Sam, I agree with you that almost all teams passed up these players, and makes it an intriguing story. But my point was whilst there are general abundance with regards to how player can make a career out of nothing, this doesnt seem to have been the case with Van Gundy. Charlie Ward and Chuck Hayes are the only ones who comes into my mind, when it comes to JVG giving chance to nobody, to make a name for themselves in this league. Now couple that with his infuriating tendency to bring in "past the sell out date" ex Knicks in his early Rockets days, I just cant but help to think JVG likes players he knows what he is going to get, so much to the point that he seems to be ultra conservative. To give an analogy, suppose that there is a box that contains 4 black balls 6 red balls, and another which we have no clue about it at all. Suppose that the purpose of game is to draw black ball on the first go, and you can only draw having chosen the box: Van Gundy struck me as a person who will almost always choose 5 black balls 5 red balls box, since he doesnt know what is in the other box. The point I want to make is, JVG didnt always have the best talent to win the league - I'll take side with Nick, Durvasa (His detail was outstanding on this respect) and you on this issue. However, assuming there is a strong correlation between the talent, and the money spent, I do not find his record to be "astonishing". I know a lot of people refer JVG's greatness due to the fact he never missed a play-off until last year, well Knicks arent exactly Hawks, 90s Celtics, Wizards, Post Jordon Bulls, either. His CV pretty sound - that is about it. Now most infuriating bit with Van Gundy is not his Knicks record, but with the Rockets. Rockets & Suns were widley regarded as two team which could challenge the Spurs when Van Gundy took over. And during these times, it is quite safe to say Van Gundy had a lot of inputs made regarding trades, and FA signings. Whilst Suns been picking up likes of Barbosa, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, nicely, Rockets have been using those roster space for complete scrubs like Fl`ping Ryan Bowen, Marc Jackson, Charlie Ward, Charles Oakely. It seems to be JVG believing taking his rep too much seriously there, thinking he could make an career out of those guys. For me measuring standard is hypothetical excellence: Not what he did right or wrong, but what Van Gundy should have done. Of course such standard is unfair if you had a year or two, but JVG has been in the league far too long to get a free pass. I am taking such an approach because I just do not what exactly goes on in the backroom. If I get more insider insight in regards what is going on behind the stage, I might change my mind, but as it is, I have no choice but to take this approach. Having said that, I hope Van Gundy proves me wrong. But considering how Luther Head and Chukcy Hayes made their stride this year, Van Gundy seems to have learnt his lesson.
He was also the only coach who could possibly made that Knicks team a 8 seed. That team should have been a higher seed even without a coach, so JVG made them worse, technically.
As usual a great post by NIKEstrad, taking every "point" hiroshukin made and either countering them or debunking them entirely.
How is anyone qualified to say who is, or isnt a championship coach in the NBA, unless they are a coach in the NBA. Some of you guys have diarhea of the mouth/internet. What all of us know: JVG is a disciplinarian, owns up to his mistakes, is respected by the players and organization, inspires his team to play incredible defense, and is mutable on offense (regardless of what some of you think). To say that he is a control freak?? Well, that can be said of some of you for insisting that Alston be traded, JVG fired, T mac be traded, etc. It's your team for the city, but its not up to you. You are not the owner. Play your position, and support the team. All of you making these statements should be considered control freaks as well. Why not watch the team, and enjoy the ride? We have a GREAT record in the toughest conference, and have OVER acheived in the face of key players being out. I have nothing but praise for Van Gundy, and this team has MAJOR heart. It's not a coincidence. Some of you need to get over yourselves. You arent NBA coaches, and never will be because you arent qualified. You have no right to judge someone who does this for a living, unless you work in that field. You are like the heckler bothering the comeidian on stage, when you know damn well if you stepped on stage you would hear nothing except the sounds of crickets chirping. I'm done ranting. Long live VAN GUNDY!!!!
Unfair analogy. We didn't pick up those players in lieu of the Suns guys. All the guys you mentioned were signed to either 10-day contracts or the league minimum. It'd be like comparing Head, Hayes, Sura, and Battier to 4 Pat Burkes and Jake Voskuhls. Most here thought the Suns were fools for the Raja Bell signing (we were after him, but the Suns offered was considered ridiculous years/dollars). I'd argue the Sura and Jim Jackson signings were of similar quality. Boris Diaw was acquired in a sign and trade. I wish we had a Joe Johnson to deal. Barbosa was a pick, like Luther Head. Head actually has better year 2 numbers, but I don't think he'll reach that level. Credit the Suns for hitting it big.
