Discussion: In which sports do coaches matter most/least?
... and why?
Two things to consider:
- How much is there to learn about that sport that the coach can teach to differenciate between good and bad players?
- How much pre-game and/or real time strategy impact does the coach actually have?
I suppose you could add a third consideration: Talent evaluation/recruiting, but since not all sports require this aspect from their coaches, consider it as you will.
OP's opinion to throw darts at:
I'd say football requires both the greatest opportunity for a coach to have teaching impact AND actual game strategy/real time impact. Thus, I conclude that it is the sport of football where coaches matter most. Basketball is probably fairly high on the real time strategy aspect (albiet still noticibly less than football), but I don't believe basketball coaches have as much to teach as some other sport's coaches. That is, I believe basketball relies more on raw talent.
Conversely, I'd say soccer is the sport where the coach matters least. Hockey is probably a close second. Both these sports require the coach to generally develop pre-game strategies and substitutions, but that's about it.
Something to pass the time on a Friday.
Least : baseball
Baseball coaching matters more the lower the level goes obviously. A really good coach at a HS or college or minor league level can be a major positive as a teacher of technique and fundamental skills.
At a major league level, a manager is basically a glorified shrink. Any kind of strategic decision is determined above him by the GM when he builds the roster. All the manager actually does is keep guys motivated.
MLB bench coaches usually handle the role of shrink. Most managers are coordinators.
Otherwise, modern NBA head coaches seem less impactful. It's pretty much a star/player driven league.
Swimmers are self driven and coaching can only tweak
HOWEVA. High school swim coaches, for example, do a lot more than just tweaking. Obviously they will have many swimmers whose strokes need a ton of work. But high school and college coaches have to fill out lineups. They're not just trying to win the meet. They're also trying to get as many of their swimmers qualified for things like state meets. So they have to know their opponent in a dual meet and realize, hey, I could put Joe and Jim in the 100 fly and they'd win like always, but they need to qualify in the IM too, so who can I put in the fly so Joe and Jim can get a qualifying time in IM? Or if I do that, will we lose the fly? Or maybe that's OK too.
Plus they have to design workouts sometimes for a very large team with very large differences in what they can do. You over here, you're doing this, and you over there, you're doing the same but a slower time, and you guys are doing something completely different. For two, three hours every day, six days a week. And find a way to keep it interesting.
Olympic swimmers, maybe you're right. Lower levels, the job is nowhere near that easy.
Even above the High School level. Many teammates of mine went onto college swimming programs and told me they were pretty much retaught how to swim.
Agree with above posts. I'm also a former competitive swimmer, only I had the unfortunate experience of going from a detail-oriented HS coach to a motivation-style college coach (not my fault - coaching change in my first year on campus). While the atmosphere was always fun and competitive, I always felt the constructive critiques to make me better were missing.
Additionally, I think that by the sheer fact that football has a week between games, there's more time to learn and scout opponents. When you're playing a basketball game every 2-3 days, there's only so much time that you can scout and game plan for the next team. The same goes for baseball, hockey, etc.
Flipside for basketball, at least at the NBA level, is adjustments are a huge part of winning. Relatively minor tweaks to a system/approach can have a big impact in basketball. Identifying what the other side is doing and making the correct adjustment goes along way towards winning.
From one who played collegiate soccer, it is not the least where a coach matters.
I'd say NBA basketball is probably the least.
Agree it's NBA basketball. The teams that win are the teams with superstar players, not superstar coaches (like NCAA football). NCAA basketball you need both good coaches and good players to be successful. A good coach regularly gets his team to the tourney, and a good coach with some star players often wins it.
Baseball should also be up there. So much of those decisions are based on probability, so it's just following an already written script. Baseball it seems the coaches need to have an eye for talent moreso than in the NBA as the NBA it's just so easy to identify who your key players are and what roles they can fill.
