NBA Players Make NBA Coaches

by Ben Golliver on Sep 21, 2008 12:50 PM PDT

I came across reference to this paper, "Why do Leaders Matter? The Role of Expert Knowledge" by a trio of Cornell researchers, printed in this month's The Atlantic.

A summary of the paper and its conclusions, as printed in The Atlantic.

The authors calculated NBA coaches' winning percentages between 1996 and 2004 over 15,000 regular-season games. They found that coaches who had spent some time as a player got far better results out of their teams than those who hadn't.

Further...

The authors found that former all-stars tended to be better coaches than non-all stars. On average, teams with former all-stars as coaches placed six spots higher in league rankings than teams with coaches who had never played in the NBA, a huge bump-up in a league with only 29 total teams during the years studied.

One of their conclusions...

Leadership skills tend to derive from expert knowledge of a given trade, not from some mysterious alchemy of natural intelligence and interpersonal skills.

I suppose this means that we can now change Isiah Thomas's nickname from "Zeke" to "Statistical Anomaly."

Perhaps this helps explain the difficulties many college coaches (who might not have been professional players themselves) have in making the transition to the pros.

For what it's worth: Portland's coaches during the time period studied were PJ Carlesimo (not a former player), Mike Dunleavy (former player) and Maurice Cheeks (4 time all-star). I'll put it to you: what do you make of Portland's contributions to this study? Do you think our coaches serve as examples or counter-examples to the study's conclusion?

Looking forward, this would seem to be relatively good news for the Blazers. We've got Nate (former player, but not an all-star), who is certainly a student of the game and seems to possess the "expert knowledge" that the study argues is so critical to leadership success.

What's perhaps most interesting is that the loudest voices lobbying for NBA coaching jobs (head coach or otherwise) are invariably former players-- Buck Williams and Kareem Abdul Jabbar come to mind. If you're a former player looking at all your former colleagues enjoying coaching success and then you turn to a non-player, say, PJ Carlesimo, you've got to be saying to yourself, "Hey, I could do his job... and not even get choked out while I'm at it."

A similar study, looking at NBA General Managers and their professional playing experience, would perhaps be even more interesting.

-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting...

I find the claim that former all-stars have been more successful than non-all-stars a curious one. Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Larry Brown, Rick Adelman, George Karl, Mike D’Antoni, K.C. Jones and Don Nelson (certainly among others) were not all-stars. And, to my knowledge, Gregg Popovich and Chuck Daly never played in the NBA. It has always seemed to me that the better coaches, at least during my basketball-viewing lifetime, have been the role players who did not have the natural talent of the stars. Of course, there have been exceptions, as with Lenny Wilkens, Rudy Tomjanovich and Jerry Sloan. So, I find it strange that evidence would indicate that “former all-stars tended to be better coaches than non-all stars”.

I wonder if high-profile NBA stars getting into coaching are more likely to walk into a stable, already-successful situation where they might not have to do as much teaching, whereas a more obscure name has to work his way up and perhaps struggle with some not-so-great teams. I have absolutely no evidence for this hypothesis, but am simply trying to make sense of the authors’ claim that former all-stars are better coaches.

Glancing down a list of the all-time winningest coaches, there are a few former all-stars sprinkled in there, but overall it’s either role players or non-players.

Anyway, I’d rather have Nate McMillan coaching our Blazers any day and twice on Sunday, versus Isiah Thomas or any of the other former all-stars out there.

by HoyaGrizCat on Sep 21, 2008 2:03 PM PDT reply actions

I had the same thought

as I was always a fan of the “players who made the most given physical limitations” made the best coaches. I will have to look over the paper and check out how they are evaluating what a “good” coach is. Maybe if we look at something like wins-win expectation then we might get a better feel for how these coaches are doing relative to the talent level they have.

I cant speak much to Dunleavy and Carlesimo as I was preoccupied during those years, but it seems that Cheeks was not a good X’s and O’s coach, but is a good fit as a player coach. He did have his problems coaching the team here, but I still am glad that he is doing well.

One coach that might be an interesting case study is Reggie Theus. I would say that he did a lot with a little last year and I am interested in how that team holds together this year. I have heard some grumblings from Sactown royalty that he may not be a long term solution and could be gone next year. Luckily I hear Musselman is looking for a job.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Sep 21, 2008 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions

those

3 coaches of ours are all easily forgettable. Cheeks was relatable but couldn’t coach and always looked flustered. Dunleavy could coach but wasn’t relatable and he refused to play our best prospect for 4 years in Jermaine O’neal. PJ can’t really coach and he isn’t relatable. The choke comment is a lil below the belt since that was Spree doin’ Spree. But PJ has got to be one of the worst nba coaches ever. He won’t last long in okc. Nate’s in a good position of being relatable and a good (with newfound team usa rspect) coach. He also has an advantage in that he’s had all his players since they were rooks and the players can grow with him symbiotically.

