top 10 Coaches of All Time

[penbeast0]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

The 20 Greatest NBA Coaches (2009)
1. Red Auerbach
2. Phil Jackson
3. Pat Riley
4. Greg Popovich
5. Larry Brown
6. Chuck Daly
7. Red Holzman
8. John Kundla
9. Alex Hannum
10. Bill Sharman
11. Jerry Sloan
12. Don Nelson
13. Rick Adelman
14. Slick Leonard
15. K.C. Jones
16. Lenny Wilkens
17. Doug Moe
18. Billy Cunningham
19. George Karl
20. Rudy Tomjanovich

[penbeast0]

(a) I would have Jackson over Auerbach. Auerbach won with Russell (and pre-NBA with Washington) but didn't win much with prime Cousy, Sharman, and Ed McCauley before Russell came in. Red may be my GOAT GM, he was great at getting those ring chasers to give depth and plug holes, but not my GOAT coach. Phil Jackson did it with multiple star iterations and managed guys who were known as massive egos pretty successfully. Great as Pop has been, it's got to be harder to coach Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe to rings than the likes of David Robinson and Tim Duncan.

(b) Larry Brown should be in there. If your criteria values dynasty building and sticking around, he's not your guy, but in terms of sheer coaching and getting guys to win more than expected, he is top 5.

(c) John Kundla and Alex Hannum are certainly candidates that should get consideration. Kundla was a dynasty coach with dynasty talent for the Mikan Lakers; Hannum was Larry Brown before Larry Brown.

(d) Won't make the list but shout out to Doug Moe, who continuously made players that hadn't been that valuable before into valuable pieces in Denver (Alex English, Fat Lever, Michael Adams, Bill Hanslick, Wayne Cooper, Danny Schayes, etc.) despite a really bad draft record from his front office. That and with his hyper fast pace and Globetrotter weave derived motion offense, those Nugget teams were a lot of fun to watch for a lot of years.

I'd probably have Larry Brown in there, possibly as high as 5th. Not going to be around long term but as

[AEnigma]

Absolutely not including Sloan if I want to win a title. Would also exclude Don Nelson, because while I respect the success to brought to several different teams, he never even coached in the Finals.

Strongly agree with Hannum and Brown, so swap those duos. Also probably agree with Kundla, but that swap is less obvious. Leaning toward K.C. Not sure K.C. was clearly better than Billy Cunningham in the same era — and Cunningham is a tricky inclusion as is because of his career brevity.

1. Phil Jackson
2. Pat Riley (case for #1)
3. Greg Popovich (case for #1 primarily because of 2014)
4. Red Auerbach (agree better GM than coach)
5. Alex Hannum (truly baffling exclusion)

Struggle with the next five. Holzman and Daly are difficult in the sense they had a short period of relevance. I would say it does not reflect well on Holzman to have been directly and successfully replaced by Hannum on the Hawks… but it also does not reflect well on Daly that his Pistons never beat a truly elite team (closest is the injured 1988 Celtics or the pre-breakthrough 1990 Bulls).

Brown at #6, Kerr at #7, and maybe an argument beyond those will sell me. Spoelstra is another interesting case because when he won titles he was not a particularly stupendous coach (good and willing to innovate, but not all-time); however, over the past five years I have been massively impressed by how his teams are prepared for the postseason.

EDIT: After further thought…

6. Larry Brown
7. Steve Kerr
8. John Kundla
9. Erik Spoelstra
10. Red Holzman
11. Chuck Daly
12. K.C. Jones
13. Billy Cunningham
14. Rick Carlisle (third best of the one-title coaches imo)
15. Tom Heinsohn

[PistolPeteJR]

Steve Kerr over Eric Spoelstra? I know 4 > 2, but I'm not sure I agree.

[homecourtloss]

This is clearly/obviously a top 4 of Jackson, Riley, Popovich, and Auerbach in some order with a strong lean towards Phil Jackson at the top.

Brown, Hannum, Kerr, Spoelstra, deserve mentions as does Carlisle and Daly as well as innovators such as Mike D’Antoni.

[AEnigma]

Steve Kerr over Eric Spoelstra? I know 4 > 2, but I'm not sure I agree.

It is weird because I would say Kerr’s best (only) decade is better than Spoelstra’s best decade (over the same time frame), but I would also say 2020-24 Spoelstra was a better coach than 2015-19 Kerr despite the comparison being three titles and five appearances to zero titles and two appearances.