I'll choose your post to pick on. I think those alleging that a particular sport involves less coaching don't generally have as much knowledge/understanding of the intracacies of that particular sport. In literally every sport, having the best players is a huge advantage (how much of being the best NCAA football/basketball coach is simply acquiring the most talented recruits?). However, in no sport, at the highest levels, can you just roll the ball out and expect the team with the most skilled players to win absent competent coaching. Coaching always matters.
i was going to say something similar. When someone describes anything at the highest levels as "so easy" they dont' know what they are talking about: "... the NBA it's just so easy to identify who your key players are and what roles they can fill." What sport is it hard to identify your key players and roles? Do you think Speight might be a better RB? Or that Rashan Gary isn't a "key" player? I assume this is more a comment about how to build a good team based on key players and their skillset but it still can't be easy since there are 32 teams trying to do the exact same thing but only 1 team can actually succeed.
I'd like to see a breakdown by sport of average win percentage deviation per year based on coach. To me, the more deviation in record for a coach would describe the least coaching impact (and most player/luck/circumstance impact). Someone get on that.
You know, decide who's pitching...
and you know, calling pitches depending what level or reliance on catcher/pitcher
Least: Wrestling.
maybe not. nobody wanted to wrestle the homicidal clown.
(bring back svetlana)
Wrestling in high school and college is all about learning and applying technique, something coaches have a HUGE influence over. Yeah, it's man vs. man, but the way the athletes compete requires a lot of coaching to get right.
Disclosure: A good friend of mine is a lifelong wrestling coach.
Cael Sanderson would like a word with you on that. PSU wrestling was mid-lower tier Big Ten before he arrived. They are now a powerhouse not seen since Dan Gable was coaching at Iowa. Wrestling coaches teach not only technique, but also are huge in helping with strategy for each match.
I would say it depends on the sport that you have the most experience with. I never played hockey and it's hard for me to determine the value of in-game coaching tweaks. I played a lot of baseball so I appreciate the number of small decisions made by managers every pitch and their impact.
I'm sure everyone would agree football is the easy winner for most impact.
I will never argue that baseball would be near the top of the list for most impactful but I do think many people underappreciate a coaches impact when it comes to managing pitch counts, baserunners, and pitch selection (lower levels).
Agreed. It's amazing, for example, the relationship between outfielder positioning and pitch choice. It's not just "this guy pulls the ball." It's, "we're going to pitch this left-handed batter in such a way so that if he hits it, it goes opposite field and we can get a double-play ball or at least keep it in front of the baserunner."
And it really does change pitch to pitch. I could go on forever about small things in baseball that make huge differences but couldn't begin to explain similar ideas for soccer. OP's question really is tough (outside of football) unless you have pretty significant experience with all of the 5 major sports.
People are generally going to say coaches are least impactful in sports they know the least about. Just a guess.
I would agree that football ranks highest given the criteria in the OP, but then again, I'm most into football of any team sport, so may be falling victim to the same bias I'm talking about.
Many of the people here like football plus some other sport. I think it's safe to say that football is the most impacted by coaching--there are so many things that a coach can affect on the field relative to other sports.
Beyond that I think your comment is pretty astute. Fans of particular sports understand the nuances and thus have a better feel for what coaches / managers / tacticians actually do, and defend that to people who understand less. For example, I'm a cycling fan, and I have a great appreciation for the tactics that go into a proper cycling race. I find it fascinating. Meanwhile, I watch a rugby match and figure it's just a bunch of guys running around with a ball grappling each other and figure it can't be that hard.
Question is too broad.
A baseball manager, for example, doesn't do a whole lot in a game. A great many fans could competently manage a major league baseball game. Almost none could competently manage a clubhouse. But pitching and hitting coaches matter exquisitely. The techniques are so refined down to the millimeter, and so different for everyone (you might tell one pitcher to do one thing and another to do just the opposite), that really good pitching and hitting coaches are priceless.
