Why Stars Make Bad Coaches

[FKIM01]

This is a subject I think about regularly when I see Mac McClung decide to play for Patrick Ewing  or watch Penny Hardaway and Juwan Howard rake in huge classes as soon as they land with zero track record as a coach.  My thesis is that your talent level in a sport is inversely proportionate to your ability to coach the same sport.  No doubt there are exceptions to that rule and it seems like certain positions tend to make for better coaches (quarterbacks in football, point guards in basketball and catchers in baseball).  The list of failures in this category seem a lot longer than the list of successes...Larry Bird, Isaiah Thomas, Patrick Ewing, Penny Hardaway, Juwan Howard are just a few that come to mind.  You can argue that Bird wasn't terrible (but was worse as a GM) and that Ewing, Hardaway and Howard are too early to call, but from my seat, those three do not have the look of long-term success.  Ewing is turning into a trainwreck at Georgetown, Hardaway has already been in trouble and very much underachieved with the talent he pulled in and I don't think Howard could coach his way through a rec league game without Martelli at his side.  Isaiah Thomas was a dual trainwreck as a coach and as a GM.

I have some theories about why this is so, but I'll throw it out to Hoosier Nation for debate...fair/unfair...agree/disagree...examples of coaches who prove/disprove this theory.

Have at it...

[IU Scott]

Bird as a coach did very well by going to the Eastern conference finals in all 3 years and going to the finals once.

I pretty much agree with you that most star players don't end up being very good coaches in the college game.

[3Ballin]

Ive seen this theory presented many times:  it's that the great ones don't understand why you can't do what they could.  If it's shooting, passing, rebounding, work ethic....whatever.  Using Bird as an example.  When he was still GM for the Pacers, there was a story, or quote might be better, of him walking on the court during a down time in practice and start shooting.  Paul George said it was like watching a fish practice swimming.  Dude was 60 and in dress clothes and was the best shooter in the building.  

[Fiveoutofsix]

Many times you are only as good as your players.  

Some stars have a hard time coaching because what came easy to them doesn't to others.  They have an innate ability and how things clicked for them is different.  This has been told many times through all different sports.

I think there is some truth to that, but they steal from their coaches and run similar practices, etc.  Penny was winninhg until his center became ineligible and injuries.  Some didn't have the players.

[milehiiu]

1 minute ago, Fiveoutofsix said:

Many times you are only as good as your players. 

 

Bingo.

[Billingsley99]

31 minutes ago, milehiiu said:

Bingo.

I agree.  To quote RMK, its not about X's and it's but Jonnys and Joes. I think that when things come easily for someone it's hard to express that to someone that it doesn't come naturally.  

Thsts why great Math teacher are hard to find 

[FKIM01]

42 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Bird as a coach did very well by going to the Eastern conference finals in all 3 years and going to the finals once.

I pretty much agree with you that most star players don't end up being very good coaches in the college game.

I probably let my memory of Bird's days as GM color my memory of him as a coach.  You're right...not a bad coach in that fairly small sample size.

[IUFLA]

So here's my theory...

Great players don't make good coaches because they know what to do, and expect you to know what they know, so they're not good teachers...

Mediocre players, like Coach Knight, know how it should be done by studying it, even though physically they cannot perform to that level. So they can teach it well...

If that makes any sense...

[BGleas]

This is an interesting discussion, though I think sample size and hands they were dealt have far more to do with it than anything else. There aren't a lot of great players that went into coaching and then those that did didn't always go into great situations. Did Bird have success because he was actually a good coach or because he went to a 'ready-made' team?

Also, how are we judging them? Isiah Thomas is someone that is thought of as a failure as a coach but his Pacers teams, at least record wise, got better every year and he made the playoffs all three years. He was bad at the Knicks but that roster was terrible.

A lot of coaches that aren't former players have had much worse success than that. 

I also think to be a great coach you have to be obsessed with coaching. You have to not just love basketball but you have to love coaching and those are two different things. So when many former players fail I don't really think it's the hole "why can't these players do what I did" thing, I think it's that they mostly get into coaching for the wrong reasons. They get into it because they don't know what else to do. They get into it because they think they're supposed to, etc. 

 

 

[FKIM01]

33 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

So here's my theory...

Great players don't make good coaches because they know what to do, and expect you to know what they know, so they're not good teachers...

Mediocre players, like Coach Knight, know how it should be done by studying it, even though physically they cannot perform to that level. So they can teach it well...

If that makes any sense...

It does. That's at least part of my theory. The best players never spend any significant time on the bench at any level.  They are doing rather than learning and studying. 

I think @BGleas makes a good point as well about getting into the coaching game for the wrong reasons. You have to love to teach to be a great coach.

[IUFLA]

20 minutes ago, BGleas said:

This is an interesting discussion, though I think sample size and hands they were dealt have far more to do with it than anything else. There aren't a lot of great players that went into coaching and then those that did didn't always go into great situations. Did Bird have success because he was actually a good coach or because he went to a 'ready-made' team?

