Top Current NBA players

[IrishHand]

In keeping with the current flow of sports/athletes/coaches threads, I've decided to devote one to my personal favorite - the NBA. I think of it as my personal Dream Team for the 2002/03 season - with the idea being to choose the best starter and backup at each position. I've tried my best to ignore age, meaning that I tried to select the best players right now, regardless of future potential.

Starters
C - Shaquille O'Neal
Most dominant player in the NBA, easiest choice of the 10, should have had last 3 MVPs except that he's taken for granted, completely unstoppable inside, imposing defensive force, very good passer from the post.
PF - Chris Webber
Most complete post player in the NBA, great post-up game, good shooter from 15-18', very good defensively (but not stellar), incredible passer, doesn't finish games but wouldn't have to on a team like this.
SF - Tracy McGrady
Probably 2nd best wing player in NBA, explosive on offense, could be great defensively if he really wanted as shown in his last year with Toronto, plays more of a 3 than 2 otherwise he'd be the backup SG.
SG - Kobe Bryant
Unequalled combination of wing offense and defense in the NBA right now, closest thing to the "next Jordan" (which is a ridiculous concept, but anyway...) the NBA has to offer, my #1 choice if I was starting an NBA team from scratch today.
PG - Gary Payton
Toughest positional call, but one I feel confident in, Payton's better offensively and defensively than Kidd - he's just more of an idiot, depite that, Payton's still a winner, has 3-range, phenomenal post-up skills and can completely lock up opposing PGs - especially when he's pissed off, Kidd's arguably a better leader and certainly a better open-court passer, but I don't think that makes up the difference.

Backups
C - Tim Duncan
Arguably the starting PF, but he's pretty well a pure post player, excellent bank shot from 12-15', great post player, outstanding defensively, completely unselfish, my #2 choice if I was starting a team from scratch.
PF - Kevin Garnett
Defensive stopper, good shot from 12-15', insanely athletic for a 7-footer, excellent passer, would be better if he accepted that he's a post player.
SF - Paul Pierce
Great post-up player, very good shooter (although shooting awfully thus far this year), above-average defender.
SG - Ray Allen
Excellent shooter, excellent defender, sort of a mini-Jordan without the intangibles if that makes sense - does most of the same things, just not quite as well across the board and appars to lack the leadership abilities to drive his team, although Cassell may not be leadable.
PG - Jason Kidd
Incredible open-court player, pushes the ball like nobody has in at least 20 years, excellent defender and passer, if not for average shooting would be as good as Payton.

Coach
Phil Jackson
I'm always amused by "best coach in the NBA" debates. The numbers over the past 20 years aren't even close. Yes, he had Jordan and Pippen, and yes, he's got Shaq and Kobe - but none of those players won any titles before he showed up. There are a ton of great players in the NBA every year, but somehow Phil's are the ones who tend to win 60+ games and get the titles - wonder why that is? Also interesting that the two pre-eminent players in the past 15 years, Jordan and Shaq have at various times both declared that will never play for another coach. I'd argue that Jordan's sticking to this - it's tough to say that Collins is coaching him when (a) he was hired by Jordan, (b) he can be fired by Jordan, and (c) Jordan is clearly calling the shots both on the floor (his PT, the PT of the youngsters, the offense, etc) and off (the makeup of the team, drafting, trading, etc).

Other Notables:
Dirk Nowitsky - Beautiful offensively - in the process of defining the 7-foot wing player, but I can't do it until he learns to guard somebody...anybody...
Allen Iverson - If his comments about practicing hadn't disqualified him, his shooting percentage certainly would.
Vince Carter - Makes this list 1-2 years ago when he was gaining on Kobe for the "next Jordan" label, but recent collapse (partly health-related, but that's still an issue) kills him.
Antawn Jamison - Generally doesn't play defense, I'm also told he's a complete cancer.
Steve Francis - If he didn't have Payton and Kidd ahead of him, he'd be there, explosive offensive player, although still hasn't shown he can run a team - should have stayed with Grizzlies and played alongside Bibby so he wouldn't have had to.

[Josh W]

This is a joke, right?

Okay, so you are a huge L.A. fan, and like most (all?) L.A. fans, you are oblivious to reality.

There is no way Kobe is better than Tracy. Tracy has 3x the maturity, and every offensive weapon that Kobe has. Tracy is a better post defender, a little worse off the ball.

But leadership is the main difference. For the last 3 years, people have said "Take Shaq away from LA, and they are the same team as the Magic".

I used to agree. However, it's become obvious that the Magic is a far superior team to LA without Shaq. This is because Tracy can lead. It's not even close.

And, as far as coach goes....

The only thing that Phil Jackson has proved over his years is that he is a better coach than Del Harris. That's it. You introduce then discount the fact that he's had a tremendous team every year to work with.

A good coach would be able to do more with the Lakers sans Shaq than Phil has done. Yes, Jordan and Shaq have said they won't play for another coach, and we have no reason to believe them. Moreover, all this means is that Phil gives them an opportunity to shine.

If George Karl, Nate McMillian, Doc Rivers, or other coaches were the coach of the Lakers this year, they'd be much more successful.

Phil is notorious for not having answers. He didn't have an answer for AI two years ago or Kidd last year. In Chicago, he didn't have an answer for Kemp or Barkely. Instead, he just hopes that he can ride is stars' coattails to a ring. And, because his stars are just that damn good, he can.

But he's not the best coach. And it's not close. The only thing he's shown us is he's better than Del Harris.

Josh

[Clarkmeister]

First, when you list George Karl as one of the best coaches in the NBA you lose all credibility. He is without question one of the worst coaches in the NBA. That you prefer him over Phil shows a ridiculous lack of understanding about the game.

Kobe vs Tracy. I think its reasonably close as to not matter at this point. Lets all come back and talk about it at the end of next year.

