Debate topic for today.

[Diesel]

I was listening to somebody talk about coaches int he NBA and they came around to Gregg Poppovich and said he is one of the best. Without question. Probably the best coaching now?

OK...

I like to question things that are without question.

Is Popp really a great coach?

Everytime I have seen Him coach, he has had either Duncan and Robinson or Duncan and Ginobili.

If you were to put Duncan's career in Woody's hand, he'd be a great coach too.

I guess the question is, is the success due to Popp's coaching or is it due to the fact that he had the career of one of the best PFs ever to work with.

Moreover,

This year, Jerry Sloan should get his due.

I don't know who he pissed off, but that dude does an amazing JOB Every year.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Diesel

[macdaddy]

I voted yes. Even with great players its not easy to maintain consistent excellence. The question really is whether a great coach is someone who can make something out of nothing or someone who can take talent and make it a champion. You could say that Sloan had Stockton and Malone, 2 hall of famers, for a decade or more and couldn't win a championship with them. Popp has kept the team a championship contender and won a few through a time that you had to get through multiple real contenders in the west just to get to the finals.

[dlpin]

I'm sorry, but of course he is. And if you don't think so, just look at the teams that won in 99 and 03. Sure, he had Duncan and Robinson those years. But in 99 Robinson was 33 and a shadow of his former self, and Duncan a sophomore. The third best player was a 30 year old Sean Elliot battling kidney disease. That team swept Shaq in his prime. In 03 Manu was a rookie and nowhere near as good as he is now, Parker was 20 years old, and David Robinson was an old man. And they beat the threepeat lakers and a Dallas team with Nowitzki, Nash and Finley all in their primes. In 05 and 07 they might have had the most talented team in the league with Parker, Manu and Duncan all in their primes. But in 99 and 03 there were teams that were clearly more talented than they were, and they still won with relative ease.

[Diesel]

I'm sorry, but of course he is. And if you don't think so, just look at the teams that won in 99 and 03. Sure, he had Duncan and Robinson those years. But in 99 Robinson was 33 and a shadow of his former self, and Duncan a sophomore. The third best player was a 30 year old Sean Elliot battling kidney disease. That team swept Shaq in his prime. In 03 Manu was a rookie and nowhere near as good as he is now, Parker was 20 years old, and David Robinson was an old man. And they beat the threepeat lakers and a Dallas team with Nowitzki, Nash and Finley all in their primes. In 05 and 07 they might have had the most talented team in the league with Parker, Manu and Duncan all in their primes. But in 99 and 03 there were teams that were clearly more talented than they were, and they still won with relative ease.

The team he had in 2003...

First:

Duncan averaged 23, 13, 4.

He also had Parker, Stephen Jackson, Steve Smith, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen, David Robinson, Malik Rose, and Speedy Claxton.

They beat the NJ Nets in the finals. (not a hard task).

I will give it to you that that was Parker's worst scoring effort in the playoffs.. He went 14.7, 3.5, and 2.5 ...

In those playoffs, Uncle Timmy raised his averages to 25, 15, and 5. DAYUUM.

I would think it would be hard to find one player that would be able to match that kind of playoff average! That's dominance.

[dlpin]

The team he had in 2003...

First:

Duncan averaged 23, 13, 4.

He also had Parker, Stephen Jackson, Steve Smith, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen, David Robinson, Malik Rose, and Speedy Claxton.

They beat the NJ Nets in the finals. (not a hard task).

I will give it to you that that was Parker's worst scoring effort in the playoffs.. He went 14.7, 3.5, and 2.5 ...

In those playoffs, Uncle Timmy raised his averages to 25, 15, and 5. DAYUUM.

I would think it would be hard to find one player that would be able to match that kind of playoff average! That's dominance.

Parker was a sophomore who shot 40% from the field and 26% from the 3. Manu shot 38% from the field.

