The Trajic Life and Unheralded Times of Rick Adelman

[Skandery]

Has their ever been a sports personality so unappreciated as poor, poor Rick Adelman.  I've been saying this for years and am sure that I've posted on this site numerous times about the absolute lack of respect and indifference towards perhaps one of the greatest coaches of the last 20 years.  Is their a sports figure so ignored, so easily dismissed--I don't really know if their is one, surely not in professional basketball.

Let's start with Portland.  This team in the 80s was a perennial 1st round loser.  Generally finishing second in the division (I assume to the Lakers) and losing in the 1st round but managing to make it to round 2 in 1983 and 1985.  The team anchored around Drexler, Kersey, Duckworth, Porter, and Calwell Jones (PF) in the mid-80s.  Adelman came in with that same core in mid 88-89 season and got off to a rough start 14-21.  Portland addressed their need for a PF by trading for Buck Williams from New Jersey that summer and drafting forward Cliff Robinson (Uncle Cliffy).  In just his second year of coaching and first full year, Adelman took them to 59 Wins and an NBA Finals appearance.  The next year, 63 Wins and West Conf Finals appearance.  The next year, 57 Wins and a NBA Finals appearance.  His next two years, he took his team to 51 wins and 47 Wins but was ousted in the 1st round each of those years, the first to David Robinson's Spurs, the second to Hakeem Olajuwon's Rockets (The eventual champions).  The organization couldn't forgive poor Rick those losses after 2 Finals appearances and a WCF while in one of the toughest divisions in the NBA during that time period.  The man had averaged 55 wins a year and wasn't given respect or time enough to see the development of the team.  One year under Carlesimo and Trailblazer veteran stalwarts Drexler and Porter couldn't get out of their fast enough.     

In Golden State he spent two non-descript years struggling to 36 wins in the first year and 33 wins the next.  Then again when a team's best player is Latrell Sprewell, an aging Chris Mullin is your second best player, and Top Pick Bust Joe Smith is your third best player you're going to have problems.  The franchise was in such disarray that no coach (until Nellie this year) could take that team to the playoffs since Adelman replaced Nelson in the summer of 1994.

Then Sacramento.  From 1986 until Adelman was hired the team made the playoffs a total of one time.  The team had not won more than 39 games since the 82-83 season.  In Adelman's first strike-abbreviated year (98-99 season), he took the team to 27 wins (a .540 winning percentage) and the first round of the playoffs, the team would not miss the playoffs for Adelman's entire coaching reign, spanning 8 seasons.  Masterful coaching brought out the best in Webber (something Jimmy Lynam, Bernie Bickerstaff, and Don Nelson failed dreadfully throughout Webber's first four years), used Divac's passing in the high post better than any coach before, and nourished the development of youngsters Jason Williams and Peja Stojakovic.  Though the faces changed (Vernon Maxwell --> Nick Anderson --> Doug Christie: Jason Williams --> Mike Bibby: Vlade Divac --> Brad Miller), the offense ran to perfection and Sacramento ushered in a new style of basketball taken up by the Phoenix's and Washington's and Denver's of today.  Two consecutive 1st round losses to Seattle and San Antonio and it was the same old story, for poor Rick Adelman.  Sacramento's first year A.R.A. , the team struggles to 33 wins, misses the playoffs for the first time in 8 years, and has Sacramento fans talking rebuild. 

Rick Adelman is 14th all-time in career wins and 10th all-time in career playoff wins and has a career 61% winning percentage.  In an 82 game season he will average 50 wins.  50 wins would place a team as the 2nd seed in the Eastern Conference and the 6th seed inthe Western Conference for this year.  In fact of those who have coached in at least 1000 NBA games (and Rick has coached 1,233 games), only Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, and Pat Riley have a higher winning percentage.  Yet where's the balleyhoo about what Rick's up to and where he might coach next.  Where's the droves of pundits, analysts, bloggers, and journalists clamoring about the next possible destination for Rick. 

If Rick coaches again and will inevitably win the games, develop the talent, bring the best out of the insane and pampered, achieve division titles and playoff appearance, I'm sure people will find yet another 100 excuses for his success and continue to demean and downplay his achievements just as everyone has done from Day 1.  Because while Rick Adelman ALWAYS does well, Rick Adelman is never the reason for it.           

[rickortreat]

Great post Skandery!  Absolutely great.

And a sad commentary on how ownership in the NBA in a vain effort to do something positive often shoots themselves in the foot!

Successful teams have sound front offices that make correct decisions.  That's doesn't appear to be the Maloofs!  It also doesn't appear to be reflective of many current owners in today's NBA.

