In which sport do coaches matter the most?

[Dynasty]

Boxing.

[goofball]

When it comes to being a hack Bob Melvin kicks all their asses.

1. NFL
2. MLB
3. NBA
4. NHL

I think football is obviously first.

I would argue that hockey is second. The systems of coaches, the pp and pk organization, and motivating players, play a key role in winning games. Plus players change every minute of the game, so it's important to have the right players on at the right time.

In basketball, talent wins. I think hockey depends more on motivation, and organization.

[Hornacek]

Am I the only one that doesn't think it's the NFL? To quote the immortal Bill Simmons:

[ QUOTE ]
But here's the weird thing: I STILL can't shake the feeling that Pete Carroll sucks as a coach. I know, I know ... he's great in college. It's indisputable. He gives his team a certain level of confidence that other teams just don't have, and they never stop pushing the envelope. Still, watching him stomp around on the sidelines as the game was seemingly slipping away, I was talking on the phone to my father, and Dad was giggling and saying, "Look at Pete, we've seen that deer-in-the-headlights routine before, haven't we?" And we both started laughing. Keep in mind, the guy has won like 28 straight games in college. Then, when Pete was "pretending" to call for the fake spike on the last play -- and the NBC announcers believed him, even though it seemed like his acting coach was Andrew Shue -- I just couldn't handle it. HOW IS THIS GUY A GREAT COLLEGE COACH???? What's happening here? He's the EXACT SAME GUY as he was in New England?



I mean, is it really that easy to coach college football? And if it is, does that make Dave Wannstedt the worst football coach of all-time, since he can't even handle the Big East? I might spend the rest of my week mulling this over. There has to be an answer.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here's my vote going to baseball. Baseball, more than the other 3 major sports, is more reliant on the "belief" that you can win games. Loser mentalities are much harder to beat, since this game relies completely on your teammates (football is second in this regard). A great superstar can make any average team great in hockey and basketball (see Jordan, Michael and Gretzky, Wayne), but we've all seen how Marino floundered on the Dolphins (save the one year in 1984) and how horrible the Rangers were with GayRod.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my vote going to baseball. Baseball, more than the other 3 major sports, is more reliant on the "belief" that you can win games. Loser mentalities are much harder to beat, since this game relies completely on your teammates (football is second in this regard). A great superstar can make any average team great in hockey and basketball (see Jordan, Michael and Gretzky, Wayne), but we've all seen how Marino floundered on the Dolphins (save the one year in 1984) and how horrible the Rangers were with GayRod.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to disagree with this, especially the bolded part, as it pertains to hockey. Gretzky was not the only good player on the great teams he was on, in fact the Oilers went on to win a Stanley Cup right after he left, and the Kings had to build a supporting cast around him. Mario Lemiueax is a great player and the team he plays for is terrible. Hockey has had many fantastic players buried on bad teams. The only way one man can make a hockey team competitive is if he is the goaltender, (Patrick Roy's Canadiens, Luongo and the Panthers right now) and even with a stellar 'tender, a team can still suck.

I believe what you say about the mental aspect of baseball is true, but I think most pro ballplayers are able to motivate themselves mentally in many ways, which is why they rise through the ranks despite adversity at lower levels and perhaps suspect coaching as they come up through the ranks. I also don't really believe that baseball comes up with as many on-the-fly adjustments that need to be made in-game as football, bball or hockey. Most situations can be - and are - prepared for.

For me it seems to go NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB in order of importance.

Note, I'm not exactly one of those guys that thinks a monkey can manage a baseball team - I just don't think it's as big as the others.

[Hornacek]

That's true, but I'm just swayed by Danny Manning one-person-teaming the 1988 Jayhawks to the Title, and JS Giguere nearly winning the Stanley Cup on one of the most ridiculous hot streaks ever for a goalie. Honestly, I could have managed the Ducks that year and gotten to the Cup Finals.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
That's true, but I'm just swayed by Danny Manning one-person-teaming the 1988 Jayhawks to the Title, and JS Giguere nearly winning the Stanley Cup on one of the most ridiculous hot streaks ever for a goalie. Honestly, I could have managed the Ducks that year and gotten to the Cup Finals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had to look up the Jayhawks, as I thought it was a rock band. I can't speak to that (never followed college ball), but the '03 Ducks, while definitely benefiting from a legendary performance by Giguere (1 goal allowed in the entire Western Conference four-game final, an NHL record), also boasted players such as Adam Oates, Paul Kariya, Rob Niedermeyer, and Petr Sykora, all of whom had good playoffs.

I do agree that a hot goaltender can carry a hockey team further than any one individual can carry a baseball team. However, the sport where it has always seemed to me that one or two guys make the most difference is basketball.

Sorry if I've gotten this off-topic.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the sport where it has always seemed to me that one or two guys make the most difference is basketball.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is obvious. They are a higher % of the guys on the court and they are on the court/field a higher % of the time. The only comparable situation in any sport is goalie, and their playoff hot streaks are more luck based than anything.

[andyfox]

You call that a sport? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]