"He didn't have an answer for AI"

Swept him.

"Or Kidd"

Oh yeah, swept him too.

"Or Kemp"

Would've swept him if they hadn't gotten bored after annihilating them to go up 3-0.

"Or Barkley"

Beat him too, and won all 3 games played on Phoenix' home court.

If riding all those players coattails was so easy, why weren't Del and Doug winning? In fact, Del had MORE talent than Phil did (that team had Elden Campbell and Eddie Jones the year preceding Phil).

Phils single greatest coaching season was the one WITHOUT Jordan or Shaq. The year Jordan left the Bulls, I lived in Chicago. The average Chicago newspaper prediction for season wins for the Bulls was about 35. He won freaking 55 games without Jordan. Then he goes on to come one truly awful call away from a likely trip to the NBA finals. Don't tell me that team was good, because it wasn't, though Pip could've (should've?) won league MVP that year. That was pure Phil, pure genius.

And, oh yeah, last years Lakers weren't anywhere near as talented as Sacramento. Yet somehow Phil finds a way again.

And in case you were wondering......Phil hasn't ever lost a playoff series as a one seed. Let alone in the first round like another coach you listed. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[IrishHand]

I agree with practically everything that Clarkmeister wrote. His comments about Phil are dead-on, so I won't bother rehashing the issue.

As for the Kobe/McGrady debate - you'll note that both made the 1st team, so I'm not sure what you're all excited about. However, the Kobe/McGrady debate was at the forefront of a few ESPN.com articles last week (I believe) prior to the Lakers/Magic game.

You'll discover what I suspected beforehand. Here's the key point: A month ago, the NBA polled its general managers on a variety of subjects, including the question, "Who are the five best players, regardless of position?" You know the only player other than Shaq to appear on all 29 ballots? It was Kobe.

Also: "You know why Bryant is better?" asked one Eastern Conference scout. "Just look at the defensive end. It ends there for me. McGrady is not a great one-on-one defender. But if you tell Kobe, "Go stop that guy,' he will stop him."

You've got a great point about McGrady's leadership. He can lead his team straight into 1st round playoff defeats. Takes a lot of leadership to do that. Kobe manages to win 3 championships in a row - and reserves his best performances for when his team needs him. I'm guessing you watched neither the Finals against the Pacers 3 years ago nor the San Antonio series he completely dominated.

You can't judge Kobe, Phil or the Lakers based on the first 20 games of this season. You (and a lot of others, I'd guess) seem to have forgotten that when the Lakers play hard, they completely dominate the NBA. Fortunately for me, they choose to do so around playoff time.

Irish

FYI - both those quotes are from http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/lawrence_mitch/1467144.html if you get the urge to read up on why Kobe's better. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif There's also a link on that page to another writer arguing in favor of McGrady, but at least he (unlike you) acknowledges that he's in the minority in favoring McGrady.

[adios]

Shaq said it best,"No coach ever led his team to an NBA title with bad players."

[Josh W]

You pointed out an enormous flaw....I should have specified George Karl in Seattle. Since then, he's bad.

In Seattle though, he did a better job of balancing egos than Phil is currently doing. He also outperformed expectations every year.

Thanks for reinforcing my point about Phil being better than Del Harris.

When Phil coached the MJ-less bulls, nobody knew what to expect. He still had Pippen and Kukoc (back when he could play). What he did, relative to expectations, means nothing.

And, you conveniently totally missed huge chunks of my arguements...why are they so bad this year, and overall without Shaq? Yeah, losing Shaq would hurt any team, but they are horrible...they are not Orlando-esque.

The Kobe vs. Tracy arguement is close if you look solely at stats. If you look at leadership, maturity, and other 'intangibles', it really isn't close.

And, again, you deftly avoid my points about Kidd, AI, and Kemp....he didn't sweep those players...those players (and Bibby), dominated the series. The fact that ESPN said that Kemp was the MVP of the 93 (?) series says enough right there. Jackson didn't have answers for those players. He hoped that they wouldn't inflict too much damage. The fact that those players had horrible supporting casts is why Jackson won, not because of his coaching ability.

As for George Karl losing a series as a 1 seed....in 94 everybody who followed basketball closely came forth and said Seattle would have a tough time in the playoffs. They won with suffocating, pressing "D". They had trapping schemes that were very complex on a game-to-game basis, but easy to crack in a series. Karl made a mistake, for sure, to create an awesome system and depth that works great in the regular season, but falters in the post season. This was shortsightedness on his behalf.

Every year that Jackson has coached, he has had an MVP (or near MVP) on his team. There is NO evidence to show he created those players, simply because he didnt' create those players. He used them better than Del Harris did. That's about it.

On this we agree. On everything else I've said, I really don't know...you've avoided that.

Josh W.

[Josh W]

I love debating with people.

I really love debating with people who know they are wrong, so they intermix personal remarks. I love it. They don't want to debate the issues and points, so they throw words into their 'opponents' mouths. Do they think that gives them credibility? I hope not. Moreover, I hope that others reading don't lend credibility to that. Now, onto what you wrote (you'll note I'm going to address what you actually wrote...something I'd suggest for future use for yourself)

You start by saying that you agree with Clarkemeister. That must mean you agree with ignoring a vast majority of my points regarding Jackson, his inability to lead a shaq-less team to victory this year, and, how, even though his team is similar to Orlando, he's way underperforming them. Okay. Ignore it. That's fine.

About the Kobe/McGrady debate...I'm not excited. You said you would have put Kobe in front, I disagreed. Their numbers are the same (or close). Tracy has much more maturity and leadership (which I'm not sure if you agree with or not). Kobe continually causes disrest in the lockerroom, and is often whining. Then, you say that Tracy leads Orlando to first round exits in the playoffs, whereas Koby leads the Lakers to rings.

