PDA

View Full Version : Dr. Jack's formula oof judging whether a coach is good or not



Unclebuck
06-17-2004, 09:50 PM
I found this interesting. From Jack Ramsey's laterst Q&A

Harris (Skokie, Il): What credentials do you use to evaluate a coach's ability? Based upon that, a short list of your favorites in history? Thank you... a fan/ student of the game.



Dr. Jack Ramsay:

Briefly:

Does he have an effective game plan at both ends of the floor?

Can he teach his game?

Does he insist on team play?

Does he establish effective role players?

Do his players accept his decisions?

Is he a good bench coach...able to make required adjustments during the
game?

Is he poised in critical situations?

Does his team improve during the season?

Is he a good judge of personnel?

If he gets high marks to those questions, he's a quality coach...

Peck
06-17-2004, 10:37 PM
Sounds like Larry Brown to me. :)

Oh, ok it sounds like Rick to. ;)

ABADays
06-17-2004, 10:40 PM
Wish we could find someone like that.

Anthem
06-17-2004, 10:54 PM
You know, I was watching the finals and kept thinking the same thing.

While the Pistons have a good collection of talent, that's not what won it for them.

If Larry coached the Lakers and Jackson coached the Pistons, it would have been a 4-1 series with LA getting the trophy.

Bball
06-17-2004, 11:06 PM
...And Isiah lasted 3 seasons... :mad:

-Bball

Anthem
06-17-2004, 11:18 PM
...And Isiah lasted 3 seasons... :mad:

-Bball

Ehh, Zeke did pretty well on half of those questions, and a few of the other ones I can chalk up to having a roster even more fatally flawed than our current one.

He's no Larry Brown (or even Rick Carlisle) but he was better than a lot of the other options out there.

Bball
06-17-2004, 11:38 PM
...And Isiah lasted 3 seasons... :mad:

-Bball

Ehh, Zeke did pretty well on half of those questions, and a few of the other ones I can chalk up to having a roster even more fatally flawed than our current one.

He's no Larry Brown (or even Rick Carlisle) but he was better than a lot of the other options out there.

1/2? I'm debating whether he did good in two of the questions. I certainly can't see him getting high marks on half of them. But it doesn't matter... he's gone and there's little question that Carlisle is better :)

-Bball

Anthem
06-17-2004, 11:47 PM
Well, I think these are undisputable:
- Is he a good judge of personnel?
- Can he teach his game?
- Do his players accept his decisions?

This one's a yes:
- Is he poised in critical situations?

These are a "kinda."
- Does he insist on team play?
- Does he have an effective game plan at both ends of the floor?
- Does he establish effective role players?

And these are a no:
- Is he a good bench coach...able to make required adjustments during the
game?
- Does his team improve during the season?

Obviously, you don't agree. So what were yours?

Bball
06-18-2004, 12:05 AM
Well, I think these are undisputable:
- Is he a good judge of personnel?
- Can he teach his game?
- Do his players accept his decisions?

This one's a yes:
- Is he poised in critical situations?

These are a "kinda."
- Does he insist on team play?
- Does he have an effective game plan at both ends of the floor?
- Does he establish effective role players?

And these are a no:
- Is he a good bench coach...able to make required adjustments during the
game?
- Does his team improve during the season?

Obviously, you don't agree. So what were yours?

I was looking at giving him "Is he a good judge of personnel" but then I had to think about his wacky rotations. So I'm back and forth on that. If he was a good judge of personel you'd think he could use them more wisely.

I also was thinking of "Does He Insist on Team Play"... He talked a good game there I think.

Arguably I guess you could say he was poised in critical situations if you call cluelessly smiling while the other team outplayed and outcoached us in critical moments as 'poised' ;)

I honestly can't give him anything but low marks on the majority of those.

-Bball

-Bball

Anthem
06-18-2004, 01:38 AM
I was looking at giving him "Is he a good judge of personnel" but then I had to think about his wacky rotations. So I'm back and forth on that. If he was a good judge of personel you'd think he could use them more wisely.

I also was thinking of "Does He Insist on Team Play"... He talked a good game there I think.

Arguably I guess you could say he was poised in critical situations if you call cluelessly smiling while the other team outplayed and outcoached us in critical moments as 'poised' ;)

I honestly can't give him anything but low marks on the majority of those.

Fair enough.

The funny thing is that Thomas drives me crazy as a person and as a coach, and I was pretty pissed when he got the coaching job. I'm not really a fan of his by any stretch. The problem, though, is that so many people hate his guts and blame every single thing on him. He's a reasonably smart man that was put in a bad situation. He did some things well, a lot of things poorly, but kept it together while the team grew up. I can respect that.

The only thing that really drove me crazy was that he never admitted fault. If he had ever done that, then I might even like the guy. That's the only thing I absolutely can't defend.

Bball
06-18-2004, 01:49 AM
I was looking at giving him "Is he a good judge of personnel" but then I had to think about his wacky rotations. So I'm back and forth on that. If he was a good judge of personel you'd think he could use them more wisely.

I also was thinking of "Does He Insist on Team Play"... He talked a good game there I think.

Arguably I guess you could say he was poised in critical situations if you call cluelessly smiling while the other team outplayed and outcoached us in critical moments as 'poised' ;)

I honestly can't give him anything but low marks on the majority of those.

Fair enough.

The funny thing is that Thomas drives me crazy as a person and as a coach, and I was pretty pissed when he got the coaching job. I'm not really a fan of his by any stretch. The problem, though, is that so many people hate his guts and blame every single thing on him. He's a reasonably smart man that was put in a bad situation. He did some things well, a lot of things poorly, but kept it together while the team grew up. I can respect that.

The only thing that really drove me crazy was that he never admitted fault. If he had ever done that, then I might even like the guy. That's the only thing I absolutely can't defend.

I don't hate him at all. I just don't think he was a very good coach. He needed some time on the bench learning the role as an assistant (especially since he seemingly didn't want to delegate as a head coach). I also don't think he was handed a team that he was suited for.

-Bball

Anthem
06-18-2004, 02:40 AM
I don't hate him at all. I just don't think he was a very good coach. He needed some time on the bench learning the role as an assistant (especially since he seemingly didn't want to delegate as a head coach). I also don't think he was handed a team that he was suited for.

Well I can certainly agree with all of that (except for refusing to delegate... the man had as many helpers as he did players).

But we've hijacked a thread away from where I wanted it hijacked. I'll repeat.

---------------

Here's a fun thought experiment. Imagine a world where the Lakers and the Pistons traded coaches before the beginning of the year. Who would have won the Finals?

I maintain that it would be the Lakers. The Pistons were a solid team, but coaching was what carried them all the way. Phil Jackson was just thoroughly outcoached. The Pistons were disciplined and always where they were supposed to be, while the Lakers expected a sweep until they were down 3 games to 1. Larry Brown had his team ready, but Jackson didn't.

Thoughts?

Fool
06-18-2004, 08:37 AM
I don't know if any other coach doesn't double Shaq. In your scenario, if Phill doesn't do that then the Pistons 1) get into foul trouble as does every team that doubles Shaq 2) have to weaker defense because they are in foul trouble 3) are always scrambling to rotate out on the perimeter. Result, they could easily have lost and lost big.