Value of head coaches vs players: Looking at their salaries

Of course I'm being silly, because you guys aren't making sense. Is this really logic to you?

H E L L O! Coaches are no more valuable vs players as movie directors vs actors. Players clearly have most impact on team revenue...more than owners and GMs and cheerleaders combined. seriously, no one values coaches more than players? I don't get your point.

We could say the very same thing about GMs and Team Presidents

Comparing director salaries to actor salaries is silly.
Comparing coach salaries to player salaries is silly.

I'm sorry you worked so long on that post, but it is just silly.

meh

 

Classic case of a coach getting outcoached. Carisle knew he couldn't score enogh to win, he inserts jj. Spoelstra sticks with a super struggling vet in bibby.

 

Here's where I think you took a wrong turn. There may be the same 30 buyers, but the markets are not the same. There's a finite number of people who play basketball and were blessed with the physical tools necessary to compete in the NBA (even the guys without athleticism need something like great hand-eye coordination, or a big butt to box out with or something), whereas a lot of people can coach if they work hard. Coaches are less rare and therefore have less negotiating power. It's a mistake to compare salaries and assume it correlated to contribution to team success. Nevermind all the distortions in the player market from rarity (like the big man premium) and from the CBA.

 

A great coach is really only going to make a 4-5 win swing at most in the regular season, what the "great coaches do" is generate a +1 in a playoff series...

 

adelman maybe worth 13 wins, how many was lebron to cleveland. its not even close.

 

Your theory is wrong in a few ways. In adding a midrange role player, that may or may not make a huge difference to a team. The reason being that you can only have 5 players on the floor at any given time. Regardless of how he plays, he can at best only impact a single position. However, a coach will dictate how all 5 positions play at all times during the game.

 

You are right. If I had a healthy superstar or two on my team and wanted to be a championship team, I'd get rid of Rafer and get Lowry.

 

He probably would have won a championship if he had Lowry instead of Rafer.

Look, if your theory is right, a good coach is worth like a good role player. Sometimes a good role player is what a team need to get over the hump.

Let me ask you this, though. What is a GM's worth in terms of winning? How much do GMs make? One step further: what is an owner's worth in winning? How much do owners make?

 

What are words worth? What do words make? My sister, the "vampire/romance" writer, does pretty well. Me? I don't make a damned thing from this.

 

Lowry and Rafer are just hypothetical representatives of the argument. If Orlando had a better PG, they might well have won the title. That doesn't mean said PG would "bring" a championship to Orlando like Howard would.

You whole argument is based on a strawman beating. Nobody is arguing that a great coach is more important than a great players in helping the team win. Everybody knows that no matter how good a coach is, he can't win a championship without having great players.

But you seem to ignore another well known fact that no great player can win championships without good role players. So if you are trying to say, a good coach is not necessary for winning, then that's obviously false.

I guess what you are trying to say is, good coaches are a dime a dozen. It's not the end of the world when you let one get away. If that's your point, then I agree to some degree.

What you don't realize is that detractors of the firing is not necessarily believing that we could not find another good coach. The point of the criticism is that Alexander has a tendency of letting good coaches go. If a GM keeps on letting good role players go without good reasons, then there is an indication of incompetence. You can't just dismiss it like "Oh well, good role players are a dime a dozen. Who cares."

 

His thread is a response to the notion that a great coach can make a +20 win difference. That is not a strawman, plenty around here actually believe it.

He is probably ignoring it because it has nothing to do with his argument. Just because good coaches, like role players, are necessary for winning a championship, doesn't mean they make a +20 win difference. No one is saying either is worthless. The question is how much?

In that case, they would be ignoring Alexander's tendency of continuously bringing good coaches on, in the first place. Seriously, has ANY of these coaching changes actually hurt the team? Or have they all been beneficial since they fit the team's needs at the time?