In a league where coaching turnover is rampant—almost eight changes per season over the past two decades—a study co-written by Southern Utah University economics professor Dave Berri suggests that fewer than a quarter of NBA coaches between 1977 and 2008 had any significant effect on their players' performance.

Mr. Berri looked at 62 coaches in the three-decade span, only including those who worked long enough to have 15 everyday players come to their team after their arrival, as well as 15 everyday players leave (this was to make sure each coach had a sizable roster of players to analyze). Mr. Berri used his wins-produced metric—which shows how many wins a player is worth by seeing how his statistics correlate to winning—to measure the players' performances and see whether they significantly improved or declined. If they did, then the coach passed the so-called effectiveness test.

Phil Jackson, who has won a record 11 titles, is worth 17.1 wins to his teams per year according to this metric—the most in the sample. But Hall of Famer Pat Riley had no significant effect at all; neither did well-known coaches such as Jeff Van Gundy and Jerry Sloan. Then there's Matt Guokas, who compiled a .430 winning percentage in seven years as head coach. He's the only person in this sample to make his players significantly worse.

Coaches or Players?

It is these two perspectives that inspired a study conducted by Michael Leeds, Eva Marikova Leeds, Michael Mondello, and myself. Utilizing data from the NBA, we wished to see if coaches can actually impact the performance of the players. Specifically, we wished to know if a statistical relationship existed between player performance in the NBA and the identity of the player’s coach.

Our work has been detailed in an unpublished paper (that is currently under review at refereed journal). This work will also be detailed in our forthcoming book [Stumbling on Wins from Wharton School Publishing/Financial Times Press].

Normally I don’t go out of my way to discuss my unpublished papers in the forum. And I have definitely gone out of my way to avoid discussing the many new stories we plan for the next book.

But a few weeks ago I got a call from Ryan McCarthy. Ryan was working on a story for Slate.com looking at the value of NBA coaches. Given where we are at in writing the book, I thought I would share our basic findings.

From McCarthy’s article you get the general story. Here are a few excerpts (click on the previous link for the entire article, which is well worth reading):

According to a new study co-authored David Berri, an economist who runs the sports blog Wages of Wins, most NBA coaches are similar to company managers. In the study, Berri and his colleagues sought to investigate whether Adam Smith’s theory that workers make up the value of an organization-and that managers are nothing more than “principal clerks“-applies to the NBA. The economists looked at a group of 19 longtime NBA coaches that had helmed multiple teams, using a Bill Jamesian statistic called Win Score to evaluate how players performed under their tutelage. Only eight of the 19 coaches had any statistically discernible effect on team performance. Seven had a positive impact, with Phil Jackson topping the chart. Next on the list: Rick Adelman, Rudy Tomjanovich, Rick Carlisle, Don Nelson, Flip Saunders, and Gregg Popovich. The only coach who had a demonstrably negative impact on his players: the historically inept Tim Floyd. (For what it’s worth, Berri didn’t study Isiah Thomas. The NBA coaches study hasn’t been published yet; a version of it will be included in the 2009 book Stumbling on Wins, by Berri and Martin Schmidt.)

More interesting than the names on Berri’s list is his finding that the influence of even the best coaches was statistically very small and was distinguishable only from the worst-rated coaches, like Floyd. Even title-winning, Hall of Fame coaches like Pat Riley and Larry Brown were shown to have almost no impact on their teams. Players leaving Riley-led teams actually got better (except, it seems, for Antoine Walker).

And here is how McCarthy’s article ends:

Why is it that, in the NBA, inexperienced coaches can step in and succeed right away? (First-time coach Avery Johnson was named the NBA’s coach of the year in his second season on the job; newbie Doc Rivers won it after his first.) Berri’s contention is that an NBA coach’s record is determined almost entirely by the quality of his players. The claim makes sense: In comparison with football and baseball, NBA statistics vary little from year to year. The job of an NBA coach, then, may be less about coaxing better performances out of athletes than about getting their skills and personalities to fit together. By the time a player has moved through the basketball machine to the NBA, he’s a relatively finished product. Despite Mike D’Antoni’s best efforts, the plodding center Eddy Curry is doomed to be himself. “Think about it,” says Berri. “What is a coach going to say that will get Eddy Curry to rebound?”

