Making a Good Coach

Recently, I spoke to the mother of a Division I basketball player about training her son. As she asked several questions to see if I might be the right fit, she asked if I had played the post. I said no.

We have a belief that teaching and playing are the same thing. That is, we tend to believe that someone who plays something better than another automatically translates to a better coach.

Last week, USA Today featured an article about St. Louis Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan, arguably the best pitching coach of the past 30 years.

Dave Duncan is 63 and has never pitched in a baseball game. “I was a pretty good softball pitcher when I was a kid in the parks and recreation leagues,” Duncan says.

I went to the Pete Newell Big Man Camp several years ago. Most of the coaches are ex-NBA players. After all, who is better at teaching footwork to post players than an NBA post player, right? During one session, a former starting center in the NBA – now a “player development coach” in the NBA – could not demonstrate a basic pivot and move that Newell asked him to demonstrate in front of the entire group. He tried three times and traveled every time.

While the Pete Newell Camp is generally recognized as the best of its kind and features some great instructors like Mike Dunlap and Kiki Vandeweghe, there were other instructors who would be indistinguishable from an average high school coach. However, since they played in the NBA, we assume they are far better than an average high school coach.

If playing experience  is not the most essential quality in the making of a good coach, what is?

St. Louis Manager Tony La Russa says, “You can’t bring in a pitching coach any better than Dunc. He’s the Albert Pujols of pitching coaches.

“What makes him good? You can’t just identify one thing. Pitchers all have different problems — 10, 15, 20 things can go wrong. Most pitching coaches can fix a dozen things. Dave is a 10 in every category.”

According to this statement, Duncan’s knowledge and problem-solving ability set him apart from his peers. But, knowledge cannot be the sole factor.

“He’s the most-prepared guy I’ve ever been around,” says Chris Carpenter, who won the 2005 NL Cy Young Award. “He has charts and videos and a simple plan. Our pre-game meetings last maybe five minutes.”

According to one of his star pupils, it is simplicity and preparedness. One frustrating aspect of coaching is the detail, time and research that a coach undertakes to discover a solution, yet he shares only a glimpse of this with the players.

John Wooden wrote about the amount of time that he took every day to plan practice carefully so not a minute of practice time would be wasted. We sometimes see the results – a pitcher’s improvement or an efficient practice – but few people recognize the time spent by the coach to create the five minute pre-game meeting. In a sense, the coach’s preparation and simplicity make the player’s job easier, which is one role of  a coach.

Duncan is a soft-spoken man of few words. Cardinals pitchers like that he doesn’t have a one-style-fits-all philosophy and his ability to break down and explain a problem.

Often, the coaches who yell and scream capture the media and fan’s attention because you can see them “coaching” during games, while the quiet coach is accused of not doing anything (a frequent criticism of Rick Adelman at the end of his Sacramento reign). But, different coaches have different personalities. Some are fiery and intense; some are soft-spoken and quiet.

The best coaches treat each player as an individual. I have watched many basketball trainers who constantly try to re-create themselves in the players that they train. However, just because one player is successful doing things one way does not mean that another player will have similar success.

The ability to break down and explain a problem, to me, is one of the most overlooked aspects of coaching. A lot of coaching is very general – if a player misses a shot short, almost every coach and parent in the stands yell at the player to “bend your knees.” However, what happens if the player bends his knees and the shot still misses short?

I had a mom tell me that her son’s previous trainer told him to get his eyes checked because he could not figure out the problem. I watched the kid shoot one free throw and realized the problem was not his eyes or the lack of knee bend, it was the way he bent his knees. He bent his knees so far forward that he was off-balance, even when shooting a free throw. As the coach and parents yelled “bend your knees,” after every miss, his shot grew worse and worse because bending his knees exacerbated the problem, rather than fixing it. But, few coaches go beyond the general instructions and really break down a player’s skill and explain the way to improve.

What does a great coach think?

Duncan said a pitcher has to have talent before he can turn around his career.

“You look at a guy that has a lot of talent and not doing well, and so you have to look for the reasons why,” Duncan said. “It can be done. We need pitchers that have ability and have a desire to be better. The difficult times are when you have a guy with a lot of talent and you can’t make progress.”

A great coach knows his limitations. A coach cannot create something from nothing. It starts with the player and his talents and work ethic. When those are present, a good coach can assist the player with his development.

Eight attributes of a good coach: Knowledge. Problem-Solving. Simplicity. Preparedness. Communication. Ability to Explain. Analyzing the true problem. Knowing one’s limitations.

~ by Brian McCormick on May 13, 2009.

7 Responses to “Making a Good Coach”

  1. Brian,

    I was hoping you would come back to this topic. Of the eight attributes listed, do you think any of them are quantifiable? How would you determine knowledge, communication, etc?

    A few more qualities: Passionate, teachable. . .

  2. I wrote indirectly on the subject on my old blog in regards to the Sacramento Kings search:
    http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com/2009/05/sacramento-kings-coaching-search.html

    I think it is hard to quantify these thins which is why hiring a coach is often a crap shoot.

    This is supposedly the list of questions for the Kings search (or close to it):
    http://fullcourtpress.kingsconnect.com/archives/2206

    Not bad, but does it really tell you how a coach really coaches? How he reacts to stress? How he handles pressure? How he teaches? How he makes decisions? How he sees the game? etc.

