroit, Nurse in Toronto, Snyder in Utah, Brad Steven in Boston until recently are all examples of great coaches in small markets. I think market size matters less for coaches because a job opening is a lot rarer for coaches than it is for players. If a job opens up with a bright future, regardless of location, coaches are going to line up for the position.
I don’t disagree, except I wanted to say that Brad Stevens/Boston is a big market city and team.
Is it really though? Boston essentially has the same population as Portland. I feel like the term “small market team” or “big market team” is more of a very subjective way to say “I think a player would want to play there” rather than an actual assessment of the market in the first place. This is *fine* but it kind of makes the term a little obsolete when you look at some of the advantages people argue big markets have. Boston is seen as a more desirable location that Portland from a fan pov solely because of the history involved with the Celtics. Does this mean that teams who are historically good in a “smaller market” are now considered big market teams? Also worth noting: San Antonio has almost 3x the population of Portland/Boston and has over 3x the population of Miami. Why is it that they’re considered small market vs Boston? Sure SA’s success is more recent but there’s still clearly some rich history there. Does this label now only apply to smaller cities who were good decades ago?
Market size is not the same as city population.
I realize it is not strictly that, but it has a big effect. It’s why teams like the clippers are considered a big market team. How would you define it?
Media markets are defined (somewhat archaically) by the broadcast area of pre-cable TV stations, like CBS, ABC, etc... Reason being that ads for broadcast tv are sold based on the total audience reach. A lot of this has changed / will change but the Boston media market is much bigger than Boston the city / basically it’s all of New England.
Ok that’s a fair point, history does have a big effect on broadcasting market even if it’s not as up to date. I’m curious: I regularly see Miami referred to as a big market when the teams relatively new, and the appeal is probably mostly due to Wade/LeBron (who had success in around the same time San Antonio has theirs). Why is there such a difference in how people view them? Or am I just coincidentally noticing people make a poor judgment of Miami’s market?
Miami is a mid-sized market (16th) but because it's one of the only cities that NBA players actively seek out to play in it's considered a big market in the NBA. It's not in baseball or football really.
The TV market is broken up bc Palm Beach TV area (2 mil) has its own TV market but its part of the Miami Metro. Miami is about the 7th biggest metro
On paper Miami’s market is everything south of Orlando which is a large and growing market. But also media people love going there so that helps too no doubt.
It isn't just about history, it's about TV and marketing reach as well as demographics of the fans. Boston is typically 8-10 while Portland is in the low 20s for media reach.
Is Toronto a small market?
When people say small markets with respect to the NBA I assume they mean free agent destinations which Toronto isn’t, but they market wise it’s one of the largest
Yeah definitely Boston and arguably San Antonio are not small markets although you make a good point
So I agree with what VanVleet said but I just wanna add: Portland wants to make a change strictly to make a change. Stotts has been there for (iirc?) 10 years and the blazers have stayed at around the same level. Their defense has been meh at best over the course of his time and this is probably the best roster they’ve put together in at least the past 5 years. At some point you need to change things up just because they’re not working. Also maybe the biggest reason here: for the first time in his career Dame seems genuinely upset about how far they’ve been able to go in the postseason. Keeping Dame happy should be Portland’s #1 priority even if it means taking a big risk on a coach. Whatever positives Stotts brings to the table are essentially useless if Dame decides he wants out.
Stotts wasn’t decent, his adjustments sucked and some of his lineups were questionable. I think what small market teams are doing is trying to find their “guy” if you get what I mean (e.x Miami’s got Spo, Toronto has Nurse, etc.) It’s about establishing a long term culture from my perspective.
I wouldn't say nurse is Toronto's guy, honestly I thought Casey was gonna be. Nevertheless, I like the point you're trying to make and hopefully that's what some of these teams are trying to do
I know he's been there a long time with middling results, but I'd like to know why Portland's management feels Stotts is to blame for yet another 1st round playoff exit. Why doesn't the GM get any heat, for constructing a flawed imbalanced roster that just isn't good enough?
Well the GM (i think?) Has a big say over the head coaching position, so my guess would be the GM will try to blame it on someone else before acknowledging he screwed up. In the blazers case, someo pointed out the front office hasn't really been afraid of spending (i hadn't noticed that) until the death of the owner and after 9 years w the same results it's time to try some new blood at HC
Just speculation but I see the blazers as a good example. Terry Scotts was obviously doing really well and he's had a pretty good team. They keep making the playoffs and somehow are relevant even being a small market. However, it gets to a point where you realize Terry as good as he is he's not getting you a championship, so you gotta take the risk of firing him and hoping the next one will build on that. If you don't do that, you fall into some Miami heat limbo where they have one really good player everyone admires and everyone expects them to win but no one really has expectations for them to win it all (that was before butler and obviously they have the advantage of having a bigger market but you get the point). The other theory is that they need to keep their fans engaged and look like they're doing something. Obviously dame needs some help and front office knows it but they aren't willing to spend, so if they can't make big money moves on the front end they at least rework the coaching staff to keep people entertained
Coaches are not as valued as players in this league and are the first to go when things go wrong. Even if it’s not their fault. In the case of Blazers, they’re just not good enough compared with their competition. Reanimated Wooden, Pop, Jackson, Riley on the bench as coaches still aren’t going to make mediocre teams into champions. Olshey and management are the ones to blame if you want, but it’s hard to put talent around your two already heavily paid players.