Now that Phil Jackson has coached his last basketball game, allegedly. The inevitable debate has reared it's head again...who's the better coach, Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach? But before I get into it, I would like to make a few comments about the Game 4 of the Lakers/Mavs series.
I sat at the Moosehead Bar & Grill in Charlotte, NC in slack-jawed disbelief as the Mavs cremated the Lakers. Jason Terry hit shot after shot with nary a Laker defender in his face. Apparently the Laker defensive game plan consisted of daring the Mavs to hoist up 3-pointers. Which they did & did very well. Dallas was 44-73 from the field and 20-32 (that's 63%!) from beyond the arc. How about Odom & Bynum at the end of the game? The cross body block that Odom layed on Dirk was a flagrant foul and you can debate about whether he should've been tossed. In my opinion, Odom was frustrated about the game, didn't feel like playing anymore and decided to body check Dirk. Odom, from what I've heard, is a likable guy who had had enough and acted outed of frustration but NO ONE got hurt. Bynum had contributed very little, 2-7 from the field 10 points & 6 rebounds, decided that he was done for the day (did he ever get started?). So he decides to hammer, what Dr. Flute calls "the Rudy of the NBA," Jose Barea.
After Bynum put Barea on the deck he turned around and walked toward the tunnel without even waiting for the refs to toss him. He then takes off his shirt in disgust as Ron Artest escorts him off the floor. What does that tell you about a player who:
a) decides he no longer wants to play in a blowout loss so he flagrant fouls the littlest guy on the court.
b)Pulls a "Rodman" by ripping off his shirt in disgust as if he did nothing wrong or was unjustly being singled out.
c) needed Ron Artest to be the "level-headed guy" to get him off the court without further incident. Ron Artest?! Really?
I never really thought Bynum was that good, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bynuman01.html. He's played a full season once and only 1 more time did he play more than 60 games. I was going to call him the Benoit Benjamin of his generation but after going over Benoit's stats, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/benjabe01.html, that's a disservice to Benoit!
My last comment about this subject is in Red's last game, the Celtics won the NBA title. In Phil's last game, the Lakers were blown out and the players layed down and died. I think there was a moment when the Lakers were down 30 that you could see Phil texting Jean Buss about starting their vacation early. Ok that's a lame attempt to try to be witty. Back to the argument of Red v. Phil.
Red Auerbach was the coach and GM of the Boston Celtics from 1950-1966. Under Auerbach the Celtics won the NBA title in 1957 and 8 more from 1959-1966. Here's the list of Hall of Fame players that Red coached during his title run:
Phil coached the Bulls from 1990-1998. He took over a team that lost the Eastern Conference Finals to the eventual champion Detroit Pistons. In his 1st season they once again got beat by the Pistons in the ECF. After winning 3 champions with Jordan (91-93), Jordan left and Phil still won 62% of regular season games while Jordan was playing baseball (or on a secret suspension from Stern whichever you believe) and made into the semi finals of the EC both years as well. Then of course Jordan returns then he wins 3 more.
Instead of dragging this out, I am going to end this argument once and for all. You CAN NOT compare the 2 eras. Red coached in a league with 8 to 9 teams with 6 teams going to the playoffs. Phil coached in a league where 16 teams went to the playoffs. The NBA didn't go too much past the Mississippi River until the Lakers moved out to LA for the 1960-61 season. The game was very different, the NIT was still the dominant post season tournament in college hoops, travel was done by train for the most part, TV was non-existent and so on. The comparison that should be made is Phil Jackson v. Pat Riley. Both coached in the post-merger era of the NBA and both coached teams loaded with talent (Riley took over a Laker team that had won the title in 1980 then got ousted in the 1st round by a 41-41 Houston team. That along with the fact that Paul Westhead wasn't liked by Magic Johnson opened the door for Riley).
So throw out the Red v. Phil argument! It has no steam. I don't believe you can compare era in most major sports. Things were just different. In Red's time, pro atheltes had a 2nd job in the off season, athletes never moved unless traded, no European players, a quota on Black players and so on. It was even a different country back then! Red was a master coach, talent evaluator and GM. He was better than the other guys and even into is twilight years he was still sharp (he drafted Larry Bird as junior eligible in 1978 so he had his rights until Larry finished at Indiana State. The NBA closed that loophole soon after). So Red is far and away the best coach of the pre-merger era.
Phil versus Pat is the better debate. Riley went to the NBA finals 7 times from 1982-1989 and came away with 4 NBA titles. From 1990-1998, Phil went to the finals 6 times and came away with 6 titles. Both coached were master motiviators and great at manipulating egos (Red probably didn't have that problem of dealing with cry baby millionaires like Scottie Pippen in the 1994 ECSF against the Knicks).
