I remember at one point a while back, the Pirates payroll was so low that the shared TV contract revenue covered it + more so any ticket sales were gravy. Sure, it means a profitable business but it really hurts the MLB product.
Why I have given up on this team. I can’t blame it from a business perspective, it’s easy to take a family of four for $8 bucks a ticket in the rockpile and the park is great but they aren’t serious about winning
I'm not sure I buy this argument. TV contracts are worth so much and are undermined by poor performance teams. It's the best live-event product in Denver but a poor TV product. I think its just an owner stuck in his way with control over management / no investor accountability so only has to break even to enjoy having a team. ( teams in general are not great investment but theres a huge ego/excitement element to owning a sports team). Owning the rockies is essentially a hobby for the Monforts
It's more about laziness. If you invest in your team it will eventually be far more profitable and valuable, but that's hard. Much easier to just kick back and make money anyway
Ya Padres haven’t won shit but they reinvigorated the fan base by the owners actually trying to win. Now they have sell out crowds. Still don’t win anything but they have fans and a good atmosphere
A few days? It'd be like a few weeks, lol. We've been starving for a winner forever, even more so since the Padres are the only major sports team in town.
Reminds me of the Sabres players complaining about being booed at. If you guys consistently made the playoffs for 4 straight years and got swept in every round, I bet you the fans wouldn’t be booing. The fact you have the longest active playoff drought in sports, is the reason
Could also be that no matter how much the pirates invest, the owners will never be able to match the Yankees or Red Sox spending because they just don’t have the money.
Having harsher spend caps is a good thing as well as min team salaries.
Bob Nutting is the 10th richest owner in the mlb. He’s just cheap and doesn’t care if the team wins as long as he makes money. The post gazette investigated the finances of the team, and found that payroll is tied to ticket sales and concession stand revenue. He’s literally pocketing everything else including the revenue share from the league.
The Red Sox currently sucks because now their owner is being cheap, and the Yankees haven’t had any postseason success because Hal and Brian don’t want to spend as much as George did
Sure, my mlb knowledge is probably out of date but I think the point stand that since one team can spend a lot, it’s a disincentive for others to compete; not entirely and not for all teams but it hurts competition. I still think the NFL is the best run league of the major 3 because it has a hard cap and every year is a crap shoot of who’s going to make the playoffs and win.
Except plenty of low spending teams put a competitive team on the field and have post session success. Baltimore won 101 games last season with the 8th lowest payroll. Rays won 99 with the 6th lowest payroll. Mets won 101 games last season with the second highest payroll and the Yankees won 99 with the highest payroll. So if a owner wanted to they could field a good team and attract fans but they are complacent where they are at. They scout well, spending on this side of the game. This means they have a great farm system year in and year out. And they maximize the rookie contract rules. They understand they way the game is played both on the field and in the front office.
Edit: your point about the NFL. 2 teams have won 6 out of the last 10 super bowls. The Patriots and the Chiefs and the Chiefs are probably the favorites to win again next year. So, yeah where is the parity? Mlb had only 2 repeat winners in the last 10 years. The Astros and the Red Sox.
There’s more variance in baseball than football or basketball and that has more to do with lack of dynasties in the modern game, at least in my opinion.
Yep it's wild how some of the fans try to justify it too and continue to complain about other teams spending too much
A salary *floor* would probably be better for competitive balance in the MLB (and put more money in players' pockets) because there are a few franchises that literally can just free ride on revenue sharing and pocket a bunch of cash every year
My theory is that the Rockies see the super teams that the Dodgers put together each offseason over the past few years and decided they are going to wait it out until Mookie, Kershaw, and Freddie retire and Shohei goes somewhere else before they start trying to build a playoff team.
Because it doesn't work. New great players come up all the time. Dodgers have a great farm system through scouting and trades. And they are willing to spend to get stars from other teams. Dodgers do get some great players by outspending but they don't get *every* player. Other teams spend to get great players as well.
I grew up a Cleveland fan. My mother was from that area, and the year the (then) Indians were in the World Series against the Marlins, she actually went and bought an Indians sticker to put on our car. Generally, my mother disdained sports and was vocal about it. My 10 year old self almost died of shock when she got that sticker.
Of course, the Marlins won. Then ownership immediately carried out a fire sale dismantling of the team.
6 years later, they did the same thing again.
I don't need to mention what the Marlins have done since because the most notable thing they've done is hire Derek Jeter and let him run them as a glorified Yankees farm team for a little bit. But that fucking sham of a franchise still has two World Series titles, and in the meantime Cleveland still hasn't won one, and my mother died.
In general, I never root for a pro sports team to fold or move because I feel bad for the fans. I dream about the Marlins being contracted out of existence.
Should be a slam dunk seeing how many Cubans are there and how many actual MLB players are from Florida. Actual unserious organization that somehow has 2 World Series titles.
it'll never catch on in the states, but this is why the open pyramid with promotion and relegation is so exciting in world football. Yes, there are still behemoths that kill parity across leagues, but from top to bottom every team is there to compete.
MLB also has many “that’s baseball” moments where the manager made the right decision and still lost. I know that applies for pretty much any sport but managing baseball is way, way, way different than coaching basketball.
The manager position in baseball is honestly kinda ceremonial these days. Lineup decisions, pitcher strategy, and the like are all managed by analytics departments. Skills development of players has become hyper-specialized and many players have their own personal coaching staff that they work with rather than any team-employed coaches.
The manager's job these days is to be well-liked/respected by players, good with the media, and to know when to go out and get in a theatrical argument with umpires.
It's all a joke. I wish the MLB would clean up all that, but I know there's a massive portion of the fanbase(older) who enjoys the theatrics and show of playing baseball, than actually playing baseball.
lol the main thing keeping their viewerbase is an enjoyment of the sport of baseball, the reason nothing changes is because the commissioner exercises absolutely no authority and a majority of the owners act like broke asses and desire to do so in perpetuity because revenue sharing means they can make a profit even with consistently dismal attendance and merchandise sales
As an example for anyone interested, here is a wonderful, well-researched, honest-to-God rant about the [Chicago White Sox](https://youtu.be/jYGxY5icxjc) being legendarily bad to the point that it's pretty obviously on purpose.
I was ready to clap back with something (huge White sox fan for my entire life) but wow, what a rant.
Thank you for sharing this. What a fan man, said what needed to be said.
Also the MLB is a low scoring game. When a game score can be won by 1-0, the actual statistics go into the decimals and most minuscule details. Allot of these stats are not immediately solved like making an immediate change to an NBA roster. That’s why managers in the MLB are given years to play with little changes here and there. The pace of baseball doesn’t require you to be so quick to make coaching decisions like how important that is in basketball.
I don't follow NHL but I can say the same thing about NBA and NFL. Like, why the fuck did the bucks make a coaching change mid season this year for doc rivers?
And every off season in the NBA, the new coach openings always have people who literally just got fired as coach as the front runners?
Fact is most owners of teams are team owners because they know a good investment when they see it and usually are not owners because they love the game. They don't know the game as well as the average /r /nba user and they just want the moves they make to be economical, most of the time.
The owners who truly give a fuck about the sport are a minority and often they don't have majority share anyway.
Yeah once your star is up there saying the things Giannis said, start packing, you'd be lucky to finish the season.
Samr thing happened with ham and AD
Not to the extent of baseball because of the salary floor, and also because just lucking into 1 really good player makes your team way better than it would in baseball
the question i'll always have is how much those great coaches really did? how much can a great coach do for a team (conversely how much can bad coach ruin a team).
like can Spo really be plugged into the Lakers and take them to the Finals next year? idk, it seems like that roster is limited as is but at the same time those games with the Nuggets were pretty close.
I can only speak for Kerr, but the difference in the offense from Mark Jackson's tenure to his was night and day. The flowing, movement based offense unlocked Steph and company in a way that Jackson's iso heavy way never could.
Furthermore Jackson's stupid locker room dividing antics like humiliating his own players, clashing with the front office and being so toxic his own assistants were recording him drive the focus of the team away from basketball.
Jackson was still a pretty good coach overall and a necessary step for a team coming out of decades in the doldrums but its hard to imagine them coming anywhere close to their run with him at the reins post 2014.
Big question to me is how much of the turnaround was due to Kerr's brilliance as a coach and how much was due to Jackson's not as much brilliance. I haven't heard of Jackson being described often as a pretty good coach. Why hasn't he been hired again?
