Rating WNBA Coaches: The Expected Wins Method

One of two challenges given to me by the author of the Rethinking Basketball blog was to rank which coaches have been the best coaches of the WNBA based on the method used by John Hollinger.

Hollinger - who is mysteriously listed as "Dave Hollinger" in the article - uses a very simple method. Figure out how many games a team should win and compare the actual number of wins to that number. If a team exceeds the expected wins, we credit those wins to the coach. If the team fails to meet the mark, we debit the coach.

The first problem becomes determining the number of expected wins for a team. Hollinger uses the following method:

expected winning percentage for a team = (0.25)*(winning percentage of season before last) + (0.5)*(winning percentage from last season) + (0.25)*(.500)

Note that 1/4 of the formula above is based on a .500 record. This serves two purposes - to give the coach of a sub-.500 team something to strive for, and to give the coach of a winning team a reward for continuing to win.

Hollinger examined all coaches that had five complete seasons of experience. However, the WNBA presents a problem with its multiple expansions. The formula does not handle the case of a coach coaching in the first or second year of a franchise's existence. It's probably a good idea that the formula fails, since it's more difficult to judge a coach given the dearth of talent in those first two years.

For example, Marynell Meadors loses three complete years - the first two years with the Charlotte Sting in 1997-98 and the first year with the Atlanta Dream in 2008. Van Chancellor's first two years with the Houston Comets can't effectively be judged as Houston was an "expansion team". Who is to say that he did a great job? Maybe the talent just fell into his lap.

Therefore, the list of coaches below:

a) have coached five complete seasons in the WNBA, where
b) any season which is one of the first two seasons of a new franchise isn't counted.

This gives us six coaches to look at who meet the criteria: the following lists the coaches name, the total number of wins above expected over the number of seasons evaluated, the number of seasons evaluated, and the wins above expected per year.

Hughes 23 7 3.29
Laimbeer 18 6 3.00
Donovan 13 6 2.17
Thibault 8 5 1.60
M. Cooper 9 6 1.50
Chancellor 0 8 0.00
Adubato -1 8 -0.13

For example, let's look at the leader, Dan Hughes. Hughes started out by finishing Marynell Meador's 1999 season with the Charlotte Sting where Meadors was fired midway through. We won't count that season. Hughes was let go by the Sting after that season anyway, replaced with T. R. Dunn.

Hughes then shows up in Cleveland in 2000 and coaches his first complete season. The franchise has now existed for at least two years, so we can use the formula.

expected wins for Cleveland Rockers in 2000 = (0.25)(1998 win percentage) + (0.5)(1999 win percentage) + (0.25)(.500 win percentage) = 0.40125.

The Rockers played 32 games in 2000, which means that the Rockers were expected to win 32 * 0.40125 = 12.84 games, or 13 games. Hughes won 17 games that year, giving him a +4 in expected wins.

Now let's look at Van Chancellor. He started coaching with the Comets in 1997, but we can't start evaluating his seasons until 1999 since the formula doesn't work for any season which is one of the first two in the franchise history.

expected wins for Houston Comets in 1999 = (0.25)(1997 win percentage) + (0.5)*(1998 win percentage) = (0.25)(.500 win percentage) = 0.73575.

The Comets played 32 games in 1999, which means that the Comets were expected to win 32 * 0.73575 = 23.544 games, or 24 games. Chancellor won 26 games that year, giving him a +2 in expected wins.

(* * *)

Do the results meet the smell test? In other words, if I had asked you to order these coaches from best or worst, would the answers be what you expected?

Seeing Hughes and Laimbeer in the 1-2 positions might satisfy some readers, but others might think that Laimbeer belongs on top. Donovan, Thibault and Michael Cooper at least have positive values in expected wins per year, lending credence to the belief that those three coaches are at least better than average. (Some Sparks fans might dispute that about Cooper, though.)

Van Chancellor coming out with zero expected wins above average per year is a bit shocking. Was the Comets dynasty more a function of its players than its coach? Chancellor doesn't get any credit in the metric for the first two years of the Comets performance. Richie Adubato is the only coach on the list with a negative value in expected wins per year, and both he and Chancellor are the only coaches on the list that are no longer coaching.