Phil is the winner in the debate with Riley. It would probably be closer if Starks hadn't gone 2-18 from the field in game 7 or if the Knicks didnt allow Reggie Miller to score 8 points in 3 seconds in game 7 of the ECSF in 1995, which may have enabled Riley to get a title with the Knicks. But Riley couldn't get past Jordan and even with Jordan out of the league he couldn't win a title despite having a very talented Knicks team.
Riley's won 64% of his 1904 regular season games whereas Phil won 70% of his 1640 regualr season games. Where Riley loses this debate is in Miami. He left the Knicks (unceremoniously) after the 1995 season to take the Miami Heat job and if my memory serves me correct, he was the GM in Miami as well. In 8 full seasons as the Heat coach (1996-2003), Riley won the Atlantic division 4 times in a row and only got to the ECF 1 time (1997) and included 2 1st round exits. He still couldn't get by Jordan. His last 2 seasons he only managed 61 wins (37% winning percentage). Even after replacing Stan Van Gundy in 2005-06 season he eventually won the title against the Mavs. He should have gone back up to the front office immediately! The next season the Heat were swept in the 1st round and in his last full season as head coach the Heat went 15-67.
Phil's work with Jordan is set in stone. After his 3rd Three-peat (Riley had that phrase trademarked despite never accomplishing it), with the Kobe v. Shaq feud in full gear, he still managed to get the Lakers to the finals in 2004 before losing to a much less talented Pistons team. By that time the Kobe v. Shaq battle took center stage and all of Phil's Zen mastery wasn't going to help. Phil knew when to leave (Riley's judgment there is questionable). He wasn't going to stick around after the Bulls broke up the dynasty in 1998 and he cut his losses with the Lakers after the 2004 season. He only came back after the Lakers made changes and they were still a few players away from the run they started in 2008 (when they added Pau Gasol in the 2007-08 season). You can say that Phil had the best player in 2006 and 2007 (Kobe) but with a limited supporting cast he managed 42 and 45 wins respectively.
Phil is the clear cut winner. Sure he never had to build a team like Red or Riley did but that's not his fault. I don't know how great the "triangle" offense is and Tex Winter came up with anyway but he knew players and how to get them to perform. It helped a lot with the Shaq & Kobe Lakers that he already had 6 rings. He got players to buy into his Zen philosophy and quite frankly he won championships and that's what it's about. Again, I don't believe you can compare eras. So in my mind Red & Phil stand alone as the coaching pinnacles of their respective eras.
Most of this stuff was covered by Bill Simmons in his book about the NBA. Some of you out there may not have read it and even less will read this but I got my opinion on record. Thanks for your time.
I sat at the Moosehead Bar & Grill in Charlotte, NC in slack-jawed disbelief as the Mavs cremated the Lakers. Jason Terry hit shot after shot with nary a Laker defender in his face. Apparently the Laker defensive game plan consisted of daring the Mavs to hoist up 3-pointers. Which they did & did very well. Dallas was 44-73 from the field and 20-32 (that's 63%!) from beyond the arc. How about Odom & Bynum at the end of the game? The cross body block that Odom layed on Dirk was a flagrant foul and you can debate about whether he should've been tossed. In my opinion, Odom was frustrated about the game, didn't feel like playing anymore and decided to body check Dirk. Odom, from what I've heard, is a likable guy who had had enough and acted outed of frustration but NO ONE got hurt. Bynum had contributed very little, 2-7 from the field 10 points & 6 rebounds, decided that he was done for the day (did he ever get started?). So he decides to hammer, what Dr. Flute calls "the Rudy of the NBA," Jose Barea.
After Bynum put Barea on the deck he turned around and walked toward the tunnel without even waiting for the refs to toss him. He then takes off his shirt in disgust as Ron Artest escorts him off the floor. What does that tell you about a player who:
a) decides he no longer wants to play in a blowout loss so he flagrant fouls the littlest guy on the court.
b)Pulls a "Rodman" by ripping off his shirt in disgust as if he did nothing wrong or was unjustly being singled out.
c) needed Ron Artest to be the "level-headed guy" to get him off the court without further incident. Ron Artest?! Really?
I never really thought Bynum was that good, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bynuman01.html. He's played a full season once and only 1 more time did he play more than 60 games. I was going to call him the Benoit Benjamin of his generation but after going over Benoit's stats, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/benjabe01.html, that's a disservice to Benoit!
My last comment about this subject is in Red's last game, the Celtics won the NBA title. In Phil's last game, the Lakers were blown out and the players layed down and died. I think there was a moment when the Lakers were down 30 that you could see Phil texting Jean Buss about starting their vacation early. Ok that's a lame attempt to try to be witty. Back to the argument of Red v. Phil.