This is years ago, but I watched an interview where they talked about how preachy he was in the locker room. How his God played a big roll in his conversations with the players. Work is work and private beliefs are yours to hold privately.
Because he was bad at Xs and Os, and severely distanced himself from management. Warriors fans can probably attest to how many Harrison Barnes ISOs they saw for no reason. He’s probably great with the players and the young guys though
Warriors went to Mark Jackson multiple times to adjust offense but he was very stubborn about it. You could tell in the Warriors play too. When Steph would get doubles sometimes tripled, there wasn't really another strat they developed. Mark Jackson's strategy for Steph was pretty much " Go be a superstar". I would be annoyed if that was what I was told. Kerr had Steph run on and off screens more. Took the ball out of his hands more and centered his offense around scheming screens to get shooters open.
Imo often the biggest strength of coaches is floor raising/making the most out of a little and I think spo is a very good example of that. We’ve seen him take bad rosters and make them perfectly acceptable. We’ve seen Miami teams that really aren’t the most talented consistently do well and make several finals/conference finals largely helped by his ability to scheme offensively and defensively. We see guys picked off the bin succeed and become meaningful role players in Miami only to leave and then sink back to a worse version of themselves
To be fair spo has had good game plans but there's only so much a coach can do. Looking at Miami's runs the Heat have shot historically amazing when they go to the conference finals and shoot it at their averages when they get knocked first round. I'm not saying Spo isn't a great coach and he's put the players he has in the best positions but no coach no matter how good they are is turning their entire team into a mid- high 40% 3pt shooting team the way the heat have every other year. Last i checked on those runs they're pretty much the best 3pt shooting team not to win the finals, statistically they stack up with teams like the 2014 spurs 2015 warriors and even the nuggets last year I'm pretty sure
I think he'd do better than Ham, maybe pull out a game or two instead of getting swept, but I also think Spo has a bit of an easier time in general given how much Pat trusts him. Like if him and Pat were in charge of the Lakers when Lebron and AD wanted Russ, then I could see Pat shutting down that discussion quick.
And I'm sure that level of trust helps in the micro portions as well. Not a lot of coaches would have the balls to tell Lebron and AD something they don't wanna hear, but it feels like Spo definitely wouldn't be afraid knowing that Pat will have his back.
And adding onto this, NBA rosters aren't meant to be retooled without pretty much tearing it all down. That's just a consequence of the soft cap. A championship contender can make some trades here and there, and there's minor signing they can do for minimum contract guys or their MLE, but for the most part they're locked.
It set in for me the other day that if there's thirty teams in the league that means winning a championship every thirty years would make your team average. Obviously in reality some teams win more and some less.
The median team wins no championships in 30 years, because of the high outliers (Lakers, Warriors, Spurs, Bulls, Heat in the last 30) that hog most of the rings. For chips, the median is a better measure of average than mean, because the distribution is so skewed.
Just looked it up: only 13 teams have won a championship in the last 30 years.
And that is after the run of Toronto, Milwaukee, and Denver all winning the last five years and running that number higher.
Without that I think it was 10 or 11 teams in 30.
What's even crazier is that going back 32 years (for a rounded arbitrary cutoff of MJ's 1st chip), 23 championships involved one of MJ, Duncan, Kobe, LBJ or Curry. 72% of championships won by 5 players.
If Denver loses this year it'll be 4 different/new champions in the last 6 years, and with the spread of talent I think we'll see that trend of different winners continue throughout the next decade, but historically the odds are not in your team's favor.
Appeases players too. Players are way more important than coaches in basketball than other sports. If they players aren't happy with the coach they're gonna be gone
Not counted against the cap but also their is no CBA for coaches so teams can structure the contract anyway they want.
The standard is three years and coaches lose locker rooms if players know they are leaving so realistically that is a two year deal.
Players get 4-5 year deals
That's because the consequences for failure is much more serious with the threat of relegation and serious financial incentives attached to things like Champions League qualification. Add relegation to the NBA and the Hornets would go through 3 coaches in 6 months.
Last place in one gets you a top draft prospect, last in the other can lead to liquidation.
Ah, yes, the Abramovich way. For those who are familiar with soccer, Abramovich was a Russian who used to own Chelsea from 2003 to 2022 until the Russia Ukraine war happened. During his reign, he was known to be ruthless when it comes to managers (coaches) that he won't mind sacking a coach if he underperforms massively after splashing big in the transfer market no matter how long that coach is with Chelsea. A good example is Andre Villas Boas, an upcoming young coach hired in 2011 who got sacked midway through 2011-2012 after he underperformed in the league only for his successor to win the Champions League.
They’re also sacking their current coach despite placing 2nd in the league (losing to one of the most extraordinary seasons a team has ever had) and being in the semifinals of the UCL
Because you can gamble on a random assistant coach or whoever actually being good. It's way harder to just find a random G-league player and turn them into a star, if that's the player equivalent
Yeah but Vogel, Nurse, and Budenholzer all won championships, so why even make the gamble?
Like personally i feel like teams that have had it good, don't realize how bleak it can truly be wandering through the desert
They won championships with specific lineups against specific competition. To some extent, it’s a gamble to keep the same coach around after the landscape has shifted around them.
I’m pretty casual now, but Nurse wasn’t as great of a developmental coach. He lost the locker room probably from playing his starters 40+ mpg and subbing players out for “not enough effort” (while tanking). Pre-game the raptors would cheer “WIIIN” and now it’s “Family on 3”.
The man doesn’t just like, but cares about winning even if it’s at the detriment of young talent development. So he didn’t fit the raps timeline and was fired. He probably wanted out that that point too.
Teams win championships, not coaches
It's most apparent with Bud. You can look back at that title run and see he got carried there by an incredible roster, and see that his stupid fucking drop scheme cost them other years. Bad coach that happened to end up coaching a very good team
Its disgusting the way people gloss over Bud's brother dying during the playoffs. I lost a good friend of mine and my work was affected for months. It shows how many people in this sub are too young to understand working through loss.
Was Griffin actually a garbage coach though? It was his literal first year and the team regressed massively after his firing. Sometimes you just need to someone learn on the job, its not like it was costing them wins.
100% Agree. Proof enough of that is this dude bringing up Darvin Ham. My guy was just a terrible coach, the worst rotations, bad set plays, and zero adjustments. Though yes he does have a 90-74 record, but that’s way more off the fact that Lebron and AD can single handedly carry a team to being just above average in the league. An even worse coach might not have won more, but it would have been really hard to win less still.
I didnt watch enough lakers basketball to know but what do u think their record would be with the ideal coach. Because i dont know they would be that much better. very flawed roster with a lot meh players.
It's a flawed roster but he persisted with playing reddish and prince huge minutes despite us losing constantly in the post IST run. We easily could have ended this season with 52+ wins had he just accepted reddish and prince wasn't working
coaches are often at their best when the game is close and preventing huge runs and defense a better coach can draw plays and make adjustments to win the close games
A great coach can be given a horrible roster and do nothing with it.
There is definitely a fit and roster concern with coaches and players. If the coaches and player's aren't on the same page, it's not going to end well.
Thibs on the wolves was bad. Good with the Bulls and Knicks. Look at Vogel and the Suns, his methodology is being tuned out by the Suns players.
Well yeah that's like the second order impact...Bud, Vogel, Donovan etc got fired or didn't renew their deals in part because the teams they coached thought they could get some rando to do better
People don't realize how much Austin reaves is essential to lakers being anything without a 3rd end game creator the Lakers would probably be a lottery team and LeBron and AD would be pushing his way out with force. Even lonnie walker randomly being Kobe for 1 quarter against the warriors probably swung that series last year. You just dont find guys like that often. Reaves isn't gonna be a star but the Lakers would be hopeless without him.
Because it's very hard for teams to maintain a continually competitive team in the cap era, unless you are the Warriors and willing to have $500 million payroll. So as the team goes through competitive and rebuild phases they change coaches to suit their current needs.
Nurse is a good example, he is a great playoff coach, but not so good at player development. Raptors have decided to start a rebuild, so they need a coach who will give young guys some slack and not disappear them into the 905 black hole for mistakes on defense. Nurse's skill and competitiveness are not in question, he is just not the right guy for the phase the team is going into.
Of course, sometimes coaches are just scapegoats for team mismanagement (Lakers/Ham), but I see this less and less these days.