Uh, Bowen, Jackson, Ward, Oakley were league minimum street free agents, signed in mid season as stop gap measures, with the exception of Ward, who was gone in an instant. Barbosa was drafted in 2003 in the first round (the Rox 1st round pick went to Memphis that year as part of 1999 Steve Francis trade.) Boris Diaw was also drafted in 2003 in the first round (who the suns acquired...by trading another young all star guard in Joe Johnson). Raja Bell went to the suns in 2005 as a 29 year old free agent for 4 years and 24 million dollars. As you recall, the bulk of the Rockets FA money that year went to Stromile Swift, a YOUNGER player who was meant to be power forward of the future. In no way, shape form, or manner did the signings of the players you cited have any impact in precluding the Rockets from going after the players you mentioned.
yeah... that will definatley lead houston to another championship! great idea!! if that's the case, all the more reason we should fire him... players who make plays use coach's plays from practice etc... if the players made the plays, why have a coach?
i'm surprised that no one bothered to ask: what exactly makes a championship coach? after reading a few pages, some posters think that you need playoff success to be considered a championship coach. however, by that logic, there will never be another championship level coach other than the ones we have now. other posters think that you need to be a great motivator to be considered a championship coach. i agree with this. every head coach needs to be able to rally the troops. i think that JVG has a great ability to do just that, even though fans may not see it. i see it everytime we are in garbage time and the team keeps fighting. i see it everytime we pounce on a team early in the game ebcause we know we need the win. JVG has his faults, for sure. however, take away the name and look at what he brings... how would you judge him on paper without knowing who the coach was? 1. nba finals experience 2. 41-40 playoff record 3. winning % of .568 ranks 8th among active coaches and 22nd all time. 4. made the playoffs in every season as a head coach except for one. 5. teams ranked in the top 5 defensively EVERY year as a head coach. you would be hard pressed to find a better coach. only a hand full (pj, sloan, pop, riley, brown) are clear cut favorites over JVG. brown is basically the same mold. karl wears out his welcome too much to be considered better. nelson's unique ideas never worked out in the playoffs. d'antoni should give nash all the credit for making that team what it is. adleman has had his up's and down's but there is no reason that with time JVG can't have the same achievements. JVG may play a boring, sometimes frustrating style. he may not be great at making adjustments during the game. he may not be willing to play a better player if that player won't conform (bonzi), or if that player makes too many mistakes (billy, novak). those are his faults. by the way, he was right to be firm with bonzi (who eventually conformed). his boring style keeps us competitive. he needs to improve on in game adjustments for sure. and he also needs to improve on trusting young players. his quote of "young players equal mistkaes. mistakes equal losses. losses equal fired." shows you that it's his insecurity about his job. pop could play tonyP at 19 because pop will never get fired. all in all, if he would just make better in game adjustments, there would be nothing to complain about, except for boring basketball which i will deal with if we are winning.
I don't think Riley can be considered 'clear-cut' better than JVG. He's won rings, but JVG has also beaten his teams in the playoffs. Pop, Brown, and Riley are similar to JVG in coaching style.
Honestly... a lot of you guys suffer from this weird form of coach-envy, brung about by JVG's insistance on defense (which wins games), and his demeanor to the public (which is not how he is with his players... who love him)... and thus you all hold him to a standard that is basically championship or bust (when we all know that even when healthy, this team isn't far and away better, talent-wise, than any of the other contenders.) But, that's why they play the games... JVG can get more out of less... which is kinda what you have to do when you pay 2 guys max dollars (and they both haven't been on the court simultaneously/consistently since 2004-05). It also stresses the importance of what you can get on draft day... which is why Luther Head and Battier have been so vital (whereas his first two years, we didn't have any picks... and had to rely on old veterans/retreads). Sure, he's not at the level of Poppovich... nobody is arguing that. But, he's closer to Poppovich (in style/demeanor/dedication/philosophy) than most of the other coaches in this league... and I'd much rather have that instead of a guy with limited coaching experience, or a guy who routinely underacheives with tons of talent.
Not true Rybo started for us in the playoff series two years ago and was somewhat successful. Luther was pretty much unknown at the time when he was given heavy minutes. Conservative is the word, but I am all for him playing to win. In this league, you have teams stacked with talents through picks over the years, but they know how to win. JVG is the kind no-nosense coach that can bring team to the next step. The players that he has scrached off so far from the team are all pretty much next to useless as other mentioned already. You may not like his style, but dont question his ability because of his style. That's all I want to say.
