The Evil Empire Revisited: Lakers General thread

[DannyDarwinism]

As opposed to the guy who never won a title with fewer than three hall of famers or in a league with more than 9 teams or without the second best player in NBA history.

Of course, you know how the Celtics got Russell and the rest of those hall of famers, and therein lies the difference. It's hard to even gauge how Red was as a coach because he was so good at buying the groceries. He's Buss + Phil. Only better.

That said, I think Phil deserves a lot more credit than he gets around here. There's nobody better at managing egos and getting the most out of difficult personalities- Jordan, Kobe, Rodman, Shaq, Artest- those guys would eat up a lesser coach. That's a big part of coaching in the modern NBA and one of the reasons we love Doc. From reading Red's biography, he certainly understood the importance of the psychological aspect of coaching, and in that regard, Phil is without a doubt the gold standard in the modern NBA.

It's kind of too bad, the NBA is more fun with his smarmy face around.

 

[Grimace-HS]

As opposed to the guy who never won a title with fewer than three hall of famers or in a league with more than 9 teams or without the second best player in NBA history. I didnt realize the 09 & 10 titles were such a concession to the Lakers, perhaps you just feel much more strongly about the greatness of Kobe Bryant than I do.

Phil is very impressed with Phil and the Lakers are probably smart not to spend 3 times as much to get 1.5 times the coach and recognize that D'Antoni is a much better fit for this team than big chief Triangle.
....................................

I should probably clarify; I wasn't intending that Phil had no talent at all as a coach, but it is just difficult to really gauge the impact of a coach when you have such talented players and only five on the court at a time. I'm not a Kobe fan, but do recognize that he is a very good player (and definitely was in his prime during their titles). And barring injuries, I would say that the C's would have been very poised to take either '09 and/or '10...Phil is good, probably very good...and was secretly hoping he would get the job to see what happened. Although a Phil-led Lakers versus the Heat in the finals would have been tough to watch, although the story lines would have been fun.

And I hesitated adding the Red reference, and probably shouldn't have in hindsight....different eras and even different total roles (see below).

Of course, you know how the Celtics got Russell and the rest of those hall of famers, and therein lies the difference. It's hard to even gauge how Red was as a coach because he was so good at buying the groceries. He's Buss + Phil. Only better.

That said, I think Phil deserves a lot more credit than he gets around here. There's nobody better at managing egos and getting the most out of difficult personalities- Jordan, Kobe, Rodman, Shaq, Artest- those guys would eat up a lesser coach. That's a big part of coaching in the modern NBA and one of the reasons we love Doc. From reading Red's biography, he certainly understood the importance of the psychological aspect of coaching, and in that regard, Phil is without a doubt the gold standard in the modern NBA.

It's kind of too bad, the NBA is more fun with his smarmy face around.

These two points are great...with Red serving as an architect as well as coach may have muddied the ability to distinguish the actual coaching impact as the players were so good, but also showed that other level of involvement. It is like BB now with the Pats...with his hand having been involved in each level of this team for such a long duration, it is more of an organizational impact as well as coaching. Where one ends and the other begins is not always measurable, but the ultimate goal of winning is the result if executed well.

And the psychological impact is also good and I refer to Francona as another example. It would be much easier to measure the coaching if we could get down to 20 or so teams and have more teams with 2-3 solid impact players, although this digresses. I'm sure Phil will be on the bench again at some point, but happy we have Doc and wouldn't change that.

 

[wutang112878]

There is obviously the huge difference of Red actually being the GM and coach, thats a huge difference but not completely relevant to the coach discussion.

Red summarizes this Phil coach debate the best, first a quote from a Wojo article:

“He’s never tried building a team and teaching the fundamentals,” Auerbach said. “When he’s gone in there, they’ve been ready-made for him. It’s just a matter of putting his system in there. They don’t worry about developing players if they’re not good enough. They just go get someone else.”

Then this is a great read with some great quotes, but the relevant ones are:

ESPN.com: Besides the ability to communicate, is there anything else that makes him [Phil] a great coach?

Auerbach: There's no question in my mind that he is a great coach. Because I've seen guys who get great teams on paper and they butcher it up, you see?

If you have some great potential players, there are two things: One, you help make them great. Two, you devise a method of play that is suitable to their talent. He did that.

For example, suppose I had a center like Bill Russell and a point guard like Bob Cousy and I played a half-court game. You know, like Philadelphia did. Chamberlain would get the rebound, make a lot of motions, and they'd wait for him to get upcourt. Now suppose I played that kind of slow-down game with Russell and Cousy. I don't think we would have won.

Phil Jackson has that knowledge of what is best for his players and has the ability to communicate. He's in control. That's the whole thing. He's in control, they listen to him and that's more than half the battle right there. You see a lot of ballplayers – you watch during timeout in college and the pro – the coach is talking, talking, talking and their minds are way the hell someplace else.