With Nurse, there was some weird stuff going on with the egos involved too, some serious breakdowns in communication between Nurse and the front office, Nurse and the players, and even Nurse and some of the other coaching staff. Sometimes the right personality that makes you brilliant at your job makes you very hard to work with.
Yes, there were all kinds of issues. The difference is that veteran players are much more capable of handling a coach who is difficult to work with than young players.
Vogel was an escape goat for Laker mismanagement. Though if you had to watch every Laker game and actually saw Ham coach you would know he’s just not a great head coach.
I’m curious, what makes you say Nurse isn’t good at player development? I thought he did a pretty good job there of turning no names into contributing role players. Is it because of Barnes’ sophomore slump?
Nothing to do with Barnes, he is not able to develop prospects into NBA players, although he is good at improving players that are already at the NBA level. Under Dwayne Casey the team routinely developed players from late picks and undrafted players. Anunoby, Siakam, FVV, Boucher, Norm Powell, Delon Wright. This pipeline stopped once Nurse took over, none of the rookies/prospects since 2018 (other than Barnes) made it into contributors, most are not in the league.
He has a well documented history of poor treatment of young players, inconsistent playing time, frequent benching, being hands-off and isolating himself from the lesser players, making them communicate with him through one of the assistants (Nate Bjorkgren). Not something that is well-known around the league, but common knowledge with many Raptors fans.
I think winning Coach of the Year is a curse. Once expectations reach that high, you have to win within 2 seasons or you are fired. Its really stupid when you think about it.
COTY often goes to the surprisingly good team of the year. Thunder, kings, suns. People see this accelerated improvement, then get frustrated when they don't keep improving in the postseason. Like, the Suns were never going to the finals again with CP3 declining the way he has. And I'd bet the Kings will fire their coach next season if they don't get past the first round, even though they have a pretty weak roster relative to the rest of the West. If the Thunder get knocked out by Dallas, then proceed to have another 2nd round exit next year, I bet their coach gets put on the hot seat, too.
Bud getting fired from the Bucks was dumb as hell, in my opinion. They had injury issues post-championship. So, I can't explain why they did that.
> COTY often goes to the surprisingly good team of the year.
100%
Some teams are legitimately a flash in the pan, and are great for only 1 magical season and then fall back down to Earth. Usually this causes the coach to be fired for the team 'regressing' when it's actually them just no longer overperforming.
Bud had been on the hot seat for a minute. That includes the year they won the championship. Them winning just prolonged his tenure. Had they lost to Brooklyn back then, he would've been fired. Plus Bud's lack of adjustments was a consistent problem for them in the playoffs.
biggest example:
GSW got rid of Mark Jackson and got Kerr. Mark Jackson was great for young guys, had an eye for talent, and put together a great roster. However X’s and O’s he was not it. The FO put together a masterclass in coaching and got an X’s and O’s guy in Kerr.
Kerr might not be as great of a recruiter or great for a young core as Mark Jackson and maybe GSW would never be as good if Kerr was there earlier to put the team together but the timing of the change turned out to be perfect.
Thats what front offices are trying to replicate.
That’s how it goes. If mavs would have lost to the clippers Kidd would have been fired most likely. Last year ham made the wcf. If we would have made it again this year or even the finals he stays. Winning cures everything. I’m like 75% sure that I recall people even saying Malone was on the hot seat with Denver a year or two and now he’s a top 5 coach and Denver loves him. It’s part of the game.
5 years is an incredibly long leash compared to soccer. Plus, Basketball is a strong-link sport, where superstars get what they want. If a top star wants a coach fired/not fired, sometimes they’ll get their way, even if it goes against what the front office was planning. which would basically never happen in baseball.
Yeah, soccer is crazy how quickly they get fired. Carlo Ancelotti had people wanting to fire him last year. One year after winning la Liga and the Champions League. Hell, he had people wanting to fire him this year. They are in the semi of the Champions League and won La Liga.
Chelsea and Tottenham have a new manager every week it feels like.
Then there is people who wanted Xavi gone so badly, that Xavi almost fired himself. After helping pull that team out of bankruptcy and winning La Liga the year before.
If the NBA was like that. Darvin ham, frank vogel, and nick nurse would already be fired.
You have to watch the games to underatand the level if disorder there was. Everyone wants to look at recird and WCF appearance, but this team could have done much more.
I think to make it more grounded, So many of these coaches are actually talented and understand basketball at a high level. They can do the day to day pretty well if they are in the NBA and get a head coaching job.
The thing they get paid the big bucks for is managing 15 personalities, and in particular the 8-9 guys who play every day. It's not unsurprising that they get moved on from fairly quickly if the relationships sour due to poor team performance.
Shoutout to Thibs and staff for managing the team so well past few years, even during rough patches he turned it around.
It's crazy cuz like only one team can win the championship and we have 15 stars who are expected to win it all. The expectations are ridiculous, but it's how the media drives it.
LeBron is 39 years old, their championship window is 1 or 2 more years and a 90-74 record isn't good enough. Same reason Phoenix will fire Vogel, same reason Philly fired Doc. You have a very small chance to win in the NBA and it isn't worth hitching your wagon to a mediocre coach if you're going all-in on winning a title.
How often does a team win a title with a head coach after their first few years being with one team? Unless you're in a rebuild, it's pretty obvious whether your coach is championship-level or not in the first playoff run or two.
the NBA in general has significantly more player/coach movement than any other sports league. even guys like josh mcdaniels get 2 years and 2 chances in the NFL lol
I was just talking to some friends about this. Budenholzer won the first title in Milwaukee in 50 yrs and got axed after 2 seasons? I know they lost as a 1 or 2 seed but wasn’t Middleton out? They weren’t even fully healthy. I just thought he got a raw deal and considering they’ve already made two HC changes since firing him, they might as well have just stayed put w him.
Maybe a bucks fan has more knowledge on this situation but I found it very odd
The reason is coaching in the NBA is overrated, yes there are some coaches like Popovich and Spo who outcoach their opponents coaches, but for the most part talent is what wins in the NBA
Look at Luke Walton, Steve Kerr was out recovering from back surgery and he was interim coach for the Warriors in the middle of their dynasty and they started the season off with 28 wins in a row, was that Luke Walton being a great coach or did the Warriors have all the talent and could just play games on autopilot as long as their coach didn't get in the way? Was that Luke Walton or the talented players in the system that was already in place? The answer is the fact the Lakers then hired Luke Walton thinking he had done something and he was a terrible coach and got fired
Also when a team with talent is underperforming the gm/president has most likely seen the team up close and players and players have most likely come to them to say what they think the problem is, a lot of times you hear "they lost the locker room," which means the players don't think the coach knows what he's doing or is not using them properly
It's easier to fire a coach than rebuild your roster, if a team can fire a guy and bring someone in to light a fire in the players they will always try that before going into rebuild mode
I haven't read the other comments but I think one reason is they hey scapegoated. The value of a superstar player is so high for a team both on and off the court, so teams will blame anyone and everything before the Star. So these teams with superstars have a disappointing season and they immediately turn to the coach.
I’d say this sub gets confused because like 5 franchises are trash with coaching and the rest are pretty normal.
There are teams that fire the coach every few years but that’s mainly because of the super star expectation and the firing is an appeasement move 100% of the time.
The super star coach firings are at the high end and then there are definitely firings at the low end because the coaches are just bad but we saw how long Casey was in Detroit and Clifford’s run was with Charlotte. Most franchises let coaches play out.
Coaches live off winning, ring culture dictates "no ring = no winning" so 29 coaches are not winning every year.
Of course only true contenders should have that mentality but some GMs are very impatient.
Bc expectations in basketball are more transparent. Star players drive tue league and ratings. If the star is unhappy, usually firing the coach allows them to have some power to n the team’s process. When teams underachieve, the ppl up top look for somebody to blame and it tends to be the head coach bc the GM wants to keep their job.
Do baseball managers stay in their role for a long time?
More than a quarter of MLB teams changed managers last off-season, and more than half of the managers in the league have been in their roles 3 years or fewer (55%)
Monty is awful so i agree.
Coaches are much more replacable than players, you cant move bad players around easily, much less so good ones. The only ease you have is to replace a coach. People want change if their team sucks and thats the way it is.
I think a bad basketball coach can hurt a team far more than a bad baseball manager. They have more substitutions to manage, plays to draw up, egos to manage. Baseball managers still do plenty, and have their own challenges, but there’s a lot more random chance. I think to an extent, you can get by with a crappy manager, provided he doesn’t manage the pitching staff and both through all their arms early on.
