^^... I disagree. Because you sont recognize the impact deosnt mean its not there.
1. Coaches employ systems... Offensive, defensive, and transition sets, based on personnel, match-ups, situations.
2. Employ strategies after BREAKING DOWN" film.
3. Have to use various sub patterns amd packages
4. Is the next official rep of managment above the players and thus are managers, supervisors and mid-men
5. Have to handle many different adult personalities
6. employ strategy such as inbounds plays, when to trap, when to call fouls, who to double etc...
7. handle injuries
and that's the basics... besides personnel evaluation and leadership.
Why do you think certain coaches are saught after by players and execs.. why not save the millions and have a player/ coach? And I bet u think "any one with say the Lakers roster could win"... but what you don't undestand is..
Without that coach, his rep, and success... there wouldn't be that roster. Its the coach... and his system amongst other things is the Triangle... very successful...
so why do you think every coach ISN'T running it?
Yada Yada Yada...
You haven't said anything i'm not aware of or considering.
You think Idk what coaches do??
Read what I typed there in my post . I said "limited" impact. I understand they do all of the above and that some coaches impact a team more than others. But that impact is minimal. When you have the right players - great players - combined w a good coach that equals winning and sometimes it amounts to championships. Mike D'antoni is a good coach.
Simply put, the better the players, the less a coach has to worry about because of the flexibility he has. That's the key word here - FLEXIBILITY.
This is an important concept. Think about it, if player is great that means he can do a lot in areas that help the team win. If a great player can do a few things well, the coach and teammates have less to worry about..
So if Phil Jackson has Kobe and Gasol then that means he can spend more time coaching up role players and devising strategies. No Pau or Kobe equals less time to coach up role players and devise strategy. Phil would also have a whole lot less in terms of options w regards to in-game management, ie playing time, who to go to at certain times etc. It's about flexibility. Real simple.
How about wins and losses? What did Phil Jackson do when Jordan decided to play baseball?? That's right, no title that year. The better team of players (Knicks) got to the finals and lost to an opponent w an even better group (Rockets) of PLAYERS! Isn't Phil Jackson a better coach than Pat Riley or Rudy Tomjanovich?? If so why didn't he win it all that year??
That Bulls team w Phil Jackson is comparable to the Phoenix teams coached by Mike D'antoni that almost made it to the finals but fell short: that Bulls team got about 55 wins in the regular season, went deep into the playoffs and get knocked out just short of the finals. The Suns did this in multiple times in consecutive seasons if i'm correct, w one 60+ win team in there somewhere.. One could argue they were prolly one player away from getting there and winning the thing. Who was their coach again?
What was difference that put the Bulls over the top?? Only the best player of all time. Did Phil need him?? Hell yes.
What did Phil do w the Lakers after Shaq left, before they signed Gasol?? Finals? Championship? The answer, none of the above dude.
Coaches need great players to win titles. Period. In the.NBA the team w the best players wins 95 - 99% of the time in the playoffs.
You think the coaches have something to do w that? Common dude..
It's about the players. Coaches have a limited impact.