Well, which is it? Does Kobe lead them? Or Shaq? Or Phil? Surely, you know that Kobe is not the 'leader'. Look at their performance with Kobe 'leading' the show. Kobe hasn't led them to a damn thing. Without Shaq, they wouldn't make the playoffs. First round exits are nothing to get excited about, but Tracy leads his team more than Kobe could possibly hope to (now....it may change in the future).

As for the quotes from the GM....I'll let the game do the talking. Kobe was begging off of Bibby last year. Don't tell me he's that great of a defender when he's pleading to not defend the #1 threat on the opposition (it's one thing if the #1 threat is a big guy like Duncan....it's something else entirely if it's another guard)...its one thing to not be that successful at defending another player, its something else entirely to plead to not to have to guard him in the biggest games of the year.


And, yes, we can judge the Lakers (sans Shaq, at least) on the first 20 games of the season...it all counts. You say they turn it on when it matters most, and history would suggest that is the case...but that makes me curious about the leadership qualities of the players and coaches. I'll be honest, I don't like the Lakers (no surprise, I'm sure). One of the big reasons is because of their total disrespect for the game (Phil being the biggest source...his comments about other cities, teams, and championships are appalling to any sports fan....Shaq is nearly equally as appalling).



You seem to have read quite a bit about the Kobe/Tracy debate on espn.com, as have I. Did you read Ralph Wiley's article? He was courtside at the latest Magic/Lakers game. After Tracy posted up Kobe, and Kobe drove the ball down the court, dunked (an impressive dunk) and slapped the backboard, Brian Shaw stated that he knew, as soon as Tracy posted up Kobe, that Kobe was about to do something selfish, immature, and ultimately harmful to the team. How true, how true.

Quite the leader, when your own teammates know that your immaturity is real close to shining through.

Lastly....you talk about another (unnamed) author who would pick Tracy of Kobe, then you state that he acknowledges he's in the minority. You then have the audacity to say I don't feel the same way (that I'm in the minority)....

Please. If I go by nothing other than the population of the respective cities where they play, I'd assume that Kobe is the more popular choice. Don't try to guess what I do and don't feel about issues. I'll lay it all out there.

It just seems that you'd rather create your own arguments to debate against, then throw up a few straw-mans than to debate what I actually say. Too bad....when I first read your post, I assumed you wanted some credibility.

Josh W.

[Clarkmeister]

"(George Karl) exceeded expectations every year"

Umm, just how do you do that when you "lose a series as a number 1 seed"

Also, your memory is suspect. They were the Western conference preseason favorite for 3 of 4 seasons and only advanced to the Finals once, and when they finally made it there, Karl had them so unprepared for the Bulls that by the time he made proper adjustments he was down 3-love.

Your contention that Kemp and Payton had horrible supporting casts is also ridiculous. Their supporting cast against the bulls was VASTLY superior to Chicago's.

Who do you want: Kerr, Longley, Rodman, Harper or Hawkins, Perkins, Schremph, McMillin? Are you kidding?

And did Karl suddenly forget to coach after leaving Seattle? Dude isn't even 60 yet. No, his performance in Milwaukee (taking the consensus preseason Eastern Conference favorite and missing the playoffs - almost impossible in the NBA) and his more recent job with Team USA just confirm his sorry pathetic Seattle track record. The guy is awful. Not overrated, but BAD. Bottom 10 coach in the league.

On to Phil:

"You've deftly avoided my arguments about Kidd, AI and Kemp"

Ummmm, how is that? Josh, he SWEPT two of those three. I'm sorry, I though coaching was about finding ways to WIN basketball games when it mattered (something Karl is the worst ever at). Is he supposed to doubleteam Kidd to make it "look pretty" at the expense of losing the series? Your arguement is so nonsensical I don't even know how to respond, so I'll say it again: He swept them. What more do you want a coach to do? You may not like the fact that his gameplan was to allow those players to get theirs, but shut down everyone else.....however it worked and he got the rings.

"What he did (with the Jordanless bulls) relative to expectations, means nothing"

Just how can you say that with a straight face? Those players all left the bulls later on and none other than Pip and Ho could crack a lineup anywhere. That team was awful and his coaching job there was IMO the single greatest coaching feat in the HISTORY of the NBA.

I mean...listen to your arguements. When he overachieves like he did with the Jordanless Bulls, his first Lakers team, or his most recent Lakers team, he gets no credit. But when he wins as the favorite..."well,anyone could have done that" Lets not forget that his first Laker team wasn't favored to do anything. And his most recent one beat a better, and deeper Sacramento team, and he beat them without home court.

"Every year that Jackson has coached (and by extension, every year he has won a title) he has had an MVP or near MVP on his team"

Are you familiiar with the NBA at all? I am starting to wonder if you watch games. Name me the last NBA champion that DIDN'T have an "MVP or close to an MVP on its team". Go on. Name one. Please. You can't. Why? Its never been done in the last 25 years. On the other hand, I can list literally dozens of coaches with "MVP's or close to an MVP" on their team who *didn't* win the league championship.

Including your boy Karl.

[M2d]

Suck. period. beyond the big two, their supporting cast is horrible. Horry and Fox aren't good enough to help carry a team through a full schedule. they're wily vets who can turn it up during crunch time, but, they're too old to do it night in and night out. d-Fish? not even a top ten point guard in the league. Slava Medvedenko? Mark Madson? that these two guys are getting minutes says a lot about the quality of the team. The fact that Kobe put up rediculous numbers when he had to and got the assist numbers when he had to says a lot about his game. that they lost those games really doesn't detract from him, since no one is going to win a one on five matchup.