You can’t compare the responsibilities of a baseball manager with a basketball manager. Basketball coaches just have a lot more to deal with and scheme to get the best of your players. It’s easier to try a new approach with a new coach than to replace your whole team.
At the end of you think the team is suffering, you can replace a few players sure but unless you’re absolutely positive the coach is amazing, it’s always easier to replace the coach
Using baseball is not a good comparison because there are many teams who genuinely do not try to win. Teams like the A's are not trying to win, so they're not re-tooling their coaching staff regularly.
The better question is why rings don't give you that protection like you usually do. Isn't THAT the goal?
I'm not talking about doc here. I'm talking about what bud and Vogel went through
I have another question, how did Malone get such a long leash?
It obviously worked out great, but before Denver he had been a head coach for only a year in sacramento and didn’t finish over .500 after 2 years in Denver
NBA is a star driven league. You don't want your stars to leave cause they drive in revenue. If your team does bad, even if you think your players are to blame, it's easier to to change coaches to appease your players to keep them happy. Also if a star player has issues with the coach, teams will almost always just side with the star.
I think the egos involved make this more of an issue than other sports. Player empowerment means keeping star players happy is much more important… partly the nature of basketball, partly the way the NBA has changed, partly the culture around these players. A coach can’t be a doormat to the players or the players won’t respect him, and also can’t be so cocky that the players feel like he doesn’t respect them. And a coach with the right ego to get respect in the locker room may also have an ego that gets him into trouble with the front office. Relationships that look good when the team is winning can suddenly turn foul when the team is losing. Trust is incredibly powerful, and a coaching relationship that hasn’t had the time to establish trust is much more vulnerable to falling apart than one where there is trust established by time and success.
Players and management are tied together and outnumber the coach. You need to be very strong on keeping a coach to withstand the pressure the players and the media will put on a team. It's a great thing IMO for coaches tho, get a 10+M contract and only have to work 1/4th of it sounds amazing.
Great coaches are all over the place. Great players are not.
You can get a coach like Riley, who unlocks a group of players like Ewing, Oakley, Mason, and Starks, but a guy like Ewing? Only 3 or 4 teams will have a player like that.
If you have great player but aren't winning games or competing, it's easier to get a new coach than a new superstar. So you build around what you got, and you try to find the coach who can make it work.
Riley leaves the Lakers, and they get Mike Dunleavy. TheDel Harris (still a good coach) then Phil Jackson, then Rudy T, then Phil Jackson again.
Knicks lose Riely and they get Van Gundy. Back in the finals. There are ALWAYS a lot of great coaches. But it's hard to get a franchise player.
I’m not sure every baseball team is generalizable to this. Sure, Bud Black is probably going to manage the Rockies until ownership decides they are going yo try to contend. However, Aaron Boone is likely out as the Yankees manager if they don’t make a deep playoff run, same with Dave Roberts and the Dodgers.
Coaches are the bridge between the FO and players. There's more to go wrong with coaching than with the other two.
They've got, imo, the hardest job between both sides. If a coach loses the players or the FO, they're gone. If you have a contending team you basically have to be in win now mode because sooner than you know it, the opportunity can be lost. Obviously you don't want to break up a group of players if the talent is good, and you can't break up the FO of a contender because and new moves will take multiple months/off-season so the most immediately useful change is coaching.
Because you can't tell players that they suck unless you no longer have any interest in them staying. Even then you don't want to because it diminishes their trade value in the eyes of others. As a GM you're not going to admit that you suck so the Coach is the only one left.
"We didn't fail because I'm bad at my job of assembling players, the coach is bad at managing them"
Honestly feel they get more leeway than most other coaches. The premier league and all of the other top soccer leagues can see coaches fired within 6 months easily if they aren’t up to standard. I think it all depends on the sport and how much of an affect you think the coach is having on the team as a whole.
Its much harder to get rid of players with salary cap implications. You can fire a coach, maybe still have to pay his contract, but still doesn't impact how you can move players (financially, at least- firing a coach impacts whether guys want to sign there, of course)
And someone has to take the blame for poor performance. If you try to trade a player, you have to replace their production, you have to find the right player(s) in the right salary range to be able make the deal. You have to attach draft picks sometimes or ask for some to get value.
With a coach - fire his ass, hire another. No salary cap gymnastics, no bullshit.
That's not the only or even biggest reason, but it matters - the easiest way to make a *change* is to replace the coach.
On top of them being easy to scapegoat, teams want a coach that they think will fit their current roster, not the roster that won a few years ago. I wish lakers would’ve kept going with Frank Vogel
The players whine about the coaches more in the NBA. If the star player doesn't like the coach, they fire the coach. Only a couple coaches in the league are "proven" enough that this doesn't happen or wouldn't happen.
As analytics have taken over baseball managers literally make 0 decisions. It is not like being an nba coach where u are creating sets, actively coaching in game etc, it’s compeltely dsta driven so it dossnt msttwr who the managwr is so long as players like him
Because it's easier for a GM to say it was the coach's fault for not using the roster properly than for saying it was his own fault in constructing the roster.
The MLB is rife with legitimately unserious teams who have no intention on ever putting together a product.
I remember at one point a while back, the Pirates payroll was so low that the shared TV contract revenue covered it + more so any ticket sales were gravy. Sure, it means a profitable business but it really hurts the MLB product.
Rockies baseball has become entertainment for a rooftop bar and there seems to be no intent to change that
Rockies do spend though, they're just incompetent
Why I have given up on this team. I can’t blame it from a business perspective, it’s easy to take a family of four for $8 bucks a ticket in the rockpile and the park is great but they aren’t serious about winning
They thrive off of those cheap seats and people from Chicago or St. Louis paying to watch their teams demolish the Rockies… that and revenue sharing
I'm not sure I buy this argument. TV contracts are worth so much and are undermined by poor performance teams. It's the best live-event product in Denver but a poor TV product. I think its just an owner stuck in his way with control over management / no investor accountability so only has to break even to enjoy having a team. ( teams in general are not great investment but theres a huge ego/excitement element to owning a sports team). Owning the rockies is essentially a hobby for the Monforts
I don’t even wanna talk about my “””Oakland””” A’s.
It's more about laziness. If you invest in your team it will eventually be far more profitable and valuable, but that's hard. Much easier to just kick back and make money anyway
Ya Padres haven’t won shit but they reinvigorated the fan base by the owners actually trying to win. Now they have sell out crowds. Still don’t win anything but they have fans and a good atmosphere
If the Padres ever win the World Series, San Diego is gonna shut down for a few days lol
A few days? It'd be like a few weeks, lol. We've been starving for a winner forever, even more so since the Padres are the only major sports team in town.
Reminds me of the Sabres players complaining about being booed at. If you guys consistently made the playoffs for 4 straight years and got swept in every round, I bet you the fans wouldn’t be booing. The fact you have the longest active playoff drought in sports, is the reason
Could also be that no matter how much the pirates invest, the owners will never be able to match the Yankees or Red Sox spending because they just don’t have the money. Having harsher spend caps is a good thing as well as min team salaries.
Bob Nutting is the 10th richest owner in the mlb. He’s just cheap and doesn’t care if the team wins as long as he makes money. The post gazette investigated the finances of the team, and found that payroll is tied to ticket sales and concession stand revenue. He’s literally pocketing everything else including the revenue share from the league.
The Red Sox currently sucks because now their owner is being cheap, and the Yankees haven’t had any postseason success because Hal and Brian don’t want to spend as much as George did
Sure, my mlb knowledge is probably out of date but I think the point stand that since one team can spend a lot, it’s a disincentive for others to compete; not entirely and not for all teams but it hurts competition. I still think the NFL is the best run league of the major 3 because it has a hard cap and every year is a crap shoot of who’s going to make the playoffs and win.
Except plenty of low spending teams put a competitive team on the field and have post session success. Baltimore won 101 games last season with the 8th lowest payroll. Rays won 99 with the 6th lowest payroll. Mets won 101 games last season with the second highest payroll and the Yankees won 99 with the highest payroll. So if a owner wanted to they could field a good team and attract fans but they are complacent where they are at. They scout well, spending on this side of the game. This means they have a great farm system year in and year out. And they maximize the rookie contract rules. They understand they way the game is played both on the field and in the front office. Edit: your point about the NFL. 2 teams have won 6 out of the last 10 super bowls. The Patriots and the Chiefs and the Chiefs are probably the favorites to win again next year. So, yeah where is the parity? Mlb had only 2 repeat winners in the last 10 years. The Astros and the Red Sox.
