(05-10-2024, 07:53 AM)Chicagojk Wrote: I guess I will put this here...but I really disliked how Kidd did not call a timeout in the second quarter when the Thunder was on a run and Gafford was asking to come out due to his hand injury.    They finished the half up 6, so they were able to recover.  I just don't know why they didn't call a timeout there.

(05-10-2024, 12:10 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: As some of you know, I've studied teaching/coaching quite a bit. In my opinion, the greatest thing Kidd has done is gotten out of the way, so that the PLAYERS are free to be the standard bearers.

This isn't my style, I'd be much more inclined to push the team and create competition on the roster, similar to how Carlisle does it, and I think this often results in a higher level of understanding and execution earlier in the season. But, the downside is that it's easy in that style for things to end up in a "players vs. coach" mindset if you're not careful. Players are constantly trying to live up to the standard set by the coach, who is constantly moving the goal posts just beyond the reach of their skills/comfort, and while this FOR SURE gets more out of them, they can learn to associate the feelings of failure and losing with HIM, rather than the other team or their own execution, and to certain kinds of players, that coach can become a little like the voiceless Charlie Brown teacher (only the oldest among us will get that reference, sorry).

What kid has done with his "I'm just watching, like all of you" stuff, like it or not (I don't), has forced the TEAM leaders to LEAD. They aren't doing it for or against the coach, but rather for themselves and against the other team. I honestly don't know if this result is by design or by accident, but it's a notable notch in the pros column for me right now when looking at the job Kidd is doing.

(05-10-2024, 12:25 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Wa wa wa, wa wa wa, wa, wa wa waaa. 

I like this analysis, KL!

The style that's needed may come down to which style Luka most embraces. Luka got offended by how RC treated some of the role players. Now RC is doing his thing in Indi and showing out as a great coach once again. But he was done in Dallas because he lost Luka. 

I think there are rare coaches who can push the players, get them to take responsibility as a team and be loved by their players. Well, I say that, and then struggle to come up with names. 

Oh, right... Norman Dale once Jimmy bought in to what coach was doing. :-)

(05-10-2024, 12:33 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: Wasn't it Jimmy who said that a coach needed to spend 90% of his time encouraging his players, and 10% kicking them in the butt? Or something like that.

Honey often goes farther than vinegar...

(05-10-2024, 12:33 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: Honey often goes farther than vinegar...

(05-10-2024, 12:51 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: To clarify, what I'm trying to describe (with moderate success, at best) is deeper than that. 

When I'm running my teams, I set it up in such a way where the students know that if they can live up to my standards, the competitive results will come as a matter of inevitability. This mindset can be implemented/executed in a variety of ways - with vinegar, honey, sarcasm, genuine love, begging, whatever - and though the course of an average season, I'll lean on all of those techniques at some point, with someone on the team. BUT, their mission in life is to live up to MY expectations. 

The problem I run into sometimes is that there's a level we sometimes can't reach because the students aren't able to fully grasp the opportunities their hard work has afforded them. They don't have the requisite confidence and hunger to achieve to their fullest potential when the time comes. This approach absolutely, 100% raises the floor of what they can accomplish, and usually results in an impressively high achievement level for the team, relative to most others. But, there's often another, higher level that we leave on the bone because the students don't quiiiiiite take the ownership needed to get to the top. 

The MOST successful years are when the students are all on the older, more experienced side, because their past experience helps them wrap their heads around all that's at stake, including the rarity and preciousness of each season's opportunities. This is why I've always understood why most NBA coaches prefer older players. They just "get it" more. Not necessarily how to set a screen or run a curl cut (though they're better at that stuff, too) but more understanding the moment and it's context within the bigger picture of the season's goals. 

Kidd's style is to make the players' goals the team's goals, which is intriguing to me. It has nothing to do with his delivery.

(05-10-2024, 01:04 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: I've seen that phenomenon, as well.

My observation about leadership styles is that autocrats can often achieve some incredible results simply by force of will, punishment of non-performance, and perhaps some candy and rewards for achievement.  But this will often either drive off or alienate the real leaders on the team, who would otherwise take ownership and responsibility for the results.  Even in victory, there's often great discontent. 