[IrishHand]

Current Lakers are basically the same as the Lakers in each of the past three years with minor cosmetic changes. If the Lakers were 13-7 instead of 7-13, people would still be hailing them as the dominant team in the NBA. As it is, they seem to have slipped under the radar. Not a bad situation for a team that's manhandled the NBA the past 3 years. Does their 7-13 record mean the team's all of a sudden become mediocre? Of course not. It's about as relevant as the Dallas' phenomenal start - I still rank them behind both the Lakers and Kings in the end simply because their defense remains atrocious. Talk to me in June.

I agree though about the quality of the Lakers supporting cast. The non-Shaq/Kobe starters would have a tough time starting elsewhere, and some of the reserves probably wouldn't even make a lot of teams. (Brian Shaw was released by Golden State, and would be again if he were on the team today.) However, as you noted, they're gritty, play great team defense and play their roles. History has shown it's better in the long run to have a couple superstars and accepting supporters than multiple stars or outstanding players - see Kings, Blazers, Bucks in recent years.

Irish

[M2d]

agreed, but I want to point out that their payroll for the top two precludes their bringing in any other high priced talent. this is also why the number of games missed is misleading. losing their top player for a meaningful length of time is much worse than the Kings losing average (or above average) players from their rotation. The kings fill in with their better than average rotation, but the lakers completely abandon the gameplan that they came in with.

[IrishHand]

I want to point out that their payroll for the top two precludes their bringing in any other high priced talent

That's only sort of true. Their current payroll precludes bringing in talent only because Jerry Buss has placed stringent financial restraints on the team in order to continue improving his investment. If they were run like the Kings, Blazers or Mavs (3 more talented, but not as good teams, at least over the past 3 years), they'd be a better team.

Despite the fact that Kobe and Shaq gobble up most of the cap, the NBA's cap is pretty fluid, They used part of their cap exception last year to bring in Mitch Richmond (bright idea that one, although I supported it at the time). This past year, they didn't even bother using it - and it was 4.5M (I know the idea that they had to use used part of it on George was floating around, but that's wrong - he'd been on the team for 3 years would have fallen under the Bird exception if the team wanted). They could almost surely have brought in one or two of: Keon Clark, Travis Best, Matt Harpring, Larry Hughes, Donyell Marshall, Jeff McInnis or Rodney Rogers. I'm not saying that any of those guys would necessarily have been a good fit with the Lakers, only that it's pretty clear that at least a few of them could have infused the team with a higher quantity of raw talent (for whatever that's worth).

However, Buss preferes to stick with the formula of the past three years - ride the current Lakers until they buck him (and watch his bank account swell in the process).

Irish

[Josh W]

Clarke -

I like this, I really do...you know a lot about basketball...an admirable amount. And, no, I'm not about to claim that I know more. But I will claim that I know more about the 1990's sonics, since I lived in Seattle.

And, boy, you are way off here. Seattle was NEVER the pacific preseason favorite (at least not by the public at large...maybe some obscure columnist somewhere, not in Seattle, felt that way, but not on the national scene). It was always Houston, Phoenix...Phoenix, Houston. Seattle was usually listed about 3rd (or 4th, behind LA occassionally).

And, like I said, those in the know knew that the Sonics would face trouble in the playoffs because of their tricky defense wasn't really all that tricky.

As for supporting casts....it's not even close.

It's neat that you throw out names, that are utterly meaningless. In the series, Detlef Schrempf was a complete liability. He couldn't guard anybody in the league, and he couldn't rebound. He could score, but that was it...and he struggled against quick defenders (especially world class ones like Pippen). McMillian was injured and put in zero important minutes until game 4 or 5 (when the Sonics started winning, ironically). Hersey Hawkins was also injured, and in the throws of his worst shooting in his life (no exaggeration....he couldn't hit an open shot to save his life).

Perkins was decent player, but was too soft. He was 4 inches shorter than Longley, couldn't play defense, and couldn't grab a board at any stage of his career.

Why was Shawn Kemp the MVP of that series? Because he got every board for Seattle, half of the points, and was the only post-defender they had.

So, you ask, who's supporting cast would I rather have? Chicago. No, I'm not kidding. You obviously were.

And, then, again, you go on to make my point that Karl was bad after Seattle. Thanks.

But in Seattle, he had to deal with more personnel problems than any other coach besides PJ Carlisimo. He had Kendall Gill walking out, Ricky Pierce refusing to play, Eddie Johnson starting locker room brawls, and Gary Payton demanding trades (still happening!!). He was tremendous in Seattle. He took undeserving teams farther than any coach before, and any coach not named Doc Rivers since. And it isn't close.

Since Seattle (I just want to make sure you don't miss this again), he's been much worse.

Now, onto Phil...

Clarke, if you can just answer this question, I'll consider this debate fruitful....

which two, of AI, Kidd, and Kemp did Jackson sweep?

Please. Take your time.

The truest answer is none, since Phil wasn't playing, but I know what you meant. And, well, you were wrong. You were wrong that Seattle was the preseason favorite. You were wrong about Seattle's supporting cast being superior to Chicago's.

Then you say that Phil's approach was to let the stars get their's, then shut down everybody else. Please. There was only one player with talent on those teams (well, two when Kemp had Payton). He couldn't shut anybody down. He just knew his players were better (which they word), and did no coaching. We all know that LA would have beat NJ last year and Philly two years ago if they had no coach. It's not even close, the talent between the teams. Phil did NO coaching.

Now, my statement that what Phil did with the Jordan-less bulls was meaningless was a gross overstatement on my behalf. I apologize for that. However, you don't address my point.....NOBODY knew what to expect. NOBODY. So, what the preseason expectations were meaningless, not his performance. But it is ridiculous to say that was too far beyond expectations....I'd say it was at the ceiling of expectations.

