And as far as coach's thinking that Larry is good at developing young players, he is still living off the reputation he earned when he was younger and less rich.

At this point, he is as flexible as a supersaturated Kleenex.

I cant think of a better coach that Riley. I cant think of anyone better at squeezing more wins out of a team than Riley. In some ways that was his downfall. He was so good at pushing his teams every night that they tended to overachieve in the regular season. How many times did the Heat have a better record than the Knicks as well has homecourt advantage? Only to lose because I think the Knicks were more talented, it was just that the Heat played so damn hard every night they had a better record.

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but from the June 16th WSJ. Interesting article and it's one of the reasons why Larry Brown is so valuable in my opinion if he's on the same page as management. He's proven he can win, but also rebuild. Also emphasizes the point that defense still wins championships regardless of any rule changes or offensive firepower. Avery Johnson has those guys playing tough as balls -- Dirk throws his body around while Devin Harris and Josh Howard are all over the court.

Riley somehow has even Walker and Jwill trying on the defensive end -- something I don't think is possible without Shaq's leadership on that squad. We need a leader to come in and set the tone for everybody else and be another coach on the floor. Not to mention guys like Haslem who plays his heart out and is a beast on defense and the boards.


Basketball's Top Closers
June 16, 2006; Page W10

At first glance, the biggest mismatch in the NBA finals between the Miami Heat and the Dallas Mavericks wouldn't appear to involve Miami's Shaquille O'Neal, Dallas's Dirk Nowitzki -- or any other player for that matter.

Rather, that mismatch would seem to be the face-off between Dallas coach Avery Johnson and Miami coach Pat Riley. Mr. Johnson has just finished his first full year of coaching in the NBA, with just 100 regular-season games under his belt. Mr. Riley, on the other hand, has 1,151 regular-season wins, second-best in NBA history; four titles; and has taken three different teams to the finals.

But both coaches, different as they may seem, have been part of the same trend, which we'll call the "closer coach" trend. This is based on the notion that the coach who can take a team from mediocrity to contention may not be the one who can take them from there to a championship.

GETTING DEFENSIVE


Under Avery Johnson, this season's Mavericks still had the NBA's best offense in basketball, as measured by points per 100 possessions, while improving their defense compared to 2003-04, Don Nelson's last full season. Pat Riley's Heat weren't much better this regular season than they were in 2004-05 under Stan Van Gundy, and owe much of their playoff success to a healthy Shaquille O'Neal and an improving Dwyane Wade.

For example, Mr. Johnson's predecessor, Don Nelson, rebuilt the Mavericks, taking them from 16 wins his first year to four consecutive seasons of 50 wins or more. Mr. Riley stepped down as the Heat's head coach after a 2002-03 season in which they won only 25 games. Mr. Riley's successor, Stan Van Gundy, turned that team into a 59-game-winning squad that got to last year's conference finals.

The list of recent NBA champions is thick with closer coaches. At the start of the 2003-04 season, Larry Brown took over the Detroit Pistons from Rick Carlisle, who had led the team to back-to-back 50-win seasons and a spot in the conference finals. Mr. Brown led the Pistons to the title in his first year with the team.

Repeat Performer

The NBA's most notable closer coach? Phil Jackson. He took over the Chicago Bulls from Doug Collins, who had led the team to a 50-win season and a trip to the conference finals. Mr. Jackson won the title in his second year -- nabbed five more in the next seven years. He performed the same trick with the Los Angeles Lakers. Del Harris brought the team to respectability -- from 33 wins the year before his arrival to 61 wins in his last full season. Mr. Jackson brought them three straight championships.

Why does the closer coach seem to work? A coach who rebuilds a team often keeps on using the strategies that first helped the team improve -- as well as the players who were pivotal to that improvement. That can prevent the kind of fine-tuning that brings teams to a championship level. A closer coach has the freedom to implement new tactics, and change personnel, to nudge a team over the top.

