One early-season NBA story has been the Milwaukee Bucks’ defense, traditionally a strength with Brook Lopez and Giannis Antetokounmpo, starting off as one of the worst defenses in the NBA after the departure of Jrue Holiday. After a win over the Knicks last week in which the Bucks reverted toward their old style of defense, new head coach Adrian Griffin said, “Sometimes as coaches we are too smart for our own selves…[A] couple players came to me — I won't disclose — but they wanted Brook deeper in the drop and I was smart enough to listen to them. It paid off tonight.”
Most coaches worry about players questioning their leadership or their instructions. Many will double down rather than listen to players because they do not want to seem weak or like they are waffling. For a first-time head coach attempting to establish his competency and authority and make his own mark on the team, acquiescing to players is a difficult decision with potential negatives and downsides. Many coaches think that if they listen to players or change at the behest of the players, the players will not stop questioning them and will ask or demand to change more things. Most coaches crave control, and this sets a precedent where they relinquish their control to their players.
We trailed on the road at half-time in my first game in Estonia. I barely knew a few of the players because they practiced with the professional team and did not attend all of our practices. My defensive style was to ice the side on-ball screens, but the opponents did a good job of running off a screen to receive the ball in motion and fly directly into the on-ball screen. Our defenders struggled to maneuver around the off-ball screen, which we trailed, and recover to get high enough to ice the screen, and our post defenders guarding the screener struggled to move from on the ball or denying the pass high on the court to a low position to defend the drive when the on-ball defender was able to ice the screen.
As we walked out onto the court after the halftime break, two players — our 23-year-old veteran and captain and our 17-year-old most talented player — stopped me and asked if we could switch defenses. They just did not think we would be successful continuing to ice the screens. It was not a lack of effort or a lack of understanding, but a poor strategy for the opponent’s plays. I asked their preference, they told me, and we changed for the second half. Prior to the game, my assistant who was far more familiar with the league, suggested we would lose by 20. We won the game and had a great start to the season, far exceeding expectations (top eight).
We adjusted our defense at practice the next week, moving away from icing, but attempting to be more disruptive than the basic high hedge we used to get through the first game. I was unfamiliar with the league, so the first few games were a learning experience for me. The defensive system that works in one league will not always work in another.
Griffin added, “As a [former] player, it helps me relate to the players because the players are in the trenches. We watch it on film, but they live it. The players aren't always correct with their assessment, but I think it's wise to at least listen to them.”
I don’t think it has anything to do with being a former player. I imagine in the NBA it helps, especially for a rookie head coach, but listening to players requires confidence and humility more than playing experience. A coach needs the confidence not to worry about losing the players’ confidence by changing or listening to the players and the humility to be willing to listen to players and know they might know or see things I as the coach do not. I start from the beginning of the season asking questions; one of my initial struggles in Estonia was the reluctance of players to answer, due to the language barrier, a more reserved nature, and previous coaches who were unconcerned with players’ feelings and opinions.
My experience in Estonia was no different than my other experiences. I asked players their preference for play calls out of timeouts as a 25-year-old professional head coach in Sweden. I allowed the captain to change defenses on her own as a junior-college head coach, and I almost never call plays, whether coaching professionals or 15-year-olds. I trust players and make that clear. I am unconcerned with whether or not players question my coaching or knowledge of the game. My goal is to help the players and part of developing players and teams is to develop players’ leadership and intelligence, and that does not occur if communication only goes in one direction.
As for the actual defense, I tend to agree with Griffin, despite the early-season struggles. The Bucks’ defense traditionally has been very good, among the NBA’s best in the regular season, but they have been upset in the playoffs every season except for the championship season, I believe. Now, when a team’s regular season record is regularly in the top two or three, it is more likely to be upset than a team who underachieves in the regular season and has fewer postseason expectations, such as last season’s Miami Heat. However, as I am writing in my current book on defense, NBA offenses are too good now, and NBA players are too skilled, for defenses to be predictable and conservative. The drop coverage is a conservative defense, and it works most of the time with the right personnel, which the Bucks’ possess. However, it likely is not sufficient, which I imagine is Griffin’s reasoning for implementing a more aggressive style of defense.
Ultimately, the Bucks will be in the playoffs. Are a few early-season losses spent experimenting and attempting to add versatility to the defense that detrimental? Is home-court advantage that important that teams must play every game to win, attempting to amass as many wins as possible in the regular season? Is increased defensive versatility in the playoffs worth some early struggles?
I would argue the struggle is worth the potential benefits for a team like Milwaukee that is certain to make the playoffs. Teams with talent advantages have this advantage; they can use the regular season to improve, whereas teams fighting just to make the playoffs have to fight to win every game because nothing is assured. I would prefer to improve all season, adding new ways to defend and developing younger players, and enter the playoffs as the #3 seed than win more games, peak early, be less flexible, lack depth, and be the #1 seed.
Early struggles with a new coach are difficult. Early wins help to establish credibility and confidence, especially when making systematic changes to a successful team. Taking over bad teams is much easier, as everyone acknowledges there are problems. Good or borderline great teams may not need much change to maintain their near greatness; the returning Bucks’ players may attribute last season’s playoff loss to bad luck, not the system, and believe one or two minor tweaks, or acquiring Dame Lillard, is sufficient change.
There is a balance between listening to players and relying on a good, solid system with which players are comfortable and forcing players outside their comfort zones in the pursuit of a great system. I always listen and attempt to communicate with players, especially in the middle of a game. However, I trust my vision for the long term, and the challenge, especially as a new coach, is to create the player buy-in for the new system.
Note:
I found the article about Griffin and the Bucks through the Basketball Intelligence newsletter. Go here for more information on a daily newsletter with all of the best links from the NBA. This is not a paid sponsorship; the newsletter was started by my friend Ray LeBov and I scroll through it nearly every day:
The irony is no one worries about the credibility you lose by “sticking to your guns” in a situation what you’re doi by clearly isn’t working and the players themselves see it. Refusing to listen under those circumstances doesn’t reduce players questioning of your authority, it just forces it underground. If you actually listen and take their input into account, it actually increases your credibility on those occasions you do decide to stick with a decision, because the players are more likely to hear you out in return. Listening breeds mutual respect.
I watched the head coach (Georgie Gulliver) of Ivybridge rugby club do an excellent job of listening to her 'senior' group of players before their match yesterday. It was a pleasure to watch the genuine interactions and discussions.
Georgie listened to those who have to play and make decisions under pressure on the pitch. She came back with some suggestions and guidelines that were agreed upon. The players looked decisive and confident in their play.