Also, how are we judging them? Isiah Thomas is someone that is thought of as a failure as a coach but his Pacers teams, at least record wise, got better every year and he made the playoffs all three years. He was bad at the Knicks but that roster was terrible.

A lot of coaches that aren't former players have had much worse success than that. 

I also think to be a great coach you have to be obsessed with coaching. You have to not just love basketball but you have to love coaching and those are two different things. So when many former players fail I don't really think it's the hole "why can't these players do what I did" thing, I think it's that they mostly get into coaching for the wrong reasons. They get into it because they don't know what else to do. They get into it because they think they're supposed to, etc. 

 

 

I agree with a lot of that...

I also think that it's more incumbent on a college coach to be a good teacher of the game, while in the pros it's more player management. I know college coaches have to manage players too, and pro coaches do some teaching, but their jobs are a bit different...

I go back to the words of Lombardi...

“They call it coaching but it is teaching. You do not just tell them…you show them the reasons.”

[IUFLA]

8 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

It does. That's at least part of my theory. The best players never spend any significant time on the bench at any level.  They are doing rather than learning and studying. 

I think @BGleas makes a good point as well about getting into the coaching game for the wrong reasons. You have to love to teach to be a great coach.

I always think of this example...

I read a story where Yogi Berra was trying to explain how to hit to some minor Leaguers...he started talking hands, feet...and he finally got frustrated and said, "Ah, just watch me do it."

On the other hand, Charlie Lau is cited as one of the great hitting coaches of all time...but he was a journeyman ballplayer and lifetime .255 hitter.

But, he'd studied hitting, and was a good teacher of the fundamentals...

[Seeking6]

4 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I always think of this example...

I read a story where Yogi Berra was trying to explain how to hit to some minor Leaguers...he started talking hands, feet...and he finally got frustrated and said, "Ah, just watch me do it."

On the other hand, Charlie Lau is cited as one of the great hitting coaches of all time...but he was a journeyman ballplayer and lifetime .255 hitter.

But, he'd studied hitting, and was a good teacher of the fundamentals...

Wow. Charlie Lau makes an appearance on HSN....haha. Last time I saw him was during Max Dugan Returns. 

In terms of the subject. I think that's why many schools and teams avoid hiring a legend. So hard to fire. Look at Michigan with Harbaugh. He's there until when?

 

[FKIM01]

Here's another theory… the best players have less need to learn and can rely more on their athletic talent.

[BGleas]

28 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Here's another theory… the best players have less need to learn and can rely more on their athletic talent.

That's one I don't buy. The great players, though depends on how you define great, are often the hardest workers. Nobody outworked Michael Jordan. Larry Bird was maniacal about working on his craft. LeBron James works harder than anybody, etc., etc.

Nobody works harder than the greatest of the greats. It's actually the fringe players that usually don't work that hard and rely on athleticism, etc., as that's what typically separates the greats from them.  

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I probably let my memory of Bird's days as GM color my memory of him as a coach.  You're right...not a bad coach in that fairly small sample size.

Yeah I was going to say the same about Bird - he was very successful as a coach and got the P’s to their only Finals in just 3 seasons — though in fairness that was a mostly inherited team stacked with veteran talent and lead by Reggie at the top of his game. 
He was mostly bad in the front office, though he did build (IIRC) the Jermaine - Artest team that would have contended for a championship but for Artest’s utter stupidity 

[IUFLA]

2 hours ago, BGleas said:

That's one I don't buy. The great players, though depends on how you define great, are often the hardest workers. Nobody outworked Michael Jordan. Larry Bird was maniacal about working on his craft. LeBron James works harder than anybody, etc., etc.

Nobody works harder than the greatest of the greats. It's actually the fringe players that usually don't work that hard and rely on athleticism, etc., as that's what typically separates the greats from them.  

I'm not sure he questioned their work ethic...

I think LeBron and Jordan were both athletically blessed, have basketball IQs that are off the chart, and were maniacal in enhancing and maintaining their bodies to compete. I've never heard either one being mentioned as film junkies that used video to break down every facet of their opponent's game...maybe they did or do, but I've always viewed them as excellent practice players and motivators of their teammates adept at making them better...

But there are guys who have to be that "bookworm" and film junkie to have an edge on their opponents. They pick up nuances that give them a leg up, where guys like Jordan and LeBron can simply overpower their foe...

That's how I took @FKIM01 theory... 

[Hoosierhoopster]

15 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I'm not sure he questioned their work ethic...

I think LeBron and Jordan were both athletically blessed, have basketball IQs that are off the chart, and were maniacal in enhancing and maintaining their bodies to compete. I've never heard either one being mentioned as film junkies that used video to break down every facet of their opponent's game...maybe they did or do, but I've always viewed them as excellent practice players and motivators of their teammates adept at making them better...

