"They only won four games last year, my kid's coach sucks."
Not necessarily. The real questions that should be asked are when the four games were won and whether the team improved in comparison to their opponents as the season went on.
For the purpose of this argument, and simplicity's sake, I'll be discussing "success" in terms of on-court success. The impact a coach has off the court is a different topic entirely, one worthy of its own post at a later date.
When one looks at the success of a coach, often the list of championships attained along with games won and lost serves as the primary example of whether that team's coach is a good one or whether they need be replaced. However, the overall record often pales in importance to the team's improvement. What people don't often realize is that those championships come as a result of years committed to the process of ensuring one's team improves in order to meet their coach's vision of what what it should look like when their team is at their best. Often those championships simply serve as validation for a job well done, a validation of one's commitment to the process of developing a winning team true to their vision.
Example, if one was evaluating Coach K after his third season at Duke, they would see a 21-34 record in his previous two seasons. An A.D. who looked at record alone may have fired him. We would not think about Duke basketball as we do today. Though a college example, I want to look at this from a high school perspective. Too often, coaches are dismissed quickly due to a variety of circumstances that are out of their control.
The problem is, the record is all many use to measure success.
Thinking about this topic in terms of year-by-year development, this becomes evident. If one year, a coach wins thirty games, and the next they win ten, the idea that they've suddenly become a bad coach is ludicrous. Instead, look at circumstance. Perhaps the first year they graduated a team full of seniors, and in the next year, they were breaking in a new, younger group. If many of those ten wins came at the end of their season, then it can be easily determined that the coach is continuing to help their team improve in comparison to their opposition as the year goes on. Often, high school coaches are fortunate to coach the talent they have. This is not to say the coaches of the talented teams aren't talented coaches in their own right, most often they are. However, this also does not mean that the coach of a less-talented team is any less talented a coach. When we went 30-2 and won the state title in 2010-11, we were not the best coaches in our state, we had the most talented team. We did well with them, but looking at that championship alone would be a flawed method of evaluating coaches in our classification. However, if one has a team that wins its first fifteen games, only to split its last five, one has a situation where the process of continuous improvement (barring injury) may be lacking. While they may be perceived by record alone to be the better coach, this may not be ultimately true.
A coach's win-loss record does not define them as successful or unsuccessful.
The ability for a coach to help his team constantly improve throughout the season shows they are good at what they do.
Oftentimes, the eye test is a better way to determine whether or not a coach is effective. Watch the team at the beginning and the end of the season. Is there clear improvement? Evaluate the talent of the team. Are they getting the most out of these kids that they can?
This is where basketball becomes a metaphor for life in another aspect. A basketball team is an organization, which needs a clear goal, and benchmarks which show the leaders (coaches) that they are on the way to reaching that goal. When I took over as the Head Coach at Westwind in the summer of 2011, I knew that we had a long ways to go. I had placed us in a difficult summer league, and coached without the score of the games in mind. I had a vision for how I wanted these kids to play; my goal was to get them there. We lost nearly every game that summer, but by the end, we were noticeably better. The kids were executing our offensive and defensive schemes in a manner much more to my liking. I followed this process throughout the season in which we overachieved greatly, finishing 17-9. The lesson I took away was that the wins came as a by-product. I was lucky enough to have a great group of kids that were hungry for success, and undeterred by a difficult summer. Other coaches may have programs where the process takes a little longer. In my position as an administrator, I now use this perspective as an evaluative tool. If the team is improving consistently, then they're doing a good job. The ones whose teams fare worse as the year goes on (major personnel injury aside) are the coaches whose performance should be more closely examined. The ultimate measure of on-court success for a coach in my opinion (and take that for whatever you feel its worth), is the ability for their team to improve as the season goes on. The result of that process, ultimately will be the wins in which the coach deserves to be measured, not some of the losses that may be the result of a difficult circumstance they've entered into. Take a look at the entire picture, and let's avoid evaluating coaches by wins and losses alone.