Let me summarize: The majority of the coaches we looked at did not have a statistically significant impact on player performance. And some of these coaches are ranked among the all-time greats. Such findings suggest that the outcomes we observe for teams are mostly about the players, not the coaches. So teams that wish to improve should focus on the people in the uniforms, not the people wearing suits on the sidelines.

What does this mean? Certainly I suspect the coaches in the NBA know much more than the “idiots” – or deck chairs – in the stands. Our study, though, did not explore these differences. What we did try and do is explore the differences in NBA coaches. And our study found that in many cases, there were not any substantial differences. In sum, although one has to acquire substantial knowledge to be an NBA coach, there isn’t much one of these coaches is able to do to differentiate himself from his peers. Consequently, players perform in a similar fashion for most NBA coaches.

Before we jump to the conclusion that most NBA coaches are just clerks with clipboards, we must acknowledge the inherent problems with measuring a coach's impact. First, coaching is collaborative, and accounting for the effects of trainers and assistant coaches (think of Tex "Triangle Offense" Winter and defensive guru Tom Thibodeau) is pretty much impossible. Second, at the risk of sounding like a motivational speaker, can leadership even be measured? Could you come up with a statistic to evaluate Doc Rivers' use of Ubuntu?

It's also worth mentioning that not every basketball stats guy agrees with Berri. Dean Oliver, the director of quantitative analysis for the Denver Nuggets, examined NBA coaching in his 2004 book Basketball on Paper. Oliver's research was based on using various methods of establishing an expected number of wins, things like comparing a team's field goal percentage to its opponents'. Oliver then compared these expectations with a coach's actual record. His findings: Coaches like Phil Jackson can be worth up to an additional 12 wins per year. Oliver admits his methods have their limits, and even if a coach is exceeding expectations, it's hard to know exactly why. "I don't want to say seat of the pants, but many of the coaching decisions in the NBA are made so very quickly," Oliver says. "I'm not even sure that they could break down exactly what they were thinking at any given point in the game."

So, how do you know if your coach is doing anything worthwhile? To paraphrase Bill James, there's no consensus on what statistics should be on the back of a coach's trading card—in any sport. In basketball, where decisions are made on the fly, it's hard to break a game down into a set of discrete choices. Roland Beech, the statistical mastermind behind 82games.com, gave it his best shot, though. At the behest of ESPN columnist Bill Simmons, Beech created the Bad Coaching Index as a way to measure the efficacy of Doc Rivers' decisions. Beech compiled statistics on blown leads and offensive and defensive crunch time performance. The index, while mostly a goof, suggested that Rivers may not have been as bad as Simmons thought. Beech found that in 2004-05, Doc Rivers' Celtics came back to win 40 percent of the games in which they trailed in the fourth quarter, the fourth-best percentage in the NBA.

More reading:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:I dont think anybody is whining. I have followed rambis head coaching career and i feel there are better options out there regardless of the triangle. Phil needs to hire the best coach available and let him do his thing.

I'm not disagreeing that there may be better options than Rambis out there. But in the overall scheme of things the Impact of the majority of Head Coaches is WAY below that of the TALENT on the roster. In most cases the talent you have is more determinant of wins than who the coach is.

Just so you understand i'm not only talking about whining on this forum, but from the Media and Fans in general. If you read and listen to all of the comments there most certainly is a preoccupation with the Head Coach and so IMO it warranted some research to see just how big of a deal that really is relative to the TALENT on the roster, which I contend is THE MOST important factor. Now if you have a man like Pop or Phil who are proven to have a significant impact then that's different.

Shouldn't it be at least noted that Phil is the one in charge here and making decisions? Phil being one of the very few coaches that has a provable record of making players better, should be listened to and trusted a bit more than the Media and some fans are so far. Sure Fisher didn't work but remember his first choice was Kerr. With Fish, Phil was trying something different. Phil wanted to mentor Fish but the working relationship didn't work out. Despite that fail, I would still trust Phil on this going forward. I suspect a Thibs or Mark Jackson might be coaches that can have a significant impact but it's hard to quantify just how much without doing the research.

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:I dont think anybody is whining. I have followed rambis head coaching career and i feel there are better options out there regardless of the triangle. Phil needs to hire the best coach available and let him do his thing.

I'm not disagreeing that there may be better options than Rambis out there. But in the overall scheme of things the Impact of the majority of Head Coaches is WAY below that of the TALENT on the roster. In most cases the talent you have is more determinant of wins than who the coach is.