Have to give credit to the Suns for building a great team and the same for the Mavericks.  But first prize has to go to San Antonio, who unlike every other team that has tasted success and then fallen back to mediocrity, AKA the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Sixers... SA has managed to stay at the top in terms of competitiveness.

One wonders why team owners aren't putting in more calls to Rick A.

Probably the same reason that they wasted a first-round pick on Joe Smith, and let Kobe Bryant fall to wherever he did in the draft!  They don't see clearly.

[Joe Vancil]

Skander,

Adelman took over Portland part-way through the 88-89 season, with the team 25-22 and led them to at 14-21 record the rest of the year.

Oh, but he took them to the Finals the next year, right?

Call me crazy, but I think that may have to do with the fact that the next year, Drazen Petrovic, Clifford Robinson, Wayne Cooper, and Buck Williams arrived in Portland.  Sam Bowie, Steve Johnson, Richard Anderson, and Caldwell Jones were sent packing - or given what Caldwell Jones's age would have been at the time, to the graveyard.  With Williams, Cooper, and Robinson, opponent's shooting percentage dropped from .501 to .479, and defensive rebounding went from 13th in the league to 3rd in the league.

As for Sacramento, Adelman kept a grand total of 4 players from the previous team:  Corliss Williamson, Terry Dehere (for a whopping 4 games), Lawrence Funderburke, and Tariq Abdul-Wahad.  He added to those, these "minor" acquisitions:  Chris Webber, Vlade Divac, Jason Williams, Vernon Maxwell, Predrag Stojakovic, Jon Barry, Scott Pollard, Jerome James, Kevin Ollie, and Oliver Miller - all of that JUST in his first year.

I'll give Adelman credit where it's due:  he is a solid coach, with a strong record of doing well with "head-case" type players.  But he's not the super-coach you make him out to be.  I think you're not giving Adelman's front offices enough credit.

[JoMal]

I fall somewhere in between Skandery and Joey V.

No question that Adelman's front office's have usually provided the talent he required to improve his teams in Portland and Sacramento. But I also have to think Rick played a role in ASKING his management teams that certain types of players had to be either shipped out or brought in.

He also has the gift few coaches really possess - the ability to assess a players corrent role on the court, convince him to perfect that role, then make it clear that WILL be his role on his team, period. This is what NBA players would kill to have - a coach who coaches players the way they want to be coached.

So you get an offense that runs through the great hands of Chris Webber, with the perfect, unselfish center in Vlade Divac setting him up. A shooter's, shooter in Peja Stojackovic, and a point guard in Mike Bibby who fills that role, along with a terrific role player in Doug Christie. And all are happy, and all are playing the type of role that they are best suited for.

But Rick's failures in the playoffs, sometimes with teams that seemed much more talented then their foes, has been his undoing. For all his successes in the regular season, he just does not understand what it takes to change things the right way to get passed teams that are changing things to beat HIS team in the post season. And so he gets little credit for his terrific won/loss record and people such as Joe credit his front office people in providing the types of players who seem suited to Rick's offensive style. It seems odd that those front office people ALSO seem to look smarter after Adelman got a hold of the players brought in, though.   

[Skandery]

Without having to post something dripping with sarcasm, Joe, why don't we look at the coaches you probably have respect for.

Pat Riley

Took over for Paul Westhead after 11 games and took a team that featured Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Jamaal Wilkes, Norm Nixon, and Magic Johnson to the championship.  Of course that same team went to the playoffs the year before (lost in the 1st round) and won the championship the year before that.  Then he took over the New York Knicks and took them to Round 2 of the playoffs that year--of course that team had gone to Round 2 of the Playoffs two of the three years before he got there, and lost in the 1st round the other year.  You'd think he'd have done better seeing as he added scorer Xavier McDaniel and tough guy Anthony Mason to a perennial playoff team.  Then in 1995 he took over the Miami Heat and won 42 games which was the franchises previous high in wins and to the playoffs (did lose in the 1st round), still....pretty impressive.  That is until you put Joe-colored glasses on and realize Alonzo Mourning (in his prime) and Tim Hardaway were added to the team that year.  Then after a hiatus he took over for Stan Van Gundy and took Miami to the championship that same year...but only after he did a complete makeover of the roster by bringing in Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, James Posey, and Alonzo Mourning.  And honestly, how impressive is taking a team that featured Dwayne Wade and Shaquille O'Neal (and was 12 minutes from the NBA Finals the year before) and take them to the championship. 

