how much would you offer Popovich to coach your team?

[ampersand5]

In light of the NBA salary cap, accessibility of superstars, increased revenue due to winning and cost of an alternative coach; if you were a GM, how much money would you offer Gregg Charles Popovich to coach your team?

(assume he is interested and willing to stay there for the foreseeable future)

[NateTG]

There's a bunch of non-salary compensation and support that is probably also significant. It's also hard to tease out the marginal value of a coach. Perhaps it's R.C. Buford that's really the genius behind the Spurs success.

The average salary for an NBA coach is around $3.4 million. It's hard to extract the marginal value of a coach, but let's estimate that having Pops gets an extra 2.5 wins per year. The NBA spends $1.7 million per game in player salary, so let's say that's the value of a win.

3.4 + 1.7 * 2.5 = 7.65

So, I think $7,650,000 would be a reasonable salary, and there's extra value if he brings his assistants or Buford along. He's going to be worth a bit more in large markets like New York or Los Angeles, and a bit less in smaller ones.

[ampersand5]

In the last decade alone (after winning a championship in 2005), hes coached the Spurs to being something like 175 games over 500 (and two championships).
If Pop left the Spurs after their 2005 championship, do you really think they would have only lost 25 more games during that span?

I think we underestimate the role Pop has in firstly, constructing a roster, and secondly, allowing that roster to reach its potential.

To me, it seems the number would be much closer to 20.5 wins per year rather than 2.5 wins.

[rlee]

A blank check for him to fill in

[NateTG]

In the last decade alone (after winning a championship in 2005), hes coached the Spurs to being something like 175 games over 500 (and two championships).
If Pop left the Spurs after their 2005 championship, do you really think they would have only lost 25 more games during that span?
...

Parting out credit is a really hard problem. I do think that 25 extra wins over that inverval over an NBA average coach is a fair estimate, but there is an absence of compelling evidence, so it is rather arbitrary.

To me, it seems the number would be much closer to 20.5 wins per year rather than 2.5 wins.

Do you really think the Spurs would be a losing team with an NBA average head coach instead of Pops?

[ampersand5]

In the last decade alone (after winning a championship in 2005), hes coached the Spurs to being something like 175 games over 500 (and two championships).
If Pop left the Spurs after their 2005 championship, do you really think they would have only lost 25 more games during that span?
...

Parting out credit is a really hard problem. I do think that 25 extra wins over that inverval over an NBA average coach is a fair estimate, but there is an absence of compelling evidence, so it is rather arbitrary.

To me, it seems the number would be much closer to 20.5 wins per year rather than 2.5 wins.

Do you really think the Spurs would be a losing team with an NBA average head coach instead of Pops?

Based on your response, my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) of your argument is that the Spurs have been so dominant because their roster is simply fantastic.
This fits into the zeitgeist of this forum - look at how good a roster's cumulative RAPM is and then calculate the expected wins. However, this ignores the fact the players on the Spurs likely only have those RAPM because Pop develops them so well/finds discovers gems for his system/puts players in a position to succeed.

While it's true that most of the important players on the Spurs roster have never played for another team in a significant way (so we don't know how these players would fare under different coaches), I think Pop has a lot to do with their success. Look at the state of the league in 2005; how many franchises look remotely similar ten years later? how many teams have been dominant every season since 2005? how many teams have not made any major trades or offseason acquisitions in the last decade?

[NateTG]

Based on your response, my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) of your argument is that the Spurs have been so dominant because their roster is simply fantastic.

It's not so much an argument as an opinion. I don't have sufficient evidence to make a persuasive argument.

I do think the roster deserves a lot of the credit for the Spurs winning, and that it's a bit reductionist to say that Pops should either get all or none of the credit. Moreover, the particular value you suggested (20.5 wins per season) is quite extreme.

[Mike G]

You might consider regular season SRS to represent the talent of the players, and the departure in playoffs to indicate the coaching talent.

Popovich learned on the job. His first playoffs, the Spurs were dumped in the 2nd round, 4-1, by a somewhat better Jazz team.
Next year, 1999, they breezed thru the playoffs to a title. They were strong favorites in 3 of 4 series ( >4 ppg, by SRS); impressively sweeping the Blazers in the WCF.

Then 3 postseasons of ignominy. Dumped 3-1 by the Suns in round 1 (Duncan out). Swept by the (4 pt underdog) Lakers in the '01 WCF. Struggling to get by 7-seed Sonics in '02, then again routed by the Lakes (SA 2 seed vs #3 LA).

So after 6 years of middling postseason success -- and frankly, a history of choking in close games -- the Spurs went on their run of dynastic success.
Some organizations might have canned Popovich in that period. But he had gotten one title, and by '02 they had the nice young rookie Parker.

[Mike G]

In Pop's first 6 postseasons, 1998-2003, the Spurs were 7-11 in games decided by 4 or fewer points.
In 12 years since, they're 20-13 in such games.

