I would actually say that 95.4 PPG scoring average was because it was Van Gundy's first full season. He hadn't quite managed to put those pins all the way in the basketball, so they still had a little bit of air. Even so, it was a dropoff from the previous season, and STILL 3PPG lower than under Riley... 1994-95 98.2 PPG 1995-96 97.2 PPG (Don Nelson and JVG) 1996-97 95.4 PPG (JVG)
Ok..let me ask you this. Think about the 94 Knicks team. Harper, Starks, Oalkey, Ewing, Mason...do you think they had chemistry? Don't you think that this team had been a reminisce of the Riley's days? A team centered around Ewing. At a time where Ewing was capable of being called "the man!" A team that had the strength, speed and chemistry to play together. Now, JVG takes over, the PPG drops to 95.4 (JVG style)....and as the two years go by, Ewing is more and more edged out as "the man" due to age and knees. The offense moves towards Houston, Spree and Johnson....See how that goes? Go look at Pat Riley in Miami. And you'll see the same thing as the years go by. Except Riley had less (offensive) talent to play with (Mourning and Hardaway vs Houston, Spree and Johnson).
Yeah and? So, what? He was suffering from injuries since the 97-98 season (the year before: 26 games). Do the knees work at the same level? Does the back work at the same level? I mean, geesh. Don't bring up the Francis 2001-02 migraine season again (57 games). At least I admit that has an affect on a players production. As Ewing was edged out of the lineup, this had the same effect as Hakeem being edged out. That's why the PPG dropped even under Rudy. The scoring was placed on 2nd and 3rd tier players (Francis/Mobley...). This is your "players league" for ya.
Just putting the numbers out there like that implied was that it was a full season, and Ewing had missed more than half of it. I was just pointing out that was not the case.
For the same four years of Riley in Miami: 1996-97 94.8 PPG 1997-98 95.0 PPG 1998-99 89.0 PPG 1999-00 94.4 PPG AVG: 93.3 PPG
Yeah and? Keep going....it's a "players league," remember? Watch what happens when Mounring starts to miss games. Notice how that 98-99 year was 89.0? Did you notice that Hardaway and Mourning missed a whole lot of games that year? Next, lets go on to the following years... 2000-01(88ppg) it gets worse...so does 2001-02(87ppg) and so does...2002-03 (85ppg). I mean, after 2000 is seemed like that team was the "walking wounded!" I don't blame Riley, either. Now, just beacause of this, it doesn't mean that I wouldn't want Pat to be our coach. Even Phil. I think all of them are excellent coaches. But the devil is in the details. And JVG needs the same consideration.
Riley's distribution over these years is clearly bimodal. You've got a bunch of low PPG averages, and a bunch of high ones. JVG's statistics do not break down that way. There is one low point, one high point, and the rest bunched together in the middle. 1996-2004 JVG: Mean - 91 PPG, Median - 92 PPG, Mode - 91 PPG (range: 86-95 PPG) Riley: Mean - 91 PPG, Median - 94 PPG, Mode - 95 PPG (range: 85-95 PPG) Tomjanovich: Mean - 96.68 PPG, Median - 97, Mode - 98 PPG (range: 92-100 PPG) The only argument is that the sampling size is not large enough. Six season should certainly be enough to determine the upside of any head coach. It may not be enough to determine the downside (see Riley). I just don't see the skew that says "JVG can consistently coach a club to 95 PPG." There is certainly the possibility of one season at that level, but the next is likely to fall back to 91, and in the long run there will be a bad season to counter the one good one.