Swimming coaches do basically nothing at a meet, other than fill out the lineup card. But it's a very involved thing in between meets, more so than lots of sports. Michael Phelps's coach, on the other hand, is more like a pitching coach or a golf caddy: they watch the form and say something if they notice something.
I would say the coach matters a ton in soccer, because soccer is such a free-form game that it takes a figurative birds-eye view to see how everything fits together. Soccer, hockey, and basketball are big chemistry experiments (not in the sense of locker-room chemistry). You need a good coach to see how the ingredients work. This goes more so for college basketball than for pro basketball, though. It doesn't take a genius to say "give Steph Curry the ball."
So - what level of sport? Are we talking assistant coaches or head coaches? If I had to say, what league relies least on its coaches, I'd say NBA basketball, since teams can basically just do what they like on the floor if they want, and not many would notice. College football may be the most dependent on the head coach.
For the least coaching, I'd say darts.
For the most, I'm going with Lamaze.
there's a lot of value in having a hot GA
straighten out your Longfellow.
I have played baseball, hockey and lacrosse while growing up.
I would say hockey requires the most coaching at any level of those three and it's not close.
definitely takes a ton of coaching and I think people that are not really familiar with the game don't understand how much influence a coach has, with getting proper matchups on the ice all game long, not just line changes, but also on faceoffs and set plays and breakouts. Only get one time out and how to manage that. The game is free flowing, but coaches are constantly making decisions during a game.
Agree, a coach has a lot to do with how a team is constructed and how it plays. Running in to the 2003 NCAA tournament, Michigan got seeded third in the "region of death" featuring long-time #1 overall team Maine (who was demoted only due to a shocking loss in their opening playoff series) and current #1 overall team Colorado College, which had carved through the WCHA like a scythe all season and featured two future Hobey Baker winners (including pending winner Peter Sejna) and an offense that was absolutely lethal.
The only thing Michigan appeared to have going for it was home ice for the regional. I went to the practice day and watched the CC team fly around the ice. They were terrifyingly good. Fast, smooth, pinpoint passing, ruthless shooting. They looked like the Kurt Warner Rams.
They left the rink and Michigan took the ice. High-flying offensive wizard Red Berenson had his guys mucking around in the corners on the boards the entire time they were out there. It looked pointless and boring to me.
After a narrow win over Maine, Michigan played CC for a Frozen Four berth. They spent the game grinding CC into powder on the boards--CC's only periods of real offensive opportunity were on powerplays. Jason Ryznar was a monster. Michigan won the game as the clearly superior team.
CC got worked by Red.
Let's focus on major team sports: Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, Soccer
Most important - Football. There are myriad reasons I hold this opinion, but it really boils down to the fact that football is a series of scripted plays that require technique, cohesion, motivation, and understanding to properly execute. None of the other major team sports share this level specificity throughout the game. Football's core is to follow your given instructions for each play, with a pause between each play and a new set of instructions to follow. Yes, great players make it easier to execute plays and can be effective going off script (Barry Sanders comes to mind) but successful teams still need proper direction and guidance to execute complex plays that require 11 independent people to act in precise concert to each maximum efficiency. Also, you are coaching against another coach who is attempting to call scripted plays that best your tactics, whereas the other sports listed rely much more on players overcoming players.
Least important - Basketball. Baseball is a close second. Individual talent factors into each play more than in any other sport. Basketball is less of a chess match than baseball, which it why I think it's least dependent on coaching, but baseball is still pitcher vs. batter at its core.
Soccer? Coaching is hugely important. In-game adjustments are less impactful, but it is a huge field and depends exceptional team play. Individual talent--much like in hockey--is not enough to make a successful team.
You know very little about hockey and soccer if you think that coaching doesn't go on during the game.
Most: High School Football. In most high schools, you are stuck with whoever goes out for the team, which is an ever-dwindling number. Getting those guys of vastly differing skills and athletic ability to do the same complicated thing at the same time is an art.
Least: NBA. I don't know why they even have coaches.
