The league announced on Tuesday that Steve Kerr was selected as the NBA’s Coach of the Year. Kerr missed the first 43 games of the season while recovering from multiple operations on his back, but it appears voters were willing to overlook that in light of Golden State’s 73-9 record overall, the best in the history of the league. The Warriors adapted seamlessly to his absence, going 39-4 under acting head coach Luke Walton, who was also eligible for the award.
Kerr, 50, maintained a consistent presence around the team in practices while he was recovering, and it was clear the relaxed tone he set during last year’s championship season remained. He finished second in last year’s voting to Mike Budenholzer. Golden State went 34-5 to close the regular season after Kerr returned in January, though a knee injury that will sideline Stephen Curry for at least the next two weeks threatens Golden State’s bid for a repeat championship.
This brings me to the topic for today: Should Steve Kerr have won Coach of the Year?
There’s no denying the success Kerr has had since arriving in Golden State, and it is certainly a credit to him and his staff that the team seemingly didn’t lose a beat despite his early-season absence. But is coaching under half a season’s worth of games, no matter how successful the team was, worthy of snagging such a prestigious award? The success the Warriors had under Walton’s command certainly lends weight to the argument that Kerr wasn’t necessarily deserving of the accolade, but it’s arguable that it was his system and culture that allowed the team to continue to be successful in his absence.
But what say you? Are you OK with Kerr winning the award, or do you feel another coach was more deserving? Take to the comments section to lend your support to Kerr’s selection, or if you are on the other side of the argument, share with us whom you believe should have won the award this season. We look forward to what you have to say.