Why did VBK only play Goodrich 10 MPG in the 1968 finals when he played great vs Boston during that season.

coastalmarker99 · Post #1 » by **coastalmarker99** » Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:01 am

This has to be one of the worst coaching decisions I have ever seen especially when you consider that Goodrich was a stud who played great against Boston during that season.

As his best numbers came against the Celtics that season:

• 18.2 PPG
• 3.5 RPG
• 3.2 APG
• 60.5 TS%
• +10.7 rTS%

Butch VBK is my least favourite coach of all time.

As the way he acted off the court with his heavy drinking and farting contests with players was just disgusting to read in Wilt's book

Also his decisions in 1968 and 1969 were terrible and cost the Lakers two titles that they should have won vs an aging Boston team.

I Can't help but think that West in his prime years from 1966 to 1970 under a great coach such as Bill Sharman or KC Jones would have won at least 3 titles.

Post #2 » by **trex_8063** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:30 am

Much as I hate to throw cold water on your Poop-on-VBK-Party, I believe Goodrich was banged up in the playoffs that year. Have to double-check, not 100% sure.

Owly · Post #3 » by **Owly** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:49 pm

trex_8063 wrote:Much as I hate to throw cold water on your Poop-on-VBK-Party, I believe Goodrich was banged up in the playoffs that year. Have to double-check, not 100% sure.

Certainly playoff minutes and role are considerably down in line with such.

Neft and Cohen don't have anything. I can't at a quick scan see anything in Koppett or Lazenby, Reference ... in limited data suggests minutes were inconsistent in general in the season. Google doesn't pop with anything obvious in first responses to goodrich 1968 injury ...

Goodrich also posts probably his best career playoff composites (in a limited sample, no attempt to account for opponents etc) in '68.

Without endorsing that VBK "cost" the Lakers two titles that they "should" have won, it looks at first glance increasingly plausible that Goodrich was available, healthy and was simply passed over.

prolific passer · Post #4 » by **prolific passer** » Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:46 pm

Because he didn't him.

Chronz · Post #5 » by **Chronz** » Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:44 am

I had thought they lost without someone like Goodrich on the team , man that guy is easily the worst coach to ever cost his team a title.

Owly · Post #6 » by **Owly** » Tue Sep 27, 2022 5:00 pm

Chronz wrote:I had thought they lost without someone like Goodrich on the team , man that guy is easily the worst coach to ever cost his team a title.

Leaving aside that this particular phrasing seems a comparison of very few unknown coaches (to have met such criteria).

Specifically on the bolded ... what precisely do you mean with regard to costing a team a title and when did this occur?

My impression would be for that to be the case, a coach would truly have to give a team 1 (100%) net lost title, i.e. a title would be just about assured with any other coach, and certainly secure with an average one but shifted to around 0% specifically and solely because of them.

Whilst keeping Wilt on the bench (the most notorious element of his career) was a risk ... Lakers were down 7 on Wilt's exit (103-94 per Koppett ... and down 1 (103-102, again per Koppett) when Wilt indicates he wants back in, LA eventually lose by 2. I could check other sources. But that certainly doesn't seem to fit any of my criteria (title not guaranteed with another coach, finals berth not guaranteed with another coach, title not guaranteed by earliest possible reinsertion of Wilt, title not rendered impossible by the choice not to do so (indeed LA effective in his absence).