Red admits he is a great coach, but hits the most important point that as a coach he was always putting on the finishing touches to a team, he never took a core of players [like the Bulls during the Doug Collins years] and built that core up to a championship level. What they did is just fundamentally different.

Also, if we are going to compare them on qty of titles, we need to remember that Red retired and they won 2 more titles with Russell as the coach. Red could have probably won those as well and Phil would be behind him.

 

[Grimace-HS]

.........Red summarizes this Phil coach debate the best, first a quote from a Wojo article:

........................

Then this is a great read with some great quotes, but the relevant ones are......

Thanks wutang for the information and article link; a very interesting read....it is very much an "apples to oranges" comparison in many ways. Thanks!

 

[nighthob]

I think my opinion of PJ was formed by the two Finals series where the coaching would have made a difference, in 2004 & 2008, and both times Jackson got pantsed. I guess in '04 you could say that it was Larry Brown, another all time great, but in '08 it was Doc, a coach that people liked to make fun of once upon a time. (And in both cases it was his not having anything fall back on offensively as both defenses were aggressively attacking the triangle and it kept breaking down, in both series Jackson's bewildered sideline interviews spoke volumes about him.)

 

[wutang112878]

I agree with this assessment of Phil, he wasnt an great strategy guy, he was a manage egos and mentally challenge players guy. Sort of like the Parcells the coach not the GM, of the NBA. Parcells was a great motivator and commanded respect but never did much without Belichick beside him.

Strategy aside, I dont think the Kobe/Shaq teams probably dont win the 2nd and 3rd title without Phil managing the ego situation there and I think he also helped a lot with the 1st one challenging Shaq to actually play defense that first year in LA. While his faults certainly cost him a few titles, I think his strengths got him a few as well.

 

[collings94]

Is there really a big difference between Phil and KC Jones? All both guys needed to do was roll the basket of balls out each day and make sure everyone on the team didn't kill each other. KC was blessed with a much less combustible group of players, but was also stuck with horrible luck (Bias's death, injuries to Bird and McHale) while Phil had some great luck (Portland self-combusting, Refs taking over in the Sacramento series, Never having to face an elite big man in the NBA Finals, every Western Confrence contender in the mid-90's collapse, like Houston, Seattle, Phoenix, allowing a team with two good players to make back-to-back finals appearences).

 

[bowiac]

Is there really a big difference between Phil and KC Jones? All both guys needed to do was roll the basket of balls out each day and make sure everyone on the team didn't kill each other. KC was blessed with a much less combustible group of players, but was also stuck with horrible luck (Bias's death, injuries to Bird and McHale) while Phil had some great luck (Portland self-combusting, Refs taking over in the Sacramento series, Never having to face an elite big man in the NBA Finals, every Western Confrence contender in the mid-90's collapse, like Houston, Seattle, Phoenix, allowing a team with two good players to make back-to-back finals appearences).

Nine titles.

I don't know if Lakers fans read this forum, but this is reaching NYYFans levels.

 

[fairlee76]

Nine titles.

I don't know if Lakers fans read this forum, but this is reaching NYYFans levels.

How dare you discount Jones's work in the American Basketball League! He had to develop (female) players!

 

[collings94]

I'm just saying that they coached in similar situations that relied more on character management then it did on teaching and strategy. KC Jones is a better comparison to Phil as a coach then Red is.

And who could forget the job KC did at Brandeis?

 

[Tony C]

Nine titles.

I don't know if Lakers fans read this forum, but this is reaching NYYFans levels.

No kidding...yikes! I"m a Laker hater and not a Phil fan, but the idea that he's not an all-time great coach is laughable.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I am not going to say that Phil Jackson isn't a good coach. What I castigate and irritates me is that his major ability is to find the team with the best talent around (or at least one of the top 2-3) and coach that team. I am irritated by that, because what fascinates me about sports is the journey from mediocrity to excellence. Buying yourself a championship-caliber team and then self-congratulating yourself for being a winner I find meaningless. This also explains my aversion to the Miami Heat.

Counting championships is like counting wins for pitchers. It's sort of bullshit. The true measure of a coach's ability is how farther he takes the personnel he's got. This is why guys like Larry Brown or Popovich are going to get more respect from me than Phil Jackson.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Btw, since a Voulgaris post was used to start this threat, I remember reading him in another forum (or was it SOSH?) criticizing Jackson for not recognizing the importance of the three-point corner shot and adopting the faulty tactic of leaving opponents open for corner three under the wrong theory that this would lead to better transition opportunities.

Guess what? It didn't and Phil basically was conceding the most efficient shot in basketball, while his players waited in vain to go on the fast-break....

 

[bowiac]

Voulgaris said that on the BS Report with Jay Kang a while back, yeah. He also mentioned Phil stopped doing that.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I am not going to say that Phil Jackson isn't a good coach. What I castigate and irritates me is that his major ability is to find the team with the best talent around (or at least one of the top 2-3) and coach that team. I am irritated by that, because what fascinates me about sports is the journey from mediocrity to excellence.

