veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:
. They'd eke out a few more wins with a better coach but that would be about it.
That matters.
. The Bulls biggest issue isn't coaching. People overrate that and it's the biggest reason for the Thibs bashing. Vinny Del Negro is universally panned as a crappy coach. Most people would be astounded to know that he has won 53% of his games as a coach. Why? He had good talent with the Bulls and great talent with the Clippers.
I don't think people overrate coaching, I think you underrate it.
The better question with regard to your Vinny example is why did Vinny only win 53% (which isn't good, by the way) of his games in Chicago and LA when his successors in both cities outpaced him with virtually the same rosters? The answer is because Vinny isn't a good coach and Thibs and Doc are good coaches. If Vinny coaches the All Pro NBA team he would lose in a seven game series to Pop's Spurs or Kerr's Warriors. Not so if the All Pro team has a good coach.
Vinny Del Negro won the exact same number of games in his last year as Doc won in his first year. Kerr isn't really a good example either. Luke Walton coached that roster and got equal if not better results. The Bulls were young under Vinny and if you are going to use the Young excuse with the Wolves then it should be afforded the Bulls too. Rose was in his first two seasons.
I think all of the named coaches are better than Vinny but he was able to win with talent. 53% is good for a crappy coach. I guarantee it is better than that of a number of more highly regarded coaches namely Scott Skiles.
Skiles was definitely better than Vinny.