Q12543 wrote:Ultimately I agree that the vast majority of credit for a player becoming a star rests with the player. No doubt.
But I do think Thibs was a match made in heaven for Butler and in that particular case his style and philosophy was of benefit to Jimmy. I'm not sure Jimmy is the same player he is now without Thibs in those early years.
Kawhi came into the San Antonio organization which was at the peak of its powers, surrounded by the likes of Pop, RC Buford, Parker, Duncan, and Manu. That had to have helped him. I wonder if KAT had been drafted by San Antonio at that time would he be a completely different player on defense? Perhaps so.
It's hard to point to any one thing with Giannis, but Milwaukee has built a system that has worked really well for him (at least in the regular season).
Again... Jason Kidd was Giannis' first coach.
Wiggins went through 4 coaches. Is it just bad luck none of them got to him?
It's very easy to point to superstars being superstars with a wide range of coaches. It's a lot of conjecture to point to one particular coach having a ton to do with it... and probably merely coincidental.
I think that another positive trait of most superstars is that they are coachable. The quality of wanting to be the best seems to go hand and hand to seeking out good advice and taking it. To think that Kawhi came into the league and just inherently understood shot selection, defensive positioning and what he needed to work on to hone his skills would be silly. Great players have immense skill, drive to succeed, and listen to coaches. Without that 3rd quality you have Boogie Cousins.
thedoper wrote:I think that another positive trait of most superstars is that they are coachable. The quality of wanting to be the best seems to go hand and hand to seeking out good advice and taking it. To think that Kawhi came into the league and just inherently understood shot selection, defensive positioning and what he needed to work on to hone his skills would be silly. Great players have immense skill, drive to succeed, and listen to coaches. Without that 3rd quality you have Boogie Cousins.
Q12543 wrote:Ultimately I agree that the vast majority of credit for a player becoming a star rests with the player. No doubt.
But I do think Thibs was a match made in heaven for Butler and in that particular case his style and philosophy was of benefit to Jimmy. I'm not sure Jimmy is the same player he is now without Thibs in those early years.
Kawhi came into the San Antonio organization which was at the peak of its powers, surrounded by the likes of Pop, RC Buford, Parker, Duncan, and Manu. That had to have helped him. I wonder if KAT had been drafted by San Antonio at that time would he be a completely different player on defense? Perhaps so.
It's hard to point to any one thing with Giannis, but Milwaukee has built a system that has worked really well for him (at least in the regular season).
Again... Jason Kidd was Giannis' first coach.
Wiggins went through 4 coaches. Is it just bad luck none of them got to him?
It's very easy to point to superstars being superstars with a wide range of coaches. It's a lot of conjecture to point to one particular coach having a ton to do with it... and probably merely coincidental.
Let me state this one more time: *****I AGREE THAT THE PLAYER DESERVES THE VAST MAJORITY OF CREDIT FOR THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT INTO A STAR.****** :)
But I disagree that early NBA experiences in terms of the coaching, team mates, and organizational culture have zero to only very minimal impact. I do think those things help determine the trajectory of a Butler or Kawhi in a material way. It's not a 50% or 40% or 30% variable, but it's more than 0% and probably more than 10%.
My example is KAT. I think KAT becomes a two-way stud if he had entered the league with either Miami or San Antonio.
thedoper wrote:I think that another positive trait of most superstars is that they are coachable. The quality of wanting to be the best seems to go hand and hand to seeking out good advice and taking it. To think that Kawhi came into the league and just inherently understood shot selection, defensive positioning and what he needed to work on to hone his skills would be silly. Great players have immense skill, drive to succeed, and listen to coaches. Without that 3rd quality you have Boogie Cousins.
Agreed.
Again... it's about the player.
True. But a coachable player can get bad advice. The Wiggins case will be interesting if he's all dunks and 3s next season.
Q12543 wrote:Ultimately I agree that the vast majority of credit for a player becoming a star rests with the player. No doubt.
But I do think Thibs was a match made in heaven for Butler and in that particular case his style and philosophy was of benefit to Jimmy. I'm not sure Jimmy is the same player he is now without Thibs in those early years.
Kawhi came into the San Antonio organization which was at the peak of its powers, surrounded by the likes of Pop, RC Buford, Parker, Duncan, and Manu. That had to have helped him. I wonder if KAT had been drafted by San Antonio at that time would he be a completely different player on defense? Perhaps so.
It's hard to point to any one thing with Giannis, but Milwaukee has built a system that has worked really well for him (at least in the regular season).
Again... Jason Kidd was Giannis' first coach.
Wiggins went through 4 coaches. Is it just bad luck none of them got to him?
It's very easy to point to superstars being superstars with a wide range of coaches. It's a lot of conjecture to point to one particular coach having a ton to do with it... and probably merely coincidental.
Let me state this one more time: *****I AGREE THAT THE PLAYER DESERVES THE VAST MAJORITY OF CREDIT FOR THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT INTO A STAR.****** :)
But I disagree that early NBA experiences in terms of the coaching, team mates, and organizational culture have zero to only very minimal impact. I do think those things help determine the trajectory of a Butler or Kawhi in a material way. It's not a 50% or 40% or 30% variable, but it's more than 0% and probably more than 10%.
My example is KAT. I think KAT becomes a two-way stud if he had entered the league with either Miami or San Antonio.
Prodigies like LeBron are the exception.
But Towns was coached by Thibodeau... who coached Butler into a star.
--- Yes, I'm being slightly facetious with you. Apologies... But I'm trying to make a point. It's fine if you want to give coaches some credit, but it's so coincidental. And there are so many variables. "But it was a bad fit. Bad timing. Bad teammates. Bad season. Et al."
Maybe we look at it this way...
What superstars seemingly came out of nowhere with their 2nd or 3rd coach?
thedoper wrote:I think that another positive trait of most superstars is that they are coachable. The quality of wanting to be the best seems to go hand and hand to seeking out good advice and taking it. To think that Kawhi came into the league and just inherently understood shot selection, defensive positioning and what he needed to work on to hone his skills would be silly. Great players have immense skill, drive to succeed, and listen to coaches. Without that 3rd quality you have Boogie Cousins.
Agreed.
Again... it's about the player.
True. But a coachable player can get bad advice. The Wiggins case will be interesting if he's all dunks and 3s next season.
It'll be interesting. Only 12 games in... his three pointers were down and his long mid-range shots were up in GSW. His "do-shit" stats were up though.
[Note: Interesting article about the Wolves efforts under Saunders and Rosas to unlock Wiggins' potential early in the season. https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/nba-insider-tom-haberstroh/how-remodeled-wolves-are-unlocking-andrew-wiggins]