And then, you go silly on us. You bring up Sacramento on us. I'm glad you did, cuz you opened a big jar of grande' pickles here. Everybody who watched the games last year knows that Sacramento was robbed in game 6...not to mention game 4 (or was it 5, damn, I don't remember), when Samaki Walker took the liberty of a couple extra seconds to make a jump shot at the end of the first half.

One of the teams was without an all-star shooting guard. It wasn't Phil's team. Yeah, I'm sure that was probably some brilliant coaching strategy on Phil's part.

In fact, I'd argue that the Kings would have won last year if Peja didn't play....Bibby was slicing, dicing, and dealing. Bobby Jackson was playing very well as well. But Christie and Peja were atrocious turnover machines. Seriously, when the game comes out on ESPNClassic, check it out. If Peja doesn't play, Bibby and Jackson both get more minutes, and even fatigued, would have been far superior to Christie or Peja, and they would have won. Peja also shot like 3-23 in that game. I firmly feel that the only way Sacramento could have overcome the officiating in that game is if Peja doesn't play (or, if he was healthy).

If I were to make a list of the 10 biggest reasons why LA beat Sacramento last year, Phils coaching wouldn't come close to cracking the list. If you watched the games, you agree. (note, however, that i am not saying that Adelman is better than Phil...I'm sure you'll find a way to insinuate that's what I'm saying, though).

And, finally, yeah, I know that (nearly) all championship teams have an MVP-caliber player on them (although, today, there's about 12 teams with an "MVP-caliber" player on it)...I guess my point was more that Phil didn't make those players great, they were all great without him.

He's just done more with his talent than Del Harris did. That's all he's done.

He certainly hasn't swept 2 of the previously mentioned 3 teams.

[Clarkmeister]

About to hit the road so I'll keep this brief.....

1. My bad, they only "almost" swept Philly. Doesn't matter because whether he sweeps them or not, you don't seem to care.

2. You listed Karl up top in your first post as one of 3 coaches who TODAY could do a better job than Phil, but have since admitted that he sucks now. Thanks for that retraction. He is also the first coach ever who apparently was great, then in the course of one year started to suck. I didn't know coaches got worse after a year.

3. I suggest you look at that series again. Sacramento got just as many calls in game 5 as the Lakers got in game 6. Also, Peja did play in the games that mattered.

4.....and the real point....It doesn't matter what I say to you because you have decided that you hate Phil and he isn't any good, so you have created a self fulfilling prophecy to invalidate in your own mind any of his accomplishments...........

"He's always had an MVP caliber player when he won the title" - so has everyone else, EVER. However Karl has 2 MVP caliber players and doesn't get the title. Karl overachieved (??) but Phil did something easy and expected.

"Since no one knew what to expect from the Jordanless Bulls, he can't get any credit" Translation: if they did well, I choose to believe it had nothing to do with Phil. Again I have created a construct for myself where I don't have to give him credit"

"Well, he couldn't stop AI etc in the playoffs, so he must not be very good" Again, please let me know why he had to stop them. Last I checked it was about winning. Are you saying that for him to get respect from you, he needs to cover the spread every game? I'm missing your point.

"Yes, he beat a more talented Sacramento team, but thats just luck" Again, he does something positive, but you find a way to deny him credit in your own mind.

"Those players were all great without him." True, but none of them WON without him.

"Karl had so many personell problems to deal with, what a great job he did holding them together" Last I checked, Phil had his two superstars feuding for significant parts of his first 3 seasons and managed to get them to buy into his system. Again, you give Karl credit but Phil none.

"No one has done as well in Seattle as Karl before or since" - One can say the same about Phil in both Chicago and LA. And unlike Karl where no Seattle team before or since him has had more talent, There have been several Laker teams with more talent than Jackson's. But none of them 3-peated.

OK, gotta run, sorry for the rush job. Peace.

[Josh W]

You are absolutely right. I dislike Phil. I said this a few posts ago.

But as for self-fulfilling prophecy....look in the mirror.

You have Phil as the all-time ubercoach. You do this by comparing his exploits with Jordan and Pippen, or his exploits with Kobe and Shaq to George Karl's exploits with Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton (back when Payton was good, not great, and neither were top-10 in MVP voting).

As long as you continue coming up with skewed comparisons, you will always be able to successfully be able to convince yourself that Phil is greater than any other coach.

Just don't look at their coaching abilities. Then you may have to wake up.

Josh

[IrishHand]

That was one of the least effective responses I've ever seen.

The bottom line regarding the coaching debate is simple - which coach has won more games and more championships? Every year, there are generally around 6 teams that you could reasonably argue have a shot at the NBA Championship, based on caliber of players. Phil's had a lot of them, and he's won championships with them. Karl's had a lot of them, and he's done essentially nothing with them - losing a Finals was nice, I guess, but the embarassments other years and subsequentlly with Milwaukee sort of announce to the world that he's nowhere near as you'd like to think he is. Furthermore, to the extent that you want to claim that Phil's always had better players (which is ill-thought, but anyway), seems to me that Karl had a pretty good team this past summer. Even though no US coach since the original Dream Team has managed to lose even ONE game, he managed to do it THREE times - against decidedly inferior competition each time. Great coaching, George!

By the way - Payton's been "great" since about 1994, which covers the relevant portions of this discussion. Also, since you're into bashing former Sonics - Detlef Schrempf, during the prime of the Sonics with Karl, was regarded as a borderline All-Star. He was a tall, versatile SF - he could shoot, was a great passer, and completely unselfish. No, he wasn't the great defensively - but that doesn't detract from the fact that he was an outstanding player at that time.

Irish

[Josh W]

I'll be honest, I didn't even read the post above, which I am responding too.

Once I saw that all that matters in coaching, and the way to measure a coach is based on # of wins and # of championships, the poster lost ALL credibility.

Doc Rivers taking the Magic to the playoffs in 1998 (Dang, I think that was the year) was the best coaching performance of our time. Nate McMillian the last two years has also been superb. George Karl has not.

