Scott Skiles is Nearly Irrelevant, Like Most NBA Coaches

Scott Skiles stepped down from his post as Orlando Magic Head Coach this morning, much to the shock of the NBA world. Mixed reports have emerged following his statement on the departure, and the simplest explanation is an inability to work with Magic management, specifically GM Rob Hennigan. Some will mourn his loss after Orlando improved by 10 wins under his guidance.

But it’s about time to recognize Skiles for what he is — an avatar of the stale coaching mill  NBA teams are happy to sift through time after time.

14 seasons into his career as an NBA head coach, Skiles is mediocrity personified, registering a 478-480 record between stops in Phoenix, Chicago, Milwaukee and Orlando. His reputation precedes him at this point: Old-school, defensive-minded and quick to wear on his players. Skiles’ act tends to wear on his roster over time, with this swift departure representing a change from the usual ebb-and-flow of his tenures.

The “defensive-minded” portion of his profile is what teams usually prop up as a reason to hire him, which is fair enough if you choose to ignore the context of his defensive success. His best defenses with the Bulls had Ben Wallace in the pivot and Luol Deng on the wing, with contributions sprinkled in from players like a young Thabo Sefolosha. In Milwaukee, his best defenses were tied to a young Andrew Bogut — more recently the man in the middle for a title-winning defense — in addition to a versatile wing in Luc Mbah a Moute and Larry Sanders shot-blocking prowess off the bench.

This is to say what is also true of 95 percent of NBA coaches — they are only as good as their talent. In seasons like 2008-09, when Skiles lost Bogut to a stress-fracture injury for over half the season, the Bucks fell to 15th in defense. Skiles had a plethora of interesting defensive players in Aaron Gordon, Victor Oladipo and Elfrid Payton last season in Orlando, but the team ranked 16th in DRTG because Nic Vucevic is not who anyone would confuse as a plus defender.

It’s not an indictment of Skiles to call him an ordinary coach dependent on his talent, but it is  an indictment of the machine that continues to give candidates like him jobs. Coaches are certainly more than a record on a piece of paper, and there are countless examples of someone who struggled in one stop learning lessons from failure, using them to propel to success down the line. Not every coach who gets another opportunity should be tagged with the word “retread”, but the expectation that more chances will turn every coach into Bill Belichick is just as misguided.

Professional athletes continue to gain more equity in the decision-making process of NBA teams, and across sports generally for that matter. This is a byproduct of their growth as public figures as sports leagues have grown in demand to the point where 24-7 news networks are devoted to individual leagues. Kobe Bryant and LeBron James were on opposite ends of the spectrum in team success this season, but their grip on the trajectory of their franchises was clear even to casual observers. To see this while claiming NBA coaches outside of the top (and bottom) tier have a profound impact doesn’t seem to add up.

Knowing this, it’s a bit puzzling that teams aren’t more willing to put themselves out there and search for coaches off the beaten path. New isn’t always good; Fred Hoiberg was a clear downgrade in Chicago and Billy Donovan has done nothing to alleviate the Thunder’s iso-heavy concerns. But there’s plenty of evidence fresh blood can succeed when given a chance.

Boston shirked the conventional wisdom of “college coaches can’t make the jump” to the tune of a massive hit with Brad Stevens. First-time head coach Steve Clifford more than doubled Charlotte’s win total in his first season and has turned an oft-maligned defender in Al Jefferson into a workable state. Mike Budenholzer has the Hawks punching above their weight, certainly above the territory of 8th-seed purgatory they’d grown accustomed to.

As in other aspects of NBA team-building, the Spurs are leagues ahead of most of their competition, going so far as to add European legends (Ettore Messina) and the first full-time female assistant (Becky Hammon) to their ranks. Pop is the star of the show, but San Antonio never stops searching for an edge whether it stems from scouting, coaching or analytics. There’s a bit of “chicken or the egg” at play here — are the Spurs good because they take risks and try new things, or can they take risks and try new things because they are good? — but the guiding principle is one that has rewarded teams leaguewide.

Even coaches I would consider in the top echelon have been humbled during their careers. Rick Carlisle is referred to with terms like “wizard” and “genius” by many of basketball’s devotees but it was only after his firing that the mid-2000s Pistons were able to win a title, under the stewardship of a coach (Larry Brown) whose NBA record after leaving those Pistons was 111-163. Carlisle has earned his accolades, but his trajectory serves to remind that talent is king.

There tends to be a mocking of aversion to risk as it pertains to roster-building, and I think the focus on sustainable upside there is spot on. But while the idea of a “known quantity” in a coach can be appealing, NBA teams get off too easy continuing to sell the same coaches to fans over and over again. The Scott Skiles of the world make little difference without the requisite players to push them forward, and I’d rather see more swings for coaching home runs.