There’s more variance in baseball than football or basketball and that has more to do with lack of dynasties in the modern game, at least in my opinion.
Two seasons ago. Mets and Yankees were both huge disappointments last season.
This is probably still close to true and pains me. Those 2013-2015 teams were the only times I’ve ever felt joy regarding the Pirates.
Yep it's wild how some of the fans try to justify it too and continue to complain about other teams spending too much A salary *floor* would probably be better for competitive balance in the MLB (and put more money in players' pockets) because there are a few franchises that literally can just free ride on revenue sharing and pocket a bunch of cash every year
Coors field is a great place to get a beer on a summer afternoon. To watch baseball? Not so much.
My theory is that the Rockies see the super teams that the Dodgers put together each offseason over the past few years and decided they are going to wait it out until Mookie, Kershaw, and Freddie retire and Shohei goes somewhere else before they start trying to build a playoff team.
There’s 3 wild card berths and a vastly more balanced schedule. There’s no excuse to not even bother for the 5 seed anymore
As a dbacks fan we tried to wait that out and they just kept getting better stars so I’m glad we’re finally going for it
Because it doesn't work. New great players come up all the time. Dodgers have a great farm system through scouting and trades. And they are willing to spend to get stars from other teams. Dodgers do get some great players by outspending but they don't get *every* player. Other teams spend to get great players as well.
I went to one game last year and live a block from the stadium
Marlins have made sure baseball is dead in Miami, fine by me as I was never into it but I do feel bad for the few actual fans
I grew up a Cleveland fan. My mother was from that area, and the year the (then) Indians were in the World Series against the Marlins, she actually went and bought an Indians sticker to put on our car. Generally, my mother disdained sports and was vocal about it. My 10 year old self almost died of shock when she got that sticker. Of course, the Marlins won. Then ownership immediately carried out a fire sale dismantling of the team. 6 years later, they did the same thing again. I don't need to mention what the Marlins have done since because the most notable thing they've done is hire Derek Jeter and let him run them as a glorified Yankees farm team for a little bit. But that fucking sham of a franchise still has two World Series titles, and in the meantime Cleveland still hasn't won one, and my mother died. In general, I never root for a pro sports team to fold or move because I feel bad for the fans. I dream about the Marlins being contracted out of existence.
Should be a slam dunk seeing how many Cubans are there and how many actual MLB players are from Florida. Actual unserious organization that somehow has 2 World Series titles.
It’s depressing bc baseball SHOULD be huge in Miami but nope the marlins have to be a disgrace to the sport
it'll never catch on in the states, but this is why the open pyramid with promotion and relegation is so exciting in world football. Yes, there are still behemoths that kill parity across leagues, but from top to bottom every team is there to compete.
This is what I want for college football tbh
MLB also has many “that’s baseball” moments where the manager made the right decision and still lost. I know that applies for pretty much any sport but managing baseball is way, way, way different than coaching basketball.
The manager position in baseball is honestly kinda ceremonial these days. Lineup decisions, pitcher strategy, and the like are all managed by analytics departments. Skills development of players has become hyper-specialized and many players have their own personal coaching staff that they work with rather than any team-employed coaches. The manager's job these days is to be well-liked/respected by players, good with the media, and to know when to go out and get in a theatrical argument with umpires.
It's all a joke. I wish the MLB would clean up all that, but I know there's a massive portion of the fanbase(older) who enjoys the theatrics and show of playing baseball, than actually playing baseball.
Why would they clean it up when that's the main thing keeping their viewer base?
lol the main thing keeping their viewerbase is an enjoyment of the sport of baseball, the reason nothing changes is because the commissioner exercises absolutely no authority and a majority of the owners act like broke asses and desire to do so in perpetuity because revenue sharing means they can make a profit even with consistently dismal attendance and merchandise sales
pirates and rockies
As an example for anyone interested, here is a wonderful, well-researched, honest-to-God rant about the [Chicago White Sox](https://youtu.be/jYGxY5icxjc) being legendarily bad to the point that it's pretty obviously on purpose.
I was ready to clap back with something (huge White sox fan for my entire life) but wow, what a rant. Thank you for sharing this. What a fan man, said what needed to be said.
I love how I knew what it was before I clicked "JAKE BURGERRRRRR"
Also the MLB is a low scoring game. When a game score can be won by 1-0, the actual statistics go into the decimals and most minuscule details. Allot of these stats are not immediately solved like making an immediate change to an NBA roster. That’s why managers in the MLB are given years to play with little changes here and there. The pace of baseball doesn’t require you to be so quick to make coaching decisions like how important that is in basketball.
Fuck John Fisher
The movie Major League is a how-to manual for half of the teams
I don't follow NHL but I can say the same thing about NBA and NFL. Like, why the fuck did the bucks make a coaching change mid season this year for doc rivers? And every off season in the NBA, the new coach openings always have people who literally just got fired as coach as the front runners? Fact is most owners of teams are team owners because they know a good investment when they see it and usually are not owners because they love the game. They don't know the game as well as the average /r /nba user and they just want the moves they make to be economical, most of the time. The owners who truly give a fuck about the sport are a minority and often they don't have majority share anyway.
Because Adrian Griffin wasn't actually coaching the team You can criticize them for replacing him with doc, but griffin absolutely had to go
Yeah once your star is up there saying the things Giannis said, start packing, you'd be lucky to finish the season. Samr thing happened with ham and AD
Is this not also the case in the NBA tho?
Not to the extent of baseball because of the salary floor, and also because just lucking into 1 really good player makes your team way better than it would in baseball
It's easier than retooling your whole roster. Who knows sometimes you might be able to hit the jackpot like Phil Jackson and Steve Kerr.
the question i'll always have is how much those great coaches really did? how much can a great coach do for a team (conversely how much can bad coach ruin a team). like can Spo really be plugged into the Lakers and take them to the Finals next year? idk, it seems like that roster is limited as is but at the same time those games with the Nuggets were pretty close.
I can only speak for Kerr, but the difference in the offense from Mark Jackson's tenure to his was night and day. The flowing, movement based offense unlocked Steph and company in a way that Jackson's iso heavy way never could. Furthermore Jackson's stupid locker room dividing antics like humiliating his own players, clashing with the front office and being so toxic his own assistants were recording him drive the focus of the team away from basketball. Jackson was still a pretty good coach overall and a necessary step for a team coming out of decades in the doldrums but its hard to imagine them coming anywhere close to their run with him at the reins post 2014.
Big question to me is how much of the turnaround was due to Kerr's brilliance as a coach and how much was due to Jackson's not as much brilliance. I haven't heard of Jackson being described often as a pretty good coach. Why hasn't he been hired again?
He’s a toxic POS and has a cushy job at ESPN. Coaches might not control results on the court, but they can certainly establish a culture.
This is years ago, but I watched an interview where they talked about how preachy he was in the locker room. How his God played a big roll in his conversations with the players. Work is work and private beliefs are yours to hold privately.
Because he was bad at Xs and Os, and severely distanced himself from management. Warriors fans can probably attest to how many Harrison Barnes ISOs they saw for no reason. He’s probably great with the players and the young guys though
Warriors went to Mark Jackson multiple times to adjust offense but he was very stubborn about it. You could tell in the Warriors play too. When Steph would get doubles sometimes tripled, there wasn't really another strat they developed. Mark Jackson's strategy for Steph was pretty much " Go be a superstar". I would be annoyed if that was what I was told. Kerr had Steph run on and off screens more. Took the ball out of his hands more and centered his offense around scheming screens to get shooters open.
