General Question: Winning an NBA championship is what part excellence in "GM-ing" vs. excellence in coaching vs. excellence in players performance?

[AHF]

3 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

I think you could, in theory, separate out GM from players if you judge the moves at the time a GM makes them, given the knowledge and circumstances of the situation.  But this is also near impossible to do because we don't know all of the intel GMs gather on players and we don't have documented rationale for the decisions they make.  We also don't know what trades are available, how reasonable trading partners are, etc.

Grabbing Bogi in FA is a great example -- it looked like a great move based on performance and our playoff run, but now it looks like he might have a degenerative knee issue.  Were there hints of this in his medical reports?  Did we know this was a risk?  What were the conversations we had with him regarding starting or a bench role?  He clearly hasn't been a fan of coming off the bench but how transparent were we on that?  How transparent was he that he wants to be a starter?  It's honestly really difficult for me to judge Travis or any GM because we as fans get so little information on how they're making decisions and what moves are available, etc.  This is why I tend to criticize players the most and coaching.

We all give our $.02 at the time that transactions happen but I think if you are looking back from a championship to apportion who is most responsible it is hard to judge all the GMs moves based on what was known at the time.  Even if the GM royally F'd up based on what was known at the time, they still might have made a move that was absolutely essential to winning a ring.  Like would you downgrade Jerry Krause's accomplishments for drafting Jordan over Bowie because at the time big men were a much more proven path to championships?  I don't see how you can do that when MJ is the single most important player on those Bulls teams but that would be perhaps a logical thing to do if you tried to analyze the move without the benefit of hindsight.  Like if Portland passed on Greg Oden, that might have been the absolute wrong move based on what was known at the time (if you could hypothetically know everything and make the "correct" upside/risk weighted call) but if the GM drafted Kevin Durant instead and they won a ring then should the GM get less credit because he possibly got lucky passing on a guy many thoughts was the surest thing since Tim Duncan?

That becomes doubly difficult since we are missing tons of key information as you point out.  

The analysis you are talking about is really less about how responsible the GM is for the championship (which is the topic) and more about grading the GM.  Like Joe Dumars inherited a team that had not a single key player that made up the core of the team that won Detroit a ring in 2004.  He added Ben Wallace.  He added Richard Hamilton.  He added Chauncey Billups.  He added Rasheed Wallace.  He drafted Tayshaun Prince.  Etc.  It is hard not to give him a ton of credit for putting that roster together if you are giving responsibility for the ring because he plucked a lot of those guys when they were underachievers or relatively unknown as well (especially Billups, Prince and Ben).  But if you are grading him, you also have to ding him for passing on Dwyane Wade (and Bosh and Melo) to draft Darko, right?  But I don't see how Dumars is less responsible for putting together the championship roster just because he didn't draft a rookie Wade or Bosh.  He still was the absolute architect.  

So what % does Dumars get vs what the players get?  I still think this can't be intelligently apportioned because they are the same thing  (players who play good enough to win a ring) measured at different points in time.  Dumars brought the right guys together and their play on the floor was the engine to their success.  Larry Brown goosed them to get an even better performance (but that core was still good enough to win 64 games under Flip Saunders which was 10 wins better than Brown ever did in the regular season).

I'm sticking with 90% GM/Players and 10% Coaching.

[sturt]

Intrigued to read AHF's thoughts eventually, but just not much time today...

Will say this to the shorter posts I just quickly ran through...

I'll argue really really hard that if you don't put players' performance at 51% or more, then you're missing the boat, imo. It always always always comes down to the people actually playing the game. That's the critical mass. The game isn't played on paper. The game isn't won and lost on the basis of coaching theory. The game is won and lost by human beings who ultimately either score or they don't, and either prevent the other team from scoring or they don't.

[macdaddy]

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

Intrigued to read AHF's thoughts eventually, but just not much time today...

Will say this to the shorter posts I just quickly ran through...

I'll argue really really hard that if you don't put players' performance at 51% or more, then you're missing the boat, imo. It always always always comes down to the people actually playing the game. That's the critical mass. The game isn't played on paper. The game isn't won and lost on the basis of coaching theory. The game is won and lost by human beings who ultimately either score or they don't, and either prevent the other team from scoring or they don't.

Then that would mean that, as an example, if Houston players all play well and have a decent coach then they have a shot at winning it all.   I'll say that Houston, and honestly more than half the league, has zero chance of winning a title with the players they have.    There hasn't been a surprise title ever.  Pistons are the closest but they had an unbelievable two way lineup that the GM put together.  Every other team sported MVPs and HOFers.

[Watchman]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Intrigued to read AHF's thoughts eventually, but just not much time today...

Will say this to the shorter posts I just quickly ran through...

I'll argue really really hard that if you don't put players' performance at 51% or more, then you're missing the boat, imo. It always always always comes down to the people actually playing the game. That's the critical mass. The game isn't played on paper. The game isn't won and lost on the basis of coaching theory. The game is won and lost by human beings who ultimately either score or they don't, and either prevent the other team from scoring or they don't.

But if t!he GM selects Marvin Williams when you've already got forwards running out your ears and passes on Chris Paul, a PG  that we desperately needed , the responsibility falls back on the GM.

[AHF]

55 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Then that would mean that, as an example, if Houston players all play well and have a decent coach then they have a shot at winning it all.   I'll say that Houston, and honestly more than half the league, has zero chance of winning a title with the players they have.    There hasn't been a surprise title ever.  Pistons are the closest but they had an unbelievable two way lineup that the GM put together.  Every other team sported MVPs and HOFers.