[SHAQ32]

Where's Dr. Jack Ramsay

[Owly]

Depends on criteria (innovation, longevity, titles, improving teams, ability to stick around, personality, RS vs playoffs, X and Os versus personality management).

Kundla as a dynastic coach ... granting it's hard to measure how much is the coach ... seems like the sort of resume that normally gets you in.

As far as names no one mentioned.

Sharman as a champ on 3 teams in 3 leagues seems worthy of a mention.

Wilkens was a champ and accumulated an awful lot of wins.


K.C. ... his HC rings are on team that was good before he arrived and he arguably rode the starters into the ground. Then he's one of a couple of guys that George Karl wildly outdid in-season (1992 Supersonics 20-20 outscored by -0.305555556 per game; under Karl they would go 27-15, outscoring opponents by 4.119047619).

Otoh, 70s he looks like a good coach (with some maybe caveating that with "RS" given the Bullets didn't win a title), Celtics ... was probably the right archetype after Fitch and an easy fit in Boston ... but I don't know how much he did and then arguably shortened/harmed careers, then the end in Seattle looks pretty abject (and/or Karl looks great). It's not a close look but at first glance ... he seems high.


Riley is interesting otoh. Was him over SVG important to that title (or luck or needed a new guy to get Shaq going but nothing Riley-intrinsic)? Is original Heat run's problems in the playoffs an issue? Was he a key driver in NY and the elite defenses and fringe contender status (what about rolling with Mason and Starks - player utilization)? How much did he exceed expectations in LA versus it being talent and with some costs (overwork might have hurt them in '89 finals; wore out his welcome in the end; "celebrity" coach not always optimal or viable). Spitballing here.

[Doctor MJ]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

So, this seemslike a time to break out my COY Shares from '45-46 onwards. Top 10:

1. Phil Jackson
2. Red Auerbach
3. Pat Riley
4. Gregg Popovich
5. John Kundla
6. Alex Hannum
7. Steve Kerr
8. Erik Spoelstra
9. Al Cervi
(tie) Mike D'Antoni

Other guys on their list:

13. Chuck Daly
15. Red Holzman
(tie) KC Jones
22. Don Nelson
35. Jerry Sloan

Which means I added 5 guys: Kundla, Hannum, Spoelstra, Cervi & D'Antoni


Of course a Shares-based approach is overly simple, and can easily be argued to overrate guys from the past like Kundla & Cervi.

Hannum is the guy who it bugs me the most he's not on their list. To me, if he's not on the list, the people making the list don't know what they're doing.

Spoelstra I figure this is more about "not yet" than anything else so I don't think there's any serious disagreement there.

I think clearly D'Antoni is underrated by folks because he never coach a team to an NBA title, but to be honest I think a Shares-based approach like I used here actually underrates him. He's the most influential NBA coach of the 21st century and while he has his weak sports, those weak spots are not actually the reason why he was forced to move around from team to team. Rather, it's D'Antoni's strengths that made everyone else think him problematic, because he was right when everyone else was wrong.

So then if were to ignore Kundla & Cervi, and just replace 3 coaches with my other 3 guys, I'd remove Jones, Nelson & Sloan, a chronological list that looks like:

Red Auerbach (born 1917)
Red Holzman (1920)
Alex Hannum (1923)
Chuck Daly (1930)
Pat Riley (1945)
Phil Jackson (1945)
Greg Popovich (1949)
Mike D'Antoni (1951)
Steve Kerr (1965)
Erik Spoelstra (1970)

An interesting thing to note here is the gap between Daley & Riley. While 15 years may or may not be all that strange, it's funny that within that 15 year span we have the notorious influx of players - Pettit, Russell, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar, West, among others.

A couple of other notes on the guys mentioned who are not in the 10 I'm putting forward:

Kundla was the coach of the Mikan Laker dynasty. My impression of Kundla is that he was largely in the right place at the right time, most obviously given that George Mikan won his first chip on the Chicago Gears while Kundla was coaching at a minor college (St. Thomas in Minnesota). I don't want to knock Kundla too hard here because there were absolutely things that needed to be figured out on the Lakers, and dealing with the egos of Mikan and Jim Pollard. I believe there was a tremendous amount of innovation happening on the Lakers in those years and that a problematic coach could have gotten in the way of that, but I also think that probably any decent college coach with the social skills to deal with player ego would have been successful because Mikan was so driven to excel.