    Of course, when I interviewed for a high school job, none of these questions were asked. Instead, the entire interview consisted of questions of discipline and how I would punish players for various transgressions and questions about fundraising. Knowledge, communication skills, passion, etc did not even register.

    As I wrote in the Kings blog, the best way to evaluate or measure these skills is to be around the coach, not to ask questions or watch a game. Pat Riley saw the characteristics of a great coach in Erik Spoelstra and helped to develop his qualities; when he was ready, he turned over the franchise to Spoelstra. In ideal situations, that is how leaders should be identified, nurtured and developed.

    If you possess the right qualities and characteristics, you can learn to coach a sport. I coached junior high school and high school volleyball even though I never played the sport and did not know the “traditional” way to teach a skill or even all the rules. I knew vball from playing on the beach as a kid after adult pro-am tournaments. I taught myself skills by mimicking the better adult players, so I could pass okay, set okay, hit okay and jump serve. But, I was able to be a successful coach – as measured by the comments of the A.D. and parents – because I communicated well with the girls, made all the players feel important, taught them enough to make them feel like they were improving, showed them that I cared about them as a person and not just a player, etc. I probably had players who knew more about volleyball than I did, but it didn’t matter.

    But, as to how you measure those things, I don’t know. The A.D. hired me to coach vball even though I said that I did not know anything about vb because we had worked a sports camp together all summer and she said, “It doesn’t matter. You know how to coach. You’ll be fine.” Now, she was desperate for someone to take the job, but she watched me work with her son and other kids of various ages and saw my interactions and instructions and decided that the sport knowledge did not matter as much as the other qualities.

    Obviously, this changes as you get to higher levels of play. Sport knowledge becomes more important as you move to better players and higher levels. But, I think it is hard to measure the qualities of coaches and I think this inability makes it difficult to hire and fire coaches.

  3. I’ve often thought of the irony that the skills required to get a job are often very different than the skills required to perform the job. In my mind getting the interview, performing well in an interview etc., are usually not indicative of doing the actual job for which you are applying.

    The difficulty in assessing coaches makes for a good argument to hire (or at least look first) in-house does it not? I mean, the in-house guy is well-known and can probably be more accurately assessed (assuming the people in the org. know what they are doing) than an outside coach that one can see from afar on the court, or meet in a relatively short interview.

  4. Look at Butler and Southern Illinois. They promoted coaches from within and maintained a high level of consistency. Butler promoted Brad Stevens when Thad Matta left and SIU promoted Lowery when Matt Painter left and Painter when Weber left.

    Unfortunately, most A.D.’s are reluctant to promote from within because the assistant does not have the name recognition of an outside candidate, like when Dean Smith retired and UNC fans wanted Roy Williams but originally got Bill Guthridge.

    At smaller schools (SIU, Butler), athletic directors can concentrate on making the best hire. At a school like Carolina, the AD has to keep the alumni happy. Sometimes those are not the same things. Plus, a successful coach like Williams is seen as a “no-brainer,” while an assistant coach – even one that you have observed over several years – is seen as a risk.

    I think the AD/GM has a better chance to evaluate the in-house candidate, but that does not mean that the in-house candidate is always the best choice or always has the talent to be a great head coach. However, as I argued when Memphis hired Josh Pastner, if the in-house candidate possesses the qualities of a great head coach, age, experience and PR should not matter.

    And, yes, the skills and talents necessary to perform often differ from those required to attain the job. Even at a simplistic level, NBA teams want coaches with NBA playing experience. However, playing basketball and coaching basketball are entirely different animals. A great football coach has as much of a chance to be a great basketball coach as a great basketball player has of being a great basketball coach. The talents and skills required of a football coach are much closer to those required of a basketball coach than the talents and skills of a player. Unfortunately, few people see coaching in this manner.

    In the same vain, I have argued that the education system fails in part because principals are paid more than teachers so there is incentive for a great teacher to use her reputation to become a principal. But, a principal is an entirely different job with different skills and talents than teaching. So, rather than reward a great teacher for her teaching, and hiring a great principal, you end up with an average principal and lose the great teacher. A principal has more in common with a non-profit executive than with a classroom teacher.

    We focus too much on the specific knowledge (basketball vs. football; the school environment) and not enough on the talents and skills of the particular job (coaching vs. playing; teaching vs. administrating).

  5. An article about my man Josh Pastner and why I thought he was a great hire:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=4160632

  6. Not sure if and how this relates, but this is Bill Simmons’ take on coaching:

    And yet, someone like Jackson — and Gregg Popovich, to a lesser degree — has shown that the best NBA coaches are always the ones who:

    A. trust their players and allow them to think on their own
    B. know how to manage egos
    C. keep things as simple as possible
    D. are smart enough to avoid having head cases and bad apples around who could potentially undermine them
    E. seem to connect with their players on a level beyond just player-and-coach?

    Being a great NBA coach is like being a great college professor — the best professors challenge their students intellectually, figure out ways to connect with them individually and have enough charisma that students rarely tune them out but, at the same time, those students still have to get the work done. And yet, there’s something in those great professors that makes the students want to do the work. You rarely see that dynamic with NBA coaches and players, and I’m not sure why.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060303

  7. The attributes of a good coach can be found right here. Enjoy! :-)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.