Is Kidd really the best head coach for this team?

[Chicagojk]

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.

[fifteenth]

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.

They should have fouled. I think that's what is typically done in those situations.

[The Jom]

The whole strategy defensively seemed to be don’t foul. Timeouts are not so important you can’t use one to end a 5-4 power play. It was awful.

I’m a results guy. That move ended in an easy 3 for the bad guys followed by a bad turnover for the good guys. It was an error.

But if we’re judging Kidd on results, heck, playoff Kidd is a thing.

[KillerLeft]

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.

[fifteenth]

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.

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. :-)

[KillerLeft]

At this point, the only thing I know I don't like about Jason Kidd's coaching is his offense. I just wish he loved spacing as much as I do.

[DallasMaverick]

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. :-)

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...

[fifteenth]

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...

But if you only get honey, Honey, you'll get fat and lazy!

It's a bit of a player personality thing, right. Or, a human thing. Some of us kinda need to be pushed and challenged. Some of us just need encouragement. Some of us just need the coach to tell us our role and we can take it from there. It may be a truly great coach that can assess all these needs and meet each one.

[KillerLeft]

Honey often goes farther than vinegar...

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 its 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.

[DallasMaverick]

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.

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.

[KillerLeft]

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.

I agree, in a sense, only I don't think it has to be so binary. I think what you're describing as an "autocrat" can be humble, actually, and just believe that micromanaging to an extent greater than what some expect is in the team's best interest. Likewise, I believe Kidd is VERY arrogant - much more so than Carlisle, for example. It's just that some people look for different "tells" of character than others, not seeing the design behind personality, or what's real and what's for the job only. 

Ultimately, it's just a matter of finding what works for you, and then finding ways to play to your strengths while simultaneously improving upon your weaknesses. Filling in the gaps, so to speak.

[fifteenth]

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.

Great explanation. Makes sense. 

Regarding Kidd, I hear what he says and the conclusion I come to is that he wants the team to take ownership and responsibility of what it requires to achieve great things. And hear his messaging, which to me, sounds like the public portion of his strategy to get them to take ownership, and that there is a private component to this strategy that we don't get to see. 

What I hear you saying is that your teams achieve the most when they are able to get it, to want it, and to take that responsibility. 

The part of what you're saying that I don't quite understand is "Kidd's style is to make the players' goals the team's goals." Do you think Kidd is asking the Team to set the goals? So interesting. If he is actually doing that, I can imagine huge upside and huge downside to that approach, depending on who the team leaders are.

[fifteenth]

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.

[KillerLeft]

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.

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?

[DallasMaverick]

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.

It’s become a staple for management classes.

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

[fifteenth]

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?

I love it. I didn't think I would. I haven't really gotten into leadership and business books. I'm only through two chapters, and the finding that the first two chapters build towards is surprising and makes sense at the same time. I'd love to talk about it after you read the first two chapters, but don't want to ruin your experience by saying too much about it.

[fifteenth]

It’s become a staple for management classes.

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

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.

[DallasMaverick]

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.

The big objection I’ve heard was how he selected his case studies.

[MarkAguirreWrathofGod]

Agreeing with everything said here about Kidd’s lack of a timeout when “Gaffney” was injured. 

Also wanted to shout out Daigneault for that well-timed timeout early in the 4th with Luka on the bench. Gave Luka another five minutes rest so he had between the 3rd/4th, first two minutes of the 4th and then OKC timeout. Luka came in looking refreshed and hit some key buckets.

[audiosway]

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.

I see what you are getting at. Makes total sense. I have to definitely eat some crow on Kidd. I've always been a Rick Carlisle fan and it's obvious he's a great coach. Yet again he is winning and has a great team put together in Indiana.

I think Kidd has a style that this team needs the more I look at it. I've NEVER seen Kyrie play like this. He is completely unselfish and not a distraction whatsoever. He's even teaching Luka how to lead. At first I thought Kidd was just letting Ky and Luka run the team on the floor (and he likely is). However, the game planning is something I think Kidd is leading. And I have to say overall he outcoached Ty Lue and Lue is a good coach.

What I mean by that is that after game 1 I noticed that the Mavs came out and really just made the game ugly. And that heavily played in Dallas' favor taking all of the Clippers rhythm away. Now against the Thunder they are playing more up tempo. Maybe it's just me (and I'll admit I have a limited knowledge of X's and O's with coaching) but it seems like Kidd is putting together the plan of attack after what he sees in game 1. Then, the team just goes out and implements it. Granted it takes a guy of Luka and Ky's high BBIQ to handle running that. But, maybe THIS is the approach THEY need. Not every coaching type works for every roster or key players.