Evaluating and How to Evaluate Coaching Candidates (split off thread)

[Spud2nique]

17 minutes ago, AHF said:

Neither Jay or I have coordinated posts on this or any other topic.

I believe this. You too seem to agree with a lot of stuff. Stuff that makes sense even if I disagree at times. Ya, there’s no behind the scenes PMing on this one.

[Spud2nique]

20 hours ago, sturt said:

Good coffee.

Sturt did you clean the kureig for next Thursday? 10 cups coming! 

[sturt]

3 minutes ago, AHF said:

I think I laid it out already.   While what you posted is welcome of course,  it was already reviewed and processed in my prior comment where I assessed it by category and laid out where I thought someone's strengths were at least relative to Becky.  (I did not try to compare them against one another).  I think her resume (including the things that don't show up on wikipedia's summary) stands out as being clearly more attractive than all but a few of them.  And I will say that part of that is information that what you posted doesn't reflect - who was the head coach when they were an assistant, how successful was the team, how successful were they as a non-NBA head coach, how illustrious was their playing career, etc.  

But just using your data, I'll ask you if one of these stands out as clearly more attractive:

or

Like is this even a conversation in any way?

 

Two points.

First one is your own...

4 minutes ago, AHF said:

part of that is information that what you posted doesn't reflect - who was the head coach when they were an assistant, how successful was the team

Number two also, fwiw, was a recent coaches association nominee for the Tex Winter Lifetime Impact Award.

 

Second, I didn't filter this list at all. I took someone else's list found by googling. So, I'm not hand-selecting and advocating for any of them.

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

more attractive than all but a few of them

So, you're saying she's in the definite option pile, but it's not a pile of one?

Okay then.

[Spud2nique]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

Two points.

First one is your own...

Number two also, fwiw, was a recent coaches association nominee for the Tex Winter Lifetime Impact Award.

 

Second, I didn't filter this list at all. I took someone else's list found by googling. So, I'm not hand-selecting and advocating for any of them.

So, you're saying she's in the definite option pile, but it's not a pile of one?

Okay then.

Could I make an observation here? Stu, you sound like you have an education. Have you BS/BA, masters, grad school etc. one thing about basic learning is listening and being able to understand another’s writing and comprehend it. 
 

One of two things is happening:

 

1. You are not listening/hearing/reading/comprehending correctly.

or..

2. You never wanna admit defeat even when you lead yourself down a bad path.

 

 

[AHF]

48 minutes ago, sturt said:

Agreed. I believe that. To say that would be BS.

 

I've said as much as I care to say on this. My purpose in bringing it up has been sufficiently served.

Appreciate that.  Thanks, @sturt.

[AHF]

45 minutes ago, sturt said:

 

So, you're saying she's in the definite option pile, but it's not a pile of one?

Okay then.

Hopefully this is the last time we ever have to discuss her gender when talking about her as a coaching candidate.  

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

the last time we ever have to discuss her gender sex

Her place on the spectrum b/t masculinity and femininity isn't especially relevant. (... Yeah. Hot button issue for me. Both the left and the right have somehow figured out a way to complicate something that only 5-ish years ago wasn't complicated among those of us whose line of work includes studying, writing, and talking about human development. Gender has only recently, believe it or not, been confounded to be interchangeable with sex. Merriam-Webster, actually, does a nice write-up about it if you look up the term in their online dictionary.)

But. Turning attention to the substance intended...

Hammon's sex is baked into the equation. You can't not take it into consideration. And as someone asserted yesterday ( @shakes ?)... it's not like there aren't some advantages to her sex and the situation hiring a she rather than a traditional he would bring. You're not going to be able to, on the one hand, applaud all the applause her first team will get from having taken that leap, and on the other talk about how sad it is that we have to talk about gender sex. It is just part of it. What you might have better success in advocating (and I would join you) is a de-emphasis on that, much as we do in practically any other occupation.