Cervi was the coach of the Syracuse Nationals through that early run of success that included a chip. While the Nationals had a bonafide superstar in Dolph Schayes, the team won with defense, and all agreed that the tone for that defense was set by Cervi, who was player-coach before he was just coach, and who was hailed as the best defender in the world when he was a player (note: he was perimeter player who focused on shutdown man defense). This then to say I think Cervi deserves a ton of credit for making the Nationals what they were philosophically and I don't want to belittle that - we're talking about the first great defensive basketball coach in NBA history here. But as with Kundla, after that one big run, he exits the professional stage. With Kundla, I believe it was a desire to stay in Minnesota (he would become the coach for U of Minnesota). With Cervi? If memory serves his anger got the best of him and he quit as the Nationals coach midseason. He would apparently end up leaving basketball to make more money in management in the trucking business.

Jones is someone I once dismissed as a mere "player's coach" coming in after the hard ass (Fitch), but I do want to shout out that when Bill Russell talks about his partnership with Jones, he's utterly reverential about how Jones saw the game. The two of them hit it off immediately basically being scientists of the game together. Russell had already been doing this before arriving at college, but if memory serves, Russell said that previously he'd been mostly focusing on just rebutting whatever offensive players put forward to him in their attempt to score, while Jones saw a more complex web of interactions and looked to manipulate the opponent's choices. (Worth noting that 'immediately' here meant Russell was a freshman, and not playing for the varsity, but Jones was playing his second year for the team at that point. And on a team that was predominantly White, Russell probably gravitated toward the elder Jones as his mentor.)

It's interesting that Nelson is in and D'Antoni isn't. It makes sense given that Nelson was long established before D'Antoni finally broke through, but to me D'Antoni actually is the thing people cast Nelson as: The Visionary. Both coaches are candidates for the most innovative coach in NBA history, but while Nelson often seemed to operate with caprice, D'Antoni was a guy who tackled problems with a distinct lens that happened to be largely the lens of the game as we know it today. And while I believe D'Antoni tended to have problems coaching because his vision was just too ahead of the curve to keep the necessary buy-in in all cases, with Nelson it just seems like there are times when he starts off on the right track than then veers onto the wrong one.

In the end, the fact that Steve Nash only ever truly became Steve Nash under D'Antoni, after Nelson had futzed around around diminishing Nash's role - and dropping the team out of top contention - immediately prior, is something that's always going to linger for me.

Sloan is someone who I have real questions about. I do think he did a great job on the whole for the Jazz, but I also see him as a micromanager coaching with outlier talents that need autonomy in order to function at their very best.

[SNPA]

H.M. Rick Adelman.

[Doctor MJ]

H.M. Rick Adelman.

11th on my Shares list actually. Definitely merits discussion.

[Hair Jordan]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

KC Jones and Steve Kerr don’t belong. Boston won a title in ‘81 with Bill Fitch. They could’ve won titles with any number of coaches with Bostons Big 3. Kerr walked into a dynasty waiting to happen. He was just at the right place at the right time; in Chicago, at TNT, in Phoenix and finally Golden State. If he accepted the Knicks head coaching job instead his coaching career would be a distant failed memory. Jordan coming out of retirement is the best thing that ever happened to that guy.

[Homer38]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

KC Jones and Steve Kerr don’t belong. Boston won a title in ‘81 with Bill Fitch. They could’ve won titles with any number of coaches with Bostons big 3. Kerr walking into a dynasty waiting to happen. He was just at the right place at the right time.

Warriors was not a dynasty waiting to happen before the 2014-2015 season.....

[Doctor MJ]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

KC Jones and Steve Kerr don’t belong. Boston won a title in ‘81 with Bill Fitch. They could’ve won titles with any number of coaches with Bostons big 3. Kerr walking into a dynasty waiting to happen. He was just at the right place at the right time.

Warriors was not a dynasty waiting to happen before the 2014-2015 season.....

Co-signed.

The Warriors utterly transformed in their approach with Kerr, and that’s what made the team a champion.

Were the players ready to be contenders before that? Quite possibly, but they were getting there under Jackson, which relates to why Jackson was fired.

Whether we’re talking Kerr in GS, or Jackson in Chi or LA, obviously they had great players, but the thing to understand about their coaching is how they changed the way the talent played and in doing so created a champion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhayoKD]

The best coach ever is probably Spo. The best coach-relative to the competition(era-relative) is hands-down Phil Jackson

[One_and_Done]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

Probably most of them don't belong.

If you're interested in the most famous coaches, this is a solid list. It certainly doesn't describe the best.