Red Auerbach was the coach and GM of the Boston Celtics from 1950-1966. Under Auerbach the Celtics won the NBA title in 1957 and 8 more from 1959-1966. Here's the list of Hall of Fame players that Red coached during his title run:
- Bob Cousy
- Bill Russell
- Frank Ramsey
- Bill Sharman
- Tommy Heinshon
- Sam Jones
- John Havlicek
- Michael Jordan
- Scottie Pippen
- Shaquille O'Neal
- Kobe Bryant
Phil coached the Bulls from 1990-1998. He took over a team that lost the Eastern Conference Finals to the eventual champion Detroit Pistons. In his 1st season they once again got beat by the Pistons in the ECF. After winning 3 champions with Jordan (91-93), Jordan left and Phil still won 62% of regular season games while Jordan was playing baseball (or on a secret suspension from Stern whichever you believe) and made into the semi finals of the EC both years as well. Then of course Jordan returns then he wins 3 more.
Instead of dragging this out, I am going to end this argument once and for all. You CAN NOT compare the 2 eras. Red coached in a league with 8 to 9 teams with 6 teams going to the playoffs. Phil coached in a league where 16 teams went to the playoffs. The NBA didn't go too much past the Mississippi River until the Lakers moved out to LA for the 1960-61 season. The game was very different, the NIT was still the dominant post season tournament in college hoops, travel was done by train for the most part, TV was non-existent and so on. The comparison that should be made is Phil Jackson v. Pat Riley. Both coached in the post-merger era of the NBA and both coached teams loaded with talent (Riley took over a Laker team that had won the title in 1980 then got ousted in the 1st round by a 41-41 Houston team. That along with the fact that Paul Westhead wasn't liked by Magic Johnson opened the door for Riley).
So throw out the Red v. Phil argument! It has no steam. I don't believe you can compare era in most major sports. Things were just different. In Red's time, pro atheltes had a 2nd job in the off season, athletes never moved unless traded, no European players, a quota on Black players and so on. It was even a different country back then! Red was a master coach, talent evaluator and GM. He was better than the other guys and even into is twilight years he was still sharp (he drafted Larry Bird as junior eligible in 1978 so he had his rights until Larry finished at Indiana State. The NBA closed that loophole soon after). So Red is far and away the best coach of the pre-merger era.
Phil versus Pat is the better debate. Riley went to the NBA finals 7 times from 1982-1989 and came away with 4 NBA titles. From 1990-1998, Phil went to the finals 6 times and came away with 6 titles. Both coached were master motiviators and great at manipulating egos (Red probably didn't have that problem of dealing with cry baby millionaires like Scottie Pippen in the 1994 ECSF against the Knicks).
Phil is the winner in the debate with Riley. It would probably be closer if Starks hadn't gone 2-18 from the field in game 7 or if the Knicks didnt allow Reggie Miller to score 8 points in 3 seconds in game 7 of the ECSF in 1995, which may have enabled Riley to get a title with the Knicks. But Riley couldn't get past Jordan and even with Jordan out of the league he couldn't win a title despite having a very talented Knicks team.
Riley's won 64% of his 1904 regular season games whereas Phil won 70% of his 1640 regualr season games. Where Riley loses this debate is in Miami. He left the Knicks (unceremoniously) after the 1995 season to take the Miami Heat job and if my memory serves me correct, he was the GM in Miami as well. In 8 full seasons as the Heat coach (1996-2003), Riley won the Atlantic division 4 times in a row and only got to the ECF 1 time (1997) and included 2 1st round exits. He still couldn't get by Jordan. His last 2 seasons he only managed 61 wins (37% winning percentage). Even after replacing Stan Van Gundy in 2005-06 season he eventually won the title against the Mavs. He should have gone back up to the front office immediately! The next season the Heat were swept in the 1st round and in his last full season as head coach the Heat went 15-67.
Phil's work with Jordan is set in stone. After his 3rd Three-peat (Riley had that phrase trademarked despite never accomplishing it), with the Kobe v. Shaq feud in full gear, he still managed to get the Lakers to the finals in 2004 before losing to a much less talented Pistons team. By that time the Kobe v. Shaq battle took center stage and all of Phil's Zen mastery wasn't going to help. Phil knew when to leave (Riley's judgment there is questionable). He wasn't going to stick around after the Bulls broke up the dynasty in 1998 and he cut his losses with the Lakers after the 2004 season. He only came back after the Lakers made changes and they were still a few players away from the run they started in 2008 (when they added Pau Gasol in the 2007-08 season). You can say that Phil had the best player in 2006 and 2007 (Kobe) but with a limited supporting cast he managed 42 and 45 wins respectively.
Phil is the clear cut winner. Sure he never had to build a team like Red or Riley did but that's not his fault. I don't know how great the "triangle" offense is and Tex Winter came up with anyway but he knew players and how to get them to perform. It helped a lot with the Shaq & Kobe Lakers that he already had 6 rings. He got players to buy into his Zen philosophy and quite frankly he won championships and that's what it's about. Again, I don't believe you can compare eras. So in my mind Red & Phil stand alone as the coaching pinnacles of their respective eras.
Most of this stuff was covered by Bill Simmons in his book about the NBA. Some of you out there may not have read it and even less will read this but I got my opinion on record. Thanks for your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment