This is a tough question. By the objective standard of playoff appearances, playoff wins, playoff win percentages, and Titles, it would seem a no-brainer.
So, why the question?
Because of who he coached, of course. He won six with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pipen, the greatest player of all time (according to most) and one of the top 50 greatest players of all time.
He won three with Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, two of the top 50 greatest players of all time.
He won this last one with Kobe Bryant, but didn't win it until he had assembled a team with one of the best centers in the game (Pau Gasol) and a 6th man forward who would be a starter on any other team (Lamar Odom).
But, the same is true of Red Auerbach. He had more than his share of top 50 all-time players (Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones.)
The same is true of Pat Riley and his six rings. He had Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and James Worthy.
Seems it's hard to be in the discussion for "best coach of all time" without having a fistful of "best players of all time," doesn't it?
In fact, a review of the rosters of the Finals winners over the history of the NBA is almost a recitation of the names of the top 50 players of all time. And, when multiple titles are won, you see multiple players who are in the top 50 players of all time (and/or ones who are certainly the best of their era).
Deeper review shows that winners of the NBA finals are almost entirely teams with a dominant big man -- one of the top 50 players of all time -- Bill Russell, Bill Walton, Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Robert Parish, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and George Mikan.
This theme, multiple titles won by a coach with a handful of all-time greats along with a dominant big man, is quite consistent throughout NBA history.
Except for Phil Jackson's SIX without a memorable big man.
Red had Russell. Riley had Jabbar. Phil had Horace Grant and Luc Longley.
Each had fistfuls of all-time greats (two or more) on their teams. But ONLY Phil was able to win multiple titles (six) WITHOUT a dominant big man.
For me, that settles the question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm not a huge basketball fan... but I'd say having Micheal Jordan probably equates with having a dominant big man.
ReplyDeleteI suspect if you look at the great coaches of any sport you'll find that most of them had great players on their great teams. It's a synergistic relationship since winning championships is generally considered one of the most important indicators of greatness.
In my mind all these "best ever" questions are exercises in rationalization anyway. Was Tom Landry a better or worse coach than Chuck Noll? Was Casey Stengel a better manager than Billy Martin? Since there is no way to normalize the variables, any comparision necessarily becomes an exercise in bias.
Still, if Phil Jackson isn't the best coach in NBA history, I'd be hard pressed to say who was.
Whether Michael and Scottie equated to "a dominant big man," is something I pondered.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but it doesn't quite get there. He averaged around 6 rebounds per game. He wasn't an inside player. He, in no way, dominated the boards.
Chamberlain averaged 22 (and 30 points per game). Russell averaged 22 (and 15 points per game). O'Neal averages 12 (25 points per game).
Jordan was a good rebounder -- for a forward. But, while Chamberlain and Russell were pulling down 22 rebounds per game for their fistful of Hall of Famers, Luc Longley was pulling down four for Jordan and Pippen.
Well, there you have it, simple as can be. Phil Jackson is a brilliant coach because HE TAUGHT HIS PLAYERS TO MAKE THEIR SHOTS!
ReplyDeleteHeh.
ReplyDelete