Then why did Phil return in 2006? If the bolded is true, you must have really appreciated the way Phil and Mitch Kupchack re-built the Lakers after 2004/5 debacles into a team that could win multiple titles and make three consecutive finals appearances. You must certainly have relished how Phil developed Bynum and Odom's game and got Kobe Bryant to be a champion without a truly great sidekick. Pau Gasol has certainly shown that he is only a top 10 player when Phil Jackson is on the side line.


These arguments might have made sense in 2004. Titles 10 &11 totally invalidated the whole "he can only win with all time great talent" argument. Or you believe that Kobe Bryant is, at worst, a top 5 all time talent.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Then why did Phil return in 2006? If the bolded is true, you must have really appreciated the way Phil and Mitch Kupchack re-built the Lakers after 2004/5 debacles into a team that could win multiple titles and make three consecutive finals appearances. You must certainly have relished how Phil developed Bynum and Odom's game and got Kobe Bryant to be a champion without a truly great sidekick. Pau Gasol has certainly shown that he is only a top 10 player when Phil Jackson is on the side line.


These arguments might have made sense in 2004. Titles 10 &11 totally invalidated the whole "he can only win with all time great talent" argument. Or you believe that Kobe Bryant is, at worst, a top 5 all time talent.

There's almost nothing in your first paragraph that is accurate....he gets some credit for Bynum, legitimately. Other than that, your conclusion is on solid ground!

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Good you said that Pedro because I wasn't following basketball at the time.

Even if it were true, it would be the exception. Forget the past: In 2011, Phil retired because he had gotten tired with coaching. Nothing to do that he had to deal with fastly aging, dysfunctional primadonas. In 2012, he rediscovered his love for basketball. That had nothing to do with Kobe magically rejuvenating his knees and the Lakers obtaining the best center in basketball.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Yeah, he is a great great coach...beyond any question or doubt.

That said clearly and unequivocally, he also simply hasn't built as a GM, or developed from mediocrity, a championship team. There are players he has helped (Bynum is one), and that is to his credit but it also is not the same as taking a 30 win team and making them a champion, or being the GM and doing the same. We can only judge him based on his job (e.g. not the GM) and the jobs he has taken and he has been exceptional in those jobs. But there are gaps that he has that Auerbach (and others) do not have, too.

 

[Tony C]

There's almost nothing in your first paragraph that is accurate....he gets some credit for Bynum, legitimately. Other than that, your conclusion is on solid ground!

what is inaccurate in Gunfighter's post?

 

[PedroKsBambino]

what is inaccurate in Gunfighter's post?

As noted previously, really the entire first paragraph save the Bynum comment....there was not much meat in Gunfighter's post, just conclusions, so it's a little hard to do more with that.

Jackson did not develop Odom's game at all...Odom was fully-formed before he got there. I think one can credit Jackson for managing Odom well (Jackson is simply a master at this, clearly) but his game didn't change at all and the point made was about 'developing'

Kobe was no more 'a champion' before that than after; it's silly media-babble. Kobe is a tremendously talented player who is exceptionally selfish on the court, and often in a good way. I don't think any of this changed and Gunfighter certainly hasn't made any case that it has.

Pau Gasol came in fully formed as well. At most, one could say he fits the triangle better than Brown's scheme but that again is not about development really (and not at all the point that was made, either). I don't see how one makes the case that developing Gasol was really Jackson's doing (and none was actually made, just a conclusion without any basis)

If anything, a review of the Lakers in that period tells a story about how young players failed to develop into even good role players, and that Kupchak's ability to continually bring on vet talent that Jackson could manage in his uniquely effectively way is the simple headline for the success the Lakers had. I give Jackson a lot of credit for his success, but do not think the case that he developed teams is all that compelling, either.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

If anything, a review of the Lakers in that period tells a story about how young players failed to develop into even good role players, and that Kupchak's ability to continually bring on vet talent that Jackson could manage in his uniquely effectively way is the simple headline for the success the Lakers had. I give Jackson a lot of credit for his success, but do not think the case that he developed teams is all that compelling, either.

Shannon Brown was drafted by Cleveland, did nothing, and landed in LA where Jackson turned him into a very solid role player who played strong defense and slashed well on a championship team. Trevor Ariza was drafted by the Knicks, had trouble getting playing time, was traded to Los Angeles where Phil Jackson turned him into a key role player on their 2008 championship team. Earlier in his career, in Chicago, he developed players like Ron Harper, B.J. Armstrong, and Toni Kukoc. Of course he's always had a ton of superstars, and he definitely has benefitted from bringing in veterans like Rodman, Malone, etc. but he's definitely developed some pretty solid role players in his day.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Shannon Brown was drafted by Cleveland, did nothing, and landed in LA where Jackson turned him into a very solid role player who played strong defense and slashed well on a championship team. Trevor Ariza was drafted by the Knicks, had trouble getting playing time, was traded to Los Angeles where Phil Jackson turned him into a key role player on their 2008 championship team. Earlier in his career, in Chicago, he developed players like Ron Harper, B.J. Armstrong, and Toni Kukoc. Of course he's always had a ton of superstars, and he definitely has benefitted from bringing in veterans like Rodman, Malone, etc. but he's definitely developed some pretty solid role players in his day.