Duncan was outstanding, but there is absolutely no doubt that they were not the more talented team. The lakers had Kobe and Shaq in their prime. The mavs had Nowitzki, Nash, and Finley in their primes. That right there are two teams with 2 mvps each at or around their prime that they beat with a 20 year old point guard, a 37 year old center, a 24 year old head case and Duncan. As great as his numbers were, shaq wasn't very far behing with 27-15-4. 99 and 03 the Spurs beat the lakers pretty much because Popp outcoached Jackson.

[Diesel]

Parker was a sophomore who shot 40% from the field and 26% from the 3. Manu shot 38% from the field.

Duncan was outstanding, but there is absolutely no doubt that they were not the more talented team. The lakers had Kobe and Shaq in their prime. The mavs had Nowitzki, Nash, and Finley in their primes. That right there are two teams with 2 mvps each at or around their prime that they beat with a 20 year old point guard, a 37 year old center, a 24 year old head case and Duncan. As great as his numbers were, shaq wasn't very far behing with 27-15-4. 99 and 03 the Spurs beat the lakers pretty much because Popp outcoached Jackson.

If Horf came out in the playoffs and averaged 24, 15, and 5.. I guarantee we'd win it all.

The other thing is that Duncan had good players. It doesn't matter that Parker looked poor in the year. IN the playoffs, he was 46% from the field and 34 from three getting nearly 15 points per game. Captain Jack got him 12,4, and 3. Remember, Duncan didn't need much. Their team was built on good defense and stable offense. Bruce Bowen played and was in his prime.

During the playoffs that year, NO team took them to 7.

Laker Series 1

Laker Series 2

Confirming it, the visitors pulled away after L.A. drew within two points (64-62) halfway through the third quarter. Duncan landed the haymaker by scoring 14 of the Spurs' next 18 points, spilling into a fourth quarter that would soon be filled with highlights like Willis' dunk.

It's a shame that Dirk missed games in their series.

[dlpin]

If Horf came out in the playoffs and averaged 24, 15, and 5.. I guarantee we'd win it all.

The other thing is that Duncan had good players. It doesn't matter that Parker looked poor in the year. IN the playoffs, he was 46% from the field and 34 from three getting nearly 15 points per game. Captain Jack got him 12,4, and 3. Remember, Duncan didn't need much. Their team was built on good defense and stable offense. Bruce Bowen played and was in his prime.

During the playoffs that year, NO team took them to 7.

Laker Series 1

Laker Series 2

It's a shame that Dirk missed games in their series.

If Horford averaged that, the hawks might win because they'd also have JJ, Jamal, etc.

And you talk as if those numbers were earth shattering. While very good, Shaq averaged 27-15-4, which is almost identical. The difference was that the next best player on the spurs was a 20 year old Parker (he shot 40% in the playoffs, not 46), while on the lakers it was a 24 year old Kobe who was averaging 32 points a game and shooting 40% from the 3 point line.

Nowitzki missed a few games, but the series was already 2-1 spurs when he went down.

Yes, they won with defense, but that is something that is coached. Popp outcoached Nelson and Phil Jackson, and that is why they won.

[Diesel]

If Horford averaged that, the hawks might win because they'd also have JJ, Jamal, etc.

And you talk as if those numbers were earth shattering. While very good, Shaq averaged 27-15-4, which is almost identical. The difference was that the next best player on the spurs was a 20 year old Parker (he shot 40% in the playoffs, not 46), while on the lakers it was a 24 year old Kobe who was averaging 32 points a game and shooting 40% from the 3 point line.

Nowitzki missed a few games, but the series was already 2-1 spurs when he went down.

Yes, they won with defense, but that is something that is coached. Popp outcoached Nelson and Phil Jackson, and that is why they won.

Yeah, you were right, Parker did shoot 40%. I misread his stats from the year before.. when he was 19 year old parker and he shot 46% while scoring 15.5 ppg in the playoffs. Point is, Parker played two years with Paris Basket Racing - Professional team. He was not some untalented player that needed a lot of polish. He was a good player... By the time his second year rolled around, he had become the starter of the Spurs and was playing good. His playoff scoring averages are great for a PG.

