"Budenholzer is a good coach" is one of those weird conventional wisdoms that doesn't survive even a cursory revenue. It is based on the 22 win jump the Hawks made under Budenholzer between 13-14 and 14-15. That jump happened in a large part because Horford played a full season and Schroder matured into a very productive 6th man. The rest of the team at the time, Teague, Millsap, Carroll and Korver, all in or near their prime, was a pretty good team. Not a threat to win the title, but a team that should have gotten 50+ wins. Hawks had a 60-22 season, Budenholzer wins coach of the year, and everything thinks he is a genius. The team got worse each of the next three seasons, despite adding Dwight Howard and Tim Hardaway. It wasn't Budenholzer's fault the Hawks decided to tank in 17-18, but he did win only 24 games that season. So why did the Bucks hand him the keys?
He has had arguably the best team in the NBA the last 5 years, with maybe the exception of last year after Middleton got hurt. He has a championship, but after that, a first round and two second round exits. That is brutal given the talent he has had.
I am trying to think of a coach that did less with more over an extended period than Budenholzer. Rick Adelman of the late 80's/early 90's Trail Blazers wasn't great in big games, but he still made two NBA Finals and a Conference Finals over a three year stretch, although the prime of that team ended when a lot of the players were still pretty young. He registers because he had two teams underachieve, doing it again at Sacramento 10 years later with the Webber/Stojakovic teams, only making one conference finals despite having one of the best teams in the NBA for a four year stretch.
