The cult of the coach
I have no hard proof of this, but my hunch is that the press overestimates the impact of a coach on a sporting team. I'm not saying a coach isn't important to the success of a team. I just think the press slap coaches with labels like genius or failure much more often than is warranted.
The Bears were trying to hire a coach recently, and local columnists rooted hard for them to nab Nick Saban because of his success with LSU this year. When the Bears ended up hiring Lovie Smith, columnists expressed disappointment based on the Rams collapse versus the Panthers in the NFL playoffs. They forget that when Dave Wannstedt came to the Bears, he was coming off of coaching a hugely successful Cowboys defense. Much good that did. Ditka? I think I could have coached the 85 Bears to the Superbowl, their talent level was that extreme.
Bill Belichick is labeled a coaching genius for bringing the Patriots to the Super Bowl. What was he when he was losing with the Ravens? I'd argue that when he gave all credit to his players after their victory over the Colts, he wasn't being modest but truthful. Belichick is often labeled a defensive genius, but in the AFC Championship, the Pats rarely blitzed, just played a straight up defense most of the game, and his players simply pounded the Colts into submission.
This misattribution also extends to the systems which coaches bring with them wherever they go. The triangle offense worked great when the triangle consisted of Jordan, Pippen, and Grant, or Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, but see how it's worked for the Bulls these past six years. Meanwhile, Phil Jackson took the triangle to the Lakers, and lo and behold, it works pretty well when the triangle is built using Kobe, Shaq, and Malone/Payton. Steve Spurrier's fun and gun? Sure, it was all that in college, but in the pros it was more like none and done.
When Bill Walsh came to Stanford to coach the football team my sophomore year, we were elated. Walsh's first year, the football team, built mostly with Dennis Green's recruits, went to the Blockbuster Bowl and shut out Penn State, and everyone was elated. When all those players graduated, even Walsh's vaunted genius couldn't resurrect the team, and he soon left. Take Tyrone Willingham, another ex-Stanford football coach: the previous season year everyone touted him as a genius for reviving Notre Dame, but this year he's a chump around South Bend.
The greatest impact a coach can have is to find really good players and put them in the game. Perhaps in baseball the impact of a manager is slightly greater, given the isolated pitcher vs. batter nature of the game and the manager's direct control over either of those actors (yes, Grady Little should have yanked Pedro).
Yes, motivation and leadership and diagramming the X's and O's all help. But if we were to divide credit for a team's success between the coach and the players, the press might have you think it's 50/50, or 40/60. I'm guessing the magnitude is more like 25/75.
The Bears were trying to hire a coach recently, and local columnists rooted hard for them to nab Nick Saban because of his success with LSU this year. When the Bears ended up hiring Lovie Smith, columnists expressed disappointment based on the Rams collapse versus the Panthers in the NFL playoffs. They forget that when Dave Wannstedt came to the Bears, he was coming off of coaching a hugely successful Cowboys defense. Much good that did. Ditka? I think I could have coached the 85 Bears to the Superbowl, their talent level was that extreme.
Bill Belichick is labeled a coaching genius for bringing the Patriots to the Super Bowl. What was he when he was losing with the Ravens? I'd argue that when he gave all credit to his players after their victory over the Colts, he wasn't being modest but truthful. Belichick is often labeled a defensive genius, but in the AFC Championship, the Pats rarely blitzed, just played a straight up defense most of the game, and his players simply pounded the Colts into submission.
This misattribution also extends to the systems which coaches bring with them wherever they go. The triangle offense worked great when the triangle consisted of Jordan, Pippen, and Grant, or Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman, but see how it's worked for the Bulls these past six years. Meanwhile, Phil Jackson took the triangle to the Lakers, and lo and behold, it works pretty well when the triangle is built using Kobe, Shaq, and Malone/Payton. Steve Spurrier's fun and gun? Sure, it was all that in college, but in the pros it was more like none and done.
When Bill Walsh came to Stanford to coach the football team my sophomore year, we were elated. Walsh's first year, the football team, built mostly with Dennis Green's recruits, went to the Blockbuster Bowl and shut out Penn State, and everyone was elated. When all those players graduated, even Walsh's vaunted genius couldn't resurrect the team, and he soon left. Take Tyrone Willingham, another ex-Stanford football coach: the previous season year everyone touted him as a genius for reviving Notre Dame, but this year he's a chump around South Bend.
The greatest impact a coach can have is to find really good players and put them in the game. Perhaps in baseball the impact of a manager is slightly greater, given the isolated pitcher vs. batter nature of the game and the manager's direct control over either of those actors (yes, Grady Little should have yanked Pedro).
Yes, motivation and leadership and diagramming the X's and O's all help. But if we were to divide credit for a team's success between the coach and the players, the press might have you think it's 50/50, or 40/60. I'm guessing the magnitude is more like 25/75.