SI Player Poll: Who's the NBA's best coach?

[Warhawk]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/players/03/09/poll0.309/index.html

Adelman isn't listed among the best or the worst, so I wonder where he placed....

Who's the NBA's best coach?

John W. McDonough/SI
Gregg Popovich, Spurs.....31.9%
Phil Jackson, Lakers.....17.6%
Larry Brow, Knicks.....17.2%
Flip Saunders, Pistons.....7.6%
Mike D'Antoni, Suns.....5.9%
Rick Carlisle, Pacers.....3.8%
Pat Riley, Heat.....2.5%
Jerry Sloan, Jazz.....2.5%

Who's the worst?

Rick Bowmer/AP
Sam Mitchell, Raptors.....15.0%
Mike Woodson, Hawks.....13.3%
Jeff Van Gundy, Rockets.....10.8%
Mike Montgomery, Warriors.....8.3%
Byron Scott, Hornets.....6.7%
Larry Brown, Knicks.....3.8%
George Karl, Nuggets.....4.2%
Doc Rivers, Celtics.....4.2%

 

[kingsfan916]

i dont think sam mitchell is the worst

 

[PixelPusher]

Larry Brown is on both lists. Hmm...

 

[Gilles]

Larry Brown is on both lists. Hmm...

I saw this list about a week ago and I pondered for a while. I think this is the reason: you always hear "he's a Larry Brown type of guy" or "he's not a Larry Brown type of guy", and more important Larry always draw a line between these types and basicly alienate the second group(see Starbury). So those Larry Brown guys like him because he help them extend their game and he is hated by the others who have wars with him.

 

[GoGoGadget]

Technically, Larry Brown is one of the worst coaches while Larry Brow is one of the best.

 

[hoserama]

Let the knicks keep Larry Brown and his 3.8% worst voting, and let's fire Adelman and hire Larry Brow!!

 

[mavsman]

not to sound like a complete homer but how does Avery Johnson not get in on the best coaches list? 66 wins in his first full season (dating back to last year) apparently isn't enough. In fairness he has only coached 82 games.

 

[T[MaC]]

i was wondering the same thing..avery should be in the running for coach of the year for what he's doing in dallas.

 

[swisshh]

I think Avery didn't get votes just because this is his first real season as coach. A lot of people think D'Antoni is the next genius or whatever, and he still didn't get that many votes because he's roughly new.

This is a player poll, which is why Mitchell is ranked the worst and Byron Scott got votes there as well, despite turning around two franchsies(Nets and Hornets) as coach. A lot of players got into it with Sam in Toronto and it's no secret NJ just quit on Scott.

 

[FrenchCanadianKING]

How does one mesure if a coach is good or not? Wins and losses? Sure, but that doesn't nearly tell the whole story. I am of the opinion that mesuring how good a coach is, is almost impossible. Simply because the majority of a coach's work is done behind closed doors like in the locker room or during practice.

IMO, we judge coaches on wins too much. Sure winning is great and all but it doesn't mesure how one coach is advantaged compared to another in terms of the talent on his team. Phil Jackson would never be on that list if he wouldn't of landed two of the most dominant players of all-time to help him win those 9 rings. Just like Larry Brown would of never gotten votes for worst coach when he was with Detroit. But now that he is coaching a horrible team assembled by the worst GM that has ever lived that makes him a bad coach(according to some people)?

 

[acisking]

^^Well regarding Larry Brown, I am personally of the opinion that he greatly improves teams defensively but seriously resticts them offensively. Larry Brown's slow offensive strategy of passing the bal around only works well with certain types of players. It is true that he led the Pistons to a championship but everyone can clearly see how much more dangerous the Pistons are now that their offense has oppened up. People forget that under Larry Brown, their defense may have been a few notches over that of Flip but their offense was often painful to watch as they would go through long stretches without putting the ball in the basket. Young teams or those with lots of athleticism (like the Pistons) should be encouraged to play more of an uptempo game. The fact that the Knicks have moer starting lineups this year than anyone can name without a reference guide is a testament to how erradic Brown can be. For all his great reputation, the truth is that Brown alienates players to the point of making them feel uncomfortable on the court. Larry Brown has also been known to create problems wherever he goes and to become discontent rather quickly. Thus, I for one, view Brown as being slightly overrated as a coach and certainly more than a little problematic as an individual (in the context of a team).

