Phil, Riley, Pop

That’s the list

https://www.basketball-reference.com/coaches/NBA_stats.html

Kerr 56 games above 500 but don’t see how he can improve that number given the state of things

Doc Rivers has more playoff losses than Jackson, despite having less than half as many wins

He is the GOAT coach for a reason.

Phil was pretty good too

when you go from coaching jordan pippen to kobe shaq, later kobe pau. pretty hard to beat that.

the year before he joined the Lakers, they got swept in the second round by the Spurs. Then the first year he was there, that’s when both Shaq & Kobe won their first ring.

With the Bulls, as an assistant, the Bulls got as far as ECF, losing to the (eventual) champs in 6. But when Jackson took over, he switched to a triangle offense… and they swept the defending champs in the ECF – and beating a much easier Lakers in the finals.

I can go on and on. But there’s a reason he was 11 rings in 20 years as Head coach. None of the players and teams had won before he got there (of course, they were good players, and anywhere from decent to pretty good).

Jordan, Shaq or Kobe would not have the same legacy without him. He on the other hand, would have still had an amazing career without anyone of those guys (though obviously, not if he had none of those guys).

Counterpoint is other coaches had those players but did not win championships.

MJ is 59 over, since everyone was wondering

What a scrub

Absolutely CAP 🧢

dude 06 lakers have some nasty on/off all time record comparable to the 2012 bobcats if kobe was not playing?

Riley has a deeper talent stack, for sure.

Or maybe Phil just hated the Knicks so much he wanted to sandbag them?

the only reason it is even remotely a debate is recency bias, Phil was done cementing his greatness 15 years ago then had a bad executive stint with the Knicks

Popovich was still here until last year and his stroke

issue with this argument is that one dude has the most rings of all time as a coach and a winning record in regular + playoff career head to head matchups vs the dude who has ‘only’ 5

I think it’s largely because it’s so incredibly difficult to evaluate how good a coach is, especially in relation to the players he coached. Phil had both tremendous success and also what anyone would have to admit was basically EZ mode, always having the best player in the league to carry the team. A lot of the Coach of the Year conversation tends to come down to how far above expectations the team was, and teams that have the very best players and expect tremendous success typically aren’t in the conversation. I don’t have a strong opinion either way, I don’t have any special skill in evaluating coaches, but it’s easy to see why people would be hesitant to give him full credit when it always appears he’s starting on third base.

Phil consistently found himself coaching the best team in the league throughout his whole career. I think it’s dumb to attribute his winning record to his skills as a coach.

Phil Jackson is also 48-0 in series in which his teams won game 1

Meaning that If you shook that mans hand after a game 1 in which your team had lost, the series was already over, you just didn’t know it yet.

Funny enough he split it perfectly down the middle at 24 a piece for both LA and Chicago.

24-0 in Chicago

24-0 in Los Angeles

If you won the championship and won every series 4-2 for 15 straight years, you’d still only be at +120.

Yeah, and Riles went from Showtime Lakers to Ewing Knicks to Zo/Wade Heat. If Doc was a good coach, he’d probably be #3 behind those two.

Oh I’m sure this post will lead to some fairly acrimonious GOAT coach debates, so don’t worry, the toxicity will present itself nonetheless.

Aah you said it, if LeBron played under Phils system… hah, yeah its fkd

Respectfully, how did he revolution the game?

Teams/coaches don’t really try to mimic what he did.

Don’t forget Phil Jackson won 9 of 11 of his in 13 seasons because he hopped from one dynasty to another.

No. The idea that Phil Jackson simply “hopped from one dynasty to another” ignores that neither team was a dynasty when he arrived.

Chicago went from 47–35 under Doug Collins to 55–27 in Jackson’s first season and 61–21 with a championship in his second.

The Lakers already had Shaq and Kobe for three seasons before Jackson arrived, yet went 31–19 and were swept from the 1999 playoffs.

In Jackson’s first season they jumped to 67–15, became the NBA’s top defense, and won the championship. Jackson unquestionably benefited from historically great players, but the dynasties were built under him, not inherited by him.

Don’t forget Phil Jackson won 9 of 11 of his in 13 seasons because he hopped from one dynasty to another.

No. That’s simply not true. He made those dynasties.

Under Collins, the Bulls were 47 and 35. Under Phil, they go 55 and 27, 61 and 21, 67 and 15, 57 and 25 with 3 chips. In 1990 to 91, Chicago became #1 in offensive rating and #1 in SRS. That’s not joining a dynasty. That’s being the coach while the dynasty is created.

Jackson inherited Shaq and Kobe, unquestionably. But those two were already teammates for three seasons before Jackson arrived.

The 1998 to 99 Lakers went 31 and 19, had the NBA’s #2 offense but #23 defense, and were swept 4 to 0 by San Antonio in the second round. Their SRS was only 2.67.

Jackson arrives the next season:

• 67 and 15
• #1 defense
• #1 SRS
• +9.1 net rating
• NBA championship

And he repeatedly managed situations that are extremely difficult for coaches: Jordan’s dominance, Pippen’s role, Rodman’s volatility, Shaq and Kobe’s conflict, Kobe after Shaq, then integrating Gasol and returning to the Finals three straight years.

Mitch Johnson and Wemby would have to go on a goat trajectory and even then Mitch would need to find another baby goat somewhere after Wemby retires. That’s basically the only “realistic” scenario out of current coaches imo.

He obviously did have great players and teams, but he definitely elevated them with his coaching. Here’s those guys’ years winning a ring with or without him as coach:

Obviously he got them in their primes, but MJ and Shaq especially had plenty of prime years without him and did very little comparatively.

that would be strange if it was true

he won it in 1996 when the Bulls went 72-10

r/confidentlyincorrect

He did win but I will say that Coach of the Year award is either going to the coach of the team with the best record or the coach with a great record and everyone is like “You won how many games with that crap team?!”

X games above .500 is a very common way of saying that…