[Owly]

KC Jones and Steve Kerr don’t belong. Boston won a title in ‘81 with Bill Fitch. They could’ve won titles with any number of coaches with Bostons big 3. Kerr walking into a dynasty waiting to happen. He was just at the right place at the right time.

Warriors was not a dynasty waiting to happen before the 2014-2015 season.....

Co-signed.

The Warriors utterly transformed in their approach with Kerr, and that’s what made the team a champion.

Were the players ready to be contenders before that? Quite possibly, but they were getting there under Jackson, which relates to why Jackson was fired.

Whether we’re talking Kerr in GS, or Jackson in Chi or LA, obviously they had great players, but the thing to understand about their coaching is how they changed the way the talent played and in doing so created a champion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd add my agreement to the broad point here.

Warriors were good and had talent before.
They were young.
We can't know what they'd do keeping Jackson or hiring another coach (and the "other" route opens up the possibility of impact not so much through "Kerr good" as "Jackson bad" ... and the attention to detail on that sans Jokic MVP ballot ... doesn't help Jackson there).
And whilst I get the need to defend players in public to a degree I ... hard to phrase this so it's not too dramatic ... I think he lost credibility and I liked him less after some defenses of Draymond, even where he did walk one back (maybe just over-indexing on the justification on the Gobert choke ... but from that it felt like he's willing to make up anything in the moment in order to "have his guy's back").

All that said, a team going from 5 SRS to 10 SRS and a titles (and ultimately titles) isn't nothing.


On the lucky to be there angle sure but the same with many (all?) of them in terms of needing luck with context:

- What if McKinney never crashes his bike and/or Magic doesn't get involved in getting a mid-win-streak coach fired maybe Riley never gets on a bench or at least not one so heavy in pantheon tier talent. Or else he's just an assistant for those titles.
- If Krause doesn't take a chance on a CBA coach.
- If San Antonio fires Pop after the Robinson injury season (or as GM after the Rodman feud ... [IMO that seemed much more on Rodman but fwiw he blamed Pop]). Or they don't leap up in the lottery to get Duncan.
- If St Louis won't trade the Russell pick (or if they or Rochester take him).

[penbeast0]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

Probably most of them don't belong.

If you're interested in the most famous coaches, this is a solid list. It certainly doesn't describe the best.

What is your criteria for best? Does it include longevity? Ability to take a team to multiple years of exceeding expectations? Innovation? Rings? I would say there are at least 6 of the guys I would put on my top 10 list, possibly more.

[One_and_Done]

Just saw a quick article on MS Startup with their rankings:

Red Auerbach
Phil Jackson
Gregg Popovich
Pat Riley
Don Nelson

Jerry Sloan
Chuck Daly
Red Holzman
KC Jones
Steve Kerr

Is there anyone who doesn't belong? If so, who should be in the top 10? Probably the most interesting question, what are your criteria for ranking them? Do you care only about maximizing rings considering the available talent or do you care more about the ability to manage egos or innovation and invention?

I know I ran a top 20 coaches of all time project a few years ago but I didn't sticky it to the Projects thread so if anyone finds it, let me know and I will.

Probably most of them don't belong.

If you're interested in the most famous coaches, this is a solid list. It certainly doesn't describe the best.

What is your criteria for best? Does it include longevity? Ability to take a team to multiple years of exceeding expectations? Innovation? Rings? I would say there are at least 6 of the guys I would put on my top 10 list, possibly more.

How about ability to coach. Does anyone think Red or Chuck Daly could coach today? It's pretty clear even Phil Jackson couldn't. But let's say we looked at it purely in-era. It's still a bad list. Kerr Is a good example of this. He's not even close to the best coach in his own era, but he's there because he happened to be the coach of a successful team. I have seen little to suggest he's better than Spo or Nurse for instance.

[penbeast0]

How about ability to coach. Does anyone think Red or Chuck Daly could coach today? It's pretty clear even Phil Jackson couldn't. But let's say we looked at it purely in-era. It's still a bad list. Kerr Is a good example of this. He's not even close to the best coach in his own era, but he's there because he happened to be the coach of a successful team. I have seen little to suggest he's better than Spo or Nurse for instance.

So you look purely at whether a coach could beat you with his guys, then turn around and take your guys and beat you with them? I think in that case, you almost have to go era-relative to a large degree. If you say a guy like Alex Hannum couldn't manage modern egos (though he was the most successful of the Wilt coaches along with maybe Sharman) and didn't understand how to maximize the 3 pointer (because it didn't exist), you are dinging a guy for challenges that he never got a chance to face.