PDA

View Full Version : Basketball-reference's - All-Decade Teams: Coaches of the 2000s



JordansBulls
08-01-2009, 01:27 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=3069




When I wrote my post about the All-Decade Teams for the 2000s, I meant to include a section on coaches, but somehow it slipped my mind. Today I would like to make up for that omission by first explaining the system that I use, and then present my selections for the All-Decade Team coaches.


First, let me state the obvious: there is no simple way to rate the accomplishments of coaches; heck, there might not even be a difficult way. That said, I have a six-point system that I like to use to put a number on each coach’s season:

+1 point if the coach finished with more wins than losses
+1 point if the coach won at least 50 games
+1 point if the coach won at least 60 games
+1 point if the coach’s team made the playoffs
+1 point if the coach’s team won the conference playoffs
+1 point if the coach’s team won the NBA Finals
Like I said, it’s a simple system, and it’s by no means perfect, but I think it works well enough. A perfect season would be worth six points: winning at least 60 games during the regular season, followed by an NBA championship.

After assigning a number to each coach’s season using the system outlined above, I computed each coach’s score for the decade by taking 100% of his best season, 90% of his second-best season, 80% of his third-best season, etc. So, without further ado, here are the All-Decade Team coaches:

First Team: Gregg Popovich (23.5)

Popovich barely edges out Phil Jackson for First Team honors. “Pop” coached the Spurs for the entire decade and made the playoffs each season, never winning fewer than 53 games. The Spurs won three NBA titles during the 2000s, and Popovich is one of only five NBA coaches with at least four championships on his resume.

Second Team: Phil Jackson (23.4)

How close was it between Popovich and Jackson? If Jackson had coached the 2004-05 Lakers and finished above .500 (no sure thing), he would have tied Popovich. That said, Jackson had a great decade: nine trips to the playoffs, six trips to the Finals, and four NBA titles. Not bad.

Third Team: Rick Adelman and Flip Saunders (16.3)

Adelman and Saunders tied for the third slot. Adelman coached the Sacramento Kings for seven years and the Houston Rockets for two years, making the playoffs nine times and winning 50 or more games seven times. Saunders coached the Minnesota Timberwolves for six years and the Detroit Pistons for three years. His teams made the playoffs in eight of his nine seasons, and he led seven teams to at least 50 wins. Neither Adelman nor Saunders led a team to the NBA Finals during the 2000s, but their teams were consistently very good.

With Popovich and Jackson winning seven of the ten NBA championships in the 2000s, only three other coaches won a title during the decade. Here are those coaches and how they ranked using this system:

+------+--------------------+-------+--------+
| Rank | Coach | Years | Rating |
+------+--------------------+-------+--------+
| 5 | Larry Brown | 8 | 15.4 |
| 6 | Doc Rivers | 10 | 13.9 |
| 15 | Pat Riley | 7 | 10.5 |
+------+--------------------+-------+--------+
The well-traveled Brown took two different teams to the NBA Finals (the 2001 Philadelphia 76ers and the 2004/2005 Detroit Pistons) and won a championship with Detroit in 2004, but he also had an embarrassing season with the New York Knicks in 2005-06 and was a disappointment with the Charlotte Bobcats last season.

Rivers was named NBA Coach of the Year as coach of the Orlando Magic 2000 and won a ring with the Boston Celtics in 2008, but four of his ten teams missed the playoffs, and he did not coach a team that won 50 or more games until the 2007-08 season.

Riley’s title came with the Miami Heat in 2006, when he fired Stan Van Gundy early in the season and moved from the front office to the bench. However, three of Riley’s seven teams failed to make the playoffs, and two of them finished last in their division, including an awful 15-67 record in 2007-08.

Hellcrooner
08-01-2009, 01:37 PM
problemis championships shourl value mor than anything. and back to back championshops or three peats be valued more

lakers4sho
08-01-2009, 01:56 PM
problemis championships shourl value mor than anything. and back to back championshops or three peats be valued more

:nod:

JordansBulls
08-01-2009, 04:29 PM
problemis championships shourl value mor than anything. and back to back championshops or three peats be valued more

:confused:

Hellcrooner
08-01-2009, 04:36 PM
not to mention is not the same merit making a 50 win season with spurs and a 50 win season with memphis for example

Hawkeye15
08-01-2009, 05:33 PM
The Spurs have been the most consistent team. Easily. They are always a contender, every year. Injuries have killed them a couple of years while in the playoffs, but they are the best team of the decade, as far as winning consistently goes.

B.JenningsMVP
08-01-2009, 05:40 PM
Phil Jackson not 1st team? :down:

asandhu23
08-01-2009, 06:37 PM
don nelson is not in there? same with phil jackson not being 1st?

Hellcrooner
08-01-2009, 06:39 PM
The Spurs have been the most consistent team. Easily. They are always a contender, every year. Injuries have killed them a couple of years while in the playoffs, but they are the best team of the decade, as far as winning consistently goes.