[bleachkit]

As I mentioned earlier, the issue is not so much that she is a woman, but rather the media and how we would be covered. There would be so much attention on our head coach. Plus, mainstream media outlets that don't specialize in sports would be following the story very closely. Endless op-eps about sexism, woman in male dominated industries, etc. I'm not sure how any of that helps us win. And what if we have to fire her at some point? The condemnation would be fierce and relentless. For me, the potential downside is too much.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by bleachkit

[AHF]

42 minutes ago, sturt said:

Her place on the spectrum b/t masculinity and femininity isn't especially relevant. (... Yeah. Hot button issue for me. Both the left and the right have somehow figured out a way to complicate something that only 5-ish years ago wasn't complicated among those of us whose line of work includes studying, writing, and talking about human development. Gender has only recently, believe it or not, been confounded to be interchangeable with sex. Merriam-Webster, actually, does a nice write-up about it if you look up the term in their online dictionary.)

But. Turning attention to the substance intended...

Hammon's sex is baked into the equation. You can't not take it into consideration. And as someone asserted yesterday ( @shakes ?)... it's not like there aren't some advantages to her sex and the situation hiring a she rather than a traditional he would bring. You're not going to be able to, on the one hand, applaud all the applause her first team will get from having taken that leap, and on the other talk about how sad it is that we have to talk about gender sex. It is just part of it. What you might have better success in advocating (and I would join you) is a de-emphasis on that, much as we do in practically any other occupation.

Going back to your previous analysis, you framed yourself as being like an HR person sorting through resumes when talking about coaching candidates.  Do that while focusing on gender or sex and you are not only an incompetent HR person but someone who is actually violating the law and putting your company at risk.

There is no need to discuss Becky being a woman in Squawk discussions of her qualifications to be a coach (speaking as a poster, not a moderator).  She has a history of performance as a coach.  If she has been ineffective reaching players or doing her job because she is a woman we'll reach that issue simply by talking about her job experience and performance.  It is an unnecessary and distracting sidebar and usually led into by a questioning of "is she being considered because she is a woman?" which ends up suggesting to me a message (and I'm not saying it is your message it just emerges naturally from framing the issue like this) of "is she really qualified or are they just talking about her for attention because she is a woman?"   That is a really ugly sentiment and conversation imo. 

And, again, it is completely unnecessary because she has 8 years of experience coaching NBA players that we can look at.  Problems coaching players would be the reason to talk about her sex in that context and we can simply look at her performance instead without speculating if there is a woke agenda driving her candidacy (which is not what you are doing but is a natural branch emerging from the questions you are asking and one that can be entirely avoided).  

[sturt]

1 hour ago, AHF said:

Do that while focusing on gender or sex and you are not only an incompetent HR person but someone who is actually violating the law and putting your company at risk.

That's the politically correct angle, of course. And yes, we've made some laws that pertain to that.

I'm not sure what you want from me, my friend. I've said she's in the "definite option" pool. And I've said her sex is simply baked in to the whole... and you've said, in effect, you're sad that it is, but of course that doesn't change the fact that, indeed, it is.

There are additional considerations that, someday, we might not really think about, but it being novel in 2023 as we have this conversation, it can't help but be. In fact, if you distill it down, it's probably less about sex, actually, more about being novel. Big social milestones tend to have that effect, and there's nothing anyone ranting about it can do to change that. We're always going to memorialize the first black _______________ and the first female _______________ and the first this, that, and the other.

And as @bleachkit suggests, there are natural consequences to that that you're an incompetent HR person to pretend you're not conscious of... you have to be... the law, yes, puts some parameters around what you can do or say, but law will never be enough to prevent nor force someone to think X, Y or Z. And, for my part, where this is concerned, for the third time in 24 hours I'm going to contend that there are things a respected older sister or younger aunt can... potentially... sometimes if not often... communicate in a way that gets results quicker and better than than anyone else in a family (and teams are, effectively, families, of course, living in such close quarters as they do for half a year).

So, no, I'm not going to pretend that there aren't potential benefits to a female hire, any more than I'm going to pretend there aren't potential downsides. It does no one any favors to ignore either side of the ledger, let alone both sides. Any intelligent person in a high leverage hire wants to make the best hire, and has to take everything into account. No law can keep you from thinking and attempting to use wisdom. Part of that wisdom, of course, is to be discerning about one's own biases and avoid believing things that might not be so just because of an individual's sex or race. That means you have to be smart enough to ask good questions in interviews so that you can determine what this individual does and does not bring to the equation.