Dream Could Match Record Tonight Against Shock

Some info regarding tonight's Shock-Dream Game:

* The Dream played the Shock three times last year, and lost all of them. The first was a home game on May 23rd where the Dream lost 88-76. The Dream led that game 45-32 at the half, and then the Shock woke up, beating the Dream by double-digits in both the third and fourth quarters. Our leading scorers were Betty Lennox (21), Camille Little (13), and Ivory Latta (10), none of whom are with the franchise anymore.

* The second game was a 21-point loss at home, 97-76. Ivory Latta had a 26-point game against her former team along with 10 rebounds. Those were both career highs for Latta. So why did we lose? Probably because Betty Lennox had zero points and four personal fouls.

* The third loss was a 100-92 loss in Detroit. We managed to get it to within 96-92 but with 41 seconds left, Deanna Nolan scored a jumper to make the score 98-92. Still a two-possession game, but Tamera Young had the ball stolen by Alexis Hornbuckle and the Shock converted it.

* The Shock went on to a WNBA championship. The Dream finished at the bottom of the league and almost set a record for futility with a 4-30 season.

* Since those awful days, Atlanta is 3-4 in 2009. Detroit is 1-4 and has Cheryl Ford fighting off the effects of an injury and Kara Braxton still suspended for a DUI. With Plenette Pierson out for the season and with Braxton suspended, they're playing with nine players and new arrival Sherill Baker.

* Furthermore, Trader Bill is gone. That leaves Rick Mahorn as the Shock's coach. I don't know if Meadors is better than Mahorn but Lin Dunn depantsed Mahorn in front of a paying crowd in Indianapolis, coach-wise.

* If the Dream win tonight, it will be their fourth win of the season, tying their entire total from 2008.

In short, if the stars could ever be aligned for a Dream win, it looks like they're lined up. Of course, I thought that about the Liberty, and look what happened.

Coaching: The 'Five and Out' Law

With Bill Laimbeer leaving the WNBA Detroit Shock, all kinds of theories have been posited as to "why". Theories such as:

a) Laimbeer has a NBA/NCAA men's basketball job lined up, or he will soon.
b) Laimbeer wanted to go out of the WNBA as a champion
c) The Detroit Shock might not be around next year, and Bill wanted to leave a sinking ship.

However, I was thinking that there might be another explanation.

There was a book called "Up The Organization" written in the 1970s by a businessman named Robert Townsend. Townsend's book is a nice little manual of business maxims that an interesting read even if you're not a businessman. Townsend had a strong believe that five years was the "sale by" date for the leadership position in any organization:

Nobody should be chief executive officer of anything for more than five or six years. By then he's stale, bored, and utterly dependent on his own cliches - though they may have been revolutionary ideas when he first brought them to the office.

Also, decisions aren't based on consensus, but on one man's view of what's best for the organization. And that means even the best decisions will make some people unhappy. After five or six years a good chief will have absorbed all the hostility he can take, and his decisions will be reflecting a desire to avoid pain rather than to do what's right.

There's a lot of sense in the above. Think of yourself as being in Bill Laimbeer's large shoes. The life cycle of coaching is the same - preseason, season, (hopefully) postseason and off-season. The mechanical aspects aren't difficult to manage, but people management is the heart of the pro coaching job.

You come into the job with tried and true motivational techniques you've either picked up during your years of playing the sport, or you develop your own. The first few years, they work for the simple reason that no one has heard any of them before. (Laimbeer took an 0-10 team and led it to a championship in the following year.)

After five years, however, the tropes get stale. You end up giving the same rookie speech year after year after year, and the vets tell your rookies, "Listen, Coach is full of @#$@# about 'x' and 'y'." You attempt to motivate your stars but after five years, there are no more buttons left to push. They've figured you out. They know when to listen, and think they know when to tune you out...and over time, they start tuning you out more and more and more.

They're tired of you.
You're tired of them. And maybe it's time for you to go when you have nothing more to say.