Next, Shaq averaged 27-15-4 in a championship year.

Finally, I don't think Popp did much but point and say give the ball to Duncan. When you have Duncan putting up 34/24 in a game, that's not on the coach. Our when you have Stephen Jackson dominating the Mavs Series alongside Duncan, that's not the coach. That's like Saying Woody is responsible for our winning when Joe goes out and scores 28 and Josh gets 6 blocks.

[T21]

I voted YES!

There are numerous reasons... but at the end the fact is that Pop knows basketball!

P.S. To answer some of the mentioned questions... Who selected and molded all those Spurs' players??? That's a part of his job too...

[dlpin]

Yeah, you were right, Parker did shoot 40%. I misread his stats from the year before.. when he was 19 year old parker and he shot 46% while scoring 15.5 ppg in the playoffs. Point is, Parker played two years with Paris Basket Racing - Professional team. He was not some untalented player that needed a lot of polish. He was a good player... By the time his second year rolled around, he had become the starter of the Spurs and was playing good. His playoff scoring averages are great for a PG.

Next, Shaq averaged 27-15-4 in a championship year.

Finally, I don't think Popp did much but point and say give the ball to Duncan. When you have Duncan putting up 34/24 in a game, that's not on the coach. Our when you have Stephen Jackson dominating the Mavs Series alongside Duncan, that's not the coach. That's like Saying Woody is responsible for our winning when Joe goes out and scores 28 and Josh gets 6 blocks.

You are reading those numbers wrong again. Shaq averaged 27-15-4 the year they were beat by the Spurs. The championship years he had more points, but the year they lost to the spurs was the year he had career high in playoff assists.

And the point wasn't that Parker wasn't good. Just that he wasn't anywhere near the level of a 24 year old Kobe.

Finally, having the best player doesn't mean anything without a good coach.

Lebron averaged 35-9-7 last year's playoffs and we all know how that turned out. KG averaged 24-15-5 in '04 and they didn't even make the finals.

Edited April 18, 2010 by dlpin

[Diesel]

You are reading those numbers wrong again. Shaq averaged 27-15-4 the year they were beat by the Spurs. The championship years he had more points, but the year they lost to the spurs was the year he had career high in playoff assists.

And the point wasn't that Parker wasn't good. Just that he wasn't anywhere near the level of a 24 year old Kobe.

Finally, having the best player doesn't mean anything without a good coach.

Lebron averaged 35-9-7 last year's playoffs and we all know how that turned out. KG averaged 24-15-5 in '04 and they didn't even make the finals.

Let's backtrack a minute...

Winning a championship doesn't automatically make you a great coach.

Sometimes, great teams just fall into your lap.

The NBA is made up of so many retreads that it's hard to make my point...

But

Bill Fitch won a championship with the Celtics.

I watched Fitch coach NJ and LAC... I was not impressed.

In fact, given my own team with players needing a coach and if I had to choose between Jerry Sloan, Bill Fitch, and Gregg Poppovich... I'm picking Jerry Sloan everytime.

[dlpin]

Let's backtrack a minute...

Winning a championship doesn't automatically make you a great coach.

Sometimes, great teams just fall into your lap.

The NBA is made up of so many retreads that it's hard to make my point...

But

Bill Fitch won a championship with the Celtics.

I watched Fitch coach NJ and LAC... I was not impressed.

In fact, given my own team with players needing a coach and if I had to choose between Jerry Sloan, Bill Fitch, and Gregg Poppovich... I'm picking Jerry Sloan everytime.

Of course winning a championship doesn't make you a great coach. But a great coach wins even when he doesn't have the best talent (which is why I think Phil Jackson is overrated, he never won without the best talent). In 1999 and 2003, the Spurs clearly did not have the most talented team. Duncan was great and had an unbelievable post season, but the Lakers had Shaq in his prime plus a young Kobe, just to mention one person.