I'm made to think about one occupation that's had dramatic change in the last 10-ish years. Used to be, when I'd have to have my car/truck worked on, the service manager was always male. Always. Today? It's fairly routine that the person who takes my vehicle at the dealership is a female. Don't try to tell me that that wasn't a conscious choice on the part of these dealerships. I won't believe you. Don't try to tell me that there's something wrong with their making that choice, either. Nothing wrong with that. They perceived that they tend to experience fewer complaints as they employ more females in that role, suggesting that women tend to have some advantage over men in how they relate to customers, and just as importantly, that women customers may feel less likely to be taken advantage of if the person who's working with them is, also, a woman.

It's baked in. And it's okay.

(Isn't it? Why wouldn't it be?)

Closing, I do appreciate how you make a clear attempt to not put words in my mouth/keyboard on this. Sincerely.

[sturt]

2 hours ago, bleachkit said:

I'm not sure how any of that helps us win.

It would be a story for a week or two, and a distraction for most of that time if not all... sometimes a negative distraction, but also there will be some excitement generated from it that can only be considered "positive" distraction.

But it's a long season. At some point people kinda set it aside and just talk about all the other things there is to talk about as a matter of routine. It's not the same as Bill Russell. It will be a milestone, but it won't be that unusual to us on the outside.

The stronger question is how will the players react. I think they'll react well, me. Whether that translates to wins or not is a whole other discussion that will depend a whole lot on the roster Hammon's given. But I think today's players will embrace it, at least until they have reason to bitch and moan about playing time or whatever--just like they'd do with a male coach anyway, right?

 

I think if she's that good, she'll enjoy success, no matter the outside noise. And she just might be that good. The story could get written, "What was everyone else thinking that they didn't hire this woman before the Hawks did?"

 

I also think it's valid to say, she might not enjoy success. That truly does become a problem for the reason you cited. You're almost certainly going to have to give her a longer leash because of how it will reflect on your franchise if you let her go "too quickly" by the standards of the societal elites.

 

When I become persuaded that she's that good, and I might yet, I'll get enthusiastic and be an advocate. What holds me back is that I don't want a male coach who does not have any big chair NBA experience to be given that role for as long as my team has legitimate post season aspirations... and you can just remove the word "male" in that sentence, because it applies, regardless of anatomy.

I think, where we're at, it's not the way to go. You want that person who has been there... particularly post season... made some mistakes and has had a chance to reflect and learn from those mistakes. Experience matters.

Person. Male or female, doesn't matter.

[AHF]

20 minutes ago, sturt said:

Closing, I do appreciate how you make a clear attempt to not put words in my mouth/keyboard on this. Sincerely.

Part of the reason I react to this is I have seen the real life consequences from people who start speculating about what women can and can't do.  Whether they can manage men; whether they can be effective in front of a judge or jury; whether they can excel in mathematics; etc.  And we have a whole history of people making terrible arguments and flawed assertions around this.  In general, women have shown they can do pretty much anything a man can do other than high level physical performance. 

Like obviously no woman is going to win a sex neutral gold medal in track or play in the NBA, etc. but the range is large enough that there are plenty of women who can be better than the vast majority of men at these things.  So to rely on that demographic characteristic versus "resume" it really only makes sense to apply that where you are looking at high level physical performance which is not most of real life.  When you reach the issue of whether a woman be a police officer when you can just set rational standards for the job and evaluate everyone on their performance.  That may lead to a larger % of successful applicants being men because more men can dead carry a fellow firefighter but that is no reason to hire a man over a woman if the woman can actually lift more than he can so you can just set the lifting requirement and let the chips fall where they may with no need to discuss the sex or gender of the applicant.

