Non-Spurs/Lakers/Sixers thread

[Lurker]

From ESPN...

Jerry Sloan goes for his 1,000th win with the Utah Jazz tonight, a mark that's almost inconceivable in an era where few coaches last more than a single Olympiad with the same franchise. Here's the most impressive part about Sloan's mark: He did it in less than 20 years. To have some 50-win seasons sprinkled in there is to be expected; to average 50 wins over a period of two decades is outstanding, and to only have one losing season among the 20 is absolutely remarkable.

Even with his one weakness -- Utah's rampant fouling over the past few years -- it's possible there's method to the madness. One rival executive pointed out to me that Utah fouls so often that the refs can't possibly call all of them, especially given how the league's zebras are monitored for deviating from league and personal averages. An official will think "I've already called seven fouls this quarter," and the human tendency is to put his whistle away for a while and ignore the serial muggings.

In typical Sloan fashion, the Jazz have no plans to honor him tonight should they beat Oklahoma City at Radium Stadium. But that doesn't mean we can't take a moment to be amazed by his longevity and consistency.

Props to Sloan for the consistancy and longevity.  I also am amazed that he still "connects" with athletes after 20 years.

[jn]

 Hear hear!  If I had to guess as to the main reason Sloan still connects is that he is clearly not a phony.   I'm sure players appreciate the fact that they know what they're getting with him as a coach and a person. 

[westkoast]

Very impressive.  I really didn't think about.  Chalk me up as someone who doesn't talk about Sloan's talent as much as I should. Sadly he doesn't get the same props as Phil Jackson and Greg Popvich because he doesn't have the hardware.   Though when it comes to 'systems' his has been one of the most consistent as the numbers reflect.

Another thing I don't think he gets much credit for is making Karl Malone, John Stockton, and now Deron Williams the players that they are.  I honestly do not believe that any of those players would be nearly as they good as they are/were if it wasn't for Sloan and his system.  Having really molded TWO hall of fame players really deserves more props.

[Joe Vancil]

Stockton and Malone were already Stockton and Malone under Frank Layden;  while they benefitted from Sloan's system, I think Sloan's system benefitted from them, and they'd have been Hall-Of-Famers under ppretty much any coach.

That said, in many ways, Sloan and his system are almost akin to the college coaches and their systems moreso than to professional coaches and their systems, and his legacy looks more like one of a long-time college coach:  20 years, tons of victories, no championship.  And that's sort of expected.

If I were to tell you Utah wins the West, has the best record in basketball, yet Maurice Cheeks has the Sixers (oops...there goes the thread) in contention for the title in the East, who's going to get the COY hardware?  The fact is that Sloan has been so good for so long that good coaching from him is pretty much "no big deal" to the average person voting for COY;  "Well, OF COURSE Jerry Sloan's team did well...it's Jerry Sloan, for crying out loud;  but look at the incredible job Scott Skiles did in Milwaukee...."

And the scariest part is that his assistant, Phil Johnson, *IS* a former NBA COY, and in many circles is regarded as the best assistant coach in basketball.

Folks talk about the Jazz homecourt advantage, and the Jazz consistency, and the Jazz system, and the Jazz bench, and the latest greatest flavor of the week when it comes to Jazz player.  But think of the benefit of having the SAME MESSAGE to players for 20 years.  Keep in mind, the only reason Utah was able to get Boozer is because of his admiration for Karl Malone and his desire to be like Malone.  Having Malone's old coach still walking the sideline was a big factor in his decision.  (And, of course, a boat-load of money played a slightly more than insignificant role.)

What's it going to take to get folks not just talking about Sloan for COY, but actually VOTING for him?

[westkoast]

Stockton and Malone were already Stockton and Malone under Frank Layden;  while they benefitted from Sloan's system, I think Sloan's system benefitted from them, and they'd have been Hall-Of-Famers under ppretty much any coach.

I hope you didn't take what I said as a slight towards either player.  Obviously they were special players before they got into Jerry Sloan's system but to be that efficient at the pro level takes more than just raw talent.  Of course they helped Sloan's system and in turn I think it helped them a great deal as well.  The system is still working so to say his system got more of the benefit then they did wouldn't be entirely true IMO.

For example, Michael Jordan looked to be a clutch player and a star long before he met Phil Jackson.  He was that clutch Jordan we know in college.  Though I do not think that he would have became the pro player he did with out Phil Jackson (I did not violate the thread this is about The Bulls)

[rickortreat]

Sloan doesn't get the credit because he hasn't gotten a ring as a Coach. That may not be fair, but that is the way it is.