I think you misinterpreted my point, which was not questioning that Jackson is great at using role players---the point that has been discussed is degree to which he built vs inherited teams and talent. Your examples tell a story about inheriting, seems to me--- other than Armstrong---who is a good example of developing an individual player---he didn't develop those guys.

Ariza had one year with the Lakers where he played a real role, and it was his fifth in the league with multiple teams. Then they moved on, concluding that he wasn't really all that significant a part. I don't see the story here as 'Jackson made him something different' so much as 'he filled a gap for them briefly'

Ron Harper was an established guy LONG before he was a Bull---it's silly to put him on the list as a development story, frankly...he was in his eighth year and transitioning from being a star to a role player. That is not 'developing' a guy, though (as I said above) it's another example of Jackson managing a player's ego and skills very well.

Kukoc was widely regarded as the best player not in the NBA when the Bulls got him. He didn't 'develop' though if you want to give Jackson credit for helping him adjust that's not unreasonable, though not at all a case of developing someone, really, either.

Using role players well, yes...developing young guys to be role players? Pretty thin record there (not zero, agreed)...which is not shocking for a contending team, mind you, but also something that is part of his record.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

The original point was somehow that Phil Jackson refused to coach teams with didnt have immediate championship level talent. Accepting the job prior to the 2005/2006 season shows that point for the falsehood that it is. Unless, of course you think Kobe alone, surrounded by Kwame Brown and Smush Parker is championship material.

Perhaps PKB would have preferred I said, "Maximized talent" rather than developed, and I will grant that is a better choice of words.

Gasol's only 3 all NBA appearances, 3 of his four all star appearances, all of his top ten rebounding years, 3 of his four top ten win shares years all came under Phil Jackson. He was a good player in Memphis and now, he was a great player under Phil.

if you want to make a serious argument that Odom was better in Miami or Dallas than LA, feel free.

Of course, he later clarified that Phil:

developing young guys to be role players? Pretty thin record there (not zero, agreed)

And Justin Farmar, Luke Walton,Brian Cook, Ronnie Turiaf and SoSH favorite Sasha Vujacic all say hi. They were all good enough role players to contribute to at least two finals appearances and earn a long term, post rookie, contract, or in Cook's case, stay in the NBA five years post Lakers.

Phil Jackson is the greatest pure NBA Coach of all time. Comparing him to an all around contributor who coached and built a team like Red is silly. In fact, you might be better off saying he can only work with a top five all time GM (Krause, West, Kupchak) rather than trying to say he needs the best players to win. If you must have a Lakers-Celtics argument that focuses on who was a greater contributor to the NBA, you probably need to compare Jerry West against Red Auerbach.

 

[Saby]

Number of titles MJ won without Phil: Zero.

Number of titles Kobe won without Phil: Zero.

I think it says something when the GOAT and a top 5 all-time player needed the same person to win every single one of their titles. Also, NBA coaching is unlike most other sports in that the superstar is so influential (5 people being on the court), and so much of coaching is palcating and managing their ego. Winning with MJ/Kobe is not an indictment of Phil's coaching ability, rather an affirmation of how good he really is.

 

[AlNipper49]

Are you suggesting that Jordan wouldn't have won a title without Phil Jackson?

Holy shit

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I will not pretend that basketball analysis is my forte, so I would prefer outsourcing to the guy who earns millions of dollars on NBA betting Haralabob:

These are from 2010:

Best 3 NBA coaches? Why?

Stan Van Gundy
Scott Skiles
Gregg Popovich

I think SVG and Skiles do a better job of managing the end game than any other coaches in the league and its not even close. Popovich isn't quite as good as these two are at the end game scenarios but he does pretty much everything else very well.

These 3 coaches have one thing in common, they look to take a lot of corner 3s, and they do a great job of defending the corner 3, if you do nothing else as a coach but focus on the above - you'll be ahead of the curve.

Thoughts on Phil Jackson / Larry Brown? (overrated?).

Phil Jackson is horrible in game coach, but probably one of the best at managing ego's. I'd still say he is quite overrated.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19/high-stakes-pl-nl/well-haralabos-voulgaris-bob-763371/index2.html

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I found it interesting that the Lakers one of the few Western Conference team (i think) to not send a representative to SSAC .

And then I read an article that Kevin Ding has written detailing how the Lakers have tweaked their defense to adjust to the modern game.