But the world and history is replete with terrible arguments that are truly sexist in the worst sense of the word until the barriers are completely broken down.  And we've seen this as a pattern across other demographics (race, religion, national origin, etc.) as well in this country as I think everyone knows and time tends to lead us to the conclusion that there are fewer significant differences between those demographics than there are important distinguishing measures.  And so what is a big matter of debate, "can a woman be effective as a CEO?"  "can a black man be an effective money manager?" in one era becomes irrelevant over time to rationale decision makers and it becomes a question of whether this person or that person is a better candidate on the merits.  We aren't there everywhere but that is where we move as a society over time and, imo, where we should move.

I think you are a good guy and I'm really not trying to paint you as someone who would do something like that.  I have no doubt that you would want someone to give your wife or daughter a fair shake when they apply for a job and that you would want to do the same yourself when you are making that decision.  I don't think you are advocating for something like the kind of assumptions of lesser competence here that we've seen attributed to women, minorities, etc. historically and I am trying to make it clear I don't see you as doing that.  But the whole question of her sex in relation to her qualifications is in the most significant ways (not from you) the same question we heard about female lawyers, female doctors, female politicians, etc. and I think it leads to ugly places.  More than ugly, it is of very marginal value when we have a demonstrated track record of performance and accomplishments that will naturally reflect the impact, if any, of her being a woman.

So I still hope this is the last time we have to do a deep dive on her sex instead of just breaking down her qualifications in a similar way that we would a male candidate.  I never want to hear us asking whether a coaching candidate can succeed because of their race, their sex, etc. when we have so many better ways of evaluating candidates against one another.

[sturt]

@AHF, I've gotta get some work done, but I promise I'll read all that eventually, maybe tonight.

Finishing up...

No one, not AHF, not Jay, not macdaddy, nor anyone here... can brag what I can brag on this topic.

That is this. I was the first (though maybe not "only," once I introduced the thought) to advocate on Hawksquawk (version 1.0) for the Hawks to hire a female head coach... ie, Pat Summit.

(If you don't know the name, you should, young whippersnapper Squawkers... follow the link .)

Babcock hired a different college coach... Lon Kruger... instead. Dang it. But probably all for the better, given the groceries Pete bought for Lon to cook up, right?

[AHF]

2 hours ago, bleachkit said:

As I mentioned earlier, the issue is not so much that she is a woman, but rather the media and how we would be covered. There would be so much attention on our head coach. Plus, mainstream media outlets that don't specialize in sports would be following the story very closely. Endless op-eps about sexism, woman in male dominated industries, etc. I'm not sure how any of that helps us win. And what if we have to fire her at some point? The condemnation would be fierce and relentless. For me, the potential downside is too much.

 

 

To me, this was the same question about having that first black coach or that first black basketball player on a team.  The flurry of attention wanes over time and the sheer excellence of those people who broke through that ceiling makes me think that this is a pretty good track record for success whether we are talking about Willie Mays as the first black MLB player, Bill Russell as the first black head coach, etc.

You could always make this argument against any trailblazer.  The record is pretty strong for the first female [X] whether you are talking about first female CEO or whatever.  

Media attention is about the only area I see a material difference above and beyond qualifications but history writes a pretty good tale for the companies, etc. that decided to take those first steps.  From my anecdotal vantagepoint, I'd be confident it is a better track record than the collective record of white men in the field.  (To which I would attribute that largely to the fact that the first X in a field is nearly always going to be better qualified than most of their competition.  That is where I think Becky stands.  She has excelled to the extreme as a player, excelled as an NBA assistant coach, and excelled as a WNBA head coach.  If people lower the barrier to entry to a level playing field, that edge should evaporate over time like the craze for Euro players in the NBA after people got smart about tapping talent from that market and things leveled out.)

[AHF]

7 minutes ago, sturt said:

@AHF, I've gotta get some work done, but I promise I'll read all that eventually, maybe tonight.

Finishing up...

No one, not AHF, not Jay, not macdaddy, nor anyone here... can brag what I can brag on this topic.

That is this. I was the first (though maybe not "only," once I introduced the thought) to advocate on Hawksquawk (version 1.0) for the Hawks to hire a female head coach... ie, Pat Summit.

(If you don't know the name, you should, young whippersnapper Squawkers... follow the link .)