Just so you understand i'm not only talking about whining on this forum, but from the Media and Fans in general. If you read and listen to all of the comments there most certainly is a preoccupation with the Head Coach and so IMO it warranted some research to see just how big of a deal that really is relative to the TALENT on the roster, which I contend is THE MOST important factor. Now if you have a man like Pop or Phil who are proven to have a significant impact then that's different.

Shouldn't it be at least noted that Phil is the one in charge here and making decisions? Phil being one of the very few coaches that has a provable record of making players better, should be listened to and trusted a bit more than the Media and some fans are so far. Sure Fisher didn't work but remember his first choice was Kerr. With Fish, Phil was trying something different. Phil wanted to mentor Fish but the working relationship didn't work out. Despite that fail, I would still trust Phil on this going forward. I suspect a Thibs or Mark Jackson might be coaches that can have a significant impact but it's hard to quantify just how much without doing the research.

of course talent is the most important but i still want a coach who has a good track record. In regards to phil i havent given up on him BUT he has been a mixed bag so far. He has made both good and bad decisions

Yes Phil has had some things work and others flopped, as is the case with most GM's/Presidents. Until you have brought in enough talent to have real stability, it's easy to pick at the things that go wrong. If you have real cornerstone talent that allows you to win games it's easy for people to take shots at your decisions.

It's still the case that Phil has just begun to rebuild the team starting last summer and will get another good shot at making improvements this summer. The Head Coach situation is one of the big decisions but I'm actually less concerned with a change at Head Coach than I am with what he can do with the Roster.

foosballnick wrote:I remain dubious about any analysis measuring the effect of Change Agents (in this case Head Coaches) without understanding how the model that was created accounts for a Constant (in this case normalizing factor for impact of Roster Changes on Head Coaches success). In other words - it is difficult to measure the impact of a coach without understanding the impact of talent & changes to the roster and competition from year to year. To use the referenced blog as a resource to statistically prove that coaches have little to no impact would make a true Statistician's head spin.

Sounds like you should come up with more data points and a set of criteria to add to what has already been done. Having read the few attempts that were made I was fairly convinced that it was close enough to make the case. Just based on what we know anecdotally Pop and Phil would be considered to have the greatest impact. Very few other examples come to mind. Thibs might be a coach who I could believe would have an impact but just how much of an impact? If Pop and Phil are the best and they range from 12-17 wins what would an average coach's impact be? From no impact to maybe 5 games?

foosballnick wrote:

nixluva wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I remain dubious about any analysis measuring the effect of Change Agents (in this case Head Coaches) without understanding how the model that was created accounts for a Constant (in this case normalizing factor for impact of Roster Changes on Head Coaches success). In other words - it is difficult to measure the impact of a coach without understanding the impact of talent & changes to the roster and competition from year to year. To use the referenced blog as a resource to statistically prove that coaches have little to no impact would make a true Statistician's head spin.

Sounds like you should come up with more data points and a set of criteria to add to what has already been done. Having read the few attempts that were made I was fairly convinced that it was close enough to make the case. Just based on what we know anecdotally Pop and Phil would be considered to have the greatest impact. Very few other examples come to mind. Thibs might be a coach who I could believe would have an impact but just how much of an impact? If Pop and Phil are the best and they range from 12-17 wins what would an average coach's impact be? From no impact to maybe 5 games?

If I had significant time to create a statistical model normalizing effects of Roster Changes, Management Changes, Injuries, Schedule fluxuation, Changes in talent level of competition, Assistant Coaching impact, home and away scheduling impact....etc.....I would likely have to be retired. Unfortunately I run my own business, have wife, young kids and a house as well as a full time job.

My point is that just because someone creates a white paper regarding a statistical model - does not make it an absolute truth. For example, Note that there are counter arguments such as the Dean Oliver view presented in your OP. To lay the claim that there is an absolute range for coaching impact of 12-17 wins based on one analysis would not be the way I would go. But to each their own.

In order to better create a statistical control - I might take a situational micro view rather than looking at Coaching statistics as a whole. For example (an example for Knicks fans)........what was the impact of Woodson when he took over for D'antoni in 2011-12? D'antoni had a .429 winning percentage at 6 Games under .500 for half a year and Woodson had a .750 winning percentage of 12 games over .500 for the second half of the year. That's a net 18 game swing in effectiveness with the same roster for a coach who is not in the same universe as Pop & Phil. The point I'm making is that if the original theory presented in your OP was "fact".....then examples such as (Woodson) I just presented would likely not happen to that impact level.