Rick Carlisle

In Detroit he took a team from 32 wins to 50 wins.  Pretty good job, but you were high on the acquisition of Clifford Robinson for Rick Adelman.  Detroit replaced Joe Smith with Uncle Cliffy and a decrepit Dana Barros with Jon Barry.  He repeated 50 wins the next year, of course Jerry Stackhouse and Chucky Atkins became Rip Hamilton and Chauncey Billups.  His first year in Indiana, he did take an identical team Isiah won 48 games with that lost in the 1st round and take them to 61 wins and EC Finals, sadly he hasn't reached Isiah's total since.

Gregg Popovich

I guess a guy you don't have too much respect for but I'd wager more respect than you have for Rick Adelman.  Without a need to go into much detail, lets point out the obvious fact that his coaching career has coincided with Tim Duncan's playing career.

Don Nelson

I could post a novel here about how Nellie's success has coincided with the health of Bob Lanier, the addition of Hardaway to Mullin and Richmond, the 1st round pick of Webber, and the drafting of Dirk Nowitzki.  Let's just stick to his record where 1,232 wins is very impressive, of course 920 losses is not so impressive.  And Nellie's .452 win percentage in the playoffs make Rick Adelman's mediocre playoff record look good.

Fact is you can nitpick the details of every nook, cranny, and minutia of a coach's career and strip away all the credit you want and instead give it to the players, the front office, the owner, the trade, the free agent, and any other thing you can imagine (Wayne Cooper??).  In the end one asks one very simple question.  Does the coach instill a winning atmosphere in your team and make them competitive every single year.  The answer to all the coaches I've mentioned above AND Rick Adelman (whether you want to call them solid, good, or super) is a resounding YES! 

[Laker Fan]

author=rickortreat link=topic=3695.msg30523#msg30523 date=1177246850]
Great post Skandery!  Absolutely great.
Successful teams have sound front offices that make correct decisions.  That's doesn't appear to be the Maloofs!  It also doesn't appear to be reflective of many current owners in today's NBA.

Have to give credit to the Suns for building a great team and the same for the Mavericks.  But first prize has to go to San Antonio, who unlike every other team that has tasted success and then fallen back to mediocrity, AKA the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Sixers... SA has managed to stay at the top in terms of competitiveness.


Rick Rick Rick, I know you hate the Lakers and that is perfectly fine, you are entitled to that bitter jealousy all day long, but to lump them in with these other stellar has beens as a poorly run orginization makes you sond like, like, do I even need to say whom it makes you sound like? The Lakers have won championships in every decade except the 60's when the Celtics ruled, and they appeared in 7 Finals during that era! They have esablished dynasties 3 times, the first 10 years of their existance when they won 5 championships including 2 in a row and 3 in a row respectively. From 79-80 they won 5 chamionships while appearing in 9 Finals. From 1990 through today they have won 3 straight while appearing in 4 Finals. They have "fallen to mediocrity"  and rebuilt to competitive levels more times than ANY OTHER TEAM IN NBA HISTORY, including the vaunted Celtics. They are currently rebuilding to comtetitive level and were it not for the constant injuries throughout this year that destroyed team play and cohesion, I daresay even the one-dimensional Suns would be very concerned about this matchup now. Even in their worst decade, the 70's, they appeared in 3 Finals, winning 2 championships. Only the Celtics and Knicks come close to this model of efficiency and even they have fallen off the map in the last 20 years, New York appearing in 1 Fianl in that time period, losing to your wrongly crowned model of front office skill Spurs. In all, the Lakers have appeared in 29 Finals, essentially they have appeared in the Finals half the years they have existed as a franchise which is 60 years, they have made the playoffs all but I believe only 5 or 6 times and have appeared in consecutive Finals on 10 different occasions, only Boston comes close to these numbers, tasted success and fallen back to mediocrtiy indeed!

Let's discuss your first prize winning Spurs. Since their debut as the Dallas Chaparrals in 1966, the Spurs have appeared in 3 (three) Finals, none in a row, and the 1998-99 championship very arguably deserves an asterisk due to the strike shortened season. You may be able to make the argument that 3 rings over 8 years is a dynasty, given the competitivness of their play over those same 8 years but this little team from Los Angeles jumped in there and established one of their own dynasties in the same period, so no, they really weren't a dynasty, dynaties overcome challengers, just like LA, despite 7 Finals appearances in the 60's, were not a dynasty because they couldn't get past Boston, competitive yes, dynastic no, just like the Spurs. The Spurs didn't "taste success" until they built the team to defeat the Jazz "dynasty"* and until they find a way to put together more than 3 Finals appearances in 8 years and NO consecutive appearances, at best they have been competitive for the last 10-12 years and won 3 rings, nothing more. I have often said they have a VERY effeicient front office, I stand by that, but for you to award first prize to that office for 1 decade of success in 4 decades of efforts while saying LA has tasted success and fallen back to mediocrity while ignoring their phenominal 60 year history of success, rings, Fnals appearances, and palyoff appearances is ludicrous. I simply don't understand that kind of one-dimensional shortsighted reasoning.[quote