Maybe the post was a good one. But if you are throwing out nonsensical opinions like that right off the bat, nobody with self-dignity will be able to read your other 'points'.

Josh

[Josh W]

I was afraid that there may be a "in my previous post" reference later on, and you all would assume that I had read it anyways, so I did.

I was also hopeful for more comic relief, and I wasn't disappointed.

Look, in the finals, Detlef couldn't play critical minutes because he was an enormous defensive liability. Enormous. Worse than "Shaq can't make freethrows" liability. Worse than "Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace aren't scoring threats" liability. He was an easy 2 points or foul. Every time.

Yes, when he played with Indiana, and when he led Dallas to the playoffs, he was a very good player. When he was with Seattle, he could put up 15 pts. per game. But he couldn't rebound, and he couldn't defend. He was soft.

Now, a question for anybody who is still reading this....

How many times to I need to say in this thread that I do not consider George Karl a good coach now, or for the last 3ish years?

I've said it about 471 times, and it still is getting brought up. Yes, earlier I listed him amongst good (or was it great, I dunno) coaches. But I've said many times that that was with Seattle.

And, please, IrishHand, don't you to start to try to say that Payton and Kemp are anywhere near the equal of Kobe and Shaq. Payton was good back then...he avg.d 16 and 6. Kemp was a 18 and 10 guy. Together, they put up in the high-30's every night. Jordan and Pippen, or Kobe and Shaq have never ever ever been that pedestrian.

But then it dawned on me.....maybe my criteria is screwed up. Maybe what makes a good coach is wins and rings. I'm being sincere here. I will never consider that a grading criteria. Never. But, if most people do, then they are right in considering Phil Jackson great (and, heck, even I'd consider him very very very good at the very least....). I just don't think he's the greatest. He isn't, and didn't last year, lead the league in wins, so I'm sure IrishHand also doesn't consider him the best.

But, wait, didn't this whole thing start over my response, saying he's not the best coach? And, well, IrishHand, by his own admittance is agreeing with me.

So, I guess my last question is...IrishHand, who do you think is the best coach today? You must think it's Don Nelson, right? (by "today", I mean this year, not this decade)

Maybe you should rethink your laughable criteria about what makes a coach great. Either that, or rethink your initial post about who the greatest coach is.

Let us know what you decide...

Josh

[IrishHand]

Good Lord - can you even read?

How does "The bottom line regarding the coaching debate is simple - which coach has won more games and more championships?" equate to "Irish thinks that the only thing that matters is the number of wins over the first 20 games of this season"?

Coaches can't be compared based on 20 games. They probably shouldn't be compared over a season - the sample size is just too small. However, we were talking about two coaches who've been coaching in the NBA since the 80s.

Here are their career numbers:
Phil Jackson
734-271 (for .730 in regular season) 156-54 (for .743 in the playoffs) for NINE NBA Championships in 12 years as head coach.
Goerge Karl
674-470 (for .589 in regular season) 57-63 (for .475 in the playoffs) for exactly zero Championships in 15 years as head coach.

Who do I think is the best coach in the NBA this season? The same guy who's been the best coach in the NBA for the past 10 years. Phil Jackson.

Doc Rivers taking the Magic to the playoffs in 1998 (Dang, I think that was the year) was the best coaching performance of our time.
Umm...Rivers first year as a coach was 99-00. He went 41-41 and missed the playoffs. The next year, he had McGrady and they went 43-39, then lost in the 1st round of the playoffs. I'm pretty sure you're referring to his first year though, since he was applauded for winning 41 games with players who were then considered castoffs. Key 'castoffs' on that team included Ben Wallace (Defensive player of the year last year), Bo Outlaw (phenomenal defensive player) and Darrell Armstrong (outstanding 2-way point guard). Did Rivers overachieve in getting to 41-41? Certainly - I'd have expected 30-50 or so. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you convince NBA players to play defense. Was that the best coaching performance of our time? Only if by "our time" you meant 99-00, since I can come up with coaching performances nearly every year that equal that one for overachieving by 10 or so wins.

Re: Detlef Schrempf
Yes, when he played with Indiana, and when he led Dallas to the playoffs, he was a very good player. When he was with Seattle, he could put up 15 pts. per game. But he couldn't rebound, and he couldn't defend. He was soft.

Detlef's numbers in Seattle
Year Points Rebounds Assists
1993-94 15.0 5.6 3.4
1994-95 19.2 6.2 3.8
1995-96 17.1 5.2 4.4
1996-97 16.8 6.5 4.4
1997-98 15.8 7.1 4.4
1998-99 15.0 7.4 3.7

Furthermore, he was a Western Conference All-Star in both 1995 and 1997. In 1995 he was named to the All-NBA Third Team (that means that a lot of intelligent basketball people thought he was among the top 15 or so players in the game at that time. However, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure he couldn't rebound (6.2 per game from the SF position), couldn't defend and was soft.

Once I saw that all that matters in coaching, and the way to measure a coach is based on # of wins and # of championships, the poster lost ALL credibility.
And the same moment that you annouced that you think coaching is about something other than winning games and championships, you lost all credibility. Coaches who develop players or overachieve with bad teams are great - they're sort of like Ewing, Barkely and Malone. After they leave, we'll be able to look back on their careers and say "very good career." Greatness is reserved for those who realize the goal of athletic competition - winning championships. Yes...winning is the only thing that matters in the end.

Irish

[Clarkmeister]

Your memory is suspect. Payton finished 6th and Kemp 8th in MVP voting the year they went to the finals. In fact, I distinctly remember arguing with some friends that year that Payton was the 2nd best player in the league. They were both top 10 in MVP at least 2 other years that I saw. Which ought to tell you that it ain't so easy to win titles just because you have two of the best in the league. Heck, apparently it isn't even easy to win your *conference* with 2 of the 10 best if the Sonics are our example.