A humble leader who works for a more collaborative decision-making process tends to attract people who want to own responsibility and credit for the final result.  A real bond forms. Players and coaches tend to have each others' backs, and trust each others' judgments more.  Greater stability, greater contentment.

(05-10-2024, 12:51 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: To clarify, what I'm trying to describe (with moderate success, at best) is deeper than that. 

When I'm running my teams, I set it up in such a way where the students know that if they can live up to my standards, the competitive results will come as a matter of inevitability. This mindset can be implemented/executed in a variety of ways - with vinegar, honey, sarcasm, genuine love, begging, whatever - and though the course of an average season, I'll lean on all of those techniques at some point, with someone on the team. BUT, their mission in life is to live up to MY expectations. 

The problem I run into sometimes is that there's a level we sometimes can't reach because the students aren't able to fully grasp the opportunities their hard work has afforded them. They don't have the requisite confidence and hunger to achieve to their fullest potential when the time comes. This approach absolutely, 100% raises the floor of what they can accomplish, and usually results in an impressively high achievement level for the team, relative to most others. But, there's often another, higher level that we leave on the bone because the students don't quiiiiiite take the ownership needed to get to the top. 

The MOST successful years are when the students are all on the older, more experienced side, because their past experience helps them wrap their heads around all that's at stake, including the rarity and preciousness of each season's opportunities. This is why I've always understood why most NBA coaches prefer older players. They just "get it" more. Not necessarily how to set a screen or run a curl cut (though they're better at that stuff, too) but more understanding the moment and it's context within the bigger picture of the season's goals. 

Kidd's style is to make the players' goals the team's goals, which is intriguing to me. It has nothing to do with his delivery.

(05-10-2024, 01:15 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Have you guys read "Good to Great?"

I'm reading it as part of a class at work. I'm only through the first two chapters, but the data collected for the book, and the conclusions suggested by the data, might fit well into this conversation.

(05-10-2024, 01:15 PM)fifteenth Wrote: Have you guys read "Good to Great?"

I'm reading it as part of a class at work. I'm only through the first two chapters, but the data collected for the book, and the conclusions suggested by the data, might fit well into this conversation.

(05-10-2024, 01:33 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: It has been recommended to me countless times. I bought it but haven't found the time/will to dive in yet. You're enjoying it?

(05-10-2024, 01:56 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: It’s become a staple for management classes.

People have picked at his methodology, but it’s still a great read.

(05-10-2024, 02:03 PM)fifteenth Wrote: That's interesting. I can imagine many folks might reject the Level 5 leadership findings because it doesn't fit what they already think or doesn't fit accepted norms. But it seems like the methodology is solid since he starts with research and lets the data inform the interpretation.

(05-10-2024, 12:51 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: To clarify, what I'm trying to describe (with moderate success, at best) is deeper than that. 

When I'm running my teams, I set it up in such a way where the students know that if they can live up to my standards, the competitive results will come as a matter of inevitability. This mindset can be implemented/executed in a variety of ways - with vinegar, honey, sarcasm, genuine love, begging, whatever - and though the course of an average season, I'll lean on all of those techniques at some point, with someone on the team. BUT, their mission in life is to live up to MY expectations. 

The problem I run into sometimes is that there's a level we sometimes can't reach because the students aren't able to fully grasp the opportunities their hard work has afforded them. They don't have the requisite confidence and hunger to achieve to their fullest potential when the time comes. This approach absolutely, 100% raises the floor of what they can accomplish, and usually results in an impressively high achievement level for the team, relative to most others. But, there's often another, higher level that we leave on the bone because the students don't quiiiiiite take the ownership needed to get to the top. 

The MOST successful years are when the students are all on the older, more experienced side, because their past experience helps them wrap their heads around all that's at stake, including the rarity and preciousness of each season's opportunities. This is why I've always understood why most NBA coaches prefer older players. They just "get it" more. Not necessarily how to set a screen or run a curl cut (though they're better at that stuff, too) but more understanding the moment and it's context within the bigger picture of the season's goals. 

Kidd's style is to make the players' goals the team's goals, which is intriguing to me. It has nothing to do with his delivery.