I know. That is why I post the other day (after Rox beat the Nets) saying that I couldn't imagine how much more ugly the Rox offense would have been if Lawrence Frank were Rox's coach. JVG's basketball is ugly, JVG's basketball is boring, but his is still a hell lot better than a lot of coaches who are currently "coaching" in the NBA. I guess I am still frustrated that Rox management didn't make a move at Phil Jackson two years ago. I have to move on.
Did you notice this sterling example of JVG's new "positive attitude" this season? "non-strengths" LOL "The good part is I know our guys pretty well and I like what I know about them," Van Gundy said. "We do have some non-strengths like other teams. But the main thing is that success can still be accomplished for this team (without Yao). I'm not saying we'll win at the same rate as we would if both Tracy and Yao were healthy. But we can continue playing well if we play with passion and we play smart." http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/Rockets_maintain_winning_pace_-202919-34.html
Managment would have preferred Larry Brown over both JVG and Phil Jackson... and if you think JVG is bad (in terms of how he deals with the public), Larry Brown would have had you gouging your eyes out. JVG plays structured ball... and until Phoenix wins a championship, its the model that ALL contending teams are following. The only difference is that JVG puts more emphasis on defense... which isn't a bad thing. The talent acquistion has been a problem... limited at first by the previous regime's (Rudy/CD) blunders for 5+ years, and now limited by the contracts of Yao + T-mac (which would be fine... if they both stayed healthy). I do like the fact that our offense puts an emphasis on getting high percentage shots (whether it be layups or wide open 3's). Sure, you have to have players who can hit those shots (Hayes with his poor layup skills, and the inconsistency of the wide open 3's)... but you gotta make the most of what you've got. And, I'm still taking this offense over the iso days of Francis/Mobely.... any day of the week.
Nike As you came with a quality post, worthy of praise, I digged down my lazy butt and did some research to back my point - I felt your post deserved such a response. So at my pains this is what I came up with 4 Seaon Record Prior to Van Gundy (Knicks) 1991–92 51 31 .622 Lost Conference Semifinals 1992–93 60 22 .732 Lost Conference Finals 1993–94 57 25 .695 Lost NBA Finals 1994–95 55 27 .671 Lost Conference Semifinals Total 223 105 .680 4 Seaon Record Under Van Gundy (Knicks) 1996–97 57 25 .695 Lost Conference Semifinals 1997–98 43 39 .524 Lost Conference Semifinals 1998–99 27 23 .540 Lost NBA Finals 1999–00 50 32 .610 Lost Conference Finals Total 177 119 .600 And 3 Seaons Prior to Van Gundy (Rockets) 2000-01 45 37 .550 2001-02 28 54 .341 2002-03 43 39 .524 Total 116 130 .472 3 Seasons Under Van Gundy (Rockets) 2003-04 45 37 .550 Lost First Round LA Lakers 4, Houston 1 2004-05 51 31 .622 Lost First Round Dallas 4, Houston 3 2005-06 34 48 .415 Total 130 116 .528 Obstensibly, Van Gundy seems to have brought some marginal improvement to Rockets whilst his charge, and Knicks have suffered somewhat under his tenure. Now, I have criticized Durvasa myself for general insufficiency of win -loss column as an inference for coaches ability for they do are multiple factors that determine teams results. Furthermore, as you have correctly pointed out Nike, the standard set by Rockets and Knicks are pretty hard example to follow by themselves for Van Gundy had to take over from Hall-of-Fame coaches. In other words, we are measuring Van Gundy with pretty tought standard to follow, and that itself present some bias towards (favourable on) Van Gundy. But since we are talking about "Championship Calibre Coach" here, I won't give him too much slack and compare his record with some of the best coaches in the league right now. Gregg Popovich 9 Seasons Prior to Gregg Popovich 1987-88 31 51 .378 Lost First Round 1988-89 21 61 .256 1989-90 56 26 .683 Lost Conference Semifinals 1990-91 55 27 .671 Lost First Round 1991-92 47 35 .573 Lost First Round 1992-93 49 33 .598 Lost Conference Semifinals 1993-94 55 27 .671 Lost First Round 1994-95 62 20 .756 Lost Conference Finals 1995-96 59 23 .720 Lost Conference Semifinals Total 435 303 .589 9 Seasons Under Gregg Poppovich 1997-98 56 26 .683 Lost Conference Semifinals 1998-99 37 13 .740 Won NBA Finals 1999-00 53 29 .646 Lost First Round 2000-01 58 24 .707 Lost Conference Finals 2001-02 58 24 .707 Lost Conference Semifinals 2002-03 60 22 .732 Won NBA Finals 2003-04 57 25 .695 Lost Conference Semifinals 2004-05 59 23 .720 Won NBA Finals 2005-06 63 19 .768 Lost Conference Semifinals Total 501 205 .710 Mike D'Antoni 1 Season Prior to Mike D'Antoni (Denver) 1997-98 11 71 .134 1 Season Under Mike D'Antoni (Denver) 1998-99 14 36 .280 2 Seasons Prior to Mike D'Antoni (Phoenix) 2001-02 36 46 .439 2002-03 44 38 .537 Lost First Round 2 Seaons Under Mike D'Antoni (Phoenix) 2004-05 62 20 .756 Lost Conference Finals 2005-06 54 28 .659 Lost Conference Finals Personally I don't think