“The concession is the Lakers will let opponents take mid-range jumpers from 15 to 19 feet. The Lakers can stay out on 3-point shooters better and keep point guards from getting all the way to the basket. When Tony Parker got hot early for San Antonio on Sunday, the Lakers moved up their plug just enough to deter him”

The lakers have basically decided to guard the 3point line, and the paint and leave the midrange game somewhat open, the fascinating thing about this isn’t that the Lakers have finally caught up to the advanced defensive strategy that teams like the Spurs, and Magic under Van Gundy have been employing for some time, its that they have been winning championships in spite of this.

The “genius” in this is that you are basically allowing the worst ev shot in basketball the midrange jumper, and taking away all the higher ev shots. Trivial yes, but the fact that the Lakers have finally discovered this is troubling to the rest of the league.

I remember listening to a Phil Jackson press conference from the 2008 season where he described his disdain for the corner 3 point shot - he argued that once the defensive rebound was secured. it led to a higher than normal amount of transition opportunities.

I have always been a big proponent of the corner three point shot - after watching the Lakers repeatedly leave Ray Allen, Eddie House, and James Posey wide open from the corner (the Posey 3 point shots were especially comical as you’d have Lamar Odom streaking down the center of the court awaiting a fast break outlet pass that never materialized), it was clear to me that the Lakers were actually coaching their team to abandon the corner 3 point area in hopes of exploiting transition opportunities.

I decided to watch and chart every 3 point shot and the ensuing rebound from the 2007 and 2008 season and found that the corner 3 point shot did not lead to higher than normal fast break opportunities.

http://aloneinthecorner.com/

So basically, the Greatest Coach of All Time discovered the need to defend the corner three in ..... March of 2011! Years after the Spurs and other teams have been doing it.

And to those who count championships, again I ask: Why don't we measure pitcher greatness by their Won Loss record?

In my mind, the best coach of the past 15 years is Popovich. He's done his fair share of tactical innovation, he created a good environment in which players respect him, he drafted well even though he usually picked at the lower spots of the draft and he not only won championships, but he consistently had his team compete year in and year out.

Larry Brown who went to the finals with teams consisting of problematic guys like Phil Iverson and a bunch of role players earns more respect than guys like Phil Jackson.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

http://aloneinthecorner.com/

So basically, the Greatest Coach of All Time discovered the need to defend the corner three in ..... March of 2011! Years after the Spurs and other teams have been doing it.

And to those who count championships, again I ask: Why don't we measure pitcher greatness by their Won Loss record?

In my mind, the best coach of the past 15 years is Popovich. He's done his fair share of tactical innovation, he created a good environment in which players respect him, he drafted well even though he usually picked at the lower spots of the draft and he not only won championships, but he consistently had his team compete year in and year out.

Larry Brown who went to the finals with teams consisting of problematic guys like Phil Iverson and a bunch of role players earns more respect than guys like Phil Jackson.

What are the alternate measures besides wins and losses, and most importantly championships that you use to measure a coach? Please, give me something we can truly measure, other than Pop's almost as successful as Phil unless the games really matter dreaminess. How about Pythag (basketball reference model)?

Phil Jackson (11 season) +14 actual wins over Pythag
Gregg Popovich (15 season) -15 actual wins under Pythag

That must just be because the Zen Master is a regular season coach...


Popovich v. Jackson head to head in the playoffs:
01 - Lakers Sweep
02 - Lakers in 5
03 - Spurs in 6
04- Lakers in 6
08- Lakers in 5

Weird the Spurs couldnt just corner three their way to victory. Criticizing Phil Jackson, of all coaches, for not conforming to the basketball trends of the day is hard to understand. He is also the only coach in the league (unless one of his disciples gets a job) running the triangle. The guy is different.

 

[reggiecleveland]

What are the alternate measures besides wins and losses, and most importantly championships that you use to measure a coach? Please, give me something we can truly measure, other than Pop's almost as successful as Phil unless the games really matter dreaminess. How about Pythag (basketball reference model)?

Phil Jackson (11 season) +14 actual wins over Pythag
Gregg Popovich (15 season) -15 actual wins under Pythag

That must just be because the Zen Master is a regular season coach...


Popovich v. Jackson head to head in the playoffs:
01 - Lakers Sweep
02 - Lakers in 5
03 - Spurs in 6
04- Lakers in 6
08- Lakers in 5

Weird the Spurs couldnt just corner three their way to victory.

I could have coached the 01 and 02 teams to sweeps.

All this Laker fan shit has me hoping for the Heat if it comes down to it.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Still a lot of conclusions without any basis here...

Gasol's only 3 all NBA appearances, 3 of his four all star appearances, all of his top ten rebounding years, 3 of his four top ten win shares years all came under Phil Jackson. He was a good player in Memphis and now, he was a great player under Phil.

Look at the number of years and his age; did you watch him in both places? What changed in his game in your mind? He also had down years with Phil, why would that be? And played well without Phil. At best on this one, correlation is not causation (and the correlation you've made is not all that strong). His best season (by PER) by a good margin was with Memphis; his career follows a completely typical production arc. What is the story that there's any development done by Phil here?

if you want to make a serious argument that Odom was better in Miami or Dallas than LA, feel free.