All of those additional factors you bring up could be researched but IMO that doesn't actually prove that this particular approach is flawed. They reviewed 62 coaches over 30 years! All the coaches had to have at least 15 everyday players come to their team and 15 leave. Using the Wins Produced Metric to measure any change in the players performance. That's not a small sample size or limited set of data points. IMO it's a pretty smart way of approaching the question. It would in fact cover a lot of the things you're questioning.

Just so you know I purposefully added the points made by Oliver to add a countervailing view. Even Oliver had Phil at 12 win impact. The Woodson example is useless since it's such a small sample size that you can't take that seriously. I disagree with your point that a Woodson impact would not likely happen. The chances for outliers in short bursts is very possible but that's not the point.

martin wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:I dont think anybody is whining. I have followed rambis head coaching career and i feel there are better options out there regardless of the triangle. Phil needs to hire the best coach available and let him do his thing.

I'm not disagreeing that there may be better options than Rambis out there. But in the overall scheme of things the Impact of the majority of Head Coaches is WAY below that of the TALENT on the roster. In most cases the talent you have is more determinant of wins than who the coach is.

Just so you understand i'm not only talking about whining on this forum, but from the Media and Fans in general. If you read and listen to all of the comments there most certainly is a preoccupation with the Head Coach and so IMO it warranted some research to see just how big of a deal that really is relative to the TALENT on the roster, which I contend is THE MOST important factor. Now if you have a man like Pop or Phil who are proven to have a significant impact then that's different.

Shouldn't it be at least noted that Phil is the one in charge here and making decisions? Phil being one of the very few coaches that has a provable record of making players better, should be listened to and trusted a bit more than the Media and some fans are so far. Sure Fisher didn't work but remember his first choice was Kerr. With Fish, Phil was trying something different. Phil wanted to mentor Fish but the working relationship didn't work out. Despite that fail, I would still trust Phil on this going forward. I suspect a Thibs or Mark Jackson might be coaches that can have a significant impact but it's hard to quantify just how much without doing the research.

of course talent is the most important but i still want a coach who has a good track record. In regards to phil i havent given up on him BUT he has been a mixed bag so far. He has made both good and bad decisions

Yes Phil has had some things work and others flopped, as is the case with most GM's/Presidents. Until you have brought in enough talent to have real stability, it's easy to pick at the things that go wrong. If you have real cornerstone talent that allows you to win games it's easy for people to take shots at your decisions.

It's still the case that Phil has just begun to rebuild the team starting last summer and will get another good shot at making improvements this summer. The Head Coach situation is one of the big decisions but I'm actually less concerned with a change at Head Coach than I am with what he can do with the Roster.

KP is a cornerstone talent so i agree with you thats a great start. Also he values the draft like i do. I just wish he gets the best coach regardless of the damn triangle lol

It seems to me that players, coach, executive staff, and even DLeague and scouting should all be aligned and pointed in the same direction. For me, just stating that you want the best coach available regardless of the damn triangle isn't a good approach to take. I want a very good coach but one that is tight with Pres/GM. That seems to make sense to me.

martin wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

martin wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:I dont think anybody is whining. I have followed rambis head coaching career and i feel there are better options out there regardless of the triangle. Phil needs to hire the best coach available and let him do his thing.

I'm not disagreeing that there may be better options than Rambis out there. But in the overall scheme of things the Impact of the majority of Head Coaches is WAY below that of the TALENT on the roster. In most cases the talent you have is more determinant of wins than who the coach is.

Just so you understand i'm not only talking about whining on this forum, but from the Media and Fans in general. If you read and listen to all of the comments there most certainly is a preoccupation with the Head Coach and so IMO it warranted some research to see just how big of a deal that really is relative to the TALENT on the roster, which I contend is THE MOST important factor. Now if you have a man like Pop or Phil who are proven to have a significant impact then that's different.

