Players or Coaches?

[trojandave]

Players for the most part determine the outcome of a game, but coaches do have some influence as well.........for example, if a coach employs a zone defense when a man to man is a better fit for his talent, that can dramatically change a game.........or if a coach doesn't make proper substitutions, that also affects a ballgame.

Players shooting poorly at the free throw line, taking bad shots, turning the ball over, and not playing solid defense have a profound effect on the game as well.........coaches and players both have significant responsibilities in a basketball game, although I do think players over the course of a season have a greater influence on a team's won/lost record.

[John Wooden]

It must be players or you wouldn't have coaches jumping around but I do agree with trojandave a coach can determine the outcome on games by what defense he plays or knowing the right combination of players to have in the game. I also think a good coach will help his players understand what their roles are. I give it to the players 75% coaches 25%.

[Grinder]

It sure is a lot more exciting watching good players than good coaching.

[YoDuh]

U can't win consistently without athletes. Athletes won't game up a level consistently without proper guidance and study. Simply put, it's Players And Coaches and to try and quantify this relationship is 100% absurd ;O

[pembrook burrows III]

I think most are underestimating the value of a top level coach. Here's why. If your high school coach simply sits back, waiting to see what the middle school programs deliver each year, and then coaches them up when they get to the high school level, then maybe you are at about 80%-20% in favor of the players.

That's not what the truly great coaches do, however. They oversee a community program whereby kids are developed from the grade school level on up. Very good players can be developed. Maybe not into D-I recruits; there is some talent level that must exist to play big-time college ball. But very good high school players can be developed over a course of years such that a high school coach can win big almost every year, especially in Southeast Ohio where the overall talent levels are not that great from year-to-year anyway (sorry folks, I'm a big Southeast Ohio fan, but we get no more than 1 or 2 D-I signees a year in an area about the size of Maryland or Massachusetts).

Good example - Chesapeake has been blessed with great coaches for years (Lewis D'Antoni, Norm Persin, Ryan Davis). Are the kids from that school district significantly superior in athleticism to those from other Souteastern Ohio school districts such as the Panthers' dominant record over the past 20 years would suggest? I ask this question not in disrespect to Chesapeake players (there have been some very good ones), but in awesome respect to the Chesapeake program and its coaches. I think the coaches there have done a great job in developing players from the community that are fundamentally sound, mentally tough, and know how to win.

The mental part of sports is also what top coaches can conquer. If the parents and community are always questioning how things are done, a program cannot excel. This is vastly underrated in terms of success. Jimmy and Johnny will never reach their potential if they go home after every practice and hear Mom and Dad constantly criticizing the coaching staff, or other kids on the team, for their failures. Elite programs don't have to contend with that as much. The coach has been ultra-successful and brings a high degree of credibility to the community support equation. Just look what happened at Ironton in one year when a very good high school football coach tried to succeed Bob Lutz. Drama is never good for the kids or the program.

Then here's the wildcard: a highly successful program attracts top talent, even from outside of its own district. So if a program can pick up a very good player or two from nearby, the success gets multiplied. Generally, that happens because of the quality of the coaching.

So I'm saying that coaching is at least 50% responsible for success at the high school basketball level.

[pembrook burrows III]

One more example: there have been a ton of talented kids walking through the halls of Portsmouth High School over the past 30+ years. Yet the basketball fortunes of that school have been heavily dependent upon the competency of its various coaching staffs, and their ability to run a true basketball program. I think that 50% may be too low when assigning a percentage to how much coaching contributes to high school basketball.

[Falconburger]

Easy to coach when have the u have players', a good coach can win games with decent players that work hard and buy into his system.

[smzgc03]

Well said Falconburger

[Falconburger]

Another thing is I have seen alot of talented teams that don't live up to potential due to coaches, and seen coaches ruin talented players careers due to not taking advantage of talent or adjusting coaching styles to take advantage of talent...

[goUK]

players have to be able to defend and score(natural ability), if you have the quality of players that you need then coaches gameplan can have a lot of effect on the game. But 100% you have to have the players

[ny_buckeyes_07]

I agree to an extent, you could have the best coach in the world but if a kid doesn't have it then he just doesn't have it.
You could have some star players and a coach that doesn't know a basketball from a volleyball and the team would stink. I think it is a delicate balance mostly.

[Falconburger]

Like I said u see alot of coaches at all levels lose their jobs cause they lose games and have talent, then another coach comes in and wins with same kids. Having talent always helps, and is a big part of winning championships, but a good coach can win games even if they have limited talent. Cause they will "coach up" decent players.