 

[mavsman]

I think Avery didn't get votes just because this is his first real season as coach. A lot of people think D'Antoni is the next genius or whatever, and he still didn't get that many votes because he's roughly new.

yea that's another thing. Again not to sound like a homer but the Mavs revolutionized that run and gun style along w/ the Kings. We were the only 2 teams running that offense but all Charles and everyone else would say is "They don't play defense."

When D'Antoni and Nash run that offense they are labeled geniuses and creative.

Please.

Don Nelson / Adelman are the ones who started that trend - let's not forget that.

 

[acisking]

^^Actually in Barkley's defense, I have seen him argue with Kenny and Ernie a few times that he thinks that the Suns don't play nearly enough defense and can't possibly go far in playoffs. Kenny Smith believes that the Suns could still be dangerous if they play just enough defense to support their dynamic offense and Charles is constantly arguing with him over it.

At the same time though I do see your point, as it was Nelly/Adelman along with ofenses like Carrill's that revolutionized uptempo basketball in this modern era of slow games.

 

[jacobdrj]

How To Grade A Coach: By Me

Grading any coach at any leval requires one to recognize certain things. These things are independent of style and actual wins and losses. It is tough to guage talent on a team, especialy if 1 coach is able to get lots of wins out of a particular team, while some other coach may be a bad fit.

It is rare, but it comes around, where you have some universally good coaches.

Things to consider:
1) Strategy: This is the chess player part of a coach. This is the game that happens before the game. Many games can be won and lost by a coaches ability to have a good game plan, and sell it to his players. Things like looking at tape, finding tendencies, or forcing your own will are all decisions a good coach can make before a game starts, that can make things much easier, or much harder on the players. It requies an intamate knowledge of your own personel for detailed strategy, but basic strategic philosophy can make a hasty difference in any given team, for better or for worse. Also the INTENDED game rotations are made by good strategic coaches.

2) Tactics: This is the in game part. This is my favorate aspect of coaching. While a good gameplan is a great headstart, a great tactician can make up for alot of sins. This is the ability to make adjustments durring timouts and halftime. This is the ability to recognize when the gameplan has gone sour, and the ability to recognize and adapt to the situation. Things like letting the hot hand go, inbounds plays, and timely time-outs and healthy player rotations all go into tactics. A great tactical coach will also have the dicipline to change things like player rotation if the need arises, despite his personal feelings.

Finally,
3) a coaches ability to strike a balance between selling his philosophy and adapting to his players. This one is key. The philosophy of a coach is irrelavent. Sometimes a coach just needs to leave a stamp on his team, other times he must recognize his teams limitations and strengths. If a coach can balance his ego with that of his players (doens't matter how, just if it gets done) than he can be a sucessful coach, even if his strategy and tactics are sub-par.

Wins and losses mean little. Championships mean a little more than wins and losses, but not by much because of the luck involved with having the right players at the right time. In the NBA in particular, only 1 in 28 teams have a shot at the title in the begining of the season (yeah, I know there are 30 teams *snicker* ) Even in a 30 year career by the laws of averages, some coaches just are never going to get a sniff at a title, no matter how magnificent the coach is. If their GM's don't give them talent, they can't perform.

Watch coaches. Watch them close. Not 1 game, not 1 season. Watch them over a few seasons, preferably coaching different teams, and you can get an idea of what traits are truely due to the coach, as opposed to the personel. And if you are impatient, and need to rank a coach now (I couldn't immagine why, but just suppose) than you can only really look at coaches who havn't had significant player change from the preveious coach, and see if, all other things equal, did the new coach do better than the previous one. And even this is flawed, because players mature, and teams coalesse.