Shouldn't it be at least noted that Phil is the one in charge here and making decisions? Phil being one of the very few coaches that has a provable record of making players better, should be listened to and trusted a bit more than the Media and some fans are so far. Sure Fisher didn't work but remember his first choice was Kerr. With Fish, Phil was trying something different. Phil wanted to mentor Fish but the working relationship didn't work out. Despite that fail, I would still trust Phil on this going forward. I suspect a Thibs or Mark Jackson might be coaches that can have a significant impact but it's hard to quantify just how much without doing the research.

of course talent is the most important but i still want a coach who has a good track record. In regards to phil i havent given up on him BUT he has been a mixed bag so far. He has made both good and bad decisions

Yes Phil has had some things work and others flopped, as is the case with most GM's/Presidents. Until you have brought in enough talent to have real stability, it's easy to pick at the things that go wrong. If you have real cornerstone talent that allows you to win games it's easy for people to take shots at your decisions.

It's still the case that Phil has just begun to rebuild the team starting last summer and will get another good shot at making improvements this summer. The Head Coach situation is one of the big decisions but I'm actually less concerned with a change at Head Coach than I am with what he can do with the Roster.

KP is a cornerstone talent so i agree with you thats a great start. Also he values the draft like i do. I just wish he gets the best coach regardless of the damn triangle lol

It seems to me that players, coach, executive staff, and even DLeague and scouting should all be aligned and pointed in the same direction. For me, just stating that you want the best coach available regardless of the damn triangle isn't a good approach to take. I want a very good coach but one that is tight with Pres/GM. That seems to make sense to me.

being tight with the GM doesnt mean you have to follow his system. If they hire a great coach who wants to run the triangle then im fine with that. However if that coach wants to run something different then he needs to be given that freedom.....seems reasonable to me

What coach is out there that has that type of impact where Phil would change his philosophy, change the DLeague coach and possibly squad and also start anew with the players on a different system (again)?

Pat Riley and Phil Jackson are not out there and the team is not competing for a championship next year. If Durant or LeBron came over I'd say yes. The rest are stepping stones.

Phil's old Lakers teams were efficient enough to be top ten in the NBA right now. All of his teams had an above average Offensive Efficiency even by today's standards. In fact 3 of his teams would've been top 3 in terms of efficiency even this year!

Rk	Team	                Age	ORtg ▾	
1	Golden State Warriors*	27.4	114.5	
2	Oklahoma City Thunder*	25.8	113.1	
3	Cleveland Cavaliers*	28.1	110.9	
4	San Antonio Spurs*	30.3	110.3	
5	Toronto Raptors*	26.3	110.0	
6	Portland Trail Blazers*	24.3	108.8	
7	Los Angeles Clippers*	29.7	108.3	
8	Houston Rockets*	27.8	108.3	
9	Charlotte Hornets*	26.0	107.1	
10	Boston Celtics*	        25.2	106.8	
11	Dallas Mavericks*	30.3	106.7	
12	Minnesota Timberwolves	24.6	106.5	
League Average	                26.8	106.4	

Lakers:
2010-11  6th Offense   111.0  2nd Rd
2009-10  11th Offense  108.8  Finals
2008-09  3rd Offense   112.8  Finals
2007-08  3rd Offense   113.0  Finals
2006-07  7th Offense   108.6  1st Rd
2005-06  8th Offense   108.4  1st Rd

Phil never had the #1 Offense but still won.

nixluva wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

nixluva wrote:

foosballnick wrote:I remain dubious about any analysis measuring the effect of Change Agents (in this case Head Coaches) without understanding how the model that was created accounts for a Constant (in this case normalizing factor for impact of Roster Changes on Head Coaches success). In other words - it is difficult to measure the impact of a coach without understanding the impact of talent & changes to the roster and competition from year to year. To use the referenced blog as a resource to statistically prove that coaches have little to no impact would make a true Statistician's head spin.

Sounds like you should come up with more data points and a set of criteria to add to what has already been done. Having read the few attempts that were made I was fairly convinced that it was close enough to make the case. Just based on what we know anecdotally Pop and Phil would be considered to have the greatest impact. Very few other examples come to mind. Thibs might be a coach who I could believe would have an impact but just how much of an impact? If Pop and Phil are the best and they range from 12-17 wins what would an average coach's impact be? From no impact to maybe 5 games?

If I had significant time to create a statistical model normalizing effects of Roster Changes, Management Changes, Injuries, Schedule fluxuation, Changes in talent level of competition, Assistant Coaching impact, home and away scheduling impact....etc.....I would likely have to be retired. Unfortunately I run my own business, have wife, young kids and a house as well as a full time job.