The least is almost unquestionable basketball. Having great coaches can make a big difference, but there is a reason that the teams that win the Finals are almost always the team decked out with multiple superstars.
Hell, I've never played an ounce of competitive basketball in my life, and I bet I could've coached the Warriors to a title this year. Coaching had nothing to do with them winning.
The ones where I'd say it matters most is hockey and college football.
This is such a bad argument. Can you name an NFL, MLB, NHL team that recently won a championship without stars? You could use that example everywhere: Peyton in Denver, Cam Newton at Auburn, Brady in NE, <<insert popular soccer guy>> on <<insert popular soccer team>>, Sidney Crosby on Pittsburgh, even Denard single-handidly won a bunch of games for Rich Rod. All good teams need superstars. I think the problem with NBA is that there are fewer players invovled so you know the superstars more than other sports. The NBA MVP and the runner up were both on so-so teams so it's not just about superstars.
I'm not arguing that NBA is the most important sport for coaching, just that your argument stinks. In your Warriors example, you fail to acknowledge the massive turnaround Kerr has had on the franchise. The team was average for 40 years and now 3 straight finals (with 2 wins) and you think the coach had nothing to do with it? Those guys weren't superstars before Kerr (ignoring KD). Kerr took a slightly above average team and made them dominant. Yes, now that they are an established powerhouse, I could probably coach them to a few wins by getting out of their way, but I'll also bet I could coach UM to a win over Air Force, does that mean Harbaugh is unimportant to the team?
Finally, if you are dismissing talent acquisition, development and culture, then college football is probably not very important for coaches. Hell, Hugh Freeze made his team good by paying players and providing hookers. I'm not sure either of those make him a good coach, he just put talent out there and let them be good.
Are you telling me that if the Pittsburgh Penguins' Mike Sullivan wasn't there for a game, the team would collapse? I bet Harbaugh coudl stay home every saturday this year and we'd be about the same. Coaches build a team and a culture that can be sustained. The Warriors winning without Kerr is proof of how good he is. Look at Stanford, they continue to be good without harbaugh, but most people believe it's because of what harbaugh established.
Here's what your argument sounds like in reverse: Hockey doesn't even need a coach. Get one good goalie who never leaves the ice and the team will win. Play hardly ever stops so there is no opportunity for coaching. Pittsburgh keeps winning because they are just loaded with talent: Give me Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Kessel, and Murray and I could easily win a championship too.
One thing that I have perceived is a good indicator of how much influence coaching has on a sport is how likely that sport is to be transformed by a unique playing style developed by a coach. That sort of thing happens a lot in football (the Wing T, the Wishbone, the 86 defense, the Fun n Gun, the spread read option, etc) and is a visible reminder that a coach can truly change a game.
Baseball doesn't really have that. There are some different styles, but if and when the game changes it changes based on the characteristics of individual players and, more notably, on larger environmental factors that affect the entire game (the steroid era, for example).
Basketball has it a bit--right now, for example, coaches are emphasizing the three-point shot and we're seeing the style of the game change on multiple levels. And hockey was totally transformed by Jacques Lemaire's neutral zone trap.
There's enough tactical variance in soccer to make it clear that coaches have influence there. Brazil produces great players, of course, but it rose to the epitome of the sport in international terms by using a free-flowing ball possession style that utilized the talents of those players. Spain's recent resurgence combined a massive nationwide PED conspiracy great players with a beautiful tiki-taka passing style that overwhelmed all opponents. It's there.
Least is Baseball, soccer is pretty far down there.
Most is Football
In the NBA the coaches matter less, but I think in the NBA it seems like they don't do anything because the positive impact you can have is minimal. You can have a very negative impact on the game however. Strategy at a pro level has almost gotten down to a science. Baseball strategy is so minimal that it seems like it is just executing what everyone knows to do so its practically a simulation.
The Lebron statement is true, but you can say the same thing about football with QBs usually too. Ironically, i think the one sport where you can't say that is baseball and most people don't feel baseball has much coaching impact.