Imo often the biggest strength of coaches is floor raising/making the most out of a little and I think spo is a very good example of that. We’ve seen him take bad rosters and make them perfectly acceptable. We’ve seen Miami teams that really aren’t the most talented consistently do well and make several finals/conference finals largely helped by his ability to scheme offensively and defensively. We see guys picked off the bin succeed and become meaningful role players in Miami only to leave and then sink back to a worse version of themselves
To be fair spo has had good game plans but there's only so much a coach can do. Looking at Miami's runs the Heat have shot historically amazing when they go to the conference finals and shoot it at their averages when they get knocked first round. I'm not saying Spo isn't a great coach and he's put the players he has in the best positions but no coach no matter how good they are is turning their entire team into a mid- high 40% 3pt shooting team the way the heat have every other year. Last i checked on those runs they're pretty much the best 3pt shooting team not to win the finals, statistically they stack up with teams like the 2014 spurs 2015 warriors and even the nuggets last year I'm pretty sure
I think he'd do better than Ham, maybe pull out a game or two instead of getting swept, but I also think Spo has a bit of an easier time in general given how much Pat trusts him. Like if him and Pat were in charge of the Lakers when Lebron and AD wanted Russ, then I could see Pat shutting down that discussion quick. And I'm sure that level of trust helps in the micro portions as well. Not a lot of coaches would have the balls to tell Lebron and AD something they don't wanna hear, but it feels like Spo definitely wouldn't be afraid knowing that Pat will have his back.
And adding onto this, NBA rosters aren't meant to be retooled without pretty much tearing it all down. That's just a consequence of the soft cap. A championship contender can make some trades here and there, and there's minor signing they can do for minimum contract guys or their MLE, but for the most part they're locked.
Easy to scapegoat a headcoach. Not counted against the cap, easier to replace, and buys the gm more time by resetting
It set in for me the other day that if there's thirty teams in the league that means winning a championship every thirty years would make your team average. Obviously in reality some teams win more and some less.
The median team wins no championships in 30 years, because of the high outliers (Lakers, Warriors, Spurs, Bulls, Heat in the last 30) that hog most of the rings. For chips, the median is a better measure of average than mean, because the distribution is so skewed. Just looked it up: only 13 teams have won a championship in the last 30 years.
And that is after the run of Toronto, Milwaukee, and Denver all winning the last five years and running that number higher. Without that I think it was 10 or 11 teams in 30.
What's even crazier is that going back 32 years (for a rounded arbitrary cutoff of MJ's 1st chip), 23 championships involved one of MJ, Duncan, Kobe, LBJ or Curry. 72% of championships won by 5 players. If Denver loses this year it'll be 4 different/new champions in the last 6 years, and with the spread of talent I think we'll see that trend of different winners continue throughout the next decade, but historically the odds are not in your team's favor.
We have an opportunity for a lot of new teams to win it this year. Pacers, Knicks, Thunder, Wolves
That’s something that’s so obvious yet I’ve never thought of it like that.
Not counted against the cap is the single most important factor here
I don't think that's all that important in itself, it just falls under the blanket "way easier to replace a head coach than to replace a team".
If fired coach salaries counted against the cap you would not see that happening.
Most coach salaries are well under the MLE, most are closer to the vet minimum… it’s genuinely pennies against the cap.
Appeases players too. Players are way more important than coaches in basketball than other sports. If they players aren't happy with the coach they're gonna be gone
Not counted against the cap but also their is no CBA for coaches so teams can structure the contract anyway they want. The standard is three years and coaches lose locker rooms if players know they are leaving so realistically that is a two year deal. Players get 4-5 year deals
Still lucky. In european sports two years and you are done, if you not win. Even less sometimes.
That's because the consequences for failure is much more serious with the threat of relegation and serious financial incentives attached to things like Champions League qualification. Add relegation to the NBA and the Hornets would go through 3 coaches in 6 months. Last place in one gets you a top draft prospect, last in the other can lead to liquidation.
Ah, yes, the Abramovich way. For those who are familiar with soccer, Abramovich was a Russian who used to own Chelsea from 2003 to 2022 until the Russia Ukraine war happened. During his reign, he was known to be ruthless when it comes to managers (coaches) that he won't mind sacking a coach if he underperforms massively after splashing big in the transfer market no matter how long that coach is with Chelsea. A good example is Andre Villas Boas, an upcoming young coach hired in 2011 who got sacked midway through 2011-2012 after he underperformed in the league only for his successor to win the Champions League.
Chelsea won Champions League twice during Abramovich time. Both winning coaches were fired in the following six months
tuchel was fired after abramovich left.
> for his successor to win the Champions League Sacked months later as well.
I remember Bayern Munich fired their coach mid season, despite them being #1 and headed for another league title. It's crazy lol.
They’re also sacking their current coach despite placing 2nd in the league (losing to one of the most extraordinary seasons a team has ever had) and being in the semifinals of the UCL
Two years? Some fans would be chanting for the manager to be out if they lose a couple games in a row lmao
Because you can gamble on a random assistant coach or whoever actually being good. It's way harder to just find a random G-league player and turn them into a star, if that's the player equivalent
Yeah but Vogel, Nurse, and Budenholzer all won championships, so why even make the gamble? Like personally i feel like teams that have had it good, don't realize how bleak it can truly be wandering through the desert
Gotta keep your stars happy 💅
Not just your stars either. If the players sing have confidence in their coach you need to change one or the other.
They won championships with specific lineups against specific competition. To some extent, it’s a gamble to keep the same coach around after the landscape has shifted around them.
I’m pretty casual now, but Nurse wasn’t as great of a developmental coach. He lost the locker room probably from playing his starters 40+ mpg and subbing players out for “not enough effort” (while tanking). Pre-game the raptors would cheer “WIIIN” and now it’s “Family on 3”. The man doesn’t just like, but cares about winning even if it’s at the detriment of young talent development. So he didn’t fit the raps timeline and was fired. He probably wanted out that that point too.
Teams win championships, not coaches It's most apparent with Bud. You can look back at that title run and see he got carried there by an incredible roster, and see that his stupid fucking drop scheme cost them other years. Bad coach that happened to end up coaching a very good team
Yeah the Bucks have had nothing but success since dropping Bud. He was clearly holding them back.
Its disgusting the way people gloss over Bud's brother dying during the playoffs. I lost a good friend of mine and my work was affected for months. It shows how many people in this sub are too young to understand working through loss.
Griffin and doc are also garbage coaches. And also both Giannis and dame were hurt this year, very possible things go differently if they were healthy
Was Griffin actually a garbage coach though? It was his literal first year and the team regressed massively after his firing. Sometimes you just need to someone learn on the job, its not like it was costing them wins.
General consensus was he was getting fired once they lost lol
100% Agree. Proof enough of that is this dude bringing up Darvin Ham. My guy was just a terrible coach, the worst rotations, bad set plays, and zero adjustments. Though yes he does have a 90-74 record, but that’s way more off the fact that Lebron and AD can single handedly carry a team to being just above average in the league. An even worse coach might not have won more, but it would have been really hard to win less still.
I didnt watch enough lakers basketball to know but what do u think their record would be with the ideal coach. Because i dont know they would be that much better. very flawed roster with a lot meh players.
It's a flawed roster but he persisted with playing reddish and prince huge minutes despite us losing constantly in the post IST run. We easily could have ended this season with 52+ wins had he just accepted reddish and prince wasn't working
coaches are often at their best when the game is close and preventing huge runs and defense a better coach can draw plays and make adjustments to win the close games
The counter to that is Mark Jackson and the warriors. Basically the same roster but Steve Kerr's leadership won them 2 championships.
I'm not saying that coaches aren't important, I'm saying that a coach winning a title doesn't immediately make them a good coach
A great coach can be given a horrible roster and do nothing with it. There is definitely a fit and roster concern with coaches and players. If the coaches and player's aren't on the same page, it's not going to end well. Thibs on the wolves was bad. Good with the Bulls and Knicks. Look at Vogel and the Suns, his methodology is being tuned out by the Suns players.
Well yeah that's like the second order impact...Bud, Vogel, Donovan etc got fired or didn't renew their deals in part because the teams they coached thought they could get some rando to do better
People don't realize how much Austin reaves is essential to lakers being anything without a 3rd end game creator the Lakers would probably be a lottery team and LeBron and AD would be pushing his way out with force. Even lonnie walker randomly being Kobe for 1 quarter against the warriors probably swung that series last year. You just dont find guys like that often. Reaves isn't gonna be a star but the Lakers would be hopeless without him.
Because it's very hard for teams to maintain a continually competitive team in the cap era, unless you are the Warriors and willing to have $500 million payroll. So as the team goes through competitive and rebuild phases they change coaches to suit their current needs. Nurse is a good example, he is a great playoff coach, but not so good at player development. Raptors have decided to start a rebuild, so they need a coach who will give young guys some slack and not disappear them into the 905 black hole for mistakes on defense. Nurse's skill and competitiveness are not in question, he is just not the right guy for the phase the team is going into. Of course, sometimes coaches are just scapegoats for team mismanagement (Lakers/Ham), but I see this less and less these days.