4-3 6-3 finalsmade 1 threpeat-not a single back to back.


denial is a waste of time

Hawkeye15
08-01-2009, 08:57 PM
4-3 6-3 finalsmade 1 threpeat-not a single back to back.


denial is a waste of time

well, measuring coaching in championships will get you one answer, measuring in consistency, while still winning rings, will get you another. Fact is, Pops has had the winningest team of the decade. He just has. And 3 rings vs 4 rings is not a big difference.
But however you like to measure it.
How is it complete denial to say Phil isn't the most successful coach of the decade? Why do Laker supporters need to live in absolutes? It is seriously pathetic how they will say something, then just crap on you for making any argument against the Lakers, like you are ********. Mmmkay.

Hellcrooner
08-01-2009, 09:40 PM
^if you say MJ is Greater than Kobe will ever b here you have a laker fan that wont argue with you.

if you say TD or KG has been better than Gasol on their PRIME time of their careers here is a laker that wont argue with you.


But if you say Amare is better than Pau or Wade better than Kobe sorry but i will go and deffend lakers.

Oh by the way 4 rings and 6 finals in 10 years sorry but that is a more than valid point to say Phil is better than Pops.

Hawkeye15
08-01-2009, 10:42 PM
^if you say MJ is Greater than Kobe will ever b here you have a laker fan that wont argue with you.

if you say TD or KG has been better than Gasol on their PRIME time of their careers here is a laker that wont argue with you.


But if you say Amare is better than Pau or Wade better than Kobe sorry but i will go and deffend lakers.

Oh by the way 4 rings and 6 finals in 10 years sorry but that is a more than valid point to say Phil is better than Pops.

thats fine, but its not a body of career work. It is saying, who is the best coach of the decade. Phil didn't even coach some of it. Pops wins. Sorry. Lifetime, sure, Phil wins. But not in the 2000's.
And Duncan or KG vs Pau in their primes, is laughable, sorry. Pau doesn't even belong in the conversation.

Hellcrooner
08-01-2009, 11:28 PM
^at least not yet, 3 to 5 rings could change things.

TheHoopsProphet
08-01-2009, 11:46 PM
just let it be hawkeye. you'll have an easier time arguing with your keyboard.

JordansBulls
08-02-2009, 08:46 AM
not to mention is not the same merit making a 50 win season with spurs and a 50 win season with memphis for example

How so? Spurs weren't a winning organization before Duncan came. They hadn't won any titles before Duncan was ever their. That may apply to the Celtics and Lakers who win no matter what and always have great teams and players. I mean seriously, name a superstar that played on the Lakers that didn't win a title?

Hawkeye15
08-02-2009, 11:30 AM
^at least not yet, 3 to 5 rings could change things.

Pau will never be in their league. Sorry. Even 10 more rings isn't going to get him there. He has never been more than a 2nd tier PF.
But here I am arguing this with a guy who thinks Pau is better than Dirk, so that really tells me all I need to know.

Hellcrooner
08-02-2009, 12:36 PM
How so? Spurs weren't a winning organization before Duncan came. They hadn't won any titles before Duncan was ever their. That may apply to the Celtics and Lakers who win no matter what and always have great teams and players. I mean seriously, name a superstar that played on the Lakers that didn't win a title?

Elgin Baylor

Gary Payton

Karl Malone.


and what i tell is winning 50 games only wiht parker, manu, jackson, bowen, duncan and robinson is underachieving for pops

while winning 50 with white chocolate battier, gasol and sgromile swift is overachieving by fratello.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2009, 12:42 PM
Elgin Baylor

Gary Payton

Karl Malone.


and what i tell is winning 50 games only wiht parker, manu, jackson, bowen, duncan and robinson is underachieving for pops

while winning 50 with white chocolate battier, gasol and sgromile swift is overachieving by fratello.

1 failed experiment doesn't make Payton and Malone Lakers, please.
and they didn't win less than 54, which no other team has been able to do. The Memphis team, that was the pinnacle of their existance. You also left off Mike Miller, ROY and 6th man of the year, but whatever.
Point is, winning between 54-63 games for 10 straight years, and being a contender every single season (a real contender, which there are only about 4-5 of a year), and winning 3 rings, makes Pops the best.

Hellcrooner
08-02-2009, 01:06 PM
^wich roy? pau won roy in a season they idn not make the playoffs.

JordansBulls
08-02-2009, 02:31 PM
Elgin Baylor

Gary Payton

Karl Malone.


and what i tell is winning 50 games only wiht parker, manu, jackson, bowen, duncan and robinson is underachieving for pops

while winning 50 with white chocolate battier, gasol and sgromile swift is overachieving by fratello.

Jerry West was the best player on those teams and Payton and Malone were not the best player on the Lakers so it doesn't apply.

Hawkeye15
08-02-2009, 04:04 PM
^wich roy? pau won roy in a season they idn not make the playoffs.

nah, you left of Mike Miller, who won Rookie of the Year, and won 6th man of the year. He was a very good player for them.
ANd whatever, I am done arguing this. Pops for me, you take whomever you want.

mikantsass
08-02-2009, 05:33 PM
^at least not yet, 3 to 5 rings could change things.

Hahahahahahah there is no way in HELL that Gasoft wins 3-5 rings. Get off his d***!

JordansBulls
08-02-2009, 07:47 PM
^at least not yet, 3 to 5 rings could change things.

Do you realize winning rings applies to guys when they win as the best on their team and/or best in the league when comparing them to others.