[WayOutWest]

Rick Rick Rick, I know you hate the Lakers and that is perfectly fine, you are entitled to that bitter jealousy all day long, but to lump them in with these other stellar has beens as a poorly run orginization makes you sond like, like, do I even need to say whom it makes you sound like? The Lakers have won championships in every decade except the 60's when the Celtics ruled, and they appeared in 7 Finals during that era! They have esablished dynasties 3 times, the first 10 years of their existance when they won 5 championships including 2 in a row and 3 in a row respectively. From 79-80 they won 5 chamionships while appearing in 9 Finals. From 1990 through today they have won 3 straight while appearing in 4 Finals. They have "fallen to mediocrity"  and rebuilt to competitive levels more times than ANY OTHER TEAM IN NBA HISTORY, including the vaunted Celtics. They are currently rebuilding to comtetitive level and were it not for the constant injuries throughout this year that destroyed team play and cohesion, I daresay even the one-dimensional Suns would be very concerned about this matchup now. Even in their worst decade, the 70's, they appeared in 3 Finals, winning 2 championships. Only the Celtics and Knicks come close to this model of efficiency and even they have fallen off the map in the last 20 years, New York appearing in 1 Fianl in that time period, losing to your wrongly crowned model of front office skill Spurs. In all, the Lakers have appeared in 29 Finals, essentially they have appeared in the Finals half the years they have existed as a franchise which is 60 years, they have made the playoffs all but I believe only 5 or 6 times and have appeared in consecutive Finals on 10 different occasions, only Boston comes close to these numbers, tasted success and fallen back to mediocrtiy indeed!

Let's discuss your first prize winning Spurs. Since their debut as the Dallas Chaparrals in 1966, the Spurs have appeared in 3 (three) Finals, none in a row, and the 1998-99 championship very arguably deserves an asterisk due to the strike shortened season. You may be able to make the argument that 3 rings over 8 years is a dynasty, given the competitivness of their play over those same 8 years but this little team from Los Angeles jumped in there and established one of their own dynasties in the same period, so no, they really weren't a dynasty, dynaties overcome challengers, just like LA, despite 7 Finals appearances in the 60's, were not a dynasty because they couldn't get past Boston, competitive yes, dynastic no, just like the Spurs. The Spurs didn't "taste success" until they built the team to defeat the Jazz "dynasty"* and until they find a way to put together more than 3 Finals appearances in 8 years and NO consecutive appearances, at best they have been competitive for the last 10-12 years and won 3 rings, nothing more. I have often said they have a VERY effeicient front office, I stand by that, but for you to award first prize to that office for 1 decade of success in 4 decades of efforts while saying LA has tasted success and fallen back to mediocrity while ignoring their phenominal 60 year history of success, rings, Fnals appearances, and palyoff appearances is ludicrous. I simply don't understand that kind of one-dimensional shortsighted reasoning.[quote

Dan,

I've learned to ignore Rick when it comes to all things Laker.  He just doesn't know what he's talking about and the Lakers and their players live by a Rick double standard.  When Laker players are being idiots, players like AI are keeping it real.  BS.  I am amazed by Rick in that he's got some great b-ball knowledge and insight on almost every other team, but when it comes to the Lakers and Sixers he's clueless.  Rick trips me out.

[Reality]

Successful teams have sound front offices that make correct decisions.  That's doesn't appear to be the Maloofs!  It also doesn't appear to be reflective of many current owners in today's NBA.

Have to give credit to the Suns for building a great team and the same for the Mavericks.  But first prize has to go to San Antonio, who unlike every other team that has tasted success and then fallen back to mediocrity, AKA the Lakers, Bulls, Celtics, Sixers... SA has managed to stay at the top in terms of competitiveness.

If you were talking since 1998 and left the Celtics out, you'd be spot on.
If you mean all time, you've left yourself open to Krishna attack.

[WayOutWest]

If you were talking since 1998 and left the Celtics out, you'd be spot on.
If you mean all time, you've left yourself open to Krishna attack.

Too late, you just told a guy to duck after he got clobbered with a historical bat!