IMO, if the Jazz do win it this year, Sloan will get the recognition, irrespective of what any other team does. There aren't too many coaches in a position to surprise for COY honors anyway.  We know who the good ones are, and we know which ones have chances to do something with their teams. Whatever my home team does will be because they finally figured it out, not because their coach is a genius who knew how they should play and it took the team time to learn it. 

Coaches should get honors when their teams play above expectations.  But what should happen to a coach when his team plays below expectations?  That's one thing I would never say about Jerry Sloan, that he didn't do everything possible to get the most out of his players, which is really all anyone could ever expect or hope for out of a coach.

[Lurker]

Sloan doesn't get the credit because he hasn't gotten a ring as a Coach. That may not be fair, but that is the way it is.

IMO, if the Jazz do win it this year, Sloan will get the recognition, irrespective of what any other team does. There aren't too many coaches in a position to surprise for COY honors anyway.  We know who the good ones are, and we know which ones have chances to do something with their teams. Whatever my home team does will be because they finally figured it out, not because their coach is a genius who knew how they should play and it took the team time to learn it. 

Coaches should get honors when their teams play above expectations.  But what should happen to a coach when his team plays below expectations?  That's one thing I would never say about Jerry Sloan, that he didn't do everything possible to get the most out of his players, which is really all anyone could ever expect or hope for out of a coach.

There are plenty of COY winners who never had hardware.  Doc Rivers is the most glaring example...IMO the Celtics won last year despite their coach.  He had one team overachieve (Magic) and he got the COY.  Otherwise he is a horrible coach.

[jemagee]

He had one team overachieve (Magic) and he got the COY.

See that's the key - the perceived (not necessarily actual) over achievement of a team - COY usually goes to a coach whose team exceeds the pre season perception of what the team should do (be it an accurate perception of what the team really is or not) - Sloans issue isn't that he doesn't have a ring (isn't COY based on regular season perfromances only like in MLB?), it's that he's teams never exceed the 'expectations' of their predictions....the consistency of his teams, year in and year out, is most likely what costs him the COY award...and any coach worth his salt wouldn't actually give a flying fig

[WayOutWest]

Stockton and Malone were already Stockton and Malone under Frank Layden;  while they benefitted from Sloan's system, I think Sloan's system benefitted from them, and they'd have been Hall-Of-Famers under ppretty much any coach.

I hope you didn't take what I said as a slight towards either player.  Obviously they were special players before they got into Jerry Sloan's system but to be that efficient at the pro level takes more than just raw talent.  Of course they helped Sloan's system and in turn I think it helped them a great deal as well.  The system is still working so to say his system got more of the benefit then they did wouldn't be entirely true IMO.

For example, Michael Jordan looked to be a clutch player and a star long before he met Phil Jackson.  He was that clutch Jordan we know in college.  Though I do not think that he would have became the pro player he did with out Phil Jackson (I did not violate the thread this is about The Bulls)

Sloan and his system had NOTHING to do with the greatness of Stockton/Malone.  Sloan and his system benefited from having Stockton/Malone to execute it.  Both Stockton and Malone were just as effective in the half court set as they were on the break.

MJ was not "clutch" in college, he hit one shot in college that made him famous, before then NC was all about Worthy and Perkins.  MJ was NOT clutch in the NBA, he was not even in the discussion until they started winning titles.  Before that he was just a great and flashy scorer who always came up short against the really good teams in the EC.

[westkoast]

Stockton and Malone were already Stockton and Malone under Frank Layden;  while they benefitted from Sloan's system, I think Sloan's system benefitted from them, and they'd have been Hall-Of-Famers under ppretty much any coach.

I hope you didn't take what I said as a slight towards either player.  Obviously they were special players before they got into Jerry Sloan's system but to be that efficient at the pro level takes more than just raw talent.  Of course they helped Sloan's system and in turn I think it helped them a great deal as well.  The system is still working so to say his system got more of the benefit then they did wouldn't be entirely true IMO.

For example, Michael Jordan looked to be a clutch player and a star long before he met Phil Jackson.  He was that clutch Jordan we know in college.  Though I do not think that he would have became the pro player he did with out Phil Jackson (I did not violate the thread this is about The Bulls)

Sloan and his system had NOTHING to do with the greatness of Stockton/Malone.  Sloan and his system benefited from having Stockton/Malone to execute it.  Both Stockton and Malone were just as effective in the half court set as they were on the break.