I don't read Sturt's post that way.  I don't think he is talking about people performing well as something apart from their baseline talent.  A team like the 2004 Pistons had to maximize their performance on the floor to beat the Spurs and that could be said to be in the Player Performance category but so could the Lakers winning the year before because just by playing at a par level of performance they were good enough to win because Shaq + Kobe = great chance at rings even if they aren't exceeding their normal and expected level of play.  I don't think Sturt is denying that in his statement because MVPs and HOFers generally produce the best performances.

8 minutes ago, Watchman said:

But if t!he GM selects Marvin Williams when you've already got forwards running out your ears and passes on Chris Paul, a PG  that we desperately needed , the responsibility falls back on the GM.

This is why I am lumping players performance and GM together.  The GM gets the players onto the roster and then the players play the games.  This is where by far the biggest responsibility for a championship team lies.  This is entirely a chicken and egg discussion between the players and the GM while coaching is totally separate.

1 hour ago, sturt said:

The game isn't won and lost on the basis of coaching theory. 

It can absolutely be lost on coaching strategy, imo.  A coach who has his players run a terrible system for them can ruin a team that would otherwise be capable of winning a ring and prevent them from truly contending.  If the Warriors coach just had his guys take their opposing defender one on one every play instead of moving the ball around, I don't think they would have any rings or that Durant would ever have gone there.  Looking at the Warriors, I think that change in coaching strategy was a huge factor in turning them from a first round exit in 2014 to champs in 2015.  They couldn't have done it without the talent for sure but a coach that puts his players in a position where they can't be close to their best selves can ruin a team's chances, imo.  

Once you've cleared the hurdle of a coach using an appropriate system, the impact is much less and only determinative where the team is very close in talent to the opponent.  

[lethalweapon3]

<--- THIS snob over here almost changed "part" to "par excellence". Fortunately, I stopped to read the thread opener first to avoid embarrassing myself.

~lw3doyouhaveanygreypoupon

[sturt]

15 hours ago, macdaddy said:

Then that would mean that, as an example, if Houston players all play well and have a decent coach then they have a shot at winning it all. 

With all due respect... nope.

First, please recall that the question as posed references actual NBA champions in your/my lifetime... so it presumes as a fundamental that the unit of study is the most successful teams. Looking at those teams, then, what is the board's (subjective) wisdom as to how we should divvy-up the salience of each of the three major pieces of teams' success.

It's still a full pie... even the 10% I attribute to coaching mattered to the paramount outcome.

The question is not if, but how much?

[sturt]

14 hours ago, Watchman said:

But if t!he GM selects Marvin Williams when you've already got forwards running out your ears and passes on Chris Paul, a PG  that we desperately needed , the responsibility falls back on the GM.

 

9 minutes ago, sturt said:

With all due respect... nope.

First, please recall that the question as posed references actual NBA champions in your/my lifetime... so it presumes as a fundamental that the unit of study is the most successful teams. Looking at those teams, then, what is the board's (subjective) wisdom as to how we should divvy-up the salience of each of the three major pieces of teams' success.

It's still a full pie... even the 10% I attribute to coaching mattered to the paramount outcome.

The question is not if, but how much?

 

[sturt]

14 hours ago, AHF said:

It can absolutely be lost on coaching strategy, imo.

 

I probably should have chosen my words better. I said what I said in the attempt to support my more precise point that assigning anything less than 51% of the accomplishment to player performance is irrational, imo.

It was not intended to suggest that coaching theory/strategy/competence doesn't matter... it matters, but by comparison, doesn't have the same salience...

 

11 minutes ago, sturt said:

It's still a full pie... even the 10% I attribute to coaching mattered to the paramount outcome.

The question is not if, but how much?

 

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

On 11/30/2022 at 6:35 AM, sturt said:

My take, fwiw.

GM-ing = 39%

Coaching = 10%

Player Perf = 51%

This almost lines up with my thoughts on this. I'll say 35 - 15 - 50

1) One thing we all can almost agree on, is that you need a top 10 player in the league for that season, to win a championship. 

2) Team chemistry is more than likely developed by the group of players the GM brings in.

3) Coaching is critical for in-game adjustments and finding the correct rotations for players to maximize their impact on a game.

 

You could have 2 and 3. But without 1, you're not winning a chip.

I think having 1 and 2 is more critical than having 3. Luke Walton looked like an all-time great, when he was coaching the Warriors. Not so much when he was coaching the Kings.  The same goes for Doc Rivers, when he was coaching Hall of Famers in Boston, compared to lesser talented teams in LAC and Philly.

[macdaddy]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

With all due respect... nope.

First, please recall that the question as posed references actual NBA champions in your/my lifetime... so it presumes as a fundamental that the unit of study is the most successful teams. Looking at those teams, then, what is the board's (subjective) wisdom as to how we should divvy-up the salience of each of the three major pieces of teams' success.

It's still a full pie... even the 10% I attribute to coaching mattered to the paramount outcome.

The question is not if, but how much?

ok well this is kind of a moving target.   So we're comparing only the 'most successful teams' to each other?  

I agree with the bottom line that if you have put together a great team then it's majority on the players to bring home the title but i'm not sure of the point of attributing a percentage to the GM role after already assembling a great team.