GOAT COACH -- situational

[penbeast0]

You get to pick any coach in NBA/ABA history but with the following provisos:

(1) He is NOT the GM, the owner/GM hire him for 5 years and during that time, do not remake the team in his image so he is generally working with the talent he has.
(2) The team is in each coach's own period, not necessarily modern, any 5 year stretch in a coach's career is acceptable.
(3) The team is a 2nd tier contender, 2-4 SRS the last two years, with a young core that is above average both offensively and defensively with 3 very good players, none of which are among the true elite players in the league but all of whom are All-Star/2nd team All-NBA type level and all of whom are reasonably healthy. They also have solid roleplayers and good depth.

Who is most likely to win you a title with this setup and in what years?

[MyUniBroDavis]

You get to pick any coach in NBA/ABA history but with the following provisos:

(1) He is NOT the GM, the owner/GM hire him for 5 years and during that time, do not remake the team in his image so he is generally working with the talent he has.
(2) The team is in each coach's own period, not necessarily modern, any 5 year stretch in a coach's career is acceptable.
(3) The team is a 2nd tier contender, 2-4 SRS the last two years, with a young core that is above average both offensively and defensively with 3 very good players, none of which are among the true elite players in the league but all of whom are All-Star/2nd team All-NBA type level and all of whom are reasonably healthy. They also have solid roleplayers and good depth.

Who is most likely to win you a title with this setup and in what years?

Pop during the early 2010s, or spo the past few years I guess in terms of modern guys

who are the guys around them though? Like staff and stuff

[penbeast0]

Same staffs as they had.

I think modern coaches are at a disadvantage here though; I'd go with someone like Alex Hannum 65-69 who only has to beat out 8-11 other teams rather than having to surpass 29 others although some of those 29 are tanking so it's not as bad odds as it would seem at first.

Hannum seemed like a Larry Brown type guy who could push a team farther than one would expect but after a couple of years started burning out his players. So, best odds are probably 66 or 67.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Same staffs as they had.

I think modern coaches are at a disadvantage here though; I'd go with someone like Alex Hannum 65-69 who only has to beat out 8-11 other teams rather than having to surpass 29 others although some of those 29 are tanking so it's not as bad odds as it would seem at first.

Hannum seemed like a Larry Brown type guy who could push a team farther than one would expect but after a couple of years started burning out his players. So, best odds are probably 66 or 67.

Hmmm, I feel there’s probably more range of good vs bad strategy nowadays, but there’s def a top tier of coaching staffs that your generally not gonna get seperation from


That being said, Kerr kickstarted a dynasty, spo nearly made the finals two years in a row with a team that had no business doing so, at least nowadays those two stand out, monty and nurse are up there for me too

[Clem9493]

Auerbach

[penbeast0]

Auerbach

So you want to finish middle of the pack every year which is what Auerbach did with Cousy, Sharman, and Macauley before Bill Russell.

[Owly]

Auerbach

So you want to finish middle of the pack every year which is what Auerbach did with Cousy, Sharman, and Macauley before Bill Russell.

I have mixed feeling on Auerbach (as a coach and as a person).

Still ... he led the Capitols to the 14th best SRS all time through 2019 (2nd best core not win a title, 4 better teams didn't win that year, of those only 2013 OKC didn't win within 2 years either way) at 8.99. Caps got worse after he left.

Auerbach's only losing record is with the Blackhawks (latterly Hawks) going 28-29 in '50. His predecessor went 1-6. The next year three coaches combined for 25-43. He does have 2 negative SRSes in Boston (51: -0.41 from -1.73 the previous year with significant other turnover, and -0.03 in '55).

Is it hard to separate his coaching from his rosters, yes. And from his GM-ing building those rosters. He probably doesn't overachieve with the Celtics in that era but "middle of the pack" seems mean particularly for 52-54. Then too the Celtics of the '57 season are 16-8 (and +4.541666667 per game points dif) before Russell's arrival (and before Ramsey) and even better if just looking at that sample with Sharman (excluding a later 6 minute appearance in a Dec 15th win over St Louis, in Sharman healthy version of that start they go 14-4 and outscore opponents by 7.166666667 points per game (7 home, 7 road, 4 neutral).

If you want to say Auerbach isn't "Auerbach" i.e. the legend without Russell, I'd agree and have noted in related conversations about having happened to have won being ... not without significant noise ... as a measure of a coach. And it may be hard to parse out coaching impact versus GM-ing.