What has Mr. Johnson done during his short tenure with the Mavericks? He taught them to beef up their defense. Under Mr. Nelson, the Mavericks M.O. was run, run, run and try to outscore the opposition. This worked in the regular season because it was novel and opponents were often unable -- or unwilling -- to keep pace with Dallas's relentless attack.

But by playoff time the novelty wore off, and rival coaches were able to implement strategies to slow the Mavs down. Under Mr. Johnson they're still an offensive powerhouse, but now give up fewer points.

A method devised by basketball statistician Dean Oliver, which measures not points per game but per possession, says Mr. Johnson's Mavs were the NBA's best offensive team this season, with 112.1 points per 100 possessions. More important was their improvement on defense. They allowed 104.7 points per 100, tenth-best in the league -- just behind Mr. Riley's Heat at 104.2. In 2004, Mr. Nelson's last full season, Dallas allowed 106.9 points per 100, 26th in the league.

After Miami's 11-10 start this season, Mr. Van Gundy resigned and Mr. Riley stepped back in. Mr. Riley didn't have to perform a complete makeover when he returned to the Heat, but he did place a stronger emphasis on defense. And in this year's playoffs (through Game 3 of the Finals), Mr. Riley's Heat have been an elite defensive squad. They've allowed just 93.1 points per game, trailing only Detroit and Indiana in that category, and have held opponents to 43.7% shooting, tied for second in the playoffs.

The Shaq Factor

Unfortunately, Shaquille O'Neal was hurt during the 2005 Eastern Conference finals, and his diminished play likely cost the team that series -- and set the stage for Mr. Van Gundy's exit. While Mr. O'Neal was subpar the first two games of these finals, his performance in the early rounds of the playoffs played a big role in getting the team here. If Mr. Riley gets points for orchestrating Miami's first trip to the Finals, the training staff that kept Shaq healthy should get an assist.

So whether Mr. Johnson wins his first title or Mr. Riley takes his fifth, a closer coach will hoist the NBA championship trophy. The coaches whose teams improved, but not quite enough, may have reason to worry.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by djsunyc:

i pick riles too but you think riles mental grinding working has anything to do with ewing being on board from day one and wanting to be coached? or shaq being on board and wanting to be coached? if steve nash was the point guard of this team, we would've won ALOT more games.

do you not remember lb's philly team that made the finals? the pg was eric snow. the sf was george lynch. the pf was tyrone hill. and the center was dikembe mutombo. that's motivation.

Ewing wasn't on board day one. Matter of fact, Ewing demanded a trade back in the summer of 91. He wanted out of NY all together. He wasn't happy about nothing. Pat Riley met with him at his home and eased his concerns. Riley adapted to his player and respected him as well. The only player I think I can remember Riley not respecting much as a Knick coach was Tony Campbell and to some degree Mark Jackson (he didn't defend like Riley liked). Riley is the master of adaptation. No one does it better. Brown is the master of playing his style his way, which he calls the right way. If players can't then he is screwed.

I'm not trying to take anything away from Riley, but I'm not sure I agree that he adapts to his players any better than Brown.

Magic, Kareem, Scott and Worthy are every coach's kind of players and I think they could have won with several styles of play. He basically had them in an inside out halfcourt game most iof the time with magic allowed to do his thing on fastbreak opportunities. No Magic and there'd have been no "show time."

But if you look at his Knicks and Heat teams they've been mirror images of each other. Ewing/Mourning/Shaq + Harper/Starks/Hardaway/Wade + role players. Take out the greatness of Magic and Worthy and the Lakers, with say kareem and Scott in a 2-man game would have fit the same formula.

Brown's teams on the other hand, like Indy, Philly, and Detroit are far more different than Riley's formula. Look at the center position. the dunking dutchman and big ben couldn't be more different. And what about the different use of reggie/rip vs Iverson.