"You can't buy your woman a watch because she got a clock on the stove."-Sir Charles Barkley

by shwa on Sep 21, 2008 2:09 PM PDT reply actions

Interesting that

Super stars,Magic,Larry ,et all make lousy coachs and guys like Nate,Scott and Sloan[overachievers all] are so good

by southern oregon on Sep 21, 2008 2:12 PM PDT reply actions

Interesting yes.

Maybe always having more talent than you know what to do with makes you ill equipped for the day when you have to do more with less, either your own (MJ?) or others.

superfluous

by lukeyhere on Sep 21, 2008 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, I've often heard that Hall of Famers

are too impatient and cannot understand why everyone on their team can’t play the way they did.

A lot of players become All-Stars at some point during their careers. Looks like some who become coaches can be successful at both levels.

Brandon Roy seems to me to be an exception, in that he could one day be a Hall of Famer yet seems like the kind of guy who would make an excellent coach.

"Screw the chalupa – it’s the victory I want." --timg56

by MiledAnimal on Sep 21, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Isiah failed much more as a GM than as a coach.

Okay, so the Pacers underachieved when he was coaching them, true -
but his greatest mess-ups with the Knicks were trade moves, as the GM.
When they stunk last season with him as coach but not GM,
it was still the roster that GM Zeke assembled that most hurt them.

"Mister Oden is a very, very big human being." - Jerryd Bayless

by QualityPie on Sep 21, 2008 2:40 PM PDT reply actions

OK

I tried to be an intelligent commenter and started to read the whole article, but after slogging through a bit of it I thought better of my idea and decided to make simple gut reactions :)

Main complaint : all-stars are voted by the fans. all-stars are not necessarily the best players. did they use the players who were voted on to the team or who played in the game? (maybe not a significant difference.) But using a fan vote is not valid in my mind.

I know they’ve done their best to reduce everything to Xs and Os (or alphas and betas) but I still think there are those intangibles that can’t be factored in. Using a win-loss record for a team is like judging a teacher on the results of class test scores. Is that the true bottom line for judging a coach?

As long as they say (and readers understand) that they are saying only the coaches with the best win-loss record rather than best coaches I’m OK with it. But only OK, not WOW

"The highlight of the run was Aldridge crossing over Oden near the baseline, driving to the hoop, avoiding Travis Outlaw's block attempt, then finishing with the reverse layup. So pretty." - Casey H., 09/16/08

by jorga on Sep 21, 2008 4:30 PM PDT reply actions

have

all stars always been the fans choice. I didnt become a fan until 88’ and I only voted for all stars once in 91’ when I got to go to go to a game before the break and voted by ballot.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Sep 21, 2008 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions

As far as I know, yes

But also I remember from way back (well, I know early ’70s at least) that there had to be a representative from every team on the all-star team so from that era some of the players were the best of their team, but maybe not all that great.

by jorga on Sep 21, 2008 7:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I could see Brandon Roy being

an excellent coach when he retires. Just knows the game, and how to relate well with the players.

My favorite teams are the Blazers and any team that is playing the Lakers.

by OCBlazerFan1 on Sep 21, 2008 4:38 PM PDT reply actions

One part that is counter intuitive

I always felt that former role players made the best coaches. Dunleavy being a good example as well as Phil Jackson, Avery Johnson, and so forth. However ….many of those may have gotten at least 1 AS appearence so maybe that throws a monkey into the wrench

"I figured out how to get the canoe down the mountain, but I will need a snow blower and all your butter"-Michael Kelso

by 92wastheyear on Sep 21, 2008 4:43 PM PDT reply actions

I think Kidd's gonna make an excellent coach.

And he should really start thinking sooner rather than laer right about now.
After all, Cassell is.

"Mister Oden is a very, very big human being." - Jerryd Bayless

by QualityPie on Sep 21, 2008 5:00 PM PDT reply actions

Nate wasn't an all-star

But, he’s the only NBA player to have his jersey retired without making an all-star game.

He was a fine player, as expert as any all-star, but his position and style (in football terms, he was a “game manager”) precluded any hope of an all-star selection. But for all intents and purposes, I consider(ed) him an all-star.

M, period. Fresh, comma.

by manzell on Sep 22, 2008 7:18 AM PDT reply actions