My point is that just because someone creates a white paper regarding a statistical model - does not make it an absolute truth. For example, Note that there are counter arguments such as the Dean Oliver view presented in your OP. To lay the claim that there is an absolute range for coaching impact of 12-17 wins based on one analysis would not be the way I would go. But to each their own.

In order to better create a statistical control - I might take a situational micro view rather than looking at Coaching statistics as a whole. For example (an example for Knicks fans)........what was the impact of Woodson when he took over for D'antoni in 2011-12? D'antoni had a .429 winning percentage at 6 Games under .500 for half a year and Woodson had a .750 winning percentage of 12 games over .500 for the second half of the year. That's a net 18 game swing in effectiveness with the same roster for a coach who is not in the same universe as Pop & Phil. The point I'm making is that if the original theory presented in your OP was "fact".....then examples such as (Woodson) I just presented would likely not happen to that impact level.

All of those additional factors you bring up could be researched but IMO that doesn't actually prove that this particular approach is flawed. They reviewed 62 coaches over 30 years! All the coaches had to have at least 15 everyday players come to their team and 15 leave. Using the Wins Produced Metric to measure any change in the players performance. That's not a small sample size or limited set of data points. IMO it's a pretty smart way of approaching the question. It would in fact cover a lot of the things you're questioning.

Just so you know I purposefully added the points made by Oliver to add a countervailing view. Even Oliver had Phil at 12 win impact. The Woodson example is useless since it's such a small sample size that you can't take that seriously. I disagree with your point that a Woodson impact would not likely happen. The chances for outliers in short bursts is very possible but that's not the point.

I continue to disagree. However in the interest of moving forward - based on your opinion (based on the linked analysis) that coaches don't seem to matter all that much (unless you have a legendary type such as PJ or Pop).....what is your opinion about what the Knicks should do about the coaching situation?

My belief is that Coaches do matter and that Rambis in his career has proven to be a net negative coach and should be replaced for a shot at a net positive coach. This even works into the statistical analysis you present. If Rambis effect the Knicks by Minus 6 Games over the course of a season - and a New Coach comes in and effects the team as a Plus 6......that's a 12 point swing and could be the difference in Playoffs or not.

newyorker4ever wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:I dont think anybody is whining. I have followed rambis head coaching career and i feel there are better options out there regardless of the triangle. Phil needs to hire the best coach available and let him do his thing.

I'm not disagreeing that there may be better options than Rambis out there. But in the overall scheme of things the Impact of the majority of Head Coaches is WAY below that of the TALENT on the roster. In most cases the talent you have is more determinant of wins than who the coach is.

Just so you understand i'm not only talking about whining on this forum, but from the Media and Fans in general. If you read and listen to all of the comments there most certainly is a preoccupation with the Head Coach and so IMO it warranted some research to see just how big of a deal that really is relative to the TALENT on the roster, which I contend is THE MOST important factor. Now if you have a man like Pop or Phil who are proven to have a significant impact then that's different.

Shouldn't it be at least noted that Phil is the one in charge here and making decisions? Phil being one of the very few coaches that has a provable record of making players better, should be listened to and trusted a bit more than the Media and some fans are so far. Sure Fisher didn't work but remember his first choice was Kerr. With Fish, Phil was trying something different. Phil wanted to mentor Fish but the working relationship didn't work out. Despite that fail, I would still trust Phil on this going forward. I suspect a Thibs or Mark Jackson might be coaches that can have a significant impact but it's hard to quantify just how much without doing the research.

of course talent is the most important but i still want a coach who has a good track record. In regards to phil i havent given up on him BUT he has been a mixed bag so far. He has made both good and bad decisions

Yes Phil has had some things work and others flopped, as is the case with most GM's/Presidents. Until you have brought in enough talent to have real stability, it's easy to pick at the things that go wrong. If you have real cornerstone talent that allows you to win games it's easy for people to take shots at your decisions.

It's still the case that Phil has just begun to rebuild the team starting last summer and will get another good shot at making improvements this summer. The Head Coach situation is one of the big decisions but I'm actually less concerned with a change at Head Coach than I am with what he can do with the Roster.

I agree and i know i'm alone on this but i actually think we can win with Rambis as long as we make a significant improvement to the back court. I know we can't fix it in just this off season unless we get really lucky but i think it can be fixed in the next two off seasons.