But there are guys who have to be that "bookworm" and film junkie to have an edge on their opponents. They pick up nuances that give them a leg up, where guys like Jordan and LeBron can simply overpower their foe...

That's how I took @FKIM01 theory... 

LeBron studies and memorizes other team sets religiously; he’s a major student of the game and not at all a guy who just over-powers. He has outstanding court awareness and vision and a relentless work ethic to go with it all. 

[IUFLA]

8 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

LeBron studies and memorizes other team sets religiously; he’s a major student of the game and not at all a guy who just over-powers. He has outstanding court awareness and vision and a relentless work ethic to go with it all. 

This doesn't sound like a Peyton Manning type devotion to me, but he says he does watch the games

I think there's a difference in what he's saying he does, and studying...

[IUFLA]

Just one more thought on this...

If you look down through the top 200 winningest college coaches of all time, you really don't see any "stars." A bunch of them were good players, but not the kind you build a team off of. The guys that most do consider "stars" at least presently (Mullin...inactive, Ewing, Hardaway, Howard, Manning...fired) may in time be good coaches, but the jury is definitely out.

In the pros, the names I came up with are a mixed bag. Bill Russell was an unqualified success in his short stint with the Celtics (3 years, 2 rings), but didn't come close to that in Seattle (.494 winning percentage) or Sacramento (.293). Lenny Wilkens had an overall .536 winning percentage and won a ring in Seattle over the course of a 32 year NBA coaching journey. Jerry Sloan was a solid coach in Utah but never gained a ring. Jerry West and Magic Johnson didn't have much success coaching the Lakers in abbreviated stints though West at least finished over .500. Wes Unseld had a very undistinguished 7 years coaching the Bullets (and lends some credence to @Seeking6 assertion about firing legends.

People have already made the case for Bird and Thomas...

I think part of it is coaching doesn't scratch the competitive itch in competitive people like Jordan...at least not like playing does. Most stars who played in the NBA for a while don't need the money (not to mention the headaches).

But I do think there's some psychology to it...

[addictedtoIU]

To me, this is simple. Geniuses in any field (doesn't need to be basketball) don't understand what normal people go through to get better. They just don't understand why people struggle to learn and become good at something. They're born with once in hundred years level of talent and tireless work ethics to get them to the highest level; everything comes to them natural and they hardly need extra motivation. I personally like classical music, and musical virtuosos weren't good teachers. Those who were renowned as good teachers were usually not excellent performers.  

[Seeking6]

11 minutes ago, addictedtoIU said:

To me, this is simple. Geniuses in any field (doesn't need to be basketball) don't understand what normal people go through to get better. They just don't understand why people struggle to learn and become good at something. They're born with once in hundred years level of talent and tireless work ethics to get them to the highest level; everything comes to them natural and they hardly need extra motivation. I personally like classical music, and musical virtuosos weren't good teachers. Those who were renowned as good teachers were usually not excellent performers.  

Thinking about this thread subject....I think you summed up perfectly my thoughts. 

[IUFLA]

22 minutes ago, addictedtoIU said:

To me, this is simple. Geniuses in any field (doesn't need to be basketball) don't understand what normal people go through to get better. They just don't understand why people struggle to learn and become good at something. They're born with once in hundred years level of talent and tireless work ethics to get them to the highest level; everything comes to them natural and they hardly need extra motivation. I personally like classical music, and musical virtuosos weren't good teachers. Those who were renowned as good teachers were usually not excellent performers.  

Yep, that's about as good a summation as I've seen...

[Hoosierhoopster]

15 hours ago, IUFLA said:

This doesn't sound like a Peyton Manning type devotion to me, but he says he does watch the games

I think there's a difference in what he's saying he does, and studying...

I'm really not a LeBron fan (not at all a hater of LBJ either, just not particularly a fan). But his dedication to memorizing/understanding other team sets, his knowledge of the game, and his overall incredible work ethic, is well known and really beyond question. He's a true student of the game.

[BGleas]

I don't know why, but I always try to fight the perception that the great players don't work hard and just get by on natural talent. I think for the most part that's way off. I think hard work and work ethic is what generally separates the great players from the average/good players. Most guys at the high major D1 level or in the NBA are talented and athletic, it's work ethic and dedication to the craft that's the difference in most cases. 

That's why you always hear from former teammates that nobody on the Celtics worked harder than Larry Bird. Nobody on the Bulls worked harder than Michael Jordan. Nobody worked harder than Kobe Bryant. Nobody's pregame shooting routine was on par with Ray Allen's. Etc., etc. The greats work their tails off. It's what makes them great. 

You see it with recruiting too, I see posters say things like, "give me a team of 3* guys that are going to work hard over a bunch of 5*'s". I'm not talking about the one and done issues here, just the perception from some (nobody in particular, just posts I see in general) that the most talented, 5* guys don't work hard. I think it's mostly a fallacy. 

Just a general rant, proceed on with the discussion.