These represent 21% of their playoff games in the era.

[ampersand5]

Thanks for the response MikeG.

You might consider regular season SRS to represent the talent of the players, and the departure in playoffs to indicate the coaching talent.

I think this is the fundamental point of disagreement.

Many people on here think that SRS (or some other proxy) are a representation of the talent level of the players. However, it is my belief that SRS (or cumulative RAPM) doesn't actually show the true talent of the players as you describe it, but a combination of talent + coaching.

It appears as if many on here think that coaching prowess can be discerned in areas such as X and Os, close game w/l, shot selection and things of that nature. While these certainly are components of coaching, I think they only make up a very small part of what makes a coach succeed. I think the much larger aspect of coaching is creating a system to best allow your players to excel.
Essentially, the coach's job is to create the highest cumulative RAPM for his roster. Nothing else really matters, and I think Gregg Popovich has done an absolutely remarkable job of doing this.

[Mike G]

Yeah, I'm not actually agreeing with my opening statement (!) but proposing it as one form of operational definition.
Since we cannot tell how good Popovich's players (most of them) would be under other systems, the RS/PO split is just one sliver of insight.

And playoffs are the crucible of NBA basketball. They separate the Robert Horrys from the Clifford Robinsons, the Phil Jacksons from the George Karls. Many years of over- or under-achievement in playoffs are a strong indicator.

Part of the talent that players possess (or don't) is in how well they work together, in a system, for a coach. Communication, anticipation, and floor vision are definitely skills.
Even boxscores recognize that some guys are team players -- assists -- and others aren't. RAPM takes it considerably further.

Robinson and Duncan were among the top 10 players in history and had several years together. Credit Pop for knowing he should build his team around these 2; but that's also a no-brainer.

The Spurs' season SRS are in fact rather understated, since Pop likes to rest guys all year. This pays off in the playoffs. His postseason SRS should also show the benefits, as his best guys are on the floor longer.

[NateTG]

You might consider regular season SRS to represent the talent of the players, and the departure in playoffs to indicate the coaching talent.

If you want some numbers with credible meaning, that's a terrible idea: The playoffs are pretty clearly a small and biased sample.

[Mike G]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought coaches were paid to win playoff series and championships.

You can account for strength of competition, and you can get performance vs expected.
Popovich has been coach in 246 playoff games. Hey, that's 3 full NBA seasons' worth.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/coa ... gr99c.html
Maybe you're referring to some other kind of small and biased?

[NateTG]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought coaches were paid to win playoff series and championships.

Those are, IMO secondary to organizing and training the team for the regular season. If a coach had to win championships to be considered successful, we'd see a whole lot more turnover and open criticism of head coaches in the league.

...
Maybe you're referring to some other kind of small and biased?

Ostensibly, you'll be comparing the playoff games from a particular season to the regular season games for that season, rather than the aggregates - that means the game counts are much smaller.
Otherwise, there's a clear and obvious survivor bias in the playoffs - more games from better (and luckier) seasons.
Half of Pop's 246 playoff games are against one of four teams: The Lakers, Mavericks, Suns, or Supersonics/Thunder, and almost all the playoff opponents are from the western conference.

[Mike G]

Here is the Popovich/Spurs playoff series recap thru 2002; showing Spurs' and opponents' season SRS.
Ranked by hardest to easiest opponent (relative to SA), broken into thirds.

Code: Select all

year  rd   Spurs  Opp - SRS    W   L   advant
1998   2   3.30   Uta   5.73   1   4   -2.43
1998   1   3.30   Phx   4.44   3   1   -1.14
2002   2   6.28   LAL   7.15   1   4   -0.87
2000   1   5.92   Phx   5.24   1   3    0.68
SA even/underdog               6  12   

year  rd   Spurs  Opp - SRS    W   L  advant
1999   3   7.12   Por   5.67   4   0   1.45
2002   1   6.28   Sea   3.24   3   2   3.04
2001   2   7.92   Dal   4.61   4   1   3.31
2001   3   7.92   LAL   3.74   0   4   4.18
SA advantage                  11   7   

year  rd   Spurs  Opp - SRS    W   L  advant
1999   2   7.12   LAL   2.68   4   0   4.44
1999   4   7.12   NYK   1.45   4   1   5.67
2001   1   7.92   Min   1.81   3   1   6.11
1999   1   7.12   Min   -.17   3   1   7.29
SA large advantage            14   3   

At this point, Pop had been upset twice (from 9 possibles) and he'd done the upsetting once (in 3 tries).
One "upset", to the '01 Lakers, of course doesn't reflect how good LA was at season's end. In the other, Duncan was out.

If a coach comes in and gets a perennial doormat into the playoffs, it's often expected that he should do still better -- get out of the first round, contend for a title, etc. Obviously, you have to be at least decent in the RS to get into the PO. And getting knocked out early every year doesn't leave anyone happy.