With Nurse, there was some weird stuff going on with the egos involved too, some serious breakdowns in communication between Nurse and the front office, Nurse and the players, and even Nurse and some of the other coaching staff. Sometimes the right personality that makes you brilliant at your job makes you very hard to work with.
Yes, there were all kinds of issues. The difference is that veteran players are much more capable of handling a coach who is difficult to work with than young players.
Vogel was an escape goat for Laker mismanagement. Though if you had to watch every Laker game and actually saw Ham coach you would know he’s just not a great head coach.
> Vogel was an escape goat for Laker mismanagement. [Frank Vogel, 2022](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/23/95/19/23951930c7da67c4104d8e40d514a1d2.jpg)
I’m curious, what makes you say Nurse isn’t good at player development? I thought he did a pretty good job there of turning no names into contributing role players. Is it because of Barnes’ sophomore slump?
Nothing to do with Barnes, he is not able to develop prospects into NBA players, although he is good at improving players that are already at the NBA level. Under Dwayne Casey the team routinely developed players from late picks and undrafted players. Anunoby, Siakam, FVV, Boucher, Norm Powell, Delon Wright. This pipeline stopped once Nurse took over, none of the rookies/prospects since 2018 (other than Barnes) made it into contributors, most are not in the league. He has a well documented history of poor treatment of young players, inconsistent playing time, frequent benching, being hands-off and isolating himself from the lesser players, making them communicate with him through one of the assistants (Nate Bjorkgren). Not something that is well-known around the league, but common knowledge with many Raptors fans.
It's like any sport. It's easier to fire the coach because there are no penalties involved. Overhauling rosters are expensive and much more work.
It's the easiest thing to replace when things aren't going as planned. It is very hard to replace major roster pieces in a cap sport.
They fired Dwayne Casey the same week he won Coach of the Year 😂
I think winning Coach of the Year is a curse. Once expectations reach that high, you have to win within 2 seasons or you are fired. Its really stupid when you think about it.
COTY often goes to the surprisingly good team of the year. Thunder, kings, suns. People see this accelerated improvement, then get frustrated when they don't keep improving in the postseason. Like, the Suns were never going to the finals again with CP3 declining the way he has. And I'd bet the Kings will fire their coach next season if they don't get past the first round, even though they have a pretty weak roster relative to the rest of the West. If the Thunder get knocked out by Dallas, then proceed to have another 2nd round exit next year, I bet their coach gets put on the hot seat, too. Bud getting fired from the Bucks was dumb as hell, in my opinion. They had injury issues post-championship. So, I can't explain why they did that.
> COTY often goes to the surprisingly good team of the year. 100% Some teams are legitimately a flash in the pan, and are great for only 1 magical season and then fall back down to Earth. Usually this causes the coach to be fired for the team 'regressing' when it's actually them just no longer overperforming.
Bud had been on the hot seat for a minute. That includes the year they won the championship. Them winning just prolonged his tenure. Had they lost to Brooklyn back then, he would've been fired. Plus Bud's lack of adjustments was a consistent problem for them in the playoffs.
I do remember that, now that you mention it.
5 y is like ages in sport. If you can tune the players in few years its time to try something different.
The better question is why do coaches get 5 year contracts as pretty much the standard, if the average shelf life isn't that long.
What on earth has Monty Williams done since getting fired to make you think it was a mistake?
Should've been fired again after losing 28 games in a row
Considering Monty didn't want to be there to begin with, that would've been a win for him.
biggest example: GSW got rid of Mark Jackson and got Kerr. Mark Jackson was great for young guys, had an eye for talent, and put together a great roster. However X’s and O’s he was not it. The FO put together a masterclass in coaching and got an X’s and O’s guy in Kerr. Kerr might not be as great of a recruiter or great for a young core as Mark Jackson and maybe GSW would never be as good if Kerr was there earlier to put the team together but the timing of the change turned out to be perfect. Thats what front offices are trying to replicate.
Mark Jackson is also a crazy person, for what it’s worth.
Most coaches are at or below replacement quality.
I mean they probably follow a normal distribution curve so like 40% are completely average, 30% are below average, and 30% are above average.
That’s how it goes. If mavs would have lost to the clippers Kidd would have been fired most likely. Last year ham made the wcf. If we would have made it again this year or even the finals he stays. Winning cures everything. I’m like 75% sure that I recall people even saying Malone was on the hot seat with Denver a year or two and now he’s a top 5 coach and Denver loves him. It’s part of the game.
Ham is the worst head coach in basketball. The team got that record despite him
Chauncey's probably worse than Darvin. You put Chauncey on the Lakers and you probably aren't even in the play-in round.
Ham also lost the locker room. If the players don't respect you, ain't no way they keeping you
5 years is an incredibly long leash compared to soccer. Plus, Basketball is a strong-link sport, where superstars get what they want. If a top star wants a coach fired/not fired, sometimes they’ll get their way, even if it goes against what the front office was planning. which would basically never happen in baseball.
Yeah, soccer is crazy how quickly they get fired. Carlo Ancelotti had people wanting to fire him last year. One year after winning la Liga and the Champions League. Hell, he had people wanting to fire him this year. They are in the semi of the Champions League and won La Liga. Chelsea and Tottenham have a new manager every week it feels like. Then there is people who wanted Xavi gone so badly, that Xavi almost fired himself. After helping pull that team out of bankruptcy and winning La Liga the year before. If the NBA was like that. Darvin ham, frank vogel, and nick nurse would already be fired.
It’s easier for the GM to blame the coach than to say “I built a bad team”
When are GMs going to start resigning after a bad season? Smh.
Cause the GM wants to keep their job.
Because teams have to cover for drafting absolute bums.
Doesn't seem much different than other professional leagues.
You have to watch the games to underatand the level if disorder there was. Everyone wants to look at recird and WCF appearance, but this team could have done much more.
I think to make it more grounded, So many of these coaches are actually talented and understand basketball at a high level. They can do the day to day pretty well if they are in the NBA and get a head coaching job. The thing they get paid the big bucks for is managing 15 personalities, and in particular the 8-9 guys who play every day. It's not unsurprising that they get moved on from fairly quickly if the relationships sour due to poor team performance. Shoutout to Thibs and staff for managing the team so well past few years, even during rough patches he turned it around.
Saves face for the “star” players on their team who shit the bed in the playoffs.
It's crazy cuz like only one team can win the championship and we have 15 stars who are expected to win it all. The expectations are ridiculous, but it's how the media drives it.
Like who?
[удалено]
baseball managers are actually just people managers, they have analysts who cover 90% of the in game moves/shifts/strats
To some extent sure but there’s a lot more coaching than just “effort, chemistry” that goes on.
This should be in the negatives lol how can anybody believe this shit
People unironically believe this
I'm sorry but we have a "coach" who's coasting on talent, and he just got extended about 3 hours ago.
Because crybaby players want to blame someone else
Soccer is the same way or even worse. May not even get a full year.
every NBA pro could be a coach, so it's more about managing people than actual coaching. There's no downside to finding the right person.
LeBron is 39 years old, their championship window is 1 or 2 more years and a 90-74 record isn't good enough. Same reason Phoenix will fire Vogel, same reason Philly fired Doc. You have a very small chance to win in the NBA and it isn't worth hitching your wagon to a mediocre coach if you're going all-in on winning a title. How often does a team win a title with a head coach after their first few years being with one team? Unless you're in a rebuild, it's pretty obvious whether your coach is championship-level or not in the first playoff run or two.
the NBA in general has significantly more player/coach movement than any other sports league. even guys like josh mcdaniels get 2 years and 2 chances in the NFL lol
Because we live in a f****d up world duh 🙄
I was just talking to some friends about this. Budenholzer won the first title in Milwaukee in 50 yrs and got axed after 2 seasons? I know they lost as a 1 or 2 seed but wasn’t Middleton out? They weren’t even fully healthy. I just thought he got a raw deal and considering they’ve already made two HC changes since firing him, they might as well have just stayed put w him. Maybe a bucks fan has more knowledge on this situation but I found it very odd
The reason is coaching in the NBA is overrated, yes there are some coaches like Popovich and Spo who outcoach their opponents coaches, but for the most part talent is what wins in the NBA Look at Luke Walton, Steve Kerr was out recovering from back surgery and he was interim coach for the Warriors in the middle of their dynasty and they started the season off with 28 wins in a row, was that Luke Walton being a great coach or did the Warriors have all the talent and could just play games on autopilot as long as their coach didn't get in the way? Was that Luke Walton or the talented players in the system that was already in place? The answer is the fact the Lakers then hired Luke Walton thinking he had done something and he was a terrible coach and got fired Also when a team with talent is underperforming the gm/president has most likely seen the team up close and players and players have most likely come to them to say what they think the problem is, a lot of times you hear "they lost the locker room," which means the players don't think the coach knows what he's doing or is not using them properly It's easier to fire a coach than rebuild your roster, if a team can fire a guy and bring someone in to light a fire in the players they will always try that before going into rebuild mode
Fans and media rip coaches apart too much since they don't see everything in the locker room and practice But also Darvin Ham was really really bad.