For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels
Not necessarily. The real questions that should be asked are when the four games were won and whether the team improved in comparison to their opponents as the season went on.
For the purpose of this argument, and simplicity's sake, I'll be discussing "success" in terms of on-court success. The impact a coach has off the court is a different topic entirely, one worthy of its own post at a later date.
When one looks at the success of a coach, often the list of championships attained along with games won and lost serves as the primary example of whether that team's coach is a good one or whether they need be replaced. However, the overall record often pales in importance to the team's improvement. What people don't often realize is that those championships come as a result of years committed to the process of ensuring one's team improves in order to meet their coach's vision of what what it should look like when their team is at their best. Often those championships simply serve as validation for a job well done, a validation of one's commitment to the process of developing a winning team true to their vision.
Example, if one was evaluating Coach K after his third season at Duke, they would see a 21-34 record in his previous two seasons. An A.D. who looked at record alone may have fired him. We would not think about Duke basketball as we do today. Though a college example, I want to look at this from a high school perspective. Too often, coaches are dismissed quickly due to a variety of circumstances that are out of their control.
The problem is, the record is all many use to measure success.
Thinking about this topic in terms of year-by-year development, this becomes evident. If one year, a coach wins thirty games, and the next they win ten, the idea that they've suddenly become a bad coach is ludicrous. Instead, look at circumstance. Perhaps the first year they graduated a team full of seniors, and in the next year, they were breaking in a new, younger group. If many of those ten wins came at the end of their season, then it can be easily determined that the coach is continuing to help their team improve in comparison to their opposition as the year goes on. Often, high school coaches are fortunate to coach the talent they have. This is not to say the coaches of the talented teams aren't talented coaches in their own right, most often they are. However, this also does not mean that the coach of a less-talented team is any less talented a coach. When we went 30-2 and won the state title in 2010-11, we were not the best coaches in our state, we had the most talented team. We did well with them, but looking at that championship alone would be a flawed method of evaluating coaches in our classification. However, if one has a team that wins its first fifteen games, only to split its last five, one has a situation where the process of continuous improvement (barring injury) may be lacking. While they may be perceived by record alone to be the better coach, this may not be ultimately true.
A coach's win-loss record does not define them as successful or unsuccessful.
The ability for a coach to help his team constantly improve throughout the season shows they are good at what they do.
Oftentimes, the eye test is a better way to determine whether or not a coach is effective. Watch the team at the beginning and the end of the season. Is there clear improvement? Evaluate the talent of the team. Are they getting the most out of these kids that they can?
This is where basketball becomes a metaphor for life in another aspect. A basketball team is an organization, which needs a clear goal, and benchmarks which show the leaders (coaches) that they are on the way to reaching that goal. When I took over as the Head Coach at Westwind in the summer of 2011, I knew that we had a long ways to go. I had placed us in a difficult summer league, and coached without the score of the games in mind. I had a vision for how I wanted these kids to play; my goal was to get them there. We lost nearly every game that summer, but by the end, we were noticeably better. The kids were executing our offensive and defensive schemes in a manner much more to my liking. I followed this process throughout the season in which we overachieved greatly, finishing 17-9. The lesson I took away was that the wins came as a by-product. I was lucky enough to have a great group of kids that were hungry for success, and undeterred by a difficult summer. Other coaches may have programs where the process takes a little longer. In my position as an administrator, I now use this perspective as an evaluative tool. If the team is improving consistently, then they're doing a good job. The ones whose teams fare worse as the year goes on (major personnel injury aside) are the coaches whose performance should be more closely examined. The ultimate measure of on-court success for a coach in my opinion (and take that for whatever you feel its worth), is the ability for their team to improve as the season goes on. The result of that process, ultimately will be the wins in which the coach deserves to be measured, not some of the losses that may be the result of a difficult circumstance they've entered into. Take a look at the entire picture, and let's avoid evaluating coaches by wins and losses alone.
For more information, follow me on twitter @coachdesautels