He was absolutely a better player, and he was asked to do a lot more--just look at the numbers. You seem to equate 'team success' with 'each player is playing differently and better' in both Gasol and Odom's cases---that's just not the same thing. Seriously---did you watch Odom before he was a Laker at all? He had one year (2010-11) with LA that was great; his prior 'Phil' years were clearly inferior to his earlier career statistically, using 'regularl' and Hollinger's numbers (which aren't perfect and aren't capturing the full game, but are better than nothing).

Phil Jackson is the greatest pure NBA Coach of all time. Comparing him to an all around contributor who coached and built a team like Red is silly. In fact, you might be better off saying he can only work with a top five all time GM (Krause, West, Kupchak) rather than trying to say he needs the best players to win. If you must have a Lakers-Celtics argument that focuses on who was a greater contributor to the NBA, you probably need to compare Jerry West against Red Auerbach.

I think you're getting towards the point when you acknowledge Jackson needs a top-tier teambuilder to put all the piece in place in order to succeed. What I wonder is how you reach your first sentence given that reality. Part of a coach's job is to build players up, and even you have acknowledged Jackson's record there is not comparable to the other top coaches. Now, he's had only a couple chances to do so but we have to judge those, too, don't we? Put it this way: if you had a 30 win team that needed to improve would Phil be one of your top handful of choices to do so? I seriously doubt it. But some of the other guys who are in that 'best ever' discussion' would be, and that is part of the discussion too. I think you've acknowledged this for the most part, but just to make it explicit.

No argument from me that West is ultra-elite as a GM....Red is the only guy who is in the same tier as Jerry West as a team-builder and they were in very, very different eras for the most part.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I could have coached the 01 and 02 teams to sweeps.

All this Laker fan shit has me hoping for the Heat if it comes down to it.

Defending Phil Jackson on a Celtics board is a silly task, so I am done at this point. These arguments are just dancing in circles around the real point with Jackson, eleven titles with three different teams is why he is the best ever. Has anyone else won multiple titles with different teams? He took perhaps the two best teams of the last thirty years - the 01 Lakers and 96 Bulls to the absolute peak of what has proven possible in the NBA- 72 wins for the 96 Bulls, 15-1 in the playoffs for the 01 Lakers. He took stacked teams that only seemed to be able to get close - the 2000 Lakers or 91 Bulls and got them over the hump. He took truly a poorly manned team and got it to reach its absolute peak- the 06 Lakers- who were a Kurt Thomas 3 pointer away from knocking off D'Antoni's best Suns team.

I think you're getting towards the point when you acknowledge Jackson needs a top-tier teambuilder to put all the piece in place in order to succeed. What I wonder is how you reach your first sentence given that reality. Part of a coach's job is to build players up, and even you have acknowledged Jackson's record there is not comparable to the other top coaches. That's the point I made, and it seems like you don't really even disagree with it!

I provided you several examples of middling players that he built up to the absolute peak of their NBA performance (Famar might be a slight exception) and to fit into the roll required of them on a championship team. You might need to look for a while for Gasol's down year playing for Phil, it doesnt exist.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

There's no objective way to measure a coach's impact as far as I know - which means there might be- I am just saying that wins and losses and championships is bullshit. UTTER BULLSHIT.

In order to measure a coach's impact you need to establish a w-l baseline for team under an average coach and then calculate how they would do with a different coach. That way a coach that makes 40 W team win 55 is a far better than a coach who makes a 60 game team win 64.

Pythagorean might indicate ability in close games or it might just be luck.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

And honest to God, this has nothing to do with me being a Celtics fan. I really do not share the hatred people have for the Lakers here and I actually like Kobe.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I provided you several examples of middling players that he built up to the absolute peak of their NBA performance (Famar might be a slight exception) and to fit into the roll required of them on a championship team. You might need to look for a while for Gasol's down year playing for Phil, it doesnt exist.

No, you didn't---and that is the problem. You provided BJ Armstrong (a good one), Bynum (a somewhat tricky case, in that his advancement was highest post-Jackson and we have to consider natural development), a set of vets who didn't perform better for Jackson (and frankly, naming guys like Kukoc and Odom is preposterous), and a bunch of guys who didn't advance enough to suggest what you hope (Farmar being an example). To be clear, using limited players well makes him a good coach, and there's no question he is, and does so well.

If your point was that he uses guys very effectively in roles I'd fully agree; you made a different point about development and there simply hasn't been a basis for that one yet, which is why others keep noting that there's a gap in Jackson's superb resume.

 

[Saby]

Are you suggesting that Jordan wouldn't have won a title without Phil Jackson?

Holy shit

Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

Yeah, that's exactly what I wrote.

Number of titles MJ won without Phil: Zero.

Number of titles Kobe won without Phil: Zero.

