All right. Coach rankings, how do we evaluate a coach, John?

Well, it's always challenging because they're a little bit of a black box.

It's tough sometimes to see where the front office ends and the coach begins, for one.

Talent obviously is a massive factor.

But that said, you see some of the strategies they use in terms of

offensive plays, defensive strategies, out of timeouts, player usage. Do they play the right

guys? Do they overplay their guys? Do they develop players? Do they trust younger players

appropriately? Tactically, are they getting the right

kinds of shots for their team and preventing the same? So there are windows in which you can see

success level. You know, can they build a competent defense, which most decent coaches can do even with somewhat limited

talent. So I think those are some of the big things. Ability to work with the front office

obviously is a factor. It's tough for us to see all the time, but sometimes it's pretty clear

what's happening.

Yes, yes, I would agree with that.

Yeah, certainly playoffs, playoff adjustments.

This has become so much more clear to me over the 10 years or so that I've been doing this, and the ultimate example of this is Mark Jackson and Steve Kerr, And it's kind of been echoed 10 years later by J.B. Bicker's staff and Kenny Atkinson, where there's the more developmental coach, get you to play hard, hold people accountable, take your shitty team to being a playoff level of team. but then that coach isn't always the guy who can

push a group to the next level to really, whether it's tactics, whether it's just that,

it's hard to say exactly what it can be of like why some coaches are good in some situations

with young teams that are trying to

build, whereas others are better taking a team from that mid-tier playoff group to being

a true contender.

But there are a lot of guys who have strengths and weaknesses.

...