I think brown is more adaptive of his players. You can't coach so many different teams successfully and not.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by BlueSeats:



I'm not trying to take anything away from Riley, but I'm not sure I agree that he adapts to his players any better than Brown.

Magic, Kareem, Scott and Worthy are every coach's kind of players and I think they could have won with several styles of play. He basically had them in an inside out halfcourt game most iof the time with magic allowed to do his thing on fastbreak opportunities. No Magic and there'd have been no "show time."

But if you look at his Knicks and Heat teams they've been mirror images of each other. Ewing/Mourning/Shaq + Harper/Starks/Hardaway/Wade + role players. Take out the greatness of Magic and Worthy and the Lakers, with say kareem and Scott in a 2-man game would have fit the same formula.

Brown's teams on the other hand, like Indy, Philly, and Detroit are far more different than Riley's formula. Look at the center position. the dunking dutchman and big ben couldn't be more different. And what about the different use of reggie/rip vs Iverson.

I think brown is more adaptive of his players. You can't coach so many different teams successfully and not.

Blue, Riley has coached Showtime, and then coached the NY Bricks, the thugs of the NBA. I can't think of two teams with more contrast in the world. Even Riley harshest critics say that the man is able to adapt to most situations on a fly. Like anything in life some people are able to do that in their lives while many aren't. On the other hand, Brown's strongest supporters say that Coach Brown has a difficult time adjusting to players. He has a set gameplay in his mind. To his credit, he never defers from his belief that his style is the right way. He has often said (with the Clippers), that he rather lose the right way then win the wrong way. Riley is only about winning. As Phil Jackson said, Riley will do anything to win.

Pharzeone, I really don't care about the platitudes so many sportwriters and fans echo from each others. They just don't hold up to scrutiny. The nonsense about him not liking and not being good with youth is one glaring example. I've shown time and again how many rookies and sophomores have played key roles on his teams. No offense, but look at you in this very conversation. You're just repeating your assertions without adding anything of substance or even addressing the points I raised. It really looks like people are more committed to holding steadfast to their views than learning and evolving.

This business about him only being able to coach a certain kind of player is simply wrong. First off, he's won in NCAA, the ABA and the NBA. You really think the same style of play serves each league as well? Sharing the ball, rebounding, defending and playing hard might, but those principles do not define a rigid system. To coach 10 different teams each to winning records and sometimes finals (NCAA, ABA, NBA) you've got to be flexible to people. Logic dictates that. And many of his turnarounds came in his first year, well before he could imprint the roster.

It's also said he can't coach stars. David Thompson, George McGinnis, Danny Manning, David Robinson, Reggie Miller and Alan Iverson would tell us otherwise.

Philly was built around one star and role players. Detroit around 5 guys of equal abilities; none quite stars, none quite role players. That's different. Indy was in between with a mix of stars and role player. And while he crafted Rip and reggie to be similar, he let reggie shoot far more 3s than rip because he was better at it. That's flexible.

And here's another one of those myths everyone repeats: "Brown hates 3 pointers". rip shot 2 more 3s for the entire season under Flip than under Larry the year prior. Reggie shot far more 3s than at any other point in his career under Brown.

Riley on the other hand inherited his Laker team, but all those who he helped build are near clones: His Knicks, his Zo/Hardaway Heat, and his Shaq/Wade Heat are quite similar in structure and tenor.



[Edited by - BlueSeats on 06-19-2006 2:42 PM]

Riles was JVG bitch for how many years? Riles would burnout his players by seasons end.

Riles "inherited" this team also. It has strong leadership with Shaq, as star who demands mad respect in wade, and the rest know their places in the pecking order.

Riles is over rated. He did a great hype job and can motivate but his job in ny was more legend than fact.

Funny thing is once they took the ball away from walker they win!

^^^^Blueseats, keep posting like that and you're gonna have to change your name to bloohah.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 06-19-2006 4:35 PM]