I'm kind of confused by your post. You don't care about her lack of experience but then you talk about how bad Kidd, Fisher, etc. are because of their lack of experience. What makes Hammon a better hire, resume wise? Besides the fact that it's for an assistant job.
I know as much about her background as I do any other potential assistant coach hire. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.
In some respects. I don't think they're so different that understanding of the game can't be transferred from one to the other with some effort, of which she has supposedly put in some, having already worked with Popovich and the players.
"Besides the fact that it's for an assistant job." So, you mean, besides the main difference? Assistant positions are specifically for inexperienced but promising (to the person hiring) candidates...the expectation is that they're not finished products but can contribute while continuing to learn about coaching. Head coaches are at the top of the (coaching) hierarchy. That single point that you brushed off completely changes the situation.
Look, when the Blazers moved Kaleb Canales to be our head coach, that was totally different! He had a few years experience filming for our guys first!
You can question it, I'm all for that. But to say that "just because she's a woman" being the only reason and the SOLE reason, that is not cool, IMO. If you say "I don't know if she can coach the men's sport because of the differences she learned from the women's basketball" is questioning not her gender, but the differences that really DO lie between the games. I hope that makes sense.
I brought up Kidd/Fisher/Kerr because you said she doesn't have any experience playing mens basketball, and I'm merely saying that guys who played aren't necessarily good coaches. Basketball is basketball, and in my opinion, people with a background in coaching make better coaches than people with a background in playing. Also, it's a HUGE difference hiring someone as an assistant coach, rather than a head coach. The HC is the big cheese. He makes all the major decisions. Giving someone a HC position without any coaching experience at all is a major mistake. There have been a few successful stories, but overall most head coaches start out as, at least, an assistant or a scout.
If a team hired a male assistant, who had extensive basketball experience but not in the NBA, except as an intern, no one would question the hire. The Spurs hired a female assistant, who has extensive basketball experience but not in the NBA, except as an intern, but people question the hire. And insist it has nothing to do with sexism.
Personally, I wish there were more coaches that had a lot of coaching experience. So I wish the first woman coach in the NBA was someone with an extensive background in coaching. I find that coaches who have spent time working their way up the chain (high school, college, NBA) usually have the best minds for the game. Most of the people who jump directly from playing into coaching, usually aren't very good. They might have the leadership quality that a coach requires, but they don't seem to have the x's and o's that the really good coaches possess. With that said, the current trend in the NBA seems to be former players starting as assistant coaches and then working their way into a head coaching gig, so I really see no problem at all with a woman taking that same route.
Popovich wouldn't make this hire unless he knew that the players would respond to her coaching. You don't hire a coach that players don't respect, man, woman, or transgendered. Even more reason to like the Spurs, who I believe is what Olshey envisions as his template for the Blazers.
Maybe so, but it's not like the Bucks hired her. If Pop believes in her, I'm guessing it's a good hire.
I think there are two "legitimate" paths to head coaching: one is working your way up through high school and college. Sometimes that involves assistant coaching, but not always. Often, someone starts out as a head coach at a small high school, gets an offer to be head coach at a larger high school, moves on to head coach at a tiny college, etc. The other is to work as an intern or assistant coach at the pro level and work your way up. This one generally involves ex-players because you need some basketball experience somewhere in order to even get your foot in the door, but if you can impress a team enough with your knowledge of the game, I don't have a problem with it. Teams aren't charities...they're only going to hire you if they think you can contribute. Of course, some teams offer ex-players with no coaching experience head coaching opportunities, which I think is silly. Obviously, someone like Kidd impressed the Nets, but I think that's an example of bad process. When you're hiring for the top of your hierarchy, you shouldn't just be looking to be impressed in the interview...there should be some coaching bonafides in addition.
The 2012 trade deadline for the Blazers was very unlike the Spurs. Maybe Pritchard had that model in mind, but since he was fired, the rotating chair of coach and GM seemed like something the Spurs would never do.
With all the super-experienced female basketball coaches, why did Popovich hire a young cute one? Being younger than Duncan, and only 4 months older than Ginobili, can't help. A grayhair would not be self-conscious around the players, having long since made the transitions Hammon must now surmount. An old bat would be MUCH smoother. I was hoping Hammon's gay, but no, she actually was romantically involved with Tony Parker. What a terrible hire. Keep her out of the locker room! http://terezowens.com/tony-parker-dating-wnbas-becky-hammon/ http://www.basketball-reference.com/wnba/players/h/hammobe01w.html (Scroll down.)