Mike D'Antoni's have been in the game long enough to warrant comparison with Van Gundy, and I do understand Phoenix have had to go through overall personnel change, so if we take the win-loss difference literally, we might be attributing factors external to D'Antoni to his benefit. But I just put in his record, since they serve as a stark contrast to Rockets record when both organization started off with a similar base, and were widely regarded to have same potential in the future. So the Suns serve as a readily available contrast to decide on Rocket's management team's record. Here comes the point of contention. To what extent coaches effort contribute to the success of the team. Now it seems to be you, Nike, Sam, Durvasa is willing to lay responsibility on these personnel decisions strictly on the part of GM. Obviously that is what GM is paid to do, and it is only right they take part of the blunt. But to me in sum form or the other, players are the critical determinant in any situations, whether teams wins or not, and I think it is unfair on GM to assign losing responsibility when things go bad, and praise the coach when teams do well. In any case, if you have been in the league as long as Van Gundy, then I suspect he has a say in these decision making processes. I know this is a presumption, and partly shaped by my experiences in Europe (That is probably why I agree with Amel on these issues), but I will shocked to find if this is not the case. Now to go back to list of players I have mentioned: Yes I did choose the list to prove my point, but I did so to contradict the claim that Van Gundy didnt have much talent to work with. I just don't see the need to confine population to just players you have worked with. I acknowledge the fact the list I have mentioned is not perfect: A more relevant index is to construct an composite index that takes into account a number of years played in the league, draft position taken, and salaries: So that we can compare Van Gundy's team with those of League average, and preferrably with some higher percentile range so to measure at a higher scale. But these requires effort, time, and some thoughts, and I do not think it is out of stretch to suggest Van Gundy havent been to great developing players, even taking into consideration the late draft position his team normally find themselves in, when we know there is quite a large degree of productive players from late first rounds onwards. I understand the coach is not perfect. Cooks are only good as their ingredients allow them to be. But since we are talking about "Championship Calibre Coach" here, however vacuous and arbitary such concept may be, the criterion for a judgement should be strict: And personally I dont think Van Gundy passess this test. He has been in the league long enough, and I won't give him free-pass in terms of how other factors played their part.
JVG's basketball is not ugly. Remember 2004-2005 season when we had the right players and they were all healthy? Even this year, when the offense was clicking, it looks good. Much better than the old ISOs.
If I remember correctly most of people considered Boris Diaw was a throw in at a time. Now I didn't pay too much attention to the draft all that of stuff, being in Europe and Asia most of the time, so kudos to you guys for picking up my mistakes. But I guess this argument is getting old. I think Nick is right: We differ because we are holding Van Gundy to a different level of standards, and hence our opinion differ (As I was comparing Van Gundy with Pop, He comes with a post mentioned Van Gundy isnt Pop ). To be fair though, I think you guys, especially Durvasa, came up good argument showing Van Gundy's coaching capabilities, and his Kinck record is especially his Knicks record. And you guys convinced me those Knick things are over-blown. I'll track back on this respect. But I still don't think coach's development record should be confined to the players that he had experience with. Part of good coaching is seeing talent before others do. But I guess it could be cultural difference that relates Coach's role in this aspect to other factors. Anyway, lets enjoy the match tonight. After all, being a Rockets fan, there is nothing more better than a win, regardless of my scepticism.
In his two middle seasons, P-Ew missed half a season each. Considering such, I think he maximized the team's potential. Saying they suffered, is grossly inaccurate.
Man, you compare these records without looking at the players they got? That doesn't look like a fair comparision to me. Did you see before Pop becamce the coach, Spurs were already a .700+ club?And that was without the great Tim Duncan. You can arguy Drob was not the same, but having TD was enough for compensate that. For Mike D'Antoni, was it his coaching or was it Steve Nash? They didn't have Nash the year before, and Nash won MVP ｉｎ D'Antoni's first season. I remember they played like crap in 04-05 when Nash was injured. For JVG, once he got Tmac(at the cost of SF and Cat), he reached .622 after a slow start because of complete change of the line-up. Not bad to me.