I think it says something when the GOAT and a top 5 all-time player needed the same person to win every single one of their titles.

Emphasis mine. It may not be exactly what you wrote, but you kind of implied it. Maybe it wasn't intentional.

Also, for posterity, what do you think it says?

 

[Saby]

Emphasis mine. It may not be exactly what you wrote, but you kind of implied it. Maybe it wasn't intentional.

Also, for posterity, what do you think it says?

MJ may have won six titles without Phil, he might have won none. But he won exactly zero without him.

People keep harping on about the talent Phil has had. In the NBA, it's managing the talent and egos that's the issue. To be able to get both MJ and Kobe to buy into a (relatively) team-oriented concept is a phenomenal task in itself. It's no easy feat to be able to keep a balance between the team's best interests and egos of two of the most competitive, dickish players to play the game.

At the end of the day, his rings speak for themselves. The comparison to Red was cute and all for the BOS-LAL rivalry, but 2010 laid that to rest nicely.

 

[DannyDarwinism]

MJ may have won six titles without Phil, he might have won none. But he won exactly zero without him.

I think it says something when the GOAT and a top 5 all-time player needed the same person to win every single one of their titles.

Stop being fucking coy and say something that actually means something.

At the end of the day, his rings speak for themselves. .

More idiotic platitudes.

The comparison to Red was cute and all for the BOS-LAL rivalry, but 2010 laid that to rest nicely

How?

 

[nighthob]

At the end of the day, his rings speak for themselves. The comparison to Red was cute and all for the BOS-LAL rivalry, but 2010 laid that to rest nicely.

Unless you're contending that Phil told Fat Andy Bynum to sit on Perkins and break him I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. For the first five games, when Boston wasn't starting a short-armed 6'7" guy at center the greatest coach in NBA history was getting pantsed, again. Once Perkins' injury turned games six and seven into volleyball matches the Lakers were able to win. But mostly because Boston's inability to control the defensive glass had taken the coaches out of the equation.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Remember when the Lakers traded this guy for Dwight Howard?

http://espn.go.com/n...strenuous-rehab

Bynum said Sunday that his left knee swelled after he went bowling last Saturday night. He told his doctors and last Tuesday had an MRI that revealed he'd done some new damage. It was a setback because Bynum had missed the entire training camp and preseason with a bone bruise in his right knee.

And then:

"They're being supportive," Bynum said of his team. "Obviously in hindsight you shouldn't go bowling, but it's not more than anything I've done in my rehab."

The guy is going to become Oden at this point, isn't he?

 

[bbc23]

Oh, I can't wait for him to sign elsewhere for the max without playing a minute for Philly

 

[Saby]

Has anyone in the league traded so much shit for All-Stars?

Kwame for Gasol, Bynum (not shit, but a walking injury) for Howard.

To think they were so close to having Bryant bully his way out of town, or Bynum having his "ass shipped out" for Kidd!

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

Has anyone in the league traded so much shit for All-Stars?

Kwame for Gasol, Bynum (not shit, but a walking injury) for Howard.

To think they were so close to having Bryant bully his way out of town, or Bynum having his "ass shipped out" for Kidd!

You left out Marc Gasol.

 

[bowiac]

Seriously, everyone agrees Memphis would do that trade again in a hearbeat, right? At the time Marc Gasol was a myth, but he's turned out better than anyone imagined.

 

[wutang112878]

There's no objective way to measure a coach's impact as far as I know - which means there might be- I am just saying that wins and losses and championships is bullshit. UTTER BULLSHIT.

Pythagorean might indicate ability in close games or it might just be luck.

In a way championships are a good barometer because really what greater goal can there be? Win 70+ games and a title?


Here is the thing about the Phil debate [not just directed at you NK, general thing], it comes down to the definition of what we consider a great coach to be. If the only definition of greatness is going to be a coach that is great at strategy and can get the most out of his team, basically a genius basketball mind, Phil isnt great in that definition. But there are also some genius basketball minds that cant motivate and demand respect from their teams so they arent considered great coaches. What Phil lacks in strategy, he made up for in motivation, respect and ego management. Phil is great in that the majority of the time he got the most he could out of his teams and had to utilize these strengths to do so. Granted with the talent he had his margin for error was rather large, but there are genius basketball mind coaches that couldnt do what he did. Like a Rick Pitino or Rick Carlisle or Jeff VanGundy type who are all genius basketball minds, probably couldnt demand the respect necessary to manage the egos and player relationship issues well enough to get those teams to succeed. Thats why I think in his unique way Phil is a great coach, but if folks dont think that unique definition is one of a great coach then discussing the talent and titles is just an exercise in futility.

Remember when the Lakers traded this guy for Dwight Howard?

Doesnt something like this happen to Bynum every single time he comes back from a knee surgery? He either has the surgery too late in the offseason because he wants to go on vacation so he isnt ready for the season. Or he has surgery and doesnt come back very quickly and his team is questioning his toughness. This seems like the normal Bynum pattern at this point.

