Coaching doesn't matter, only player talent matters

Yeah, and is more than just a coach keeping his team's mindset straight. Pop did more than keep the Spurs mindset right. He made many and various strategic changes throughout.

Also @Ziggy mentioned the 2013 Finals, which the Heat did win, when I think he meant the 2014 Finals.

Where coaching certainly played a role, but I don't think is the best example case. Game 1 was no AC Lebron-cramping game. An excuse? Maybe. But the Spurs won by 15, after winning the 4th quarter by 19. Heat were winning after 3... but the Lebron cramps completely f'd the Heat up. Maybe he would have cramped anyway... but seems unlikely. Heat came back and won the next game, but then got smoked 2 in a row, and basically gave up in game 5. Absolutely coaching played a role. Pop is clearly the mastermind. But Wade was horrible by the and of the series as his body was falling apart, Ray Allen was horrible as he was 38 years old, etc. Battier went from important the prior year to 33 minutes in the Finals in 2014 as he aged VERY FAST. Basically, the talent just wasn't quite there.

I think the actual 2013 NBA Finals is a better example even though the Spurs lost. They SHOULD have won, and Pop outsmarted himself out of that win. And that was against a Heat team that was younger, healthier, deeper.

Anyway.... coaching OBVIOUSLY matters.

 

The team was trending on an upward trajectory. Draymond green really started getting good the year Kerr got there.

 

Coaching matters much LESS than people think, but it still matters. Personnel rotations, key timeouts, key plays can give a team a marginal edge.

Phil Jackson is an example of the most overrated coach in history.
However, the Spurs would not be what they are without Greg Popovich.

Also, since Defense is as much about positioning and scheming as effort, I do believe a coach can change a team on defense.

Also, let's not forget the flopping legacy that will be left on the NBA thanks to Popovich and Jerry Sloan.

 

Baffling that OP can come to this conclusion after watching the WCSF.

Didn't we just witness a Spurs team get crushed at home in game 1, turn it around with key adjustments, and win 4 out of the next 5 games against Houston? As I recall, some of those games were won in spite of LMA and without Tony Parker and Kawhi Leonard. A certain HOF coach expanded his rotation and devised a game plan to maximize the effectiveness of bit players like Jonathan Simmons, Kyle Anderson, and rookie Dejounte Murray.

The opposing head coach inexplicably shortened his rotation after losing his most experienced Big, and 'adjusted' by putting his superstar PG in the low block to defend Aldridge, Gasol one-on-one. Sure, defensive switches happen but no help was ever sent Harden's way. Meanwhile, fans wonder why he grew tired and lost effectiveness late in games.

McHale was fortunate to face the most overrated HC in modern NBA history.

 

Lakers without Phil Jackson vs Lakers with Phil Jackson....


...and I dont even like Big Chief Triangle and I think he's overrated... but there's no denying the results...

coaches can be beneficial not only from an X's and O's perspective but also from a motivational/focus perspective...

 

I agree with you on most points, but I do think the GSW case is more apples and oranges - while the rosters had similar names on it, several of those young players were right on the cusp of improvement we see with young players(the leap) AND injuries forced Steve Kerr to play Draymond more than he or Marc Jackson otherwise would have - and it turned out Draymond was really good. Mostly the same roster, but Kerr had more developed talent to work with than Mark Jackson did. Kerr is definitely a better coach than Mark Jackson, but not a 16 games better coach. Had Mark Jackson not been fired and managed to outlast the controversies he created the previous year, his team likely would have been 10-12 games better just by virtue of Klay and Draymond starting to show their All Star potential.

 

Pop got swept by more talent OP is right

 

I wouldn't say 10-12 games. At best 5-6 games.

Mark Jackson system focused more on heavy ISO play. Stephen Curry has great Isolation skills but he is not build like a Kevin Durant or Kobe Bryant. You basically are not utilizing talents like Klay Thompson to Cut/ Off ball threats. If someone gives you a box of tools it would be a waste/under optimizing to use just 1 tool, especially if that tool is not Lebron James.

Mark Jackson was hitting his potential already and was close to receding. There are enough articles about Golden States dysfunction in terms of the coaching assistants there and how Mark Jackson didn't trust them because he felt they were taking some of his shine from his success. Mike Malone helped foster that GS defense and was the main x/o guy there, Malone and Jackson were known to not get along. Malone left to coach sacremento and is now the head coach of the Nuggets.

Steve Kerr. Mr unknown. Mr No experience. when he was first hired.
By simply hiring Ron Adams to teach defense and Alvin Gentry to teach Offense he surpassed Mark Jackson as coach.

If Mark Jackson being a great motivator had hired great XO Offense and defensive coaches, I would have no doubt he would have reached the Finals.
His Hubris was his fall.

 

Indeed ,,, mwahahha funny how the once fired, disgraced and cut cavs coach Mike Brown is leading the gsw dubbed gtea (greatest team ever assembled to the finals)

 

Great coaching can turn a subpar team into an average team, or an average team into a good team, a good team into a great team, etc.

Obviously, the ingredients a coach has to work with are the most important factor. It's sort of like cooking in that if you have shitty ingredients there's only so much a great chef can do to make it work. But if you give a good coach good ingredients to work with then you can build a championship recipe.

The best coaches are the ones who can do the most with lesser ingredients. Larry Brown was always very good at this, Popovich is a master at getting scrubs to perform like all-stars. We've seen what Steve Kerr did with the Warriors when he took a good team and helped mold them into a great team.

Star talent will always be the most important factor to winning in the NBA but coaching and front office can often be the thing that propels good teams into greatness and is often what separates the contenders from the pretenders.

 

Of course coaching matters,

If we have someone else other than JVG, Yao and Tmac would not be grind to the ground.

However coaching is reaching a point where ego handling is more important that X's and O's.

 

LOL...Without smart coaches who can see the court and make adjustments that win games, the league would be a more talented version of And1.

Coaching matters, unless you're Big Baby Davis. Hi, Doc.