This isn't to say that you can't have a long and successful professional coaching career. (See: Jackson, Phil.) However, as time progresses it's tough to bring something new to the table.

In college, this isn't a problem, and long careers seem to be much more the rule than the exception. Pat Summitt can play the same mind games with her freshmen in 2008 that she tried in 1998, because her motivational methods will always be "fresh" to a team of neophytes.

Look at the WNBA's big winners in coaching. I think the only coach who coached as long as Laimbeer who was as successful as Trader Bill was Van Chancellor, and even he knew when to wrap it up and move on. The other challengers for WNBA coaching wins have coached at more than one franchise, where they can bring their act to a new audience (so to speak).

Maybe Trader Bill is smarter than anyone is giving him credit for. Maybe this was the perfect decision to make. And Laimbeer knows that he'll always be welcome anywhere in the WNBA. You might hate him, but trust me, after he starts winning games for your team you won't hate him so much anymore.

Bill Laimbeer to Leave Shock

According to Mel Greenberg at Philly.com - a man who's about as knowledgable about women's hoops as you can get, being a member of the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame - Bill Laimbeer is about to leave his job with the Shock. Expect an announcement from the Shock front office (both of them) at 3 pm Eastern Time.

He will be replaced by his assistant coach Rick Mahorn.

The big question: does Bill have something lined up after this, perhaps in the NBA? If he does, the mystery is solved. If he doesn't, expect a metric ton of speculation to ensue.

Laimbeer Implies Shock is Targeted by WNBA

Mark Medina of the Los Angeles Times writes about how the Shock is coping with the incident where Plenette Pierson was reinjured.

Laimbeer never holds back an opinion. As far as he's concerned, Tina did it on purpose. Furthermore, with players like Ford and Pierson injured and Braxton suspended, Laimbeer claims that the league isn't allowing him to replace any injured players with temp contracts.

From the article:

Laimbeer shared similar skepticism about the league. Consider the following exchange:

Laimbeer: "We asked the league if we could replace players and they said not the Shock. You have to be down to six or seven."

Reporter: "They said eight."

Laimbeer: "They won’t let us. That’s the way they are."

Reporter: "Why do you think that?"

Laimbeer: "We’re the Shock."

UPDATE: The Shock got to sign Britany Miller to a replacement contract. The squeaky wheel....

With Regrets

On the "WNBA Birthdays" thread at RebKell, I regret that I overlooked the birthday of one of the greatest human beings ever to walk the face of our planet.

Bill Laimbeer

Happy 52nd Birthday "Trader Bill"!

Tasha Humphrey Comes to Camp "Unable to Perform"

From the Washington Mystics website:

Tasha Humphrey is not listed on the official training camp roster because she reported to camp unable to perform. www.washingtonmystics.com.

It sounds vaguely sexual, doesn't it? They should have chosen another euphemism, or at least have been more specific.

I just wonder if Trader Bill fleeced the Mystics.

Finding the Pony in the Horse Manure

There's an old joke about an optimist in hell. He's trapped up to his nose in a room full of horse manure. Satan walks by, gloating, and ask the optimist how he likes hell.

"It's great!" says the optimist. "With all this horse manure I just know there's got to be a pony in here somewhere!"

There's an article by Steve Murray, a journalist in Honolulu who calls himself "HawaiiHotAir" who wrote an article called WNBA: A Coaching Death Sentence. He never explicitly states that coaching the WNBA is a death sentence anywhere in the article - I guess that you're supposed to be in the know about that.

Mr. Murray appears to be involved in a deep spiritual struggle. As a journalist, he wants to be as even handed as possible; but since he's on a Fox Sports Blog, he wants to let Mama's Little Chauvinist run wild. The only loser in this battle is the reader; Mr. Murray never comes to a conclusion whether the WNBA are good triers or are girls with cooties.

I did learn something, believe it or not. It appears that Bill Laimbeer, coach of the Shock, let his contract with the Shock expire after this year. He was very close to quitting, but is staying with the Shock on a verbal agreement. I don't think I read that anywhere, not even on RebKell.

See? Sometimes when you dig through manure, you can find that pony!