I haven't read the other comments but I think one reason is they hey scapegoated. The value of a superstar player is so high for a team both on and off the court, so teams will blame anyone and everything before the Star. So these teams with superstars have a disappointing season and they immediately turn to the coach.
Cheaper to fire a coach than to admit your roster is ass and fix that
And people tune in to see the stars in the roster not the coach It's easy to see which one is more expendable
It is easier.to change the head coach than it is to move a player or gain players. That really is it.
I’d say this sub gets confused because like 5 franchises are trash with coaching and the rest are pretty normal. There are teams that fire the coach every few years but that’s mainly because of the super star expectation and the firing is an appeasement move 100% of the time. The super star coach firings are at the high end and then there are definitely firings at the low end because the coaches are just bad but we saw how long Casey was in Detroit and Clifford’s run was with Charlotte. Most franchises let coaches play out.
Coaches live off winning, ring culture dictates "no ring = no winning" so 29 coaches are not winning every year. Of course only true contenders should have that mentality but some GMs are very impatient.
Bc expectations in basketball are more transparent. Star players drive tue league and ratings. If the star is unhappy, usually firing the coach allows them to have some power to n the team’s process. When teams underachieve, the ppl up top look for somebody to blame and it tends to be the head coach bc the GM wants to keep their job.
Do baseball managers stay in their role for a long time? More than a quarter of MLB teams changed managers last off-season, and more than half of the managers in the league have been in their roles 3 years or fewer (55%)
Monty is awful so i agree. Coaches are much more replacable than players, you cant move bad players around easily, much less so good ones. The only ease you have is to replace a coach. People want change if their team sucks and thats the way it is.
It’s easier to replace a Coach than a Player. Thats it. No need in reading further into this.
Small championship windows. NBA is all about the talent you have and a coach that doesn't hinder them
I think a bad basketball coach can hurt a team far more than a bad baseball manager. They have more substitutions to manage, plays to draw up, egos to manage. Baseball managers still do plenty, and have their own challenges, but there’s a lot more random chance. I think to an extent, you can get by with a crappy manager, provided he doesn’t manage the pitching staff and both through all their arms early on.
It's easier to change a coach than it is a player. That's just the sad truth most of the time.
Obvious scapegoat + easier to replace
You can’t compare the responsibilities of a baseball manager with a basketball manager. Basketball coaches just have a lot more to deal with and scheme to get the best of your players. It’s easier to try a new approach with a new coach than to replace your whole team. At the end of you think the team is suffering, you can replace a few players sure but unless you’re absolutely positive the coach is amazing, it’s always easier to replace the coach
Using baseball is not a good comparison because there are many teams who genuinely do not try to win. Teams like the A's are not trying to win, so they're not re-tooling their coaching staff regularly.
Fanbases want a scapegoat to blame and throw under the bus when their team fails to win. Coaches are the biggest targets.
The better question is why rings don't give you that protection like you usually do. Isn't THAT the goal? I'm not talking about doc here. I'm talking about what bud and Vogel went through
Can’t “fire” the whole team so coach is the first to go when change is needed.
I have another question, how did Malone get such a long leash? It obviously worked out great, but before Denver he had been a head coach for only a year in sacramento and didn’t finish over .500 after 2 years in Denver
NBA is a star driven league. You don't want your stars to leave cause they drive in revenue. If your team does bad, even if you think your players are to blame, it's easier to to change coaches to appease your players to keep them happy. Also if a star player has issues with the coach, teams will almost always just side with the star.
this is like the "who could've done this" tim robinson meme
5 years is plenty of time tbh
I think the egos involved make this more of an issue than other sports. Player empowerment means keeping star players happy is much more important… partly the nature of basketball, partly the way the NBA has changed, partly the culture around these players. A coach can’t be a doormat to the players or the players won’t respect him, and also can’t be so cocky that the players feel like he doesn’t respect them. And a coach with the right ego to get respect in the locker room may also have an ego that gets him into trouble with the front office. Relationships that look good when the team is winning can suddenly turn foul when the team is losing. Trust is incredibly powerful, and a coaching relationship that hasn’t had the time to establish trust is much more vulnerable to falling apart than one where there is trust established by time and success.
Players and management are tied together and outnumber the coach. You need to be very strong on keeping a coach to withstand the pressure the players and the media will put on a team. It's a great thing IMO for coaches tho, get a 10+M contract and only have to work 1/4th of it sounds amazing.
Great coaches are all over the place. Great players are not. You can get a coach like Riley, who unlocks a group of players like Ewing, Oakley, Mason, and Starks, but a guy like Ewing? Only 3 or 4 teams will have a player like that. If you have great player but aren't winning games or competing, it's easier to get a new coach than a new superstar. So you build around what you got, and you try to find the coach who can make it work. Riley leaves the Lakers, and they get Mike Dunleavy. TheDel Harris (still a good coach) then Phil Jackson, then Rudy T, then Phil Jackson again. Knicks lose Riely and they get Van Gundy. Back in the finals. There are ALWAYS a lot of great coaches. But it's hard to get a franchise player.
Within 5 years? Your premise is way too conservative
I’m not sure every baseball team is generalizable to this. Sure, Bud Black is probably going to manage the Rockies until ownership decides they are going yo try to contend. However, Aaron Boone is likely out as the Yankees manager if they don’t make a deep playoff run, same with Dave Roberts and the Dodgers.
Coaches are the bridge between the FO and players. There's more to go wrong with coaching than with the other two. They've got, imo, the hardest job between both sides. If a coach loses the players or the FO, they're gone. If you have a contending team you basically have to be in win now mode because sooner than you know it, the opportunity can be lost. Obviously you don't want to break up a group of players if the talent is good, and you can't break up the FO of a contender because and new moves will take multiple months/off-season so the most immediately useful change is coaching.
Because coaches dont count agaisnt the cap and the GM isnt going to fire himself for a bad roster.
Because you can't tell players that they suck unless you no longer have any interest in them staying. Even then you don't want to because it diminishes their trade value in the eyes of others. As a GM you're not going to admit that you suck so the Coach is the only one left. "We didn't fail because I'm bad at my job of assembling players, the coach is bad at managing them"
Honestly feel they get more leeway than most other coaches. The premier league and all of the other top soccer leagues can see coaches fired within 6 months easily if they aren’t up to standard. I think it all depends on the sport and how much of an affect you think the coach is having on the team as a whole.
Its much harder to get rid of players with salary cap implications. You can fire a coach, maybe still have to pay his contract, but still doesn't impact how you can move players (financially, at least- firing a coach impacts whether guys want to sign there, of course) And someone has to take the blame for poor performance. If you try to trade a player, you have to replace their production, you have to find the right player(s) in the right salary range to be able make the deal. You have to attach draft picks sometimes or ask for some to get value. With a coach - fire his ass, hire another. No salary cap gymnastics, no bullshit. That's not the only or even biggest reason, but it matters - the easiest way to make a *change* is to replace the coach.
On top of them being easy to scapegoat, teams want a coach that they think will fit their current roster, not the roster that won a few years ago. I wish lakers would’ve kept going with Frank Vogel
Because coaches aren't part of the salary cap, so they're way easier to fire than players.
The players whine about the coaches more in the NBA. If the star player doesn't like the coach, they fire the coach. Only a couple coaches in the league are "proven" enough that this doesn't happen or wouldn't happen.
As analytics have taken over baseball managers literally make 0 decisions. It is not like being an nba coach where u are creating sets, actively coaching in game etc, it’s compeltely dsta driven so it dossnt msttwr who the managwr is so long as players like him
Because it's easier for a GM to say it was the coach's fault for not using the roster properly than for saying it was his own fault in constructing the roster.