Babcock hired a different college coach... Lon Kruger... instead. Dang it. But probably all for the better, given the groceries Pete bought for Lon to cook up, right?

I'm with you on that and remember you having made this point over the years a number of times.  Summit would have been a MUCH better hire than Kruger.  Ugh.  Don't get me started on Kruger.  (As an aside, I'm generally much more skeptical of college coaches than NBA assistants simply because once a college coach gets a successful recruiting operation it almost becomes hard to really fail.  This is why John Calipari was so much more successful in college than in the NBA.)

[bleachkit]

14 minutes ago, AHF said:

To me, this was the same question about having that first black coach or that first black basketball player on a team.  The flurry of attention wanes over time and the sheer excellence of those people who broke through that ceiling makes me think that this is a pretty good track record for success whether we are talking about Willie Mays as the first black MLB player, Bill Russell as the first black head coach, etc.

You could always make this argument against any trailblazer.  The record is pretty strong for the first female [X] whether you are talking about first female CEO or whatever.  

Media attention is about the only area I see a material difference above and beyond qualifications but history writes a pretty good tale for the companies, etc. that decided to take those first steps.  From my anecdotal vantagepoint, I'd be confident it is a better track record than the collective record of white men in the field.  (To which I would attribute that largely to the fact that the first X in a field is nearly always going to be better qualified than most of their competition.  That is where I think Becky stands.  She has excelled to the extreme as a player, excelled as an NBA assistant coach, and excelled as a WNBA head coach.  If people lower the barrier to entry to a level playing field, that edge should evaporate over time like the craze for Euro players in the NBA after people got smart about tapping talent from that market and things leveled out.)

Her resume is as solid anyone who hasn't been an NBA head coach. As I said earlier, I do have some reservations about the possible media coverage, and the potential for media opinionators to politicize the hire. However, if she is indeed the most qualified, or best fit for our team, then she should be the choice.

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Her resume is as solid anyone who hasn't been an NBA head coach. As I said earlier, I do have some reservations about the possible media coverage, and the potential for media opinionators to politicize the hire. However, if she is indeed the most qualified, or best fit for our team, then she should be the choice.

Purely from the side of media coverage, I do think the upside is pretty significant.  If she bombs it would be a bad thing for sure but if she succeeds then I think it raises the profile of the team and organization in a very good way.  You need to commit to giving her a real run and believe in her to make the hire but a successful Becky Hammon could be a wonderful thing while I kind of feel the media already is largely dismissive of us such that I don't see as big of a downside.  The worst situation for sure would be one where she and Trae bash heads and it plays out in an ugly way.  But I also see her playing experience as being pretty ideally suited to work with Trae as both were undersized point guards who were not big recruits and not projected for huge things from a young age but who excelled none-the-less.  

[sturt]

20 hours ago, AHF said:

I never want to hear us asking whether a coaching candidate can succeed because of their race, their sex, etc. when we have so many better ways of evaluating candidates against one another.

And I don't see any such backwards thinking here, though I won't pretend to have read every single post on the topic.

The posts I've seen have not focused on "whether (she) can succeed" but what are the consequences if, like any other mortal being potentially might, she fails to succeed... weighing the aftermath of a plausible worst-case scenario (risk) against the potential reward, as compared to other candidates in the pool.

Can't be blind to that and do your job competently, though it certainly scores points with some people politically if you choose to eliminate that from your calculus. Once more, I'd suggest that it's even less about her being a she (little picture), more that this is just the state of play when you're dealing with a milestone novel decision, no matter the rest of the context (big picture).

That's why I say, I'd either have to be in a situation where it's a developmental situation anyhow, and so the risk inherently is lessened... or I'd have to come to the conclusion that she truly is hands-down without any similar competition... again, reducing the perceived risk in view of the likelihood of reward.

New thought: Best thing that could possibly happen for her is for Pop to get called for jury duty, and for him to say, "Well, I have to do my duty as a citizen like anyone else (blink, blink, blink)." Then have the trial last for weeks, and Hammon's SAS boys to kill it. Right?

(Hey. Don't put it past Pop. He's pretty passionate about the things he wants to see happen. )