MJ was not "clutch" in college, he hit one shot in college that made him famous, before then NC was all about Worthy and Perkins.  MJ was NOT clutch in the NBA, he was not even in the discussion until they started winning titles.  Before that he was just a great and flashy scorer who always came up short against the really good teams in the EC.

I think the Tecate and traveling is getting to your brain there W.O.W

First of all, the shot Jordan his was a HUGE shot.  It really only takes one shot that big to be considered clutch.  MJ WAS clutch in the Nba.  He is the very definition of clutch.  Even when they were not winning titles if the Bulls needed someone to take over the game in the final minutes he was that player.  How could you call Kobe a clutch player and not Michael Jordan?  The same reason you call Kobe clutch is the same reason I call MJ clutch.

Second, I believe John Stockton and Karl Malone would disagree with you.  Had they been under another coach I don't think they play as smart, as tough, and as good on the defensive end.    I find it hard to believe you have that good of a TEAM for so long and the coach has no impact on it whatsoever.  The continued success of teams he coaches after Stockton/Malone left backs up my claim.  What backs up your claim other then they were real good in college?  A number of players have been real good in college and don't go on to define their position in the modern style of the NBA.

[rickortreat]

MJ when he first came into the NBA is nothing like what he eventually became as a player.  Even when Phil Jackson first came to Chicago as a coach, MJ was still learning what he could and couldn't do as a player.

I remember distinctly, watching a Bulls/Mavericks game and Phil decided to let MJ try to guard Mark Aguirre.  Aguirre looked over at Phil with an incredulous look, as though to say, "what are you nuts or something?' And then proceeded to post up MJ make shots and get fouls called on Micheal.  Phil's next response was to call a timeout and change the match-ups.

Michael was a lot of things, but he wasn't a defender capable of playing someone he's spotting 75 pounds too.  That was one of the few examples that established MJ as a 2 guard instead of a small forward.

It took MJ years to develop that outside shot to the point where it was automatic. It took him years to learn how to take those acrobatic off-balance shots and make them. It took him quite a bit of time to learn how to play with his team-mates and get the most out of them.

That's not a slight against MJ either, he became great not only because of his physical gifts, but also because he was a relentless worker.

[jemagee]

This place is right down the street from where I work, saw local commercials, always thought it might be interested if i had the spare cash to check out

http://www.sltrib.com/sports/ci_10941269

[jemagee]

Sorry to intrude on this 'non sixer' thread but Deron Williams might be making his season debut tonight in Philadlephia, Mehmet Okur reportedly went home to deal with family stuff

[jemagee]

Quoteth Marc Stein

Lance (tipton, KS): Why hasn't Jerry Sloan ever won the COY award?

 Marc Stein: It's a good question, especially since most national writers love Jerry from everything I know, love his candor and hard edge. The best theory I can give you is that the Jazz have been consistently good for the last 20 years . . . and coaches who generally win that award are the guys who win a lot more games than know-it-alls like me were expecting. Not such great rationale on our part, but that's how it seems to have played out.

[Reality]

From ESPN...

Jerry Sloan goes for his 1,000th win with the Utah Jazz tonight, a mark that's almost inconceivable in an era where few coaches last more than a single Olympiad with the same franchise. Here's the most impressive part about Sloan's mark: He did it in less than 20 years. To have some 50-win seasons sprinkled in there is to be expected; to average 50 wins over a period of two decades is outstanding, and to only have one losing season among the 20 is absolutely remarkable.

Even with his one weakness -- Utah's rampant fouling over the past few years -- it's possible there's method to the madness. One rival executive pointed out to me that Utah fouls so often that the refs can't possibly call all of them, especially given how the league's zebras are monitored for deviating from league and personal averages. An official will think "I've already called seven fouls this quarter," and the human tendency is to put his whistle away for a while and ignore the serial muggings.

In typical Sloan fashion, the Jazz have no plans to honor him tonight should they beat Oklahoma City at Radium Stadium. But that doesn't mean we can't take a moment to be amazed by his longevity and consistency.

Props to Sloan for the consistancy and longevity.  I also am amazed that he still "connects" with athletes after 20 years.

Sloans condoning The Cheapshots career threatening cheapshots and the cowardliness associated with Malone and his cheapies detracts from any and all COY talk IMO.