Bill Fitch won a championship with a team composed of 4 hall of famers (all between 23 and 32 years of age then) plus a very good role player (Cedric Maxwell). There is no comparison to Popp winning a title with Duncan and a 20 year old Parker.

[Diesel]

Of course winning a championship doesn't make you a great coach. But a great coach wins even when he doesn't have the best talent (which is why I think Phil Jackson is overrated, he never won without the best talent). In 1999 and 2003, the Spurs clearly did not have the most talented team. Duncan was great and had an unbelievable post season, but the Lakers had Shaq in his prime plus a young Kobe, just to mention one person.

Bill Fitch won a championship with a team composed of 4 hall of famers (all between 23 and 32 years of age then) plus a very good role player (Cedric Maxwell). There is no comparison to Popp winning a title with Duncan and a 20 year old Parker.

First off, the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe were not necessarily a lock. They were two massive egos that were very non-complimentary at times. Secondly, just like Hakeem and a bunch of Role players winning a championship, having a dominant big man is the easiest way to get to a championship. I think Duncan turning in the performance he turned in speaks volumes... 20 year old Tony parker was still double figures in points. 14+ per game. We'd be doing cartwheels in the middle of freaking Piedmont Park with Gay Men watching and clapping if Teague could reproduce what Tony Parker (at age 20) did in those playoffs.

[dlpin]

First off, the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe were not necessarily a lock. They were two massive egos that were very non-complimentary at times. Secondly, just like Hakeem and a bunch of Role players winning a championship, having a dominant big man is the easiest way to get to a championship. I think Duncan turning in the performance he turned in speaks volumes... 20 year old Tony parker was still double figures in points. 14+ per game. We'd be doing cartwheels in the middle of freaking Piedmont Park with Gay Men watching and clapping if Teague could reproduce what Tony Parker (at age 20) did in those playoffs.

You keep saying "if player X was in the hawks." But the hawks have more weapons than that. If the second best player on the hawks was a 20 year old point guard who scored 14+ on 40% shooting, the hawks wouldn't even be in the playoffs. Part of that is because Duncan is much better than JJ, but also because Popp is much better than Woodson.

And it's not a matter of Shaq and Kobe being a lock. It is a matter of the lakers (and the mavs the second time around) having much, much better talent than the Spurs.

In fact, I can't think of a single season when the Spurs underperformed based on their talent level, and quite a few where they overperformed.

[Diesel]

You keep saying "if player X was in the hawks." But the hawks have more weapons than that. If the second best player on the hawks was a 20 year old point guard who scored 14+ on 40% shooting, the hawks wouldn't even be in the playoffs. Part of that is because Duncan is much better than JJ, but also because Popp is much better than Woodson.

And it's not a matter of Shaq and Kobe being a lock. It is a matter of the lakers (and the mavs the second time around) having much, much better talent than the Spurs.

In fact, I can't think of a single season when the Spurs underperformed based on their talent level, and quite a few where they overperformed.

Talent doesn't win without teamwork in basketball. Same Lakers going for a threepeat.. got UPENDED by the Detroit Pistons. It was not that the Pistons were so talented or so well coached, it was that that Laker team was so flawed. The same was true in 2003. In fact, had it not been for the refs, the Philadelphia Sixers would have won at least 1 more game in their series with the Lakers. In fact, that Lakers were handed a win against the Portland Trailblazers for one of their first championships. You don't remember Smitty and Pippen taking Kobe to school?? You don't remember Sheed getting thrown out of the game and suspended from the next one for LOOKING at the refs? Uhm... That has never happened again?!?!???

I agree with you that Duncan is far better than JSmoove. That's the point. Duncan putting up legendary numbers with a veteran team and a Young PG who scored 14 per.. won a championship. That's not so hard to believe.