Heck, the Lakers of the 80's had two of the 6 best ALL TIME players and couldn't win every year. I have little doubt that with Phil at the helm they would have won more titles than they did.

Regarding Irish's post above, its interesting to note how Phil's win% increases in the playoffs while Karl's plummets, and most of Karl's playoff games were with the above two top ten players.

I don't know, but it sure seems fairly improbable that the all time win% leader and title winner isn't one of the all time best coaches. And comparing him to two coaches (Nate and Doc) who haven't even reached the conference finals is downright silly.

And I still say his job with the Jordanless Bulls is the all time greatest performance. Certainly light years more impressive than anything Doc has done to date. And I happen to like Doc quite a bit.

[Josh W]

Clarke...

I've stated, I've asked, and now I'm dang near begging...

Please quit trying to compare a team with 2 barely-top-ten players to a team with 2 top-3 players. Then, you'll deserve some respect.

I never said taht Jackson isnt' one of the best coaches of our time. Don't put words in my mouth, then you'll deserve some respect.

Please address how a guy who goes 16 and 7 and a guy who goes 18 and 9 compare with Kobe and Shaq, then you'll have some respect.

if you are looking for 'evidence' that Jackson is great, keep comparing him blindly to unequal teams.

If you want some respect, do yourself a favor, and get a grip on the real issues. He's never outperformed expectations (except for one year, when he had no realistic expectations). And, if you want him to look good, keep comparing him to Del Harris. Yeah, that's the easiest coach to compare him to, but we both agree that he's better than Harris.

And, lastly, when did we start talking about the best alltime coach?

Josh W

[Josh W]

Irish...

I fear that this has all been a collossal waste of time over miscommunication...

Did you try to list the best coach of all time? the best coach of the last ten years? or the best coach of today?

And, if you were trying to list the best coach of today, did you have anything to base it on other than "he's been the best coach of the last ten years"? If so, now would be a great time to tell us.

Do you think that Bill Russell was the greatest NBA player ever? If so, you and I simply have a different criteria, which is no problem. It's like saying who the best looking woman is...different people measure differently. I think we can both live with that.

If you don't think he is the best, well, then, you are lying to us about what the criteria is. If you are lying to us and keep changing your story, this is an impossible conversation to have. It's like trying to argue with a baby.

Just let us know which it is....do we have different criteria, or are you just hiding your real criteria from us?

And, I really don't know why you are trying to compare the lifetime of George Karl to the lifetime of Phil Jackson. I assume you won't answer if I ask, cuz I've been pleading with you (and Clarke) to not do that, unless you think we are going to disagree (I'll say it in plain and simple english...I think that Phil Jackson's career has been far superior to George Karls...and this, to me, has nothing to do with win percentages).

And, lastly, for Detlef Schrempf...He was a PF before coming to Seattle, and in Seattle, he was a PF that was called a SF. He was dang near the biggest SF ever at that point of time. He was listed at 6'10" and 6'11". And he only got 6 boards per game. He was soft, and he couldn't defend.

I'll stand by this. Does this mean that he was a waste of flesh? nope. Does it mean that he was nothing but an oxygen thief on the floor? Nope. It means that he was soft, couldn't defend, and couldnt' board (for his size, especially...and when he's guarding Rodman or Pippen, these detriments are really really tough to overcome).

And, please....being an all-star meant he could score. That's why all-star games are so high-scoring. But what the Sonics needed was defense and boards (especially after Frank Brikowski got suspended....another wonderful part of the sonics supporting cast).

But, fine, go ahead and address these points with points, votes, assists, and mislead about his position. I'd be surprised if you actually addressed the point at hand.

11 rings. He must be far and away the best player to you. Far and away.

Josh

[Clarkmeister]

"I never said that Jackson isn't one of the best coaches of our time. Stop putting words in my mouth, then you'll deserve some respect"

Well why don't you reread these statements of yours from your initial post in this thread.

From your initial post:

"The only thing Phil has proved over the years is that he is a better coach than Del Harris. That's it."

"A good coach would be able to do more with the Lakers sans Shaq than Phil has"

"If George Karl, Nate McMillin or Doc Rivers were the coach of the Lakers this year, the'd be more successful"

"He just hopes he can ride his stars' coattails"

and my favorite:

"But he's not the best coach. And its not close"


So we go from that to:

""I never said that Jackson isn't one of the best coaches of our time."

Interesting.

[J_V]

Great list! Right on. Im not a big francis fan though, so would take him off the backup list. Carter is very overrated. He's just not quick enough off the dribble. Champions are made when everyone's geared in on D. Vince Carter can't score when teams screw it down on D. I.E. fourth quarter playoffs.

It's sort of like pickup ball. Anyone can score, but when the games 14-14 going to 15, the man that can get to the rim and score consistently then is a player.

[Josh W]

Real quick...

All of those quotes, except for the first one refers to this year....not of the last 15 years. And I stand by all of them. And I stand by the first one...that he is likely the best coach (or at least one of the geatest) of our time. There is nothing ever remotely close to a contradiction, and we both know it.

At least this time, you didn't put words in my mouth....you twisted my words and took them out of context. Honorable.

The first quote specifically uses the word "prove". Look, unless we see how two coaches do with the exact same team and schedule, we cannot 'prove' that one coach is better than another. The closest we've seen is Del Harris and Phil Jackson. Hence, I feel that Jackson has 'proved' that he's better than Harris. I have a tough time comparing Jackson to Tomjanovich, Rivers, McMillian, Riley, or anybody else, because the differences in circumstances are unquantifiable.

Do you disagree with either of these? Or, do you disagree that Jackson is one of the best coaches of recent times?