You say, "sampling size is not large enough." That's right. For example, JVG taking over the Knicks in 1994 would have been a better model. Why? Not only because of the sample length, but also because of the youth of the team, Ewing being at full strength, the chemistry, etc...Thus, I discount the "fall back to 91ppg" because you took the "worst years" of the Ewing's career (12th year - and on...), then completely blame it on JVG. This was towards the end of Ewing's career VS the 5th year of Mourning/6th year of Hardaway. The four year comparison was apples and oranges. Using the same four years wasn't a good model. I was wondering why you posted *just* four years from Pat and tried to compare it to JVG's. Like if those ***teams/years*** have anything to do with each other. The purpose of showing the coaches carrer (w/showing the players conditions) was to show how players matter, age, injury and circumstances. JVG hasn't coached long enough (not compared to Pat, Rudy or Phil) OR had a chance to use a 29-32ppg freak-of-nature shooting guard. Add a 18/10 monster at center. And a 17.0ppg power forward veteran. And a 12ppg small foward. This team is packed. And no, I don't think that McGrady scoring 30ppg is needed. But rather 24-26/7/7. And I hope for Yao to break 20. For the first time in JVG's coaching career he was two young studs (24/25) to use. Imagine if he had Ewing at 25! So, over the next few years, I think that 95ppg is not out of the question for the Rockets. Especially after the team chemistry improves (between McGrady/Yao) and fine-tuning the roster a bit.
JVG: 500 games as head coach RT: 900 games as head coach. I woud say 60% is "long enough" to get a good feel for the limitations of a head coach, his preference for players, and the teams he coaches. As to "why those four years," it was the only direct comparison to make. Same opponents, same league, same rules, same conference. I should've added the 2000-01 season in their, but forgot.
How is it a "direct comparison?" Huh? Was JVG simultaneously coaching the Miami team? You say, "Same opponents, same league, same rules, same conference." But you forget that oh, so important, "same players." It was the same kinda logic that other have made against Larry Brown. They would say, "He's a good coach, but he hasn't won a title." Completely overlooking the surrounding circumstances. Until after they do. Then, they jump on the bandwagon.
Nice of you to leave out Pat (since we were talking about their "comparison.") Again, you like to take the worst years of the star player, then put full blame on the coach. Take note that this McGrady/Yao duo is the best team he's ever had. He will prove you wrong. I mean, I understand why you keep harping on this guy. This is coming from a guy (you) that loves Francis game(you are unable to see the effect a turnover prone PG has on a team). Go figure. That to me tells me why you hate JVG, but love Francis. It's personal. And you love to deflect the blame.
That's the thing. I don't "love" Francis' game. I thought he was a very good player. A worthy All-Star. However, I think T-Mac is better. Throw in Mobley (a slightly better-than-average starter) and Juwon Howard (a slightly worse-than-average starter), and I consider the deal basically a wash. This is you imagining things again. I would be 100% behind the deal if the Rockets had a head coach that knew something about offense. A guy who doesn't take the LEADING SCORER in the league and talk only about how he can "improve his defense." I'm sorry, but JVG wasn't just in New York for one season. If Patrick Ewing was in decline, go find other players to build his team around. If 92 PPG after that first season was the best he could do, that tells me something about HIM.
You think this McGrady/Francis deal is a wash? Ha! Well, your favorite team is in Orlando now. Have fun!
Wow! You make it sound so easy! Got "Duncan?" Yeah, hold on a sec. Let me pull him out of my hat. Oh, wait. Sorry, I only have a Shaq. Ok, deal! Presto!
It happens all the time. Hell, it has happened three times in the recent past here. Steve Francis. Yao Ming. Tracy McGrady. Besides, everybody knows the league wants New York to have the best players
McGrady/Yao and JVG coaching? Yes. A great opportunity we will take advantage of. Francis? No (great athletic ability, but dumb as a door knob). So, comparing him to a super star like Shaq/Duncan is not the same. He's a 2nd/3rd tier player. Sit tight on the McGrady/Yao duo. It's not a wash.
JVG no (defensive smarts, but can't coach an offense out of a paper bag). Comparing him to a championship caliber coach like Riley or Jackson is not the same.
Sorry, no. I want the organization to win, but I want it to be aesthetically pleasing, and win with class and grace. Even if Van Gundy finds the golden wrapper and wins a championship, I will not be a fan of his. I have no problem giving him his props in this hypothetical, but I don't want on his bandwagon.