Not that what he did in the finals is important.. but:

2003 -- Tim Duncan, San Antonio

Averaged 24.2 points, 17.0 rebounds and 5.3 blocks to lead the Spurs to 4-2 victory over the New Jersey Nets. Duncan scored 21 points and added 20 rebounds, 10 assists and eight blocks in Game 6 of the NBA Finals at the SBC Center to eliminate the Nets.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Diesel

[dlpin]

Talent doesn't win without teamwork in basketball. Same Lakers going for a threepeat.. got UPENDED by the Detroit Pistons. It was not that the Pistons were so talented or so well coached, it was that that Laker team was so flawed. The same was true in 2003. In fact, had it not been for the refs, the Philadelphia Sixers would have won at least 1 more game in their series with the Lakers. In fact, that Lakers were handed a win against the Portland Trailblazers for one of their first championships. You don't remember Smitty and Pippen taking Kobe to school?? You don't remember Sheed getting thrown out of the game and suspended from the next one for LOOKING at the refs? Uhm... That has never happened again?!?!???

I agree with you that Duncan is far better than JSmoove. That's the point. Duncan putting up legendary numbers with a veteran team and a Young PG who scored 14 per.. won a championship. That's not so hard to believe.

Not that what he did in the finals is important.. but:

2003 -- Tim Duncan, San Antonio

Averaged 24.2 points, 17.0 rebounds and 5.3 blocks to lead the Spurs to 4-2 victory over the New Jersey Nets. Duncan scored 21 points and added 20 rebounds, 10 assists and eight blocks in Game 6 of the NBA Finals at the SBC Center to eliminate the Nets.

Dude, what are you talking about? The lakers WON 3 titles. They weren't "going for a threepeat." They had one. And the team that stopped them from winning number 4 was the Spurs in 03, not the Pistons in 04.

And who is disputing that Duncan was an amazing player? The point is that the Spurs were a better coached team that got by teams with more talent (and no one disputes that Shaq in his prime+Kobe is more talent than Duncan in his prime + Parker). Only team to stop Shaq in his prime years of 26 to 30.

But I'm done here. You are the only person in the universe who doesn't think Popp is a great coach.

[AHF]

You are the only person in the universe who doesn't think Popp is a great coach.

What I find interesting about the poll is that no one voted "no" when asked if Pops is a great coach or not but there has been a lively debate anyway.

[Diesel]

But I'm done here. You are the only person in the universe who doesn't think Popp is a great coach.

I never said that Popp wasn't a great coach.

However, in order to validate Greatness as a Coach, I would have to see you coach without Having the Best PF in history playing for you.

Jerry Sloan continues to prove Greatness but is never recognized.

Phil Jackson has proven greatness to an extent. (Phil not coaching NJ speaks volumes).

There are other coaches who have won championships but have moved from team situation to team situation that have proven that they are indeed great coaches.

Then there are others who have won championships but have moved to another situation and proved that they were in the right place at the right time.

Do you think KC Jones was a great coach?

Do you think that Bill Russell was a great Coach?

[AHF]

I would love to see Phil Jackson coaching a team without a first team All-NBA player. That would be fascinating.

[dlpin]

I never said that Popp wasn't a great coach.

However, in order to validate Greatness as a Coach, I would have to see you coach without Having the Best PF in history playing for you.

Jerry Sloan continues to prove Greatness but is never recognized.

Phil Jackson has proven greatness to an extent. (Phil not coaching NJ speaks volumes).

There are other coaches who have won championships but have moved from team situation to team situation that have proven that they are indeed great coaches.

Then there are others who have won championships but have moved to another situation and proved that they were in the right place at the right time.

Do you think KC Jones was a great coach?

Do you think that Bill Russell was a great Coach?

So you are saying he isn't "validated" as a great coach, not that he isn't a great coach? What, exactly, is the difference?

And so winning 4 titles with Duncan, "not validated." Never winning anything with Malone and Stockton, "validated?" Needing, Jordan, Kobe and Shaq to win every one of his titles, validated?