And, I'd like to sincerely thank you for not comparing a team with two of the best 3 (or 5) players in the league to teams with two of the best 8.

Josh

[IrishHand]

Did you try to list the best coach of all time? the best coach of the last ten years? or the best coach of today?
They're all the same guy, so what difference does it make? However, I can understand arguments in favor of a couple of others as to who's the best coach of all time - George Karl's just not one of them (neither is Rivers or McMillan).

Do you think that Bill Russell was the greatest NBA player ever?
No, but he's clearly among the top 3. Again, you need to stop reading my posts selectively - I said that wins and titles were the primary (if not exclusive) criteria for evaluating coaches. While they're clearly the most important criteria for players as well, players also have things like individual achievements that factor in somewhat as well. Jordan was the greatest individual player ever - which by itself doesn't mean a ton. However, combined with his 6-pack of titles, it's not tough to figure out why he's arguably the best player ever.

Detlef Schrempf...He was a PF before coming to Seattle, and in Seattle, he was a PF that was called a SF. He was dang near the biggest SF ever at that point of time. He was listed at 6'10" and 6'11". And he only got 6 boards per game. He was soft, and he couldn't defend.
Hmm...I seem to recall another guy on the team who played the prototypical PF while Schrempf's game and mind-set always fit in well with the SF position. I like how I quote his pair of Sonics All-Star appearances and selection to the All-NBA 3rd team, and you cling hopefully to the same hollow assertions that Schrempf was soft and couldn't rebound. I guess he just fooled everyone in the NBA and your infinite wisdom was able to see through it.

And, please....being an all-star meant he could score. That's why all-star games are so high-scoring.
Wait...I thought Schrempf was good for nothing except 15 points and no defense? Wasn't that your original claim? (Even though the stats showed that 15 a game was his worst season as a Sonic.) Every team could come up with 2 or 3 guys averaging 15 or more back then - and yet most of them didn't make the All-Star Squad.

Schrempf, during his time with the Sonics, was one of the best SFs in the NBA. The Sonics knew it, Karl knew it, and most NBA people knew it. Looks like you're in the distinct minority.

I can only assume you've taken this positon based on either (a) a bad Final's performance - totally fair to trash a player's entire career based on one series against one of the greatest teams of all time, or (b) a desire to make the Sonics look bad to support your senseless claim that Karl never had the talent to win the NBA title - which we've clearly shown is wrong, since the Sonics had 3 All-Stars, which is 1 more than either the Lakers or Bulls. (Also - if All-Star games are only about who can score, how do you explain selections in recent years like Mutombo, Mason, Antonio Davis, Ratliff, Stockton and Dale Davis?

You also harp about the fact that Payton and Kemp weren't as good as Kobe and Shaq. So what? The point is that Karl had the talent to win an NBA title for many years. You don't need the two best players in the league - you just need enough talent (and chemistry, and defensive desire - all of which Karl had) to win. After then, it's sort of up to you. The only reason for comparing the two teams is to see if a coaching comparison is valid. The facts are simple:
The Bulls won exactly zero championships before Jackson.
The Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years with Jackson.
The Lakers won exactly zero championships in the years immediately preceeding Jackson.
The Lakers have won 3 championships in....ummm...3 years with Jackson.
The Sonics/Bucks won zero championships before Karl, and the same number with him.
The comparison between the two is closed - not sure why you choose not to see this (although I'd guess by the increasing number of contradictions and retractions on your part, you're getting closer).

~Irish

[IrishHand]

I agree with you about Francis - I only put him there to explain why he wasn't on the real list. Also agree with you 100% about the championships - until Carter proves he can go for 27 a game when everyone's actually trying to stop him, his achevements are kind of hollow.

[Clarkmeister]

"he is likely the best coach of our time"

While I would personally get rid of the word 'likely', it appears that we now agree and can end this debate.

That was fun. You should pop into Other Topics more often bro. This is the funnest forum on the stie.

[IrishHand]

Aye - you are right. My above posts from this morning were unnecessary. The debate had already been conceded. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[Josh W]

Clarke...

I think you and I agree. But if you are to insist that Phil Jackson is the best coach this year, then we don't agree.

So, Irish, you and I are far from agreeing.

Let me ask you this....do you think that there are any coaches in the NBA, with the team that the Lakers had for the first 20 games, could have done better than 7-13? If (key word) we are talking about this year, and you think that there is ANY coach out there who could do better than 7-13, then, you too must realize that Phil, by your definition isn't the best coach this year.

The debate is far from being 'conceded', unless you are conceding that by "this year" you mean "the last ten years".

Another question...Is Robert Horry the second best player (behind only Jordan) playing today? Is it close? He does have the second most rings. Is he in the top ten (to me, no. To you, it must be yes). Is he in the top 50? (to me, no. To you, this is slightly more obvious than "is the Pope Catholic").

And, man, before you respond, if you could take some time, think out your position, then tell us what your actualy criteria is for deciding greatness, and tell us if you mean this year or the past ten years, then that would be great.

So, to summarize, my questions for you:

1.) Are we talking about the best coach this year, or the past ten years. (Don't say it doesn't matter, because to the sane, it does).

2.) What is your (not necessarily universally accepted, but if we disagree on this, then we can agree to disagree) criteria for greatness. I understand ahead of time that this is almost always tough to put into words. I'm not sure that I could, and if you can't, I understand.

3.) Because you've repeatedly stated that your criteria is either SOLELY, or atleast HUGELY dependant on rings (you keep changing your story, so I can't pin it down), is Robert Horry the second best player today?

4.) Do you think that any coach in the NBA, given the lakers for the first 20 games this year, could have done better than 7-13?

Just four simple questions. I guess #2 isn't simple, but the other three are grotesquely simple. I'm just trying to pin down where exactly we disagree, and if you keep vascillating, I fear it won't ever happen.

Josh