Still I think the impression here is rather ungenerous.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

I think Rick Adelman is an underrated choice here. I base it off him seeming to exploit his teams' strengths in both Portland and Sacramento rather than trying to force either of those teams into any kind of style in his image. His Blazers roster was hyper-athletic and Adleman played to that with an emphasis on aggressive rebounding and transition attacks. Almost conversely, his Kings were very fundamentally sound and he capitalized on that by installing a halfcourt offense predicated on fluid ball and player movement. Depending on how you view Drexler and Webber, you could argue neither team featured a truly elite superstar yet Adleman had both teams in legit title contention with strong offenses and defenses

Adleman would also do well in Houston (relative to his predecessor and successor), though I'm less familiar with those Rockets teams outside of the fact that Yao and McGrady couldn't stay healthy

[migya]

I think Rick Adelman is an underrated choice here. I base it off him seeming to exploit his teams' strengths in both Portland and Sacramento rather than trying to force either of those teams into any kind of style in his image. His Blazers roster was hyper athletic and Adleman played to that. Almost conversely, his Kings were very fundamentally sound and he capitalized on that. Depending on how you view Drexler and Webber, you could argue neither team featured a truly elite superstar yet Adleman had both teams in legit title contention with strong offenses and defenses

Adleman would also do well in Houston (relative to his predecessor and successor), though I'm less familiar with those Rockets teams outside of the fact that Yao and McGrady couldn't stay healthy

That's a great choice and reasoning. Adelman had teams somewhat fitting the OP description.

[Mazter]

Phil Jackson actually fits the description (3 titles in 5 years):

1) Biggest 3 acquisitions (in terms of total minutes): BJ Armstrong (draft trade), King (draft), Scott Williams (undrafted FA)
2) 1989/90 to 1993/94
3) The Bulls had a 3.76 SRS in 1988 and 2.13 in 1989

The first Lakers stint just didn't make the cut but close enough (3 titles, 4 Finals in 5 years):
1) Biggest 3 acquisitions (in terms of total minutes): Harper (FA), Grant (4-team trade), Walker (FA)
2) 1999/00 to 2003/04
3) The Lakers had a 6.88 SRS in 1998 and 2.68 in 1999

Neither did the 2nd but also close (2 title, 3 Finals in 5 years):
1) Biggest 3 acquisitions (in terms of total minutes): Bynum (drafted), Farmar (drafted), Gasol (trade)
2) 2005/06 to 2009/10
3) The Lakers had a 4.35 SRS in 2004 and -2.32 in 2005

To beat it any other coach would need to win 3 titles, and I don't see any coach do it in any situation.

[penbeast0]

3 very good players, none of which are among the true elite players

Just curious which of Phil Jackson's championship teams fits this description (are you going to piss off the Shaq fans, the Jordan fans, or the Kobe Fans)?

[Mazter]

3 very good players, none of which are among the true elite players

Just curious which of Phil Jackson's championship teams fits this description (are you going to piss off the Shaq fans, the Jordan fans, or the Kobe Fans)?

Guess I missed a memo

[Ron Swanson]

Larry Brown. Pick an era...

[penbeast0]

Phil is still a great choice even if he hasn't been in exactly that situation. He's won multiple championships with very different personnel and is arguably (and with my vote) the GOAT NBA coach.

[Mazter]

Phil is still a great choice even if he hasn't been in exactly that situation. He's won multiple championships with very different personnel and is arguably (and with my vote) the GOAT NBA coach.

True, would also still be my choice. Could make the Finals at leaqst once in given situation.

[Bidofo]

I think the third stipulation makes this a little awkward. Having three All-NBA Second Teamers is a loaded team, plus you're giving them good role players and depth, I'm not sure how they could ONLY be a second tier contender with between 2-4 SRS. Even if we set the bar at just all stars, most teams with 3 all stars are in the 60 win range. Just look at some of the recent cores you'd have with just third teamers:

2022: CP3/LBJ/KAT
2021: Butler/PG/Gobert
2020: Butler/Tatum/Gobert
2019: LBJ/Gobert/Griffin?? Westbrook?? Walker?? (weakest one)
2018: Curry/Butler/PG
2017: Draymond/Butler/Wall

Those are all really solid, especially if we grant reasonable health. Some of those guys dropped so low because of injury in the first place, but any iteration with a GOAT level coach and average performance is looking at 60+ wins at the least, more if we go with second teamers.

Perhaps the depth of the league would necessitate a modern era coach to take advantage of such stacked cores. So I guess Pop would be my vote. Assuming good depth, he'd also be my vote to maximize RS wins which I think is an interesting question too.

[ice9]

Pat Riley was the first coach that came to mind. Not for the LA stint, but for his NY and MIA stints where he had no elite star (Ewing and Mourning) and brought a completely different playstyle than his Laker days. Came within a game of winning it all in 94, 2nd best record in 93 (Suns #1), 3rd best record in 97 (Bulls, Jazz). 93-97 stretch won an average of 55 games, two seasons of 60 wins, lost to eventually champion 4/5 years. Tim Hardaway in 97 (1st NBA), Oakley in 94 (1st Def), Ewing in 93 (2nd NBA), Starks in 93 (2nd Def) were the only All NBA team selections.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

[Roy T]

I'll ride the Mike DanToni bandwagon until I die.

[Outside]

My thoughts go first to coaches who had that type of team and fell short of winning a title:

Don Nelson in Milwaukee
George Karl in Seattle (does Shawn Kemp disqualify him?)
Rick Adelman in Portland and Sacramento

Larry Brown did win with that kind of group in Detroit.

Pop usually had stars, but his 2014 title team was egalitarianism at its finest, using former stars and a cast of role players.

Alex Hannum is an intriguing mention, but he had stars on his best teams, and I'd have to look at the ones that didn't win a title to see if he fits.