Nice find; it certainly got me thinking.
I agree with Chris Perkins that coaches are sometimes not attributed their proper value. But his argument (compare the head coach with his roster, player by player) doesn't make sense. For instance: Larry Brown is a good coach. When I compare the roster he took over while with the Knicks, there isn't a single player I would have chosen over him, yet the team did horrible. Who's to blame? Brown is great, but he and the GM (Isaiah) were not on the same page at all. Meanwhile, Brown tried bending a little with Marbury but really neither one would change (and the coach should never have to change, though he does need to adjust, there's a difference). The dismal result can't just be pinned on the coach because the roster was a disaster.
And what about the Laker's (supposed) fantastic four? That was an interesting dilemma. Only someone like Jackson could hold those huge ego's from exploding for so long, but he would not bend his triangle offense to let Payton be himself, reducing him into a square peg in a triangle hole. So yeah, Jackson made sure the team got to the finals (with an injured mailman and kobe facing legal issues off the court), but then a real Team dismantled them (notice who the coach was?)
Coaches have to worry about egos and injuries and wins. But they make millions of dollars doing it, so I'm not much sympathetic about their plights. I try to understand what each coach means to their particular team. For instance, I don't think Dunleavy is a "top tier" coach (that's where you'll find Jackson, Brown, Jerry Sloan, Greg Popovich, and maybe Pat Riley and Jeff Van Gundy). However, he does more for the organization beyond his job description, so he proves valuable in that manner.