 

[Tony C]

And honest to God, this has nothing to do with me being a Celtics fan. I really do not share the hatred people have for the Lakers here and I actually like Kobe.

This is an incredibly disturbing post, NK!

One, because bashing Jackson like is going on here (I love the parsing, too -- players may have played better under Jackon, but he didn't "develop" them...oh, okay) is only justifiable if you do it because you're a Celtics fan. Otherwise, it's just...the equivalent of the BB bashers being discussed on the Pats' page/Gronk thread.

Two, because you like Kobe. Really? Hell, about half the Laker fans I know don't even like that douche.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

One, because bashing Jackson like is going on here (I love the parsing, too -- players may have played better under Jackon, but he didn't "develop" them

That's not my beef. My beef is that one of his greatest talent is positioning himself to coach the best available talent and then, when he's predictably winning championships, people ballwash him for his genius. Well, the genius to pick the best players!

And instead of regurgitating things I ve said, here's another point of fact. Did people notice what Phil said about the New York job this year? You know, the job that, given his past, should have been a dream way to end his career?

In an “HBO Real Sports” interview that will air on Tuesday, Jackson tells correspondent Andrea Kremer that Dolan never called — and he was glad. “I wasn’t gonna take that job, that’s for sure,” said Jackson, who won two NBA titles while playing for the Knicks from 1967 to 1978.

Jackson suggested he had given a good deal of thought to coaching the Knicks — “New York is special,” he says — but he dismissed the possibility of returning to Madison Square Garden because the current team is “clumsy.” “What’s clumsy mean?” Kremer asked. “Well, they don’t fit together well. (Amare) Stoudemire doesn’t fit well with Carmelo. Stoudemire’s a really good player. But he’s gotta play in a certain system and a way. “Carmelo has to be a better passer. And the ball can’t stop every time it hits his hands,” Jackson continued. “They need to have someone come in that can kinda blend that group together.” “But wouldn’t you have been the perfect person to come in and blend all that talent together?” Kremer said. “You sort of have a good history of that.” “Yeah,” Jackson agreed. “Well, it never happened.”

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-15/news/32258982_1_melo-amar-e-phil-jackson-knicks

Phil's analysis is accurate. The Knicks team is a badly constructed one. But if you are a good coach who wants to take your dream job, why don't you take it?

Answer: Because you re not interested in getting into no-win situations.

Two, because you like Kobe. Really? Hell, about half the Laker fans I know don't even like that douche.

He's an asshole alright. But I also think he's very intelligent and he's given far more thought into the game than most of his fellow players. The way he talks, he gives me the impression he might become a good coach or a good gm some day.

Plus, I grew fond of him back when he was 17 and he had the nerve as a bench player to take crunch game shots -brick after brick to be sure. I thought at the time, he was going to be the next Michael Jordan. Next year, I deliberately went to watch a bad Celtics team take on the lakers, just because I want to watch Kobe and say I ve watched one of the all time greats before he became one.

 

[Grin&MartyBarret]

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-15/news/32258982_1_melo-amar-e-phil-jackson-knicks

Phil's analysis is accurate. The Knicks team is a badly constructed one. But if you are a good coach who wants to take your dream job, why don't you take it?

Answer: Because you re not interested in getting into no-win situations.

Other possible answers:

1. The job was never offered to you.
2. Working for James Dolan is nobody's dream job.

 

[Tony C]

That's not my beef. My beef is that one of his greatest talent is positioning himself to coach the best available talent and then, when he's predictably winning championships, people ballwash him for his genius. Well, the genius to pick the best players!

And instead of regurgitating things I ve said, here's another point of fact. Did people notice what Phil said about the New York job this year? You know, the job that, given his past, should have been a dream way to end his career?

He's certainly been given/chosen very talented teams to coach, but I think others have already responded to the more substantive point about his coaching: was he great at coaching talented teams, getting egos to play together, getting underachievers to overachieve, implementing winning systems? The answers are: yes, yes, yes, and....yes. If you have a problem that he chose not to coach a team like the Orlando Magic (I believe he was offered that job, if memory serves -- and I wouldn't take a job working for Dolan, so more power to him on that one) then sobeit, you have a right to think he should choose to coach an untalented team. But that's irrelevant from the question of whether or not he is a great coach. He is. And there's simply no argument that isn't batshit nuts that he isn't.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I love that Phils titles as a fungible role player are included in the argument of why he is great. "Not only is he Red Aurerbach, take Red and add the accomplishments of Greg Kite the player

Also I will never count that last title unless you give the ring to the refs. Kobe choked but was given a shit load of FTs. That thing was fixed beyond fixed. I want to thank this thread to remember why I quit watching the NBA. If anyone thinks this season will end in anything but a Lakers Heat finals does not understand the strong narrative structure of the NBA